Period of Service. (Hansard, 24 June 1879)

§ MR. CHARLEY
moved, 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 STANLEY
hoped 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. CHARLEY
said, he had no wish to press the Amendment, after the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought 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 POWER
remarked, 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'DONNELL
had 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.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped 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 STANLEY
had 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 CAMPBELL
rose 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 STANLEY
said, he had expressed an opinion in favour of a short 584 term of service, followed by service in the Reserve.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
thought 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'DONNELL
was 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 ELCHO
disclaimed 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'BEIRNE
suggested that the discussion of the clause should be postponed.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
hoped 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 HARCOURT
entirely 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 ELCHO
said, 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 MURE
said, 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 STANLEY
joined 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 GORDON
reminded 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 POWER
thought, 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 NOLAN
said, 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 18s. and 19s. a-week; whereas, making all allowances, the soldier received 15s. 6d. a-week. That was at the root of the short service.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, 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.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
moved 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."

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, 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 STANLEY
hoped 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 NOLAN
begged 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.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, 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 STANLEY
said, 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 COLTHURST
thought 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. HOPWOOD
thought 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 ALEXANDER
pointed 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 HAYTER
said, 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'BEIRNE
said, 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 COLTHURST
explained, 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 STANLEY
thought that there should, at all events, be power to restore service after a sufficient period of good conduct.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
asked 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 COLTHURST
did 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. BIGGAR
objected 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 NOLAN
said, 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 STANLEY
said, the Act would not be retrospective in any degree, except in the case of a man who reengaged.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
understood 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'DONNELL
thought 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 STANLEY
could 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. HOPWOOD
said, 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 STANLEY
said, 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. RYLANDS
could 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. BIGGAR
said, 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.