Commons Sitting of 24 June 1879

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Turnpike Acts Continuance [No. 243]; Land Titles and Transfer [No. 244].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution[June 23] reported— Ordered—First Rending—Public Loans (Remission) * [218].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*.
The House met at Two of the clock.

POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.

  THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK: I wish to give Notice, Sir, that I shall postpone till Thursday next the Question which stands on the Paper in my name {see page 414) with regard to the circumstances attending the lamented death of the Prince Imperial; and I beg to state that I do so in the hope that the Mail expected from the Cape to-morrow or next day will enable the Government to put the circumstances in a more favourable light than they appear at present in the eyes of many thousands of people, who, like myself, think the circumstances in which the Prince found himself there on that occasion called, in more than an
  536
  ordinary degree, for the special supervision of the military authorities.
  MR. P. J. SMYTH: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I will ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether a rigid inquiry will be instituted into the circumstances immediately attending the melancholy death of the Prince Imperial?

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—MILITIA BARRACKS AT CHESTERFIELD.—QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the bad state of repair and unwholesome condition of the Militia buildings at Chesterfield, being the head quarters of the 2nd Derby Militia; and, whether the War Office is prepared to put these buildings in a proper state of repair and good sanitary condition?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL,in reply, said, that the attention of the War Office had not been called to the alleged bad state of repair and the unwholesomeness of the barracks in question. The 2nd Derby Militia, at the request of their colonel, had obtained permission to occupy the barracks at Chesterfield instead of those at Derby. The War Office, while desiring to accommodate the Militia, could scarcely be asked to place any buildings they might choose to select as their barracks in repair at the public expense.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE WAR—DESTRUCTION OF ZULU VILLAGES.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been directed to the letter of the special correspondent of the "Daily News," published in the issue of that paper on the 20th instant, in which the destruction of four native villages, by Colonel Lowe's command, is described; whether, in particular, ho has marked the following statement:—
  "Lord Chelmsford had given orders that no kraals should be burned until the general advance, being anxious to utilize the woodwork of the huts as fuel; but these kraals were far away from the line of any possible advance, and Colonel Lowe determined to destroy them. Two laconic words from Long to his men, " set fire," sufficed to set them in a blaze, mere flimsy structures of wooden wattle as they were;"

  537
  and, whether the Government will make | inquiries as to any order given by Lord Chelmsford for the burning of native villages during the general advance into Zululand such as is here alleged?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to the statements in the special correspondence of The Daily News quoted by the hon. Member; but the interpretation I should place upon them is that Lord Chelmsford had not ordered Native huts or villages to be burnt, but had directed them to be spared, in view of the possible necessity for using their materials as fuel during the advance into Zululand. The Government, of course, consider that these kraals should only be destroyed in case of military necessity; and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, with whom, rather than with me, this matter rests, has authorized me to state that if he saw reason to believe that any wanton destruction was permitted he would at once interfere.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I will take an early opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of the Secretary of State for War.

  SOUTH AFRICA—INDENTURED NATIVE WOMEN AND CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following " Government Notice," published at foot of page 126 of "The Journal of the Aborigines' Protection Society," No. 5, prohibiting the restoration to their families of native women and children indentured out in servitude to Colonial farmers:—
  " Native Labourers under Government Notice, No. 222, of 1878.—Office of the Secretary for Native Affairs, Capo of Good Hope, 10th April, 1879.—Whereas certain Kaffirs (Galekas, Gaikas, and others) on the Frontier and in other parts of the Colony, are found to apply to the Civil Commissioners of the various divisions in which the said Kaffirs at present reside, for passes to enable them to visit the Cape, and other districts of the Western Province, for the purpose of ' fetching their wives and families;' and whereas the said wives and families of the said Kaffirs have duly entered into terms of service under the above-mentioned Government Notice, No. 222, of 1878, thereby voluntarily rendering themselves incapable of leaving their place of service for the term of three years and six months from the date of their various ' contracts' respectively: Now, therefore, notice is hereby given, that it is not expedient to
  538
  grant passes to Kaffirs for the purpose above indicated, and all Civil Commissioners and Resident Magistrates, and other officers authorised to issue passes to natives, are hereby directed to refuse such passes when applied for, and to inform all applicants of this regulation accordingly. —William Ayliff, Secretary for Native Affairs;"
  and, what action he intends to take in the matter?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I have not received the "Government Notice " quoted by the hon. Member, either from the Colony or from the Aborigines' Protection Society, and I am, of course, unable to say how far it is an accurate copy of any notice which may have been issued; but, unquestionably, if it is accurate, it is open to very grave objection. I trust I may receive it from the Aborigines' Protection Society, with their report of the circumstances under which it was sent to them; and I can promise the House that I will, as soon as I do so, take action upon it.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (WATER EXPENSES) BILL.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was anxious to put a Question to the Chairman of Ways and Means relating to the Notice which his hon. Friend had put upon the Paper with regard to the second reading of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Water Expenses) Bill. The Question which he wished to put was, Whether, looking at the circumstances of the case, his hon. Friend could see his way to the removal of his opposition to this Bill, so that it might be considered by the House? The Notice of his hon. Friend rather implied that the Government ought to have introduced this measure on their own responsibility, but that they had not done so. He was now authorized by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom he regretted to say was unable, from indisposition, to be present that day-—to state that, with certain Amendments which he proposed to move in Committee, and of which he would give due Notice, the Government were prepared, on their own responsibility, to support the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. RAIKESventured to think that the Question which had just been ad-

    539
    dressed to him by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury offered the best justification for the course which he had taken in putting upon the Paper the Notice to which he had referred. The proposition which he desired to have affirmed was that a measure of this sort, quite apart from its merits— as to which he did not wish to say anything—that a proposal of this description was not one which would obtain the favour of the House unless it had received the sanction of the Government, who had thought that, under the special circumstances of the case, there was reason for its being brought before Parliament. Having now obtained from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury the intimation that the Bill was in that position, he had arrived at the result ho desired to secure, and he should, therefore, be very happy to withdraw the Notice which he had put upon the Paper.
    MR. MONKdesired to ask a Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the general question arising out of this Bill—namely, Whether he could inform the House the amount for which ho asked an indemnity from Parliament.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, he might state that ho should be prepared in Committee to put down a certain sum beyond which an indemnity would not be asked; but as he had had no Notice of the Question then put to him, he hoped the House would allow him to postpone giving an exact answer. Perhaps he might be permitted to add his belief that the amount of the indemnity would be between £15,000 and £16,000 at the outside. But he would put down a sum in Committee which would cover everything.
    MR. O'DONNELLbegged to give Notice that, as the very excellent Notice of opposition put down by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Moans had been removed, he should do what was in his power to make certain that the discussion upon this Bill should take place before half-past 12 at night, if at all, in order that ho might insure as full as possible a discussion of the very important principles contained in this Bill.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE WAR EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to ask, If the Government have formed any estimate of the amount which ought to be contributed by the Cape Colonists towards the war expenditure; and, whether any, and what stops, have been taken with a view to obtaining payment of such amount; and, whether any despatches upon the subject will shortly be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I see that the hon. Member for Burnley has given Notice of his intention to ask the House to express its opinion that the Colonies of the Cape of Good Hope and Natal ought to be required to contribute a due proportion of the military expenditure incurred in their interests. I can only assure the hon. Member that that is entirely the view of Her Majesty's Government, and that that is a matter which they have had in mind throughout all the circumstances which have occurred. From the Papers which are already in the possession of the. House I think hon. Members must be aware that when, now more than a year and a-half ago, re-inforcements were sent to the Cape in connection with the Transkei War, it was distinctly stated to the Cape Government that they would be required to contribute their due proportion of the expenditure. There have been, since that time, further communications upon the subject. We have had, of course, to endeavour to ascertain what the expenditure of the Cape Government itself may have been—I understand that it amounted to more than £1,250,000— and what our own expenditure was in the Transkei War; and it is only comparatively recently that we have been able to arrive at a knowledge of the full details of that expenditure. The Capo Government have informed us merely of the total amount at which they estimate their expenditure; and the last despatch which was written upon the subject was one conveying to them the detailed items of the expenditure which had been incurred by this country for the Transkei War, and asking them to furnish us, in return, with the details of the £1,250,000 which they said they had ex-

  541
  pended. That is how the matter at present stands. The Correspondence has not yet been presented. I think it would be well to wait for their reply before it is presented; but it will be laid, as soon as possible, before the House.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, in consequence of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he should withdraw his Notice on the third reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; and, if no further information were given by the Government, he should put it down on the Motion for Supply.
  MR. CHILDERS: With respect to the answer which has just been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, may I be allowed to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of supplementing his answer by asking this further Question? My hon. Friend referred in his Question not only to the Transkei War, but to the Zulu War; but in the right hon. Gentleman's answer, no reference was made to any share which the Colonists may have to bear of the other and larger expenditure in connection with the Zulu War. I would ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have had any similar communications with the Colonial authorities with reference to the Zulu War; and, whether ho will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has already taken place?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Notice of his Question?

  HARBOURS—DUNBAR HARBOUR.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Report on Dunbar Harbour will be placed on the Table of the House?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, that he had received it that morning, but had not had time to look into it. He would do so without delay, and then inform the noble Lord when it would be ready for presentation to the House.

  PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN.

    ORDER FOR RESUMING ADJOURNED DEBATE DISCHARGED.
    MR. DILLWYNmoved the discharge of the Order for resuming the debate
    542
    upon the Prerogative of the Crown. He explained that he did so, in the first place, because he did not see any opportunity of bringing the debate on; secondly, because the House was in possession of much more information now than it was when he brought the question forward; and, thirdly, because of the change that had been made in the command of the troops at the Cape.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Motion [13th May] read, and discharged.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL-COURTS OF INQUIRY.

    QUESTION.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, When he will lay on the Table the promised Rules as to limiting the use of Courts of Inquiry, and preventing their abuse?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, he proposed that the clause in the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill bearing on the subject of Rules of procedure, should be postponed until the Committee had arrived at the end of the measure. He was advised that this would be the best mode of meeting any possible changes which the Committee might make in the Bill as it stood.

  PARLIAMENT-ORDER OF BUSINESS.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN PIMasked, Whether Mr. Speaker would be good enough to inform him why the Notice of Motion in his name for this evening stood third upon the Paper, instead of second, as it appeared in the Order Book of the 10th of June? A Notice of Motion by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) was now put before his, although he had balloted and obtained the second place.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that some mistake having been made in the matter before the adjournment for the Holidays, he had written to the Clerk at the Table and received an answer that nothing could be done until the House re-assembled. When the House met, a reference was made to the list which had been made, and the Notices were placed by the Clerk at the Table exactly in the order in which the ballot was held.
    MR. SPEAKERbelieved that the explanation just given was quite correct. It accounted for the Notice of the hon. Member for Dundalk being put down before that of the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend. The Motion of the hon. Member for Dundalk was entitled to precedence on the Paper this evening.
    CAPTAIN PIMasked, why he was not informed by the Clerk at the Table as to the fate of his Motion?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Clerk, acting in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House, made an alteration, which, of course, the hon. and gallant Member would see on the Notice Paper on the following day.
    CAPTAIN PIMsaid, it was by the merest accident that ho happened to see it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 88.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

MISCELLANEOUS.

  Rules of Procedure.
  Clause 69 (Power of Her Majesty to make rules of procedure).
  COLONEL STANLEYmoved that the clause be postponed. He had been informed by his advisors that it would be best to postpone the discussion of this clause in Committee till a later period.
  MAJOR NOLANwished to know exactly when the clause would be taken, for it involved very important considerations. He should not like the clause to be taken without Notice, or at a late or inconvenient hour.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he proposed to postpone the discussion of the clause, because he was advised that it would be best not to take power to make rules of procedure until the various clauses of the Bill had been decided upon by the Committee. The clause, having been postponed, would come before the Committee at a later period;
  544
  but when he could not at that moment say.
  MR. HOPWOODobserved, that this clause was open to considerable objection, for it was one giving power to Her Majesty—
  " To make rules to be signified under the hand of a Secretary of State, to repeal, alter, or add to,"
  certain provisions of the Bill. The power given by this clause was, in effect, to leave it to the Secretary of State to vary various matters decided upon by the House. He thought this matter required considerable attention.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought the proposal to postpone the consideration of this very important clause was very inconvenient; if the Government were not prepared to discuss the clause, let them postpone the discussion of the Bill altogether. The Government would find itself very much more pressed for time later on in the Session, and would probably yield to the irresistible temptation of bringing on the clause, perhaps, after 12 or 1, and a discussion at that time would not be at all satisfactory. He begged to remind the Committee that on the last occasion when the Committee sat, several clauses were run over with extreme haste, which, had they been brought forward at an earlier time of the day, would have received much more consideration. By this clause—
  " Her Majesty may, by rules signified under the hand of a Secretary of a State, from time to time make, and when made repeal, alter, or add to, provisions in respect to the following-matters."
  The clause gave power to the Secretary of State for the time being, no matter what might be the subsequent decisions of the Committee upon the Bill, to make and unmake, alter and add to, the provisions of the measure. The matters over which this power was given were some of the most important provisions of the measure. They included—
  "The convening and constituting of courts martial; the adjournment, dissolution, and sittings of courts martial; the procedure to be observed in trials by courts martial; the confirmation and revision of the findings and sentences of courts martial; the carrying into effect sentences of courts martial; the forms of orders to be made under the provisions of this Act relating to courts martial, penal servitude, or imprisonment; any matter in this Act directed to be prescribed; any other matter or thing expedient or necessary for the purpose of carry-

  545
  ing this Act into execution so far as relates to the investigation, trial, and punishment of offences triable or punishable by military law."
  The Committee had discussed the position and functions of courts martial at great length; but this clause gave power to vary any decision in respect of that, or of any of the other matters mentioned; so that, no matter what decision might be come to upon these subjects, it could afterwards be set aside by the. Secretary of State. He thought that, with such a clause as this hanging over the Bill, the best thing to be done would be to put it out of the way before they went further. For, if any subsequent clause which they passed in any way related to the matters as to which this clause gave power to make rules, the decisions of the Committee would be absolutely futile. In his opinion, there should not be any such clause in the Bill as this 69th clause. The Bill was intended to be permanent; and yet Her Majesty's Government were to have power, whenever they pleased, to vary so much of it as came within this very swooping clause. He should have thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to be able to tell the Committee what were the permanent regulations which were required for Army discipline, and to ask for the sanction of Parliament to those rules. If this Army Bill, which the House was now passing, was not found satisfactory, it was open to the Government to bring in supplementary Acts for such portions of it as were found deficient. But, by this clause of the Bill, the authorities were to be allowed to tack on provisions which, it seemed to him, would entirely stultify the action of the Committee. One would have imagined that the Government desired to pass a Bill of some kind with respect to the Army; but if the Government were ashamed of their Bill, let them say so, and not occupy the time of the House further with it. He could see no reason whatever for the postponement of this clause.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did not think it worth his while to notice the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan; because it seemed to him that what he had pointed out— namely, that this clause gave power to do away with the decisions of the
  546
  Committee on various parts of the Bill, was of very great importance. The Government now proposed to withdraw this clause, and to run through the whole Bill, and then to embody the substance of this clause in a new one. He thought that the best time for the discussion of this very important question was as it stood in the 69th Clause.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, by leave, postponed.
  Inquiry as to, and Confession of Desertion.
  Clause 70 (Inquiry by court on absence of soldier).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to move an Amendment—namely, in page 39, line 2, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had no objection to it.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to move an Amendment on the clause, before that of the hon. and gallant Member. This clause said—
  "That when any soldier has been illegally absent from his duty for a period of twenty-one days, a court of inquiry may, as soon as practicable, be assembled, and inquire in the prescribed manner on oath (which such court is hereby authorized to administer) respecting the fact of such absence."
  He wished to point out that the object of the inquiry in this clause was whether the soldier had been "illegally" absent or not. He did not think that this presumption of illegality should be retained, for what was the use of the word "illegal" in the clause? If the soldier was absent without known cause, he could understand it; but when it was said that the inquiry was to be whether he was "illegally" absent, he did not see what meaning was to be attached to the word. He should suggest that, instead of the word "illegally," there should be substituted the words " has been absent without known cause."
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if the word "illegally " were left out, the absence of a soldier from his duty for 21 days would be made legal. Where a soldier had been absent without any assignable cause then the court of inquiry would have to assemble. This court was—
  " To inquire in the prescribed manner on oath (which such court is hereby authorized to ad-

  547
  minister) respecting the fact of such absence, and the deficiency (if any) in the arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments, regimental necessaries, or clothing of the soldier; and if satisfied of the fact of such soldier having absented himself without leave, the court shall declare such absence and the period thereof, and the said deficiency (if any), and the commanding officer of the absent soldier shall enter in the regimental books a record of the declaration of such court. If the absent soldier does not afterwards surrender, or is apprehended, such record shall have the legal effect of a conviction by the court martial for desertion."
  The record had a legal effect, and the soldier's effects were sold and placed to the non-effective account. This was necessary to be done, as in some cases soldiers deserted, and were not heard of for years.
  MR. BIGGARthought that the objection raised to this clause was this—that it was assumed by the clause that the soldier was "illegally" absent before investigating the case. It was proposed, then, to punish the soldier for being "illegally" absent. If he apprehended the Amendment, it was to introduce after the word " absent " the words "without leave," and to strike out the word "illegally." Under this clause, as it stood, a soldier, who had been absent without leave, might be declared a deserter in his absence. A soldier might be absent without leave from no fault of his own, but for causes which he could not help; and it was not right that it should be assumed that ho had been "illegally" absent.
  MR. O'DONNELLhoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consent to strike out the word '' illegally " and put in the words "without leave." His contention was that it could not be told whether the soldier was illegally absent until he had been tried; he might be absent for a very good reason—he might have got leave, and overstayed it from no fault of his own, and, at the same time, if might be necessary for inquiry to be made into the cause of his absence. It seemed to him that the wording of the clause was faulty; and he could not see why the authorities should stick to the word "illegally," which was not properly put in the clause. Although a soldier might be absent without assignable cause, it ought to be legally proved that his absence had been "illegal." He thought that the fact of the illegality of the man's absence should be proved, rather than they should go upon a sup-
  548
  position which might turn out to be quite unfounded.
  MR. HOPWOODunderstood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to say that mere absence from duty was a sufficient definition, and that the soldier was then on the wrong side of the account. What he supposed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman meant was that absence from duty raised the presumption of an offence or omission cognizable by a Court of Inquiry. If that were so, he should be much surprised. He did not see that the word "illegally" was really wanted; all objection to the clause would be done away with by taking out the word "illegally." Then the clause would read—" When any soldier has been absent from his duty for a period of 21 days," and there was something to be inquired into. If the clause were left in that manner, they would have all they wanted; but if the word "illegally" was retained then, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had said, it would prejudice the matter; whereas the court ought to require to be satisfied by proof that the absence of the soldier was " illegal."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwas bound to say that he thought the proposal to strike out the word " illegally " was a sensible one. He considered that it would be quite enough to provide for the trial of a soldier " who had been absent from his duty without leave," without using the word " illegally."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFORD)was inclined to agree with some of the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. But this was only one of those enactments which assumed, in the first instance, the commission of an offence. It was the rule in Acts of Parliament to say that a man guilty of murder should be tried before a magistrate, and the same phrases were used with respect to other offences. It was assumed in all Statutes that a man was guilty of the offence for which he was to be brought before the magistrates. In a certain sense, no doubt, it was unjust to assume that the man was guilty of an offence before he was tried; but, on the other hand, no real injustice was done, and no practical inconvenience resulted from leaving the language as it now stood. It was the contention of his right hon. and gallant Friend

  549
  that the mere words " absence from duty without leave" would not cover every case that might occur. There seemed to be cases in which the words "absent without leave" would subject persons to trial who were not really liable to be tried. He thought that what had been said with respect to this clause was hypercritical; and as he had shown that it was usual, in speaking of the trial of offences, to assume that a man was guilty of what he was tried for and no practical inconvenience resulted, he did not think it was worth while to alter this clause.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved, that it was surely not necessary to retain these words because it had been the usual practice to assume that men were guilty before they were tried. There must be some form of words known to the Army authorities which would correctly state the circumstances which should make a soldier liable to be tried, without using words which assumed that he was guilty. Clearly, the Committee could not allow the word " illegally " to be retained in the clause when its use was prejudicial. He should suggest, that instead of " illegally," they should say—"Absent without leave," "without due cause," or " without reasonable cause."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that this was one of the difficulties in which the Committee was landed in consequence of Her Majesty's Government not giving proper instructions to the Select Committee. If the Government had directed the Select Committee to deal with the questions put before them in the general way, instead of saddling: them with the terms they had, he believed that the anomalous wording of the clause would not have been retained. If the Committee had been left unfettered, the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act would have been drafted into a proper shape, and the old words, which were
  improperly used in those documents, would not now appear. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to regard the language of the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act as almost having the authority of inspiration. He could not see any ground for the Government refusing to accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) did not give the slightest evidence to show that the words suggested
  550
  would not meet the case. He most strongly objected to the continuance of words in this clause, because they were found in the very musty and obsolete Articles of War, and had been for many years accepted by the military authorities.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to point out that the phrase " without leave " occurred a little lower down in the clause, and seemed to be tantamount to '' illegal'' absence. That seemed to him to take away the ground from under the feet of Her Majesty's Government. If the Government criticized them for being hypercritical, he thought that the Government were guilty of delaying the Business of the Committee from their own hypercriticism, in refusing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it was admitted that as the words stood in the clause they were capable of an ambiguous construction; and it had been suggested that the words should be made clear and intelligible. If the phrase "without leave" did not cover the ground sufficiently, then he thought that the expression which had also been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would meet the case—namely, "without leave," or "without due cause," or "without reasonable cause." These were expressions which were intelligible to everyone; but the word "illegally" was really a very doubtful word. Nothing could be worse than to leave such a matter as this in ambiguity.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTremarked, that the words " absent from duty without leave " would, in practice, cover every possible case.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTthought that the objection might be readily met if it were said " suspected of having been illegally absent from duty."
  COLONEL STANLEYhad no objection to the insertion of the words "absent from his duty without leave;" but what he did object to was to strike out the word "illegally." Striking out that word would make a man liable to be tried who had been absent even with leave, but had overstayed it.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that the original proposal was that the word " illegally" should be struck out. With respect to the contention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, it seemed to him to be an exceedingly weak one. He argued

  551
  that because in some Acts of Parliament expressions were used which were contrary to general principles of jurisprudence, they should adhere to them and fall into the same error.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the Government was asked to give way upon this point as to the word "illegally," and to that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War had replied that he accepted the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst). This was absolutely no concession on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he did not think that they ought to pass this clause under the idea that a concession had been made. The addition of the words " without leave " would not meet the objection which had been made. It was against the common sense of the Committee to suppose that they would consent to a proposal of that kind.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEremarked, that if a soldier surrendered, or was afterwards apprehended when he was absent from no fault of his own, he would, nevertheless, have been declared " illegally" absent, and convicted of desertion. If a soldier surrendered voluntarily, there was no occasion for a conviction.
  MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that in the case stated where a man had been tried as illegally absent, there was good reason why he should not have been convicted, and the Government, in retaining this word, was doubly stultifying itself. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General), who had delivered a lecture on hypercriticism, would give a little legal advice to his military Colleagues on this subject, he thought some good would result. However great the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's knowledge of military matters might be, he did not seem to apprehend that there was grave objection to saying that a man should not be tried unless he had been illegally absent.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he was willing to accept the words, which, it seemed to him, perfectly met the objection. If they said a man was absent illegally, they said, in fact, that he was absent without leave. But he was willing to insert the words "without leave," as he understood that to be the wish of the Committee. Although he did not think that much would be gained, he
  552
  would not raise any further objection to the word "illegally" being struck out from the clause.
  Amendment made,
  In page 39, line 1, by striking out the word " illegally," and inserting in the same line, after the word " absent," the words "without leave."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, in page 39, line 2, to leave out the word " may," and insert the word " shall."
  MR. MUNTZthought the clause would be better as it stood; for supposing that a man was taken ill when on leave, his absence from duty for that cause ought to be passed over. But if the word " shall" was substituted for " may," on his return his commanding officer would have no alternative but to assemble a Court of Inquiry to inquire as to his absence.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONexplained, that the reason why he wished this Amendment to be made was that it would compel the commanding officer to report all deserters to head-quarters. This was a very important matter; for at present it was compulsory on a commanding officer to return a man to headquarters as a deserter if he were absent for more than 21 days. The reason for compelling the commanding officer to make these reports was that the Secretary of State for War might know how many deserters there were in the Army. If this matter were made optional, the commanding officer might allow men to be absent for several months without ordering any inquiry. At present, a General could direct a man to be reported as a deserter; but if this Act made the assembling of a court permissive, a commanding officer could refuse to have an inquiry held. Therefore, he thought that it was of the highest importance that the assembling of these courts should be made compulsory where a man had been absent for 21 days.
  MAJOR NOLANdid not think that the Amendment was required. At present, the commanding officer had to report a man who had been illegally absent for five days, and the War Office thus became cognizant of the fact. He knew of cases where hardship would be worked by this alteration. A man might overstay his leave without any intention of deserting; and it should be in the discretion of the commanding officer as to inquiring into the case. Moreover, there

  553
  might be great practical difficulties if this were made compulsory, for unnecessary trouble would be occasioned in the case, say, of a small battery of Artillery at an outlying port. It would be very troublesome for an officer in command of that battery to obtain the attendance of officers for the purpose of holding a Court of Inquiry; whereas, under the clause as it stood at present, the matter might be postponed till a convenient time.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to insert, after the words " without leave," " or without other sufficient cause."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the closing paragraph of this clause was rather severe, and he thought was calculated to work undeserved injury upon the character of a man. It stated that—
  " If the absent soldier does not afterwards surrender and is not apprehended, such record shall have the legal effect of a conviction by court martial for desertion."
  Desertion was a most disgraceful offence, and if it took place in the face of the enemy was peculiarly disgraceful. A soldier might be absent without leave for one or two days. He might have fallen sick, or he might be dead; but this clause would give the opportunity, from the mere fact of his having been absent without leave, to brand him as a deserter. This effect of the clause would be to enable a man who was absent from no fault of his own to be branded as a deserter. That might be very painful to his family and relations, when it was afterwards found that he had been killed, or had been taken a prisoner, or had fallen ill. He thought that the same legal effect might have been produced in some other way, without the necessity of branding a man as a deserter under these circumstances. He did not think it right to brand a man as a deserter while there was any reasonable chance or hope that he had not really deserted. He did not propose to move any Amendment on the clause; but he thought that something should be done to prevent the effect which he had pointed out.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that it occasionally happened that a soldier returned after having been illegally absent
  554
  for three, four, or five years. The witnesses who might be necessary to prove the case against him might then be dead, or might have moved, and there would be no evidence producible to prove his desertion, except this record of a court martial. At present, the book of this court was produced, and was evidence of the soldier's desertion. That was the reason for the provision.
  MR. O'DONNELL,in replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Alexander), wished to put the case of a man either killed or cut off by the enemy. He thought that so much weight ought not to be given to the presumption of desertion as was given in this clause.
  MR. HOPWOODread the section—
  " If the absent soldier does not afterwards surrender or is not apprehended, such record shall have the legal effect of a conviction by court martial for desertion,"
  —differently to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander). It appeared that the only object of the section was that the legal effect of conviction should operate by way of forfeiture upon any portion of the pay or allowances to which the soldier was entitled, so that all claims which might be made, say, by his relatives in case of his supposed death, might be quieted by the fact of his being away in a manner not explained. The words, which were simply, "if he does not afterwards surrender or is not apprehended," meant that if he never came back, either compulsorily or voluntarily, the legal effect was to be the same as if he had been condemned by court martial for desertion. That, he presumed, carried with it forfeiture of pay, and all matters of that kind.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, the regimental book was produced as evidence against a prisoner of desertion, when witnesses were not forthcoming.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought the Secretary of State for War ought to have explained to the Committee that this was a very important departure from the existing system. He also wished the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would explain why he had omitted from the Bill the remainder of the clause in the existing Act, of which he had taken the first part only, thereby making a court of inquiry take the place of a court martial?
  COLONEL STANLEYagreed that the | section was open to the construction placed upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). The words, perhaps, covered more than they were intended to do; and he would introduce words on Report to make this clause agree with the existing Act.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, the Select Committee were presented with a draft Bill, which was intended to embrace the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, prepared by a very distinguished draftsman, Sir Henry Thring. But, so far as he had found, the Report contained no recommendation, on the part of the Select Committee, to make the very material change in the terms of previous regulations alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon). Again, the draft Bill presented by Sir Henry Thring contained the very terms of the existing Act, which the hon. and gallant Member had referred to. How, then, did it happen that this very important change had been made in the Bill presented for the consideration of the Committee? This was not a single instance of the way this Bill had been prepared. There were many instances in which the Bill under consideration departed, very materially, from the Bill deliberated upon by the Committee; and as those alterations could not have been made in accordance with the views of the Select Committee, they must have been made in some other way since the Committee sat.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Select Committee did not go through the Bill in the same way as the Committee of the House would go through it. They simply knew that the Bill was introduced on the authority of the Government, and that it was hurriedly placed before them. He (Colonel Stanley), as was his duty, had introduced improvements in the language, when necessary.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to this point. A soldier might have been absent without leave for more than 21 days; a Court of Inquiry had been held and, according to the judgment of the court, it had been decided that he was a deserter, when, really, the man had fallen into the hands of the enemy. If, after his death, and the finding of the court which pro-
  556
  claimed him a deserter, evidence should be forthcoming, was there any means by which his memory could be cleared, and the claim of his relatives to his effects established? If not, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have any objection to the insertion of words in the Bill to meet this case? The effects of a soldier were, occasionally, very considerable, and unpaid balances, amounting to as much as £150 to £200, were, from time to time, advertised; and such amounts as these, unjustly forfeited in the case of men who were afterwards proved not to have deserted, would be matter of very considerable importance to their relatives. Some words ought, therefore, to be introduced to meet this case.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, this was unnecessary, as provision already existed for dealing with cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 71 (Confession by soldier of desertion or fraudulent enlistment).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the words "or Adjutant General" had been inserted in this clause under an entire misapprehension of the duties of this officer. The Adjutant General had no power of himself, being simply a Staff officer of the Commander-in-Chief, and in precisely the same position as Staff officer, General Officer, or adjutant of a regiment. If the Committee allowed it to remain in this clause, and all through the Bill, that the " Commander-in-Chief or Adjutant General" had power to do certain things, the word " or adjutant" would also have to be used in the same way when a commanding officer was spoken of; because commanding officers gave their orders through their adjutants. He thought it better that these words " or Adjutant General" should be omitted, and therefore moved that they be left out of the clause.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Adjutant General had distinct power, in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief, to act as his deputy; and, as a case in point, the Commander-in-Chief last year went to one of the foreign garrisons for a short time, during which the Adjutant General acted in that capacity. It had been thought safer, so far as concerned

  557
  cases where the release of a prisoner or other matters which might have to come before a Civil Court were in question, to insert the words " or Adjutant General," which applied only to the Adjutant General in this country, and when the Commander-in-Chief was absent, or incapacitated from acting by illness; but not to any of his deputies.
  MR. MUNTZsuggested that the words "or in his absence" should be inserted.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANthought the word "absence" could not be applied with correctness to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, there was clearly some difficulty on this point, and he, therefore, preferred to retain the wording of the clause.
  MR. O'DONNELLdid not understand the reason for the words—
  "Where a soldier signs a confession that he has been guilty of desertion or of fraudulent enlistment, a competent military authority may dispense with his trial and order that, instead of being tried by a court martial, he shall suffer the same forfeitures and the same deductions from pay (if any) as if he had been convicted by court martial of the said offence, or such of them as may be mentioned in the order."
  Why should the soldier not be brought up before a court martial? Of course, when it was said that a competent military authority might dispense "with the trial by court martial, the phrase did not mean much; but the appointment of these somewhat new authorities between the Commander-in-Chief and the soldier, who were responsible for representing a case in this or that light, was no good reason for not bringing the man before a court martial. The offence in question was a very serious one; and if the soldier signed a confession of guilt, why should not the record be taken by court martial?
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that this portion of the clause was inserted entirely in favour of the soldier, and its meaning, in his opinion, was perfectly clear. It enabled a man who had deserted to make a confession; and, at the same time, it allowed the competent military authority to dispense with trial and with the punishment which, on conviction, might be otherwise awarded to good men about to go abroad. But, although the trial was dispensed with, their effects were forfeited.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought the Secretary of State for "War had, by his explanation, rendered the question relating to the Adjutant General more complicated than ever. The Adjutant General of the Army in India, and of any Presidency in India, would have the some authority as the Commander-in-Chief. He wished to point out that the explanation given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with reference to the power to the Adjutant General to act in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief, was quite inapplicable.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the words applied only to the Adjutant General in England.
  SIR AEXANDER GORDONpointed out that the Adjutants General in India were specified in Clause 67.
  MR. BIGGARthought the best way of dealing with those men who confessed themselves guilty of desertion would be to institute a formal inquiry into the truth of their confession. It was well-known that many persons went to the police and said they were guilty of crimes of the gravest character; and the custom was to make inquiry, and formally bring the accused persons before the Court, when, if no corroboration of the charges were forthcoming, they fell to the ground, as a matter of course.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Provost Marshal.
  Clause 72 (Appointment and powers of provost marshal).
  COLONEL STANLEYdesired to bring up a new clause dealing with the duties of the provost marshal, and which he trusted would meet with the approval of the Committee. Owing to the pressure of time this was not yet completed; and he, therefore, begged to move the postponement of the present clause.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcould not help expressing the opinion that it would have been more convenient had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman informed hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion upon the Bill, and especially those who had Amendments on the Paper, of his intention to postpone this clause. But, at the same time, by postponing the clause and making it more distinct, he would,

  559
  doubtless, be doing that which most of the opponents of the Bill wished. The great objection to the clause was its vagueness. The Committee need not go beyond the first few lines to see how extremely vague and imperfect was the wording employed. And, moreover, the language in which the clause was now expressed differed a good deal from that made use of in the Articles of War. The object of the Amendment which he had intended to move was to restore the wording of the Articles of War, which was much less vague than that of the clause as it stood in the Bill. There had been a Question put to the Government the other day with reference to the flogging of some camp-followers at the time of the occupation of Cyprus; and that Question he would like again to put to the Government at a future date. Some camp-followers had been flogged in Cyprus at the occupation. Now, that, he believed, was not on active service, according to the definition recently given in the Committee. The words '' military occupation of a foreign country " occurred in the Bill, and Cyprus was a foreign country; but the Government denied its military occupation. In the clause under discussion there were also the words " active service;" and his impression was, after having examined the subject as well as he could, that those words did not include the operations which had been carried on in Cyprus by our troops. If his view was right, he could not understand on what grounds camp-followers were flogged; and it was very important, he thought, that the Government should give the Committee some explanation on that point, for although some of the stories of flogging might not be true, there was no doubt that in many cases the power of inflicting that punishment had been abused. It was, in his opinion, necessary, therefore, that the clause should be watched by the Committee with the most jealous care. It was a clause which, for its vagueness, was more open to objection than almost any other clause in the Bill; and the Committee had a right, he thought, to complain of the suddenness with which it was proposed to postpone it.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he regretted as much as the hon. Baronet who had just sat down the shortness of the notice which he had given the Committee as to
  560
  his intention to ask its assent to the postponement of the clause. The fact was, however, that the pressure of Business had made it physically impossible for him to lay the Amendments which he proposed to introduce into the clause on the Table that day.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had come down to the House for the purpose of suggesting the postponement of the clause, which was one to which he had the strongest objection. Such a clause, or anything resembling it, in its present shape could not, in his opinion, possibly receive the assent of the House of Commons. He spoke not without experience on the subject, because he had seen something of the action of provosts marshal in India. Some of the stories which he had heard connected with them might not, perhaps, bear examination; but he had always been disposed to look upon a provost marshal as a most mysterious person, whose powers and actions nobody knew anything about. He was generally, he believed, a non-commissioned officer of strong character and nerve, whose temper, naturally despotic, was controlled only by the rank of the person who happened to fall into his hands. Rank made a great difference in the way in which the duties of a provost marshal were carried out. If some poor and friendless man fell into his hands, he was apt to be very roughly and very severely treated. There was nothing, so far as he could see, to prevent the provost marshal from hanging him or flogging him —in short, from doing with him what he liked. On the other hand, if he had to deal with anyone of position in the Army, he would probably be more careful how he acted in his case. The truth was, that up to the present time—and it would be still more so under the operation of the clause now under discussion—the powers of a. provost marshal amounted to nothing more or less than a despotism, tempered by the rank of the offender. He wished to take a practical view of the question, and he was perfectly prepared to say that it was necessary there should be some mode of dealing summarily and severely with offences committed when the Army was in the field. As matters stood, however, there was no alternative in such cases between the provost marshal and the very cumbrous machinery prescribed by

  561
  military law of a court martial, to which it was impossible to have recourse always when the troops were on active service. It appeared to him that it would be far better to confer the power of summary punishment, now possessed by the provost marshal, on some tribunal in the nature of a drum-head court martial. He at first thought that a tribunal of that kind would be established under the operation of Clause 49; but he afterwards found that that clause had reference only to general field courts martial, which would only deal with the more serious class of offences, and the sentences of which must be referred, for confirmation, to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, who might be at a distance from the spot, and who might, therefore, find it impossible to deal with petty cases. But, be that as it might, there was no tribunal for the purpose of punishing summarily petty offences, committed against the peaceable inhabitants of a country in which troops happened to be marching, except the provost marshal; and it was out of all question, he thought, to suppose that the Committee would consent to give him the enormous powers which the clause would confer upon him. Knowing well that the clause had been considered by very competent persons, he was unwilling to repeat what he heard said by several hon. Members, that it was very badly drawn. In that respect, he entirely concurred in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke). There were one or two points in the clause to which he wished especially to call the attention of the Committee; and it was all the more desirable that they should be mentioned, as the clause was about to be postponed, with the view to its re-introduction in an amended form. As it now stood, the powers given to the provost marshal could be put in force only in those cases? in which he happened to detect a person, and himself to see him, "in the actual commission of any offence." That was the theory; but how did that theory operate in practice? It was impossible that the provost marshal, who was only one man, could see with his own eyes everything that was going on in the Army. There were, however, other words in the clause by which the provision to which he was re-
  562
  ferring was very materially varied. If hon. Members would look at the last part of the clause, they would see the words—
  "The provost marshal or his assistant has seen the offender committing the act for which summary punishment is inflicted."
  But, although he had looked very carefully over the Bill, he could not find a single syllable to explain who the "assistant" was to be. There was no such person mentioned in the Definition Clause; and he should feel it to be his duty to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when the clause again came before the Committee in its amended shape, who were to be the assistants of the provosts marshal, and whether it would be in the power of a provost marshal to appoint anyone whom he might choose as his assistant, and accept his statement as to an offence having been committed? As regarded the character of the jurisdiction which a provost marshal was to have, and the rules under which he was to act, he could find nothing more definite in the clause than the words, "usages of war, and rules of the Service." Now, it was very difficult to find out what "the usages of war" were; indeed, no one could exactly tell. But there was a more important point still, to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. No mention was made in the clause of the character of the punishment which might be inflicted by a provost marshal. For anything he could see to the contrary, he would have power to hang a man by the neck, or torture him, or flog him, for any offence which he might see him commit. He should be glad to know, therefore, whether there was to be any definition of the punishment which might be inflicted by a provost marshal contained in the Bill, or whether there was to be any regulation made on the subject? He would not detain the Committee further, although there were several other points to which he should like to have referred. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, he thought, find it impossible to induce the Committee to pass the clause in anything near its present shape; and he would again suggest the necessity which existed for supplementing the action of the provost marshal by some power enabling a tri-

  563
  bunal, in the nature of a drum-head court martial, consisting of two or three officers, to deal summarily with offences committed in the field.
  MAJOR NOLANthought that some of the objections which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down against the clause might be met by introducing into the Bill a provision that corporal punishment should be inflicted only by order of a general court martial. He had been ruled out of Order when, on Clause 44, relating to corporal punishment, he had endeavoured to deal with the point. Discussion on the subject had, he might add, been eluded by the Government time after time, and the Committee ought, he maintained, to insist on their placing their new clause on the Table without further delay; because, if the Secretary of State for War were allowed to go through the Bill, reserving clauses which raised difficult questions as it proceeded, the result would be that the flogging question would be postponed until the House was fagged and weary of the Bill, and that no adequate opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Government would be afforded. Hon. Members, who were opposed to giving the provost marshal the power of flogging, were placed at a very great disadvantage by the course which the Government intended to pursue. They would not know when the question was to come on for discussion, and would be unable to take council together, as they ought to have the opportunity of doing. He was rather in favour of the proposal of the Government, in the earlier part of the day, to postpone another important clause—Clause 69—which conferred the power on Her Majesty to make fresh Articles of War. That clause dealt with the whole question of the powers of procedure of courts martial, and was intimately connected with the question of drum-head courts martial, to which the attention of the Committee had just been directed by the hon. Member for Kirckaldy (Sir George Campbell). But his principal object in rising was to point out to the Committee that it appeared to be the intention of the Government to pass a number of clauses of minor importance now, and to postpone the more important clauses to a later period, when they would, perhaps, try to push them through the House in one night. The
  564
  Committee was not, in his opinion, being properly treated by the Government, who might, he thought, on the previous evening, have made up their minds to lay on the Table the new clause which they meant to propose. They might have announced what it was they in tended to do; and he would now put a simple question to the Secretary of State for War. It was whether he did or did not intend that flogging might be inflicted under the operation of the amended clause, without the intervention of a court martial? That was the practical situation in which the Committee was placed, so far as the question of flogging was concerned. With one important exception, such a case as that of a provost marshal inflicting capital punishment, had never come under his notice. No such punishment had, he believed, been inflicted within the last 50 or 60 years, at any rate, on a European soldier; although cases of the kind might have come under the notice of the hon. Member for Kirckaldy (Sir George Campbell) during the Indian Mutiny, when, no doubt, a very large number of persons were executed; but whether by order of the provost marshal, or simply by the order of the commanding officer, he could not say Putting aside the exceptional case of the Indian Mutiny, the real question before the Committee was, whether a provost marshal was to be entitled to inflict the punishment of flogging or not without the interference of a court martial? If that power was to be given to the provost marshal, the concession which had been made by the Government on the subject of flogging was of very little use. Indeed, for his own part, he did not attach much importance to that concession, and the reduction of the number of lashes to 25, except in so far as it served to show that the opinion of the House of Commons was against flogging our soldiers, and that it was determined to give effect to that opinion as far as possible. If the provost marshal could be prevented from inflicting corporal punishment without the sanction of some sort of court martial, then a great step would be gained. The matter was of vital importance to the future of the Army; and he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be able to give a satisfactory answer with respect to it.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that what he had already stated was the simple fact—namely, that the pressure of Business had prevented him from placing the amended clause on the Table. There had, in the previous week, been a long discussion, in which he was obliged to take part, on the Army Estimates, and on the succeeding days he had spent the greater portion of his time—except on Wednesday—in the House, trying to pass the present Bill through Committee. There were, besides, some three points on which he wished to take the opinion of persons whose advice would, he thought, be valuable, and he was anxious to have an opportunity of revising the clause. That was how the matter stood, and he hoped to be able to lay the amended clause on the Table of the House on Thursday. Under those circumstances, he should be glad if the Committee would assent to the postponement of the present clause; and he would leave them to judge of the merits of the new one when it was brought before them.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he did not think there was anything like an intention to obstruct the passing of the Bill on the part of several hon. Members who objected to the course which the Government proposed to take. There appeared to him to be great force in what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). Hon. Members had been brought down to the House that afternoon to discuss, among other clauses of the Bill, especially the very important one which it was now sought to postpone, and that without Notice. Now, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had pointed out, the result of such a mode of proceeding would be that some of the most important questions involved in the Bill would be put off to a period of the Session when the attendance of Members was usually thin, and when they would not be likely to receive that consideration which their importance demanded. For his own part, he would venture to suggest, if he might do so without offending the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), the desirability of postponing the further consideration of the Bill itself. ["No, no! "] That might not be the view of those hon. Members who interrupted him; but it was quite clear
  566
  that the Bill was very unpopular. Nothing, he might add, could well be more painful than to see hon. and gallant Gentlemen squabbling, as they did the other day, over questions which had been raised in the course of the discussion of the measure by other hon. and gallant Gentlemen on some of its provisions. What must civilians think when they witnessed such a state of things? They could hardly avoid coming to the conclusion that the military Members of the House had themselves never read the Bill. He wished also to point out that a new Schedule of offences for which flogging might be inflicted, which the Government had promised should be laid on the Table, had never been produced. He could not help saying, in conclusion, that to discuss, in the month of June, matters which were of comparatively small importance, while questions of considerable importance were postponed, was a mode of proceeding which was hardly fair or just to those hon. Members who took an interest in the subject, and who had come down to the House that afternoon with the view of discussing a most important provision of the Bill, or hardly creditable to the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcould assure the right hon. Baronet that nothing that he had said had offended him in the slightest degree. He, however, altogether objected to the jaunty way in which the right hon. Baronet, who had just come down to the House, proposed to postpone the consideration of the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that when he came down to the House the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was not in his place; for, although he had taken particular pains to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House, he could see him nowhere.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had gone into the Lobby, but only for a few minutes, on business; but he could assure the right hon. Baronet that, notwithstanding the great disadvantage of his absence, the Committee had passed 21 clauses on the previous evening. If, unfortunately, he were to absent himself again, they might pass 21 clauses more. But if the right hon. Baronet really desired to postpone the consideration of the Bill

  567
  altogether, he could not understand why ho should be so indignant at the proposal to postpone a single clause. That was a proposal which, at all events, went, to some extent, in the direction which the right hon. Baronet seemed to desire. It was surely, therefore, entitled to some sympathy from him, although it did not go the whole length which he wished. But he would ask the right hon. Baronet, or any other Member of the Committee, whether he seriously meant to persist in going on with a clause which the Government proposed to postpone? It was obviously impossible to go on with it under those circumstances. A horse might be brought to the water, but it could not be made to drink; and it would not, ho thought, be possible to compel the Government to proceed with the clause, if they wanted to postpone it. On the whole, the best thing, in his opinion, which the Committee could do, was to go on with the discussion of the next clause.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, ho wished to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford—[Cries of "learned"] —well, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, who must have an element of gallantry about him, from the position he had taken up in connection with the Bill—that the clause under discussion was not the only clause which had been postponed that afternoon. Clause 69 had also been postponed, a fact of which he was aware, although the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to be cognizant of it, owing to his being absent from the House.
  MR. HOPWOOD,while admitting that the time of the Secretary of State for War was very much occupied in the House, said, he must enter his protest against that circumstance being taken as a sufficient excuse for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not having fulfilled the pledges which had been given to the Committee. The fact was that the Government had put the Bill down on the Paper for discussion on every conceivable opportunity which offered itself, and hon. Members were kept in the House, early and late, for the purpose of making progress with it. If, however, a day were now and then allowed to intervene between the discussions in Committee, the Government would have time to consider the very important points which were raised, and
  568
  they would be better able to keep their promises. That was a course which, in his opinion, ought to be more agreeable to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself than to have to postpone clauses in the face of such remarks as the mode of proceeding adopted had called forth that afternoon. He, for one, had come down to the House prepared to discuss the clause. [" Oh, oh ! "] Those voices, so far as he was aware, were very seldom raised in the discussions on the Bill with a view to its improvement. Indeed, scarcely any of those hon. Gentlemen who interrupted him had, he believed, been heard to speak in any articulate fashion throughout those discussions. He was not disposed, in any way, to offer a factious opposition to the proposals made by the Secretary of State for War; but he would urge upon him the propriety of not putting the Bill down day after day on the Notice Paper, unless he was prepared to give the Committee the information for which they asked, and with which he himself had admitted it was but reasonable they should be supplied. He would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had not yet laid upon the Table the Schedule which he had promised to produce; but. he could assure him, on the part of those who sat around him (Mr. Hopwood), that the spectre of flogging would haunt him to the last, unless he was prepared to lay it by proper and judicious concessions.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the Committee were placed in this difficulty —that although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might lay his amended clause on the Table of the House on Thursday, it could not be discussed, except as a postponed clause, after the other clauses and the Schedules had been disposed of. The Committee was likely, he thought, to be somewhat deluded by the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; for, in his opinion, the clause might as well have been postponed till next month, for there was not the least probability that the Bill would pass through during what remained of the month of June. There ought, he contended, to be no difficulty, on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in stating whether it was his intention that the provost marshal should still retain the power of flogging?

  569
  He could only say, for himself, that when he supported the Government in their desire to retain the power of flogging in the Army in time of war, he believed the punishment to be one which could only be inflicted by order of a court martial, and was quite ignorant that it might be in the power of a non-commissioned officer, or a person in the position of a provost marshal, to flog anyone. It would appear, from what had been said by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who spoke with a long experience of India, that men were sometimes hanged by order of the provost marshal. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I said a provost marshal had the power to hang.] Surely, then, the Committee ought not to assent to the postponement of the clause until they were informed that the principle was accepted by the Government, that the provost marshal should be obliged to refer for consideration to a court martial before corporal punishment could be inflicted on an offender. If some such explanation wore not given on the part of the Government, some hon. Member would, ho hoped, move to report Progress. Indeed, if no other hon. Member did, he himself would be prepared to make that Motion.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had expressed the opinion that the Committee could not proceed with the discussion of the clause if the Government wished to postpone it. He would, however, respectfully point out that the clause was in the hands of the Committee; and it was monstrous, he maintained, to suppose that the Committee could not proceed with the Business before it, except by the favour, or with the consent, of the Government. That, however, was the proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have laid down, and it was one against which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) most strongly protested.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was quite clear the Government had no justification for the course which they asked the Committee to adopt. They must have made up their minds as to whether they intended to give the provost marshal the power of inflicting corporal punishment or not. If they had made up their minds, they ought not to keep their
  570
  intentions with regard to the matter from the knowledge of the Committee. The Government knew very well that so long as a large portion of the Bill remained to be passed a certain amount of hindrance as to its progress remained in the hands of the Committee; and they wished, therefore, to dispose of all those clauses which were not of the very first importance, in order that they might be able, on some future occasion, by the fidelity of their supporters, to rush the important clauses through Committee, repeating, perhaps, that feat of strength and endurance which was displayed, a year or two ago, in the case of the South African Bill—a measure, he might observe, which had since produced such very uncomfortable consequences, even for the Members of the Government themselves. All those hon. Members who were opposed to the punishment of flogging had made up their minds that there was not the smallest reason why they should yield to the Government on that particular point. Public opinion was on their side; the Army was on their side; a majority of the Members of that House were, he believed, against flogging. Theirs, in short, was the popular view on the question, although there might be in the Army a few wretched flunkies in a regiment who, from a desire to curry favour with their officers, declared themselves as supporters of the present system. Every soldier, however, who was ready honestly to do his duty to his Queen and to his country, objected, in the strongest manner, to the degrading punishment of flogging. It was a question, too, in which the civil population of this country were greatly interested. The treatment of every camp-follower was a matter which was in the hands of the Committee at that very moment; and the Government must have received abundant information from their Friends who sat behind them that there was no question on which a verdict unfavourable to them was more likely to be pronounced by the country than the question of flogging. The country did not like flogging, even by court martial; and was thoroughly opposed to the infliction of corporal punishment by a provost marshal. The Government might say that they had not got official information on many points; indeed, he had never heard, nor had ho supposed had

  571
  the oldest Member of that House ever heard, of a Government who appeared to be so constantly devoid of official information. But, although they might have no official information on the subject, they must be aware that flogging was going on right and left in South Africa; and although Lord Chelmsford might have informed them that he could not expect to conquer the enemy except by means of a well-flogged Army, those Members of the House who were opposed to flogging were determined that, so far as lay in their power, he should be compelled to resort to some other means. He had come down to the House that afternoon to oppose this flogging clause, and to hear what was the policy of the Government with regard to the matter; if, indeed, they had a policy. The clause was one of the most important in the Bill; and if it was postponed it was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that the rest of the clauses should be postponed also. He had no hesitation in saying, no shame in telling the Government, that he should do everything in his power to oppose the passing of the remaining clauses if that under discussion was postponed, without some satisfactory explanation from the Government as to what their intentions were with regard to flogging. He perfectly well knew that the opportunity was a golden one for gaining favour with the public out-of-doors. He had had no such opportunity for a long time, and he was not, therefore, disposed to miss it. He should like to hear from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) whether he meant to persevere in his threatened opposition to the proposal for postponing the clause? If not, ho himself should move that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress. But he felt satisfied his hon. Friend would carry out what he had declared to be his intention. The Irish Members were determined to prove the sympathy which they had with the soldier on so important a question as that of flogging; nor would they, out of any feeling of consideration for Her Majesty's Government, retreat for a single instant from the position on the question which they had taken up.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down really meant all that he had said in the course of the remarks which
  572
  he had just addressed to the Committee. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman wished the impression to be conveyed out-of-doors that he intended to stop the progress of the Bill by every means in his power. As the clause under discussion now stood, considerable objection was raised to the power which it would confer on the provost marshal; and all that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War proposed to do was to take back the clause to see whether it could not be amended, and presented again to the Committee in a form which would be more convenient and more acceptable to them. He could conceive no more proper course to adopt; and he would remind the Committee that, as the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had very justly pointed out, it would be impossible for the Committee to discuss the clause satisfactorily if the Government were of opinion that it ought to be postponed. The hon. and learned Member did not mean to argue, as the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) seemed to suppose, that the Committee could not, if they pleased, refuse to accede to the proposal to postpone the clause; but that they could not discuss it, with any prospect of coming to a reasonable decision upon it, when it was the wish of the Government that it should be brought up on a future occasion in an amended shape. The remaining clauses of the Bill would not be affected by the postponement of that which was before the Committee; and he hoped the Committee would set their face against the unusual course of attempting to prevent the Government from postponing a clause in a Bill which was a Government measure, and which they thought ought to be postponed.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that so far as he was concerned, he should not feel himself justified in refusing to permit the Government to postpone a clause which it was not, in their opinion, desirable that the Committee should at once proceed to discuss. He thought, however, the Committee had great reason to complain of the course which had been pursued by the Government on the present occasion. The clause which it was proposed to postpone was one of the most important clauses in a Bill which was itself the result of very se-

  573
  rious deliberations, partly of a Select Committee, which was presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The Bill was drawn by the Government draftsman, and put through some sort of War Office crucible, out of which this precious piece of legislation came in the form in which it had been presented to the House. Yet the Committee were told that afternoon that it was necessary to postpone one of the most important clauses of the Bill, because, notwithstanding all the preliminary manipulation to which it had been subjected, it required to be altered so that it might have some chance of being accepted by the Committee. The discussion, he might add, was satisfactory, at all events, in one respect—that it showed that the Government were alive to the fact that the clause needed amendment, and that a considerable change must be made in it before it was agreed to. As to Parliamentary practice, he could only say that he recollected very well that when the Ballot Bill was passing through the House, and when the Government of that day desired to postpone some of the clauses, hon. Gentlemen opposite, and even some right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied seats on the Treasury Bench, objected to that course being taken, with a view of obstructing the passing of the Bill. He had no wish to obstruct the passing of the present Bill; and, therefore, he would not vote against the postponement of the clause, although he thought it hardly fair to postpone it, under all the circumstances of the case. He hoped, he might add, that some of his hon. Friends near him would not carry out what they had announced to be their intention—to oppose the further progress of the Bill that afternoon, because to do so might result in involving the Committee in an unseemly struggle.
  MR. OTWAYcould not see that there was any valid objection to the postponement of the clause; but an appeal had been made to the Government which appeared to him to be of a most reasonable character, and to which they ought, he thought, to give a more satisfactory answer than he had yet heard. The Bill contained, in his opinion, a great deal that was good, and he had no desire to impede its progress through the House. It had, however, one
  574
  blemish, which several hon. Members had been endeavouring up to the present time, but not quite effectually, to remove. There was, at the same time, no good reason why they should not avail themselves of every legitimate opportunity to discuss the question of flogging; and it was only fair to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether he had determined upon the principle on which flogging should be inflicted under the operation of the clause? As he understood the matter, those hon. Members who objected to the postponement of the clause would not be disposed to persevere in that course if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would inform them that it was his intention that corporal punishment should not be inflicted except by order of a court martial. He understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have declined to answer the appeal which had been made to him in that respect, on the ground that to do so might lead to discussion; but there would be no need for further discussion, if he would merely state the principle on which it was proposed that the new clause should be based. He hoped it was a misapprehension to suppose that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's object in wishing to postpone the clause was in order that he might make more stringent still the rules relating to the infliction of corporal punishment. But so erroneous, he felt satisfied, was that supposition, that he was astonished the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not seen the expediency, in his own interest, of responding to the appeal which had been made to him. He understood the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) to have distinctly asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on what principle the new clause was to be founded?
  COLONEL STANLEYthought that the appeal was a very fair one; but he must, at the same time, guard himself against being led into a discussion of a clause which was not before the Committee. Such a discussion would, in the first place, be out of Order; and would, in the second place, be highly inconvenient. The powers of the provost marshal were very unlimited; but he had, of course, proposed to limit them, to a great extent, by regulation. The discussions,

  575
  however, which had taken place in that House had satisfied him that it would be possible to print many things in the Bill itself which he had intended should be the subject of regulation. Without, then, absolutely doing away with the power to inflict corporal punishment under the operation of the clause, he would endeavour to introduce words into the clause preventing its infliction except for the most serious crimes; and a list of those he proposed, as he had promised the Committee the other day, to insert in a Schedule. He would define the circumstances under which corporal punishment might be inflicted, and would endeavour, in other ways, to restrict its application very considerably. He was unable to say more at the present moment. The time of the Committee would, he thought, be saved by postponing the clause, and by the production, in its stead, of a clause which would be more acceptable to them. When that clause was before the Committee, it would be for them to consider what modifications, if any, it required. Ho hoped the Committee would now allow the clause to be postponed without further debate.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made, earlier in the discussion, some such explanation as that which he had just now offered to the Committee, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) should not have so strongly objected to the postponement of the clause. He had been under the impression that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to continue in the hands of the provost marshal the power of inflicting corporal punishment whenever he pleased; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had only at once stated, in reply to the very humble appeals which had been made to him, that that was not his intention, much of the discussion might have been avoided, and much of the time of the Committee saved. It was in vain the Fowler spread the net in the sight of any bird; and hon. Members had so often been taken in by the postponement of clauses that they were not likely to fall into the same snare again. He was glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said what he had just told the Committee, and he should offer no further opposition to the postponement of the clause.
  MAJOR NOLANinsisted upon the necessity of a correct record being kept of the punishments inflicted by the provost marshal.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to say that, after the explanation of the right hon. aad gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he would not persevere in his opposition to the postponement of the clause.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERshould offer no further objection to the postponement of the clause; but need hardly say that, had it not been for the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he should have felt it his duty to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Clause, by leave,postponed.

PART II.
  ENLISTMENT.

    Period of Service.
    Clause 73 (Period of Service).
    MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 40, line 32, to leave out "twelve," and insert "twenty." The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he was entirely opposed to the short-service system of Lord Card-well, which had proved an utter failure. It had given us an Army of boys, instead of an Army of men. It was pitiable to read the accounts of these boys being matched against able-bodied Zulus. Before 1847, recruits might be enlisted for life—practically for 21 years. Various changes had been made since then. The object of his Amendment was to enable Her Majesty, if it were deemed desirable, to enlist men for 20, instead of only for 12 3'ears. One result of the short-service system was that the raw material out of which non-commissioned officers were made was, at the present moment, very deficient in the Army. Boys, too, such as those who now enlisted in the Army, were very apt to run away to avoid punishment for petty offences, and desertion was prevalent. In those circumstances, it was, he thought, extremely desirable that there should be some inquiry as to whether it would not be desirable to return to the long-service system. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who had charge of the Bill, had given Notice, a few days before, of the appointment of

    577
    a Committee to consider, among other things, if he understood rightly, the question of short service; and he rather inferred, from some observations made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion, that he, himself, was in favour of the short-service system. He was sorry that that should be so; but if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give him some assurance that the question of the expediency of a return to long service would receive adequate consideration from the Committee to which he alluded, he should not press his Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would adhere to the word "twelve." He was in the position, at the present moment, that he could not discuss the question which was raised by the Amendment. There was an important Committee now sitting, who had that very question before them. That Committee was composed of men of very great experience and distinction, whose duty it was, unfettered by any prejudices in the matter, to examine seriously into the advantages and disadvantages of the various periods of service. He, therefore, could not agree to the Amendment, if for no other reason than because of the position which he occupied in that House, and because any opinion which he might express upon it might be represented, rightly or wrongly, as having an influence on the decision of that Committee on an important question which had been submitted to their consideration. He must, therefore, appeal to his hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment.
    MR. CHARLEYsaid, he had no wish to press the Amendment, after the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    MAJOR NOLANthought they were too much in the habit, in this country, of not paying sufficient attention to what was going on in the great Continental Armies in connection with the question which was raised by the Amendment. They, he would point out to the Committee, had gone entirely in the direction of short service. The error which they committed was, that when they got a boy of 18 or 19 who did not know his own value, who was picked out of the gutter, and who could not earn anything, to enter the Service, they imagined that he might be kept in the Army for a
    578
    great number of years, receiving only the same rate of pay as when he first joined it. That a boy enlisted at that age should be bound to remain in the Army for a period of 21 years on such terms was, he thought, a most unfair proposal. What would be said of a manufacturer who, having engaged such a boy for 6d. a-day, should refuse, five or six years after, when the value of his services had greatly increased, to give him higher wages, and who would keep him on in his employment for 20 years, still giving him the remuneration of only 6d. a-day? A soldier, he might add, after eight or ten years' service, might re-engage himself for nine years more, making a total of 21 years' service; and he entirely denied the accuracy of the hon. and learned Member for Salford's (Mr. Charley) view, that, in order to secure good noncommissioned officers, it was necessary to have recourse to enlistment for 20 years. On the Continent they did not pay their non-commissioned officer for remaining in the Service. In the German Army a man only remained three years in the Army, and then was put in the Reserve. It was quite useless for him to struggle with hon. Gentlemen opposite in endeavouring to express his views to the Committee, if they insisted on talking. Ho thought that men ought only to remain about four years in the Army, and four years more in the Reserve. What was wanted in the British Army was a better Reserve. If a man were enlisted for 20 years, it was quite obvious that by keeping him in the ranks for that period the Reserve suffered. Viscount Cardwell's system, if pushed to its legitimate conclusion, would produce an addition of 100,000 men to the Reserve. He wished to point out that Viscount Cardwell's system was not carried far enough, and to that fact was due the evils he had spoken of. All the evils at present existing were said to be owing to short service; but ho thought that they were really owing to their not having followed the Continental system in one important point. When they introduced the short-service system they ought to have gone a step further. At present, they chiefly enlisted boys; whereas on the Continent they did not enlist under the age of 20 or 21. So long as the military authorities of this country insisted on enlisting at the age of 17 or 18, they would find the Army crowded with

    579
    boys; but that was not owing to the short-service system. The Army was crowded with boys, because they insisted on enlisting them instead of waiting until they were of a proper age. So long as they enlisted lads of 18 or 19, and kept them only three or four years, and did not allow any man under 20 to go out to India, so long would the Army in England be found to be crowded with boys. If they had too many boys, it was simply because they did not enlist at the proper age, and not because they were following the Continental system. In point of fact, they did not follow the Continental system, because on the Continent they enlisted at a proper and reasonable age. He must apologize for troubling the Committee at the length he had; but, owing to the very interesting conversation on the opposite side of the House, to which he had been compelled to listen, he had not been able to express his views as shortly as he could have wished.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERremarked, that if there were a disposition, as there appeared to be, on the part of hon. Members on the other side of the House not to discuss the Bill on that occasion, the proper thing to do would be to report Progress. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway had no desire to force his views upon the Committee; but he was glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made the speech he had just delivered; because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he was afraid, was inclined to yield to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), who had urged upon him a very reactionary policy in respect to long service. He was entirely opposed to long service, and considered that 12 years was quite long enough. As had been pointed out by his hon. and gallant Friend, the reason why the Army was now crowded with boys was that they enlisted youths before they were old enough to enter the ranks of the Army. There was another very serious objection to the acceptance of the Amendment; for what did it amount to? It amounted to this—that they sought to force a man to remain in a Service which was disagreeable and irksome to him. A man might gain eight or nine years' experience of the Army, and then should be able to determine whether he would fol-
    580
    low it the whole of his life, or would retire. He thought that the change which had been made in the direction of short service was highly beneficial; and he trusted that no step in a contrary direction would be taken.
    MR. O'DONNELLhad expected that upon this clause they would have had some general and useful discussion by the military authorities of the House. The only reason which had been given them for postponing a previous clause was that they should be enabled to discuss it in a more full and perfect manner at another period. This was a clause of the first importance, concerning, as it did, in a most vital degree, the efficiency of the Army. It was, indeed, a matter of such importance that a Select Committee had been appointed to deal with it. He thought, therefore, that they might have expected that the Committee would have given as much aid as possible in its discussion. There had, however, been a very distinct impression, from the conduct of hon. Members opposite, that they wished this clause to be passed without any discussion. If the Government could not afford time to discuss a Bill of this magnitude, they should not have brought it in. Questions of the greatest moment were laid before the Committee; but if hon. Members presumed to discuss them, feelings of very great impatience were exhibited on the other side of the House. He must emphatically protest against the marked discourtesy exhibited by some supporters of the Government during the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. The hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had urged upon the Government to do away with short service. It seemed to him that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might have pointed out, as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had done, that short service was not responsible for the evils which were now complained of. The real evil was that the military authorities admitted boys into the ranks, instead of enlisting more hardy men. He believed that it was altogether a wrong principle to go upon, to enlist men for a service of 12 years, which was facetiously called short service. If the Government wished to introduce a more soldierly class in the Army, they ought to offer better inducements than at pre-

    581
    sent. When the Government asked men to enter for 12 years into the Army and Reserves, they ought to hold out some better prospect than they did at present. That prospect ought to be improved in two ways. There ought to be a better future for a man in the Army, and out of the Army. There ought to be a better prospect of promotion for soldiers in the Army, and old soldiers ought to have a better prospect in civil life when they left it. Committee after Committee had recommended that retired soldiers should have a better prospect of employment in the Civil Service opened to them; but these representations had been consistently disregarded. If the Government wished to find out why our soldiers were different from those of foreign countries, they would ascertain that they were given no superiority over other candidates for employment in the Civil Service after leaving the Army. Much good would be done if they made service in the Army a recommendation for after employment. There ought, also, to be more prospect of promotion for a deserving soldier than existed at present. It was a positive scandal, at present, the number of obstacles that were put in the way of promotion from the ranks of the Army. It ought to be the object of the Government, if they wished to make the Army popular, to give more facilities for obtaining promotion. Several hon. Members had received numerous letters from soldiers of long-standing, and also from such commissioned officers as quartermasters, complaining of the ridiculous character of the promotion now open to deserving soldiers. There was hardly a commissioned rank open to a deserving soldier but that of quartermaster, where he could get no rise at all, and was shelved for his natural life. It must be the wish of everyone to bring about a time when our Army would be able to compare itself with Continental Armies, and that could never be done until the same facilities were given with regard to the promotion of deserving soldiers as existed in Continental Armies. It was not only a case of justice to deserving soldiers, but many instances could be adduced to show they required more experienced men in the position of officers than they had at present. They would never have a due proportion of experienced men as offi-
    582
    cers, so long as they confined officers to the class obtaining first commissions. A much larger number of soldiers ought to be allowed to serve the Queen as commissioned officers than was now the case. The effect upon the Army would be very great if better prospects were open to the deserving soldier, both during his continuance in the Army and after his retirement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 74 (Terms of original enlistment).
    MAJOR NOLANhoped that the 1st sub-section of this clause would not be that upon which enlistment was usually made, but that the 2nd sub-section would be usually acted upon. The distinction was this—they had now got into a totally different stratum of the Bill from what they had previously been considering. They had hitherto been discussing judicial questions; but now they came to consider questions of administration. He hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not yield to the pressure that had been brought to bear upon him from outside to induce him to enlist for a long period of service in the Army, but would enlist partly for service in the Army, and partly for service in the Reserve. A great deal of pressure had been put upon the Government to revert, wholly or in part, to the old long-service system. He believed that no greater mistake could be made than to do that. What they had to look to was the possible contingency of a great war; and, in that event, their chief dependence must be upon the Reserve. If the long-service system were reverted to, they would have no Reserve; and a great portion of the money which had been spent upon the Army would be absolutely wasted. Under the 1st sub-section of this clause the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could enlist men for 12 years in the Army. He strongly hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not revert to the old system, and take men only for service in the Army. He thought it necessary to tender this advice to the Government, as he found exactly the opposite was being given them from other quarters.
    COLONEL STANLEYhad no hesitation in answering the question which which had been put to him, and in stating that his opinion was in favour of service in the Reserve following short service. As to the precise term of service in the Army, that was another question. As regarded any alteration in the clause to which attention had been drawn, it was done with the view of removing any doubts under the existing Enlistment Act, and to meet the case of men extending their service to India. It was found inconvenient to send men to India with very short services. Some years ago the House passed a Resolution that a man under a certain age should not be sent to India. Great difficulty was sometimes experienced in filling up drafts for India; and the authorities there complained that the men sent were under too short a term of service. If the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would ask him a question on this subject at another time, he would then be able to show him how slight the effect of this clause would be in allowing a man to extend his period of service in the Army two years longer. At the same time, it had been held that the extension of two years' service would have a good practical effect upon the Army in India. The 1st sub-section was necessary for the purpose of meeting some cases. A man might enlist whom it was desirable to send at once into the Reserve. They did not want to enlist for the purpose of filling up the Army; but they only wanted some men who had gone through the Army, but had left it, to have a short service, perhaps, for half-a-year, in the Army, and then to pass into the Reserve. A power of that kind would meet the case of men who. for private reasons, had left the Army by buying themselves out, and wanted to return to it again. It was for reasons such as that, that it was desirable to allow the Secretary of State for War to alter the terms of services.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose to express his regret that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War had committed himself to an opinion in favour of short service only while the subject was before a competent Commission.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had expressed an opinion in favour of a short
    584
    term of service, followed by service in the Reserve.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it should be recollected that our Army was not like a Continental Army, and that a very different state of things existed here to that on the Continent. It was absolutely necessary that there should be a very large number of men under long service in our Army, for the purpose of undertaking service in India and the Colonies.
    MR. O'DONNELLwas of opinion that it would be better if there was a distinct enlistment for service in India. He had consulted a good many Indian authorities; and he believed that the present system by which the Army was drafted for service in India resulted in injury to the Army and in enormously increasing the expenditure. The much cheaper and better plan would be to have a distinct enlistment for service in the Indian Army, or the institution of an Indian Army, such as had existed before the present system came into operation.
    LORD ELCHOdisclaimed any intention of acting discourteously to hon. Members; but he did not think they had any title to complain of not being listened to. The questions which had been discussed were very large ones, and he thought that the proper time to debate them was not upon this Bill, but rather upon the first Vote for the Reserves on the Army Estimates. Then was the proper time for going into these matters; and he should reserve what remarks ho had to make upon the subject until that occasion. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had not chosen the proper time to introduce the question he had. He objected to its being supposed that everyone was bound to listen to hon. Members when they chose to address the House; and whenever he perceived that anything like obstruction was going on he simply talked to his Friends, in order to express his disapproval of the proceedings.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsuggested that the discussion of the clause should be postponed.
    MR. O'DONNELLhoped note would be taken of the avowal which a distinguished supporter of the Government, who had just sat down, had made. Ho had avowed that when a political oppo-

    585
    nent differed from him in the views he took of a certain Bill, and when he rose to express an opinion on the subject, he was to be prevented giving his opinion as to the opportuneness of the measure by ostentatiously loud remarks made on the opposite side of the House. He did not think a less worthy avowal had been made in Committee for a long time; and he. only hoped that very few hon. Members on his side of the House would take that conduct as a pattern. He regretted to observe that there had been no apparent haste on the part of Members of the Government to disavow the conduct of their supporters. If that disavowal was not made, they must take it as an indication that the Government approved of loud conversation on private affairs as one of the legitimate forms of conducting the Business of the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTentirely agreed that this was not the proper place for the discussion of this point. The hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had thrown the ball over to that side in order that it might be returned. These enlistment clauses were only put in as consolidation clauses; and, certainly, he was sorry to see them in this Bill at all. This Bill was called the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill; but it was, practically, two Bills. One part was a Discipline Bill, and the other part was a Regulation Bill. If they had not the enlistment clauses, they would get rid of half the clauses of this Bill. Were they to go into a long talk on these clauses, why there was hardly anything that could not be brought into a discussion on this Bill; and the House must come to some determination as to the ensuing clauses, whether they meant to discuss them in detail, and the whole question of the principles of enlistment in the British Army. If so, it was turning this Bill into a discussion on the Estimates.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he only wished to ask a question. Yesterday he asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether he would bring on the Army Estimates at such a time that his hon. Friends opposite could bring forward their Motions in going into Committee, rather than in Committee? His right hon. and gallant Friend did not hear his question distinctly, and did not give the answer which showed the spirit which animated him.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, his object was to call attention to the state of the Army in Zululand, and not to raise the question of the condition of the Army generally. Since then, they were aware that a Committee had been appointed to inquire into this question; and it was at the suggestion not only of military men outside the House, but others inside the House, that he withdrew the Motion from the Paper. He had felt that it would not be convenient, perhaps unfair, to the Committee that there should be a discussion in that House. As to the question of enlistment, they were divided into two camps. His impression was that short service, as it at present existed, would not answer. It was felt that it would not be a good thing to go into the matter with a Committee about to sit on the question; and, above all, it would not be wise, with the Committee about to sit, to make this a Party question in a Party discussion. This was the reason why he withdrew the Amendment on the Paper. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had pointed out that on the Estimates the question would arise; but that discussion would not be from his (Colonel Mure's) initiative. When raised, however, it would be difficult for a military man to refrain from entering into it; but he hoped there would be no Party feeling introduced into this discussion. He sincerely hoped the Committee would consider the question on its merits, and not allow itself to be influenced by any partiality for Viscount Cardwell's scheme, or against it.
    COLONEL STANLEYjoined with his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken in expressing a sincere hope that anything as regarded the Army would not be made a question of Party politics. He hoped, whatever their views, they would all work with one common object. There might be a divergence of view; but he hoped they could reconcile that with full Party allegiance. With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), he must apologize for not having answered it. He had not been able, owing to the indisposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to communicate with him in order to ascertain the date when the Estimates would be taken. As regarded the question of enlistment, of course, there was a great deal that might be urged why it should not form part of this Bill. For

    587
    his own part, he found it better to deal with the whole subject, and endeavour to consolidate the existing regulations. He quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt), that it was inconvenient here to discuss all the vexed questions which might be involved; but after the explanation he had given to the Committee he hoped hon. Members would be induced now to proceed with the consideration of the other clauses; and he did not think they would find any matter which would cause any serious amount of discussion.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONreminded the Committee that they were about to pass a permanent Act; and he thought, if ever they wore to discuss it, now was the time. He entirely disagreed with the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) that the proper time to discuss this question was on the Army Estimates. They could not alter the Act in a discussion on the Estimates. In the Estimates there was simply a long talk, and nothing came of it, unless they refused the Estimates, which he did not think the noble Lord contemplated. They would have no other opportunity but this until the Continuance Act came into operation. He hoped the enlistment clauses would be withdrawn from the Bill.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought, after the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), the Government would act wisely in withdrawing the enlistment clauses from the Bill altogether. There were sufficient difficulties in the way of the passage of the Bill without loading it with irrelevant matter. They were told by the noble Lord opposite that they must not discuss this matter now, and that they must wait until they came to the Estimates. He remembered that they had the Army Estimates on a short time ago, and they were told that it was useless to raise questions on the Estimates, as they could not give effect to their opinions by legislation. It was said, within the last few days, that it was a waste of the time of the House to discuss this important question on the Army Estimates. They then came to the Bill, where they had the only chance of affecting legislation, and then they were told, coolly, " Wait until you come to the Estimates." This was playing fast and loose. The course which the
    588
    Government was pursuing did not seem to him to meet with the approval of any large portion of the House of Commons. That was unfortunate for the Government; but the fact was, they were making no progress at all. They were travelling in a vicious circle, in which there was a good deal of useless talk. He specially referred to the contributions to the debate made by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. What was to be done? Expunge from the Bill all immaterial matter. Do not persist in dragging into the Bill things which did not belong to it. He would appeal to the Secretary of State for War, considering what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, to expunge from the Bill the enlistment clauses.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, short service would always be approved by the democracy, and long service by the aristocracy. The reasons were obvious; and there was no use ignoring the tendency. When they were asked—" Why do you enlist boys?" they were told that they could not get men for the money. That was quite true. They did not pay the soldier near so well as the agricultural labourer was paid in the Northern half of England. Taking Mr. Caird's figures, the labourer was paid 18 s. and 19 s. a-week; whereas, making all allowances, the soldier received 15 s. 6d. a-week. That was at the root of the short service.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 75 (Change of conditions of service).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment to insert words after line 5. He was sorry he had not given Notice of the Amendment, which might do good, and could not do any harm. It seemed to him that while the Secretary of State for War might make regulations by which long-service men might be made short-service men, and go into the Reserve, the case might arise in which, with the consent of themselves, the short-service men might be made long-service men. It might be found that men, after one or two years in the Army, liking the Profession, would be willing to re-enlist for a longer term, and to take service in India and distant parts of the world. He, therefore, proposed to insert the words—" To extend

    589
    the term of his original enlistment up to the period of 12 years." He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would favourably consider this.
    COLONEL STANLEY: I have no objection to the words—to the power being given. The principle exists under certain circumstances now.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved the further addition to the clause at the end of line 7, of the words " or any period of time not exceeding 12 years on the whole."
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 76 (Reckoning and forfeiture of service).
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the two systems of counting service in the Army—one reckoning for discharge, and the other towards pension—-were very bad. This way of reckoning had no effect upon the men, but gave endless trouble to the officers and their clerks; and he believed that an officer had stated that, by the adoption of a uniform system, the services of, at least, a dozen clerks could be dispensed with at Woolwich. He intended to move the insertion of the words, after line 14—
    "Any man absent without leave more than five days shall have those deducted from his service towards pension."
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The pensions were matters that were dealt with partly under the Estimates laid upon the Table of the House and partly under Royal Warrant, and it appeared to him wrong to insert the words proposed, inasmuch as the Bill, as drafted, did not include anything relating to them. At the same time, he quite agreed with the object of the hon. and gallant Member, and would communicate with the Financial Secretary to see whether the suggested improvement could not be made under the Royal Warrant.
    MAJOR NOLANbegged to withdraw his Amendment. The question of the documentary system was one which could be settled by the Secretary of State for War alone. At present, the system was in an exceedingly bad state, giving endless trouble and labour; but, at the same time, it could be easily simplified.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the clause provided that a soldier's service should reckon from the time of attestation; but it went on to say that the whole of his prior service should be forfeited if he was convicted of desertion, fraudulent enlistment, and certain other offences. This clause was a very vindictive one, and would lead to the aggravation of any punishment which might fall upon a person guilty of any of the offences named. Let a deserter be punished by all means; but let his punishment be adequate to his offence. But when a man had been convicted and punished for any of the offences in question, it must be regarded as a great aggravation of punishment that all his prior service should be forfeited into the bargain. He, therefore, moved the omission of all the words of the clause from "but," in line 16, inclusive.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the clause was, no doubt, an alteration from the existing law, and had been made more severe, for the crimes were such that could be committed on a man's own responsibility; nobody could force a man to desert, that must be entirely at his own option. The crimes named in the section were the cause not only of great loss to the Service, but also to the State; and, therefore, considering how great a blot upon the Service were desertion and fraudulent enlistment, he hoped the Committee would agree with him in thinking that they should be punished by the forfeiture of previous service. He did not wish to tell the Committee that this was not more severe than the present practice. A man did not forfeit service for any absence or imprisonment; but if he was convicted of these particularly serious offences, he would forfeit his former service. He hoped the Committee would accept the clause as it stood.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTthought the change proposed by the Government in respect of these crimes a very good one, and likely to be of great advantage to the Service. It would, amongst other advantages, enable a court martial to give less imprisonment. Everyone knew that the well-conducted men formed the great majority of the Army; and it would be a great advantage if the comparatively small number of ill-conducted and irregular men in the Army could be punished in a way which did not affect the well-conducted soldiers. He had

    591
    known the authorities over and over again, as they had power to do, restore a man's service after five years' good behaviour. The inconvenience pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), with regard to the two systems of reckoning service towards discharge and pension, was nothing to the complication caused, under the present system, of forfeiture of service. He thought the change proposed by the clause should be accepted.
    MR. HOPWOODthought that if Her Majesty's Government relied upon severity of punishment for the repression of the offences in question, they would rely upon a broken reed. He could not agree that a man should forfeit all his prior service besides the punishment awarded for the offences by court martial. A man of 12 years' service might be taken prisoner of war by want of due precaution; and thereupon, without leaving it to the court to decide, this Act of Parliament would require that the whole of that period of service should be forfeited. The Bill said " it shall be forfeited," and not even the Commander-in-Chief could set this aside. Further, the Act said the soldier should begin over again, and be liable to serve for the term of his original enlistment. Here, also, this was not ordered by court martial after due consideration, but rendered compulsory; while the justification of this course, it was said, was to be found in the number of entries which would be saved in the Regimental Books. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).
    COLONEL ALEXANDERpointed out that in the case of a man who had, perhaps, lost 10 years' service, and then kept clear of the Regimental Defaulters' Book for five years, his commanding officer would at once recognize him as entitled to restoration as a matter of course.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that power of restoration did not appear in the Bill. He wanted some words to be inserted that would insure this benefit to the soldier; and it was highly desirable, if a new clause was proposed, that some provision should be introduced for good-service restoration. With regard to the sub-section relating to soldiers taken prisoners of war by want of due precaution, the observations of
    592
    the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) upon this point were very important; and he agreed with him that it was much too severe to make a man for such an offence necessarily and irretrievably lose the whole benefit of his former service, on conviction by court martial, who were only sworn to find out whether he was absent from the Service. He hoped that the words "by want of due precaution" would not be allowed to stand.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that each deserter cost the country £35; and, in his opinion, under a system of short service, the punishment for desertion could not be too severe.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTexplained, that he had supported this clause under the impression that the Bill contained powers for restoration of service; but he now was obliged to withdraw his support from the clause in its present form, because he found that the Bill contained no such powers. He agreed with the remarks of the hon. and earned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that sub-section C was much too severe, and he (Colonel Colthurst) would say the same of sub-section D. His remarks were directed entirely to the good of the Service.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought that there should, at all events, be power to restore service after a sufficient period of good conduct.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought that the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), having changed his opinions with regard to the clause, should also have withdrawn the imputations cast upon his Colleagues in his first speech, when he said that a number of Members were opposing this Bill in the interest of the ill-conducted soldiers of the Army. Of course, he had not meant to imply anything offensive, because it would have been quite out of keeping with his character to utter such a calumny upon any Members of the House. The efforts of hon. Members had been directed to the humanizing of this Bill, and to getting altogether a better class of men into the ranks of the Army, and he could not help thinking that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member were exceedingly out of place; and he trusted that he would see the propriety of withdraw-

    593
    ing them in the presence of the Committee and of his constituents. At the same time, he was sure that the Committee would entirely repudiate the suggested imputation cast upon those hon. Members who were endeavouring to humanize the Bill.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTdid not feel under any necessity of withdrawing the supposed imputations, because he did not intend to cast them. What he meant so convey was, that many hon. Members, in their laudable anxiety to prevent undue severity of punishment being applied to the ill-conducted and irregular soldier, had forgotten the interests of the well-conducted soldier. He was perfectly sure that neither his Colleagues nor constituents would accuse him of having intended to convey any other meaning.
    MR. BIGGARobjected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. He considered there should rest some option with the court martial who tried a soldier for these offences. No doubt, desertion was a very grave crime; but the distinction between desertion and absence without leave must, in some cases, be extremely slight. He thought the court should have power to say whether or not all the punishments contained in the Bill should be inflicted for the offences in question. It was, in his opinion, very wrong to maintain a hard-and-fast line, and leave them no discretion in the matter.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, there were many kinds of fraudulent enlistment. Of course, when a man took a second kit and bounty, that was a very serious form of the crime. But there were other classes of this crime for which he considered the punishment too heavy. For instance, was a boy of 17½ years of age, who enlisted as 18 years of age, on being found out a number of years afterwards when, perhaps, he had become a good and efficient soldier, to forfeit all his service? Again, would the clause apply only to men who enlisted after the passing of the Bill, or would men lose for desertion committed before?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Act would not be retrospective in any degree, except in the case of a man who reengaged.
    SIR HENRY JAMESunderstood the clause to affect any soldiers whose time had to be reckoned after the passing
    594
    of the Act. He would be liable to have his time taken from him if he deserted at any time.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought that fraudulent enlistment should be dealt with by itself; and as the Secretary of State for War had agreed to take out subsections C and D, he thought he might agree to leave out sub-section B also. This might be very easily done without disregarding the interests of the Service. The same thing should be done with the last part of the clause. He could then move that the whole period of a deserter's absence should be forfeited to him, and this would entirely do away with the aggravation which the present clause imposed. He maintained that boys, and men who had enlisted as boys, should not be punished with extreme severity for desertion. Moreover, the punishment of forfeiture of service, to which a deserter was liable, prevented men, who might otherwise be so disposed, to come back to their regiments; while he considered, on the other hand, that some gate should be left open to the deserter by which he could voluntarily re-enter. He, therefore, asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take out the words " Fraudulent enlistment," and to allow desertion to be punished by itself.
    COLONEL STANLEYcould not agree to that proposal. He thought the Committee could hardly be aware of the extent to which this crime of fraudulent enlistment had been carried on. It had become the regular trade of men, perhaps never more than a week out of prison, and as such it must be stamped out. He hoped the Committee would allow the clause to pass.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the hands of the authorities were tied by these sections. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman kept his eye too much fixed upon the cases of men who enlisted fraudulently over and over again. But he should remember that there were other cases to be dealt with, which did not require such strong treatment as that proposed. He would suggest that Progress be reported, and that some Amendment should be added at the next discussion of the Bill.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it would be rather hard to do this at that moment; he had already given the assurance that certain words should be added, which

    595
    he hoped would be sufficient for making the clause more clear.
    MR. RYLANDScould not consent to the passing of the clause; and urged upon the Secretary of State for War that he should put upon the Paper the addition which he intended to make to it. He thought the Committee should be told, on the next occasion, why it was that some portion of the Articles of War had been omitted from the Bill altogether, while others had been made more harsh?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to him to have entirely misapprehended the intention of the opponents of the clause. He (Colonel Stanley) had given the case of a soldier who enlisted and re-enlisted over and over again; but he appeared to forget that such a person, who spent all his time in gaol, would have nothing either for service or pension.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    PUBLIC LOANS REMISSION BILL.
    Resolution[June 23]reported,and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBRETSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill218.]
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock.