§ (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
§ COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th June.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Re-engagement and Prolongation of Service.
§ Clause 81 (Re-engagement of soldiers).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 45, line 12, to leave out " as an indulgence," and insert " at any time within one year of the completion of his term of Army service."
§ COLONEL STANLEYagreed to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he had an Amendment to propose to this clause. He begged to move to leave out the words—
" A soldier of the regular forces during his period of re-engagement shall be liable to forfeit his previous service in like manner as he is liable under this part of this Act during the term of his original enlistment.He did not think that there was any necessity for inserting a provision of this kind; it would be sufficient to make a soldier lose his service during his re-engagement, without exposing him to the grievous penalty of forfeiting all his previous service. When a soldier, during the period of his original enlistment, committed an offence, he was made to forfeit all his previous service; but he could see no reason for imposing upon the soldier who had re-engaged this severe penalty of forfeiting all his service under his original enlistment. A soldier who had served but a short time could fairly be expected to earn back his forfeited service; but when an older man was made to forfeit the best part of his life which had been spent in the public service, it was an additional punishment of a very severe character. The incidence of the punishment upon a man who was made to forfeit 12 or 15 years of his life was entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. It was the general feeling of the Committee 843 that forfeiture of service was in every case a very severe punishment, and required to be very exceptionally guarded against. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had consented to put very large limitations upon that power; but when a soldier had served 12, or 14, or 15 years, there was no question that forfeiture of his service ought not to take place except under very special circumstances indeed. They could forfeit the service of a younger soldier without doing so much harm, because he had all his life before him; but to the old soldier the forfeiture of all his previous service would only drive him to despair.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he moved the rejection of that part of the clause.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the Committee would leave these words in the clause, because striking them out would introduce an inconvenient precedent between men who would be liable to forfeit their service under one engagement and the other. It should be recollected that a power had been put in the Bill to enable courts martial to recommend that a man's service should be restored to him. He thought that that recommendation ought to be given in the case of these men; and if they were anything like good men, there was no doubt a recommendation to restore their service would be given. It would be extremely inconvenient to strike these words from the clause.
§ MR. PARNELLthought the portion of the clause to which attention had been drawn was extraordinarily stringent, and that there was no necessity for it. It practically put men who re-engaged under the risk of losing not only the term of their term of re-engagement, but the whole term of their previous service. A soldier of the Regular Forces, said the clause, who should be engaged, should be liable to forfeit his previous service under the term of his original enlistment. He could not see any justification for such a provision as that in an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had justified it by saying that, in all probability, good men would be let off. But this clause only applied to good men, 844 because it provided that only good men should, on the recommendation of their commanding officers, be allowed to renew their engagements. Why should they be placed under this enormous penalty, of having to serve the whole period of their service over again? The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan seemed to him to be a very reasonable one, and one which would recommend itself to the sense of the Committee. Unless they heard some argument urged against it on the ground of practical inconvenience, he should thoroughly support it.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas of opinion that the portion of the clause to which attention had been drawn was unnecessarily severe. He did not think that in any case a man who had re-engaged should be placed under the penalty of forfeiting his previous service. This would be a very severe punishment for a man who had served 18 years, and if such a man deserted it would have the practical effect of compelling him to serve 20 years longer.
§ COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that it did not at all follow that a soldier would be called upon to serve 20 years more, as the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) had said.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that if a man had been five years clear of entries on the regimental record-book his former service was restored to him. As he understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had accepted a proposal to reduce the term of five years to two years. He certainly thought that a man's previous good service ought to be restored to him when he had been two years clear from entries on the record book.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it a very improbable and unlikely thing that an old soldier would desert. He thought, however, that it would be desirable to amend the clause. If a man of 20 years' service deserted, it would be very unfair to make him forfeit all his previous good service. Ho would suggest that the clause should be amended by omitting the word "previous," in order to substitute the word "re-engagement," before the word "service." If that were done, a man who had re-enlisted would not be liable to the forfeiture of his previous service; and, therefore, the punishment would not be 845 so severe as that contained in the clause as it at present stood.
§ COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that the words " previous service " in the clause would carry both the original service and the service after the re-engagement. It was very improbable that a man who had re-engaged would desert, and the provision was not likely, therefore, to inflict much hardship. But suppose a man deserted after 15 years' service, three of which were under a re-engagement, he did not know whether such a man ought to be liable to forfeit the 12 years' service. He thought the power should be retained, as it stood in the clause, to forfeit the whole of the previous service. No harm would be done by it, because nearly all the men who re-engaged were soldiers of good character, or non-commissioned officers.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTagreed with the view taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Suppose two soldiers were tried together for the same offence; one man might be serving under his original engagement, and the other under a re-engagement. Suppose it were said that the penalty for the offence they had committed was forfeiture of their former service; if this power were taken away, the man who was serving under his original enlistment would forfeit 10 years' previous service, but the man who had entered into a re-engagement would only forfeit, perhaps, three years' service. He thought that it would be unjust that that should be so, and that it was right the Bill should contain a power to forfeit service under a previous engagement, although it might not then be necessary to exercise it.
§ MR. RYLANDSwas not at all satisfied with the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He should contend that the cases of the two men he had put were entirely different. A man who had engaged for 12 years, and whose term of service had expired, then entered into a re-engagement for a fresh period. But his previous service should be a closed account; and if he engaged himself again, the only period for which he ought then to be liable to forfeit was service under his new engagement. Considering that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was most anxious to induce 846 good soldiers to re-enlist in the Army, he trusted he would not press this clause, for it would tend directly to prevent men from re-engaging. It should be recollected that men were at present subject to very heavy punishments for desertion. What he should contend for was that only such service as had taken place under the re-engagement should be forfeited, and that in no case ought they to go back to the other engagement.
§ MAJOR NOLANdid not think that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford understood that this clause was governed by the previous clause—76. It was argued by the hon. and learned Member that it would be unjust, in the case ho had put, to make one man forfeit a long period of service, and the other a short one; and that, no matter whether serving under a re-engagement or an original engagement, a court should have a power to make each man forfeit the same term of service. He should contend that no court should have such power; but that the court should have such power to declare the whole or part of the service to be forfeited which was being served under the then existing enlistment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had not consented to put it in the power of the court as to whether a man's service should be forfeited; but he had placed it in the option of the court to recommend a man to the mercy of the Secretary of State, as to whether the whole or a portion of a man's service should be given back to him. That would not be nearly so good for a soldier as the provision that had been suggested, for every court was very much disinclined to recommend to mercy. Therefore, the provision introduced into the Bill would not be nearly so good for the soldier if the power to restore his service were left to the court. He thought they were entitled to divide against this clause, because it provided for the forfeiture of a much longer term of service than ought to be allowed.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that it was very hard upon old soldiers to make them forfeit all their previous good service. The provision was most important, because the crime of desertion was far greater amongst old soldiers than new ones.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrepeated his suggestion that the clause should be 847 amended by substituting " re-engagement service " for " previous service." It ought to be made perfectly clear that no man should be liable to serve for 40 years.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that this section of the clause seemed to him to be a direct discouragement to reenlistment. Soldiers would not like to re-enlist for a longer term, if, by so doing, they put themselves under the liability of forfeiting all their previous service. He had the greatest possible objection to this section of the clause. He thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet would meet the case, and that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) should be withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLwas also of opinion that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy would meet the necessities of the case. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, in order to allow that of the hon. Baronet to be moved. He trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would accept this course. He wished to point out that the cases put by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford proved their case completely. He said that supposing two soldiers were serving, one under an original term of 12 years, and another under a re-engagement term, and that they had committed the same offence, that it would be unjust for one man to forfeit all his previous service, and for another man to forfeit only the service under his re-engagement. But, in reality, the power which was asked for would give the means of inflicting very great injustice on the man who had re-engaged. Such a man, in the case stated, would, for committing the same offence as the other man, forfeit a much longer period of service, for he would forfeit not only the service under his re-engagement, but his original term of service; and the sentence upon him, therefore, would be very much more severe than upon the other. He ventured to hope that the Government would accept the reasonable terms that had been suggested.
§ COLONEL BARNEhoped that the Committee would have an assurance from the right hon. and gallant Gentle- 848 man the Secretary of State for War that he was willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell).
§ COLONEL STANLEYexpressed his willingness to carry out the object of the hon. Gentleman; but thought that it might be done more conveniently by retaining the words " previous service," and inserting after them " during such period of re-engagement."
§ MR. O'DONNELLbegged to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment (Colonel Stanley) agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 82 (Continuance in service after 21 years' service).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 45, line 27, after "completed,'' to insert " or will within one year complete."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MAJOR NOLANthought that one year was a very short period to allow for a soldier to give notice. Perhaps he ought to have made this observation on the previous clause. He thought the period during which the soldier should give notice ought to be extended from one year to two years. There would be great inconvenience in limiting the notice of re-engagement to the period of one year. Perhaps he had better withdraw his Amendment then, and possibly the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not object to two years being inserted upon Report.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid that, as he read the clause, a man could not re-engage until he had completed 21 years' service. For that purpose, he had moved the Amendment to insert the words " or will within one year complete." He doubted whether it would be wise to give a man a longer time to give notice, and he was inclined to think that one year would be quite sufficient.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas rather in favour of allowing a man to give two years' notice, and he would be willing to agree to an Amendment to that efiect, unless he found it to be practically inconvenient.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether the clause was not specially meant to meet 849 the case of non-commissioned officers of long-standing who desired to remain in the Service? The only objection he had to it was that it seemed to him that the provision with regard to non-commissioned officers was too much in keeping with the usual system of non-promotion from the ranks.
THE CHAIRMANinquired whether the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had any Amendment to propose, as there was none then before the Committee?
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the next Amendment which he wished to move was on page 45, line 29, after the word " reserve " to insert '' or a soldier in the reserve whose time has been, or within one year will be, completed." This Amendment was for the purpose of enabling deserving soldiers to extend their service. Many of them knew that men at 50 or 60 might be capable of serving in their own country although not abroad; and, therefore, there ought to be facilities for men in the Reserve to extend their service so long as they were found capable. He believed that in the second Reserve Act a provision of this kind was inserted; and, perhaps, there would be no objection to putting in a corresponding provision in this Bill. The effect of his Amendment would be that a soldier in the Reserve might give notice that he desired, if his commanding officer were willing, to extend his service.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped that hon. Members would not think him hypercritical in saying that he could not accept the words of this Amendment as they stood. This clause related to Army service, and not to service in the Reserve, and a man who had served his 12 years was provided for in another part of the Bill.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the fact was, this Reserve system had been copied from the Continental, system, and when they began to alter it they ought to see that they were not altering it in a manner different from the Continental system. In the French Army, if they kept a man four years in the Reserve, he had to come up again for training. If they intended to keep a man more than six years in the Reserve, some provision ought to be introduced into the Act, by which the Secretary of State should be able to bring up men for a month or two's training. Nothing was more dangerous 850 than to follow a Continental system, and then to make little changes from it without seeing that they were in the right direction. If a Reserve man was absent more than six years from the Colours there ought to be some provision that the Secretary of State might bring him up for training. The Germans always took care that a man who was absent four or five years from the Colours should be brought up again for training. There was another question—no provision had been made as yet for regiments going abroad. They now engaged men for ridiculously short terms. Formerly, when a soldier was going abroad, he always re-engaged for three years from that time; but that was not now done, and some provision was necessary to meet the case. He trusted that the matter would be attended to on Report.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, a very important question of policy was involved by this Amendment. This clause referred to service in the Regular Forces and not in the Reserve; and if they meddled with the Reserve system, as the hon. Member proposed to do, they would introduce very important alterations. If they gave Reserve men a power to re-engage for an almost unlimited period, they made some very radical and important changes in the Acts governing this whole question. He trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that there was very great difference between the English and the Continental systems; on the Continent the service was compulsory, whether in the Army or in the Reserve, and a limit was fixed as to the liability to serve in the Reserve. In this country, they had to deal with voluntary service only. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan); it was desirable, and he hoped it would be provided as part of the system, that a man who should remain in the Reserve many years should be brought up for training in order to refresh his memory. With regard to the point as to one year, he admitted that in Section 81 there might be a question as to the liability for one year. But he did not think that any question could arise upon the present case. If there was any mistake, no doubt it could be rectified upon Report.
§ COLONEL STANLEYthought they were somewhat wasting time by debating this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, in page 45, line 31, to leave out the words " his commanding officer," in order to bring the clause into conformity with the Mutiny Act, and to leave it to the competent military authority to decide whether a soldier should be allowed to enter into a re-engagement after 21 years' service.
§ MR. PARNELLdid not think they ought at all times to follow the Mutiny Act. It did not seem to him that it would make very much difference.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the competent military authorities must be the persons who were to determine what the period of long or short service should be. No doubt, in many cases, the commanding officer would be appointed the competent military authority. But, in any case, the decision must be left to the discretion of the competent military authorities, and he saw no harm in leaving the matter as it stood.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to point out that, by the 10th clause of the Army Enlistment Act, 1877, the words " commanding officer or other competent military authority " were used. The number of men who remained in the Army after the completion of 21 years' service was infinitesimal; almost every man wished to be discharged after that period.
§ MR. PARNELLremarked, that if the expression " commanding officer " was covered by the term competent military authority," they ought not to leave the words as they stood in the clause.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that there could be no doubt that if the clause was left as it was, the recommendations of the commanding officer would be the chief guide in the matter, and the same would happen if an alteration were made.
§ MAJOR NOLANdid not think it was any use debating this point, for the commanding officer would be as much the competent military authority if the words were left out as if they were retained.
§ Amendment agreed to.
852§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that this clause allowed old and worthy soldiers to continue in the Service. In the second place, it had been admitted that this clause was intended to meet the case of non-commissioned officers who might be desirous of remaining in the Army after 21 years' service, and there was no doubt that it was a very proper thing for keeping them in the Service. He wished to move an addition to this clause, for the purpose of not only increasing the facilities for the retention of non-commissioned officers, but for the purpose of increasing the inducements to noncommissioned officers to stay in the Service after the full period of 21 years. It was very well known that there was now a complaint that when they had arrived at the rank of non-commissioned officer they could go no further, and the position of non-commissioned officers in our Army was not an encouraging one. In the German Army non-commissioned officers who had served a long time had a prior right to a certain number of places of civil employment under Government, and that gave them an inducement to stop in the Army. The inducement that he proposed to give to non-commissioned officers under this clause would, at the same time, tend to introduce into the general constitution of the Army an innovation that was in keeping with the tendency of modern times. The clause provided that soldiers might be re-enlisted, and that a soldier who had re-enlisted might be discharged at any period after giving three months' notice. The Amendment which he should propose was that non - commissioned officers, after 21 years' service, should have a right to an officer's commission on passing a qualifying examination. According to the present constitution of the Army, the arrangements as to providing for promotion from the ranks were entirely illusory. Every year only 10 commissions were placed at the disposal of the colonels of the Army for all the non-commissioned officers in an Army of 130,000 men. The result of that system was most illusory; and there was hardly, therefore, any promotion from the non-commissioned to the commissioned ranks. If they wished to induce non-commissioned officers to continue to serve in the Army, they must make provision for their retiring under favourable circumstances. The effect of 853 allowing non-commissioned officers who had served for a period of 21 years to have a right to commissioned rank, on passing a qualificatory examination, would be very good. It would not only tend to induce non-commissioned officers to stay in the Army, but it would distinctly increase the efficiency of the noncommissioned body—it would increase the efficiency of the Army generally, by inducing numbers of non-commissioned officers to hold on. It would be entirely in accordance with the spirit of modern times, which set its foot upon class distinctions, and, at the same time, recognized that there must be an educational qualification. The Amendment would not interfere in the least with the provisions of the clause with regard to privates. One very great advantage would be that they would introduce thoroughly experienced men into the commissioned ranks of the Army, instead of having, as was now too frequently the case, only very young and inexperienced men. He did not think there could be any objection to allowing men who had served 21 years with a high character, and who were able to pass a qualificatory examination, to obtain commissions.
THE CHAIRMANfelt himself under the necessity to point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment which he proposed to make did not arise upon the clause under discussion. It seemed to him that it would be more properly raised by moving a new clause. The clause before the Committee was one bearing on the service of soldiers, and the question, what constituted the qualification of non-commissioned officers to have promotion to commissions, would be according to all rules most properly raised by a new clause.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he readily acceded to the Chairman's suggestion, and he would raise the question by means of a new clause. At the same time, he would reserve himself the right of moving an Amendment embodying this principle, in case of any clause coming under discussion in which it could be legitimately introduced.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 83 (Prolongation of service in certain cases).
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that this clause was one of a very sweeping description. 854 It gave the power to continue a soldier in the Service for a year after his term of service had expired. He begged to move an Amendment. The clause provided that soldiers might be kept in the Service for a year while a state of war existed between Her Majesty and any foreign Power, or while the soldier was on service beyond the seas, or while soldiers in the Reserve were required by Proclamation to re-enter upon Army service. He would point out that they might as well give a permanent power to the Government to retain soldiers in the Service, as such a power as this. According to their recent experience, there was a continued state of war between Her Majesty's Government and some foreign Power. He would suggest that some Amendment should be made in the clause by which power should be given to Her Majesty's Government to retain soldiers in any case where they considered it necessary. That would be better than having such a cumbrous clause as this, giving them power to retain in the Service soldiers in the Regular Forces who would otherwise be entitled to their discharge. He should propose to omit from the clause the words "while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power." This clause was more particularly calculated for providing for foreign war rather than for home defence. He thought they might fairly object to give the power to continue Regular soldiers in the Service in such an indefinite way as was provided by the clause.
§ COLONEL STANLEYcould not consent to strike these words from the clause. It was really important to have this power to retain a man in the Service, because it was inconvenient to discharge or to send home a man from a regiment which was on foreign service, and the practice was to keep men for a short time at the expiration of their engagements. So far as he was aware, no objection had ever been raised to this provision, and it was one which the public necessity justified, and public necessity alone.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that under that clause a man could be kept in the Service, although not required, if a state of war existed.
§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, that the question of retaining soldiers after their period of service had expired, in emergency, was very important. It would 855 lead to considerable inconvenience, if soldiers always had to be discharged when their engagements expired. He thought the question was one which would very properly come under the consideration of the Committee now sitting; and, therefore, he thought it would be best to leave it to be dealt with by them.
§ MR. PARNELLdid not propose to press his Amendment; but he would ask whether this power did not practically give the Government means whereby to keep a man in the Service?
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas not prepared to say that could not be done. As a matter of fact, it was not done, and men were seldom kept beyond the term of their engagement.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that in consequence of the withdrawal of that Amendment, he would move another Amendment in line 1, page 46, to strike out the words, " may be detained," and to substitute for them, "the soldier may re-enlist in the Service, and his service may be prolonged." He thought that that Amendment would deprive the Government of the power of detaining men who were unwilling to stay in the Service. There ought to be no compulsion; but additional inducements should be given to soldiers to remain. They should not force men to remain in the Service at a time when they were called upon to make greater sacrifices than ever, and the proper course was to offer inducements for them to remain.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas afraid that the soldier would say, " Save me from my friends!" for the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member would be that, instead of the soldier being kept, perhaps, for three months or a year beyond the period of his old engagement, he would be re-enlisted for five or six years longer. At the present, at the end of the year a man left the Army; but, under the power proposed to be given, he would, probably, be re-enlisted for six years longer.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the only objection he could see to the clause, as it stood, arose from the vagueness of the expression "while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power." If something were done to reduce the scope of those words, the 856 objection of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would be removed. As the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had pointed out, Her Majesty was in a continual state of war with some foreign Power. He did not think that any answer had been given to the objection, for while a state of war existed the Government could retain a man in the Service. While they had a spirited Government, with a spirited foreign policy—he was not using the words in any partizan spirit — Her Majesty's Government were nearly always in a state of war, and they could always keep soldiers in the Service after their engagements had expired. At the present moment they had only King Cetewayo to deal with, and he certainly must be a foreign Power, otherwise it would not have been worth while to send 30,000 soldiers against him. They had, a little while ago, the Ameer of Afghanistan; and if the Khedive of Egypt had not abdicated, they, probably, would have had another foreign Power to have dealt with there. It seemed to him that the only course open to them was to omit those words.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he would move to insert after the words " where a state of war exists," the words " constituting an imminent national danger or great emergency." In that case he thought no one could object to the powers given by the clause. If it were necessary, the Government would then be able to keep trained soldiers for a short period in the Service but they would only be able to do that when great national reasons required it. Surely the Government could not want to take advantage of every petty power in order to retain men in the Army. If they did not want to do so there would be no objection to the Amendment. It should be recollected that they were then passing a permanent Bill, and a power like this would be exercised by every succeeding Government, some of which might be less Constitutional than the present Government.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought that there was a great deal of force in the recommendation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, for if a soldier had arrived at the completion of his service he might be detained, simply because some 857 little war was going on in India. He thought the soldier ought not to be under the liability to be detained under circumstances where his services were not required, and that, except in case of emergency or national danger, he should be discharged. The question raised by the Amendment was, he thought, well deserving of consideration. If the Amendment really interfered with the detention of a soldier in the Service anywhere where war was going on, then ho could understand the objection to its adoption, because there the existence of a national danger might be regarded as immediate. It could not, however, be very well considered to be immediate, because hostilities, perhaps, on a small scale, happened to be going on in some other, and possibly remote, part of the world; yet a soldier might, in those circumstances, under the operation of the clause as it stood, be obliged to serve for an additional 12 months.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that what those hon. Members who were in favour of the Amendment sought to secure was that a soldier should not be detained in the Army for an extra year unless his detention was really required by the necessities of the Service. He strongly objected to enabling the Government of the day to make use of the clause for the purpose of keeping a man 12 months longer in the Army when he was entitled to his discharge, or of preventing him from being transferred to the Reserve for a year merely because a state of war happened to exist between Her Majesty and any foreign Power. If the clause were passed in its present shape the Government would have a power placed in their hands which was evidently not required. He would suggest, therefore, the expediency of limiting the power which the clause would confer on the Secretary of State for War, though he was not prepared to contend that the words of the Amendment were exactly those by which the object which he had in view would best be effected. Some such words as " while he is required for active service," in lieu of the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power," would, in his opinion, meet the necessities of the case, so that the military authorities might not be allowed to detain a soldier in India merely because a war happened to be going on in South 858 Africa, or in South Africa because a war was being waged in India. If a soldier was required for active service, it would be reasonable enough to keep him in the Army for a year longer as proposed; but it would be unreasonable to do so if his services were not so required.
§ MR. CHILDERSwould like to make a suggestion which might probably have the effect of bringing the present discussion to a close. It was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman whom he saw opposite—he meant the Attorney General —should favour the Committee with his opinion as to the interpretation which should be put on the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power." He should like to know whether those words were applicable to such a war as that in which we were now engaged in South Africa, or whether they related only to the more serious hostilities in which we might be involved with some great military Power?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had asked him for his opinion, he should be happy to place it at the disposal of the Committee. It seemed to him to resolve itself into a question of fact whether Her Majesty was or was not at a particular moment involved in " a state of war with any foreign Power." If Her Majesty happened to be waging war against a foreign Power, and that Power was waging war against Her Majesty, then, undoubtedly, a state of war would exist. By way of illustration, he would say that Her Majesty was now in a state of war with Cetewayo, ac, a short time ago, a state of war existed between Her Majesty and the Ameer of Afghanistan.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) might be numbered among the supporters of the Amendment, because he could not fail to see that there was a considerable difference between a declaration of war by the Representatives of Her Majesty and by Her Majesty herself, in some respects; although, practically speaking, whatever was done by the Representatives of the Queen, in any part of the world, had all the force and effect of an act done by the Queen herself. That being so, his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) sought to provide that a soldier should not be made liable to a 859 year's additional service merely because some irresponsible person in some part of the world chose to make an attack upon a handful of savages, and so create a state of war. Such a state of things constituted, he contended, no justification for giving to the Secretary of State the power which would be conferred upon him by the clause as it stood; and he regretted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) did not seem to see his way to accepting the Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Committee did not appear to be very much in favour of the Amendment, and its terms were not, perhaps, the best which could be employed for the purpose of effecting the object which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had in view. It would be better, perhaps, to follow the wording of the Proclamation which was issued on those occasions when the Reserve was called out in times of great national danger. The fact of such a Proclamation having been issued should, in his opinion, be referred to in the clause. But the Amendment, as it stood, was, he thought, entitled to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
§ MR. O'DONNELLexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment, observing that it seemed to be admitted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the powers which the clause in its present shape would confer were too vague and general, and that they required to be limited. It gave to the Government authority to prolong for 12 months the period of service of a soldier whose time had expired, whenever there was a state of war between Her Majesty and any foreign Power. But Her Majesty was always in a state of war with some foreign Power; while, at the same time, such an emergency might not exist as to justify such an interference with the right of the soldier to his discharge, or to be passed into the Reserve, as the clause would enable the Secretary of State to exercise. He should, however, withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that some Member of the Committee might be able to propose another which would meet the circumstances of the case, and be acceptable to the Government.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLthen moved the omission from the clause, page 45, lines 860 38 and 39, of the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power or," with the view of inserting in lieu of them words providing that a soldier, who would otherwise be entitled to discharge, should be detained in the Service for 12 months longer only in cases where he was required for active service. If the words which he proposed to leave out were retained in the clause, it would, he said, be in the power of the Government to detain a soldier in the Service in any part of the world, whether there was a war going on there or not, and whether he was or was not required for active service, simply because we happened to be at war in some other part of the world. The words " while such soldier is on service beyond the seas," immediately followed those which he proposed to omit, and they would give the Government all the power which was really required, although, for his own part, he must say that he should like to have the words " beyond the seas " struck out. The effect of his Amendment would be that a soldier could be detained in the Army for a further period of 12 months after ho was entitled to his discharge only in the case of his being required for active service. In that way, provision would be made for giving the Government all the power for which, in his opinion, they could reasonably ask.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 46, line 10, to leave out the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power or." — (Mr.
Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the power which was taken in the clause was merely intended to meet the exigencies of the Service in time of war. It was a power which it might be highly necessary to exercise in the case of soldiers who were not actually engaged on active service. In the case of a war at the Cape, for instance, it might be of the utmost importance to divert to that part of Her Majesty's dominions troops that happened to be stationed in India, and, instead of sending out drafts to the battalions in India, to retain there for a few months or a year soldiers who would, under ordinary circumstances, be entitled to their discharge. For these reasons, he hoped 861 the Committee would pass the clause as it stood, and would not agree to the Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might secure all that he wanted in the matter by the substitution of words providing that a soldier might be detained in the Army for 12 months longer if he was required for active service, for those which it was proposed to omit.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it appeared to him that it would be a foolish policy to draft men from India to the Cape within a few weeks of the completion of their period of service. Soldiers whose period of service was shortly about to expire were, he should have thought, not exactly the class of men whom it was most desirable to employ in warlike operations.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 16: Majority 176.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had no wish to oppose the slightest obstacle in the way of the efficient use of Her Majesty's Forces at a time of national emergency. He was, at the same time, of opinion that the powers which were conferred by the clause on the Secretary of State were too extensive, and that they ought to be limited. He begged to move, therefore, that the following words be added to the clause—
Provided, That in all such Cases the fact of such detention, and the number of men so detained, shall be communicated to Parliament at the earliest possible date.He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consent to the addition of those words at the end of the clause.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That in all such cases the fact of such detention, and the number of men so detained, shall be communicated to Parliament at the earliest possible date."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas quite sure the hon. Gentleman would not have moved the Amendment had he not believed it to be necessary; but he, nevertheless, hoped the Committee would not, 862 for practical reasons, assent to it. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman asked that Parliament should take cognizance of a matter, which was infinitely small in comparison with the other Business which it had to transact. There were cases, he would point out, in which, in time of war, it might be deemed by the Government necessary to detain men for service in the field or abroad, instead of replacing them by drafts. Men so detained were never, as a matter of fact, kept for more than a year, sometimes only a few months, and sometimes hardly at all beyond the period at which their term of service expired. Taking the matter in a broader point of view, he would say that it was, properly speaking, one of Departmental administration which probably did not affect at any one time so many as 1,000 men. The number did not, in fact, exceed the fluctuations which were, in a single week, caused in the Army, owing to the casualties of life. Under ordinary circumstances, it would not, of course, be necessary to detain men in the Army after their period of service had expired; and he would point out that it could be only after the fact that the retention of their services for a year longer would come to the knowledge of Parliament. Then and there, the conduct of the Minister reponsible for the administration of the Department might, if his action was deemed to be open to objection, be assailed; but it would, he thought, be a great mistake for the Committee to interfere in the way proposed by the Amendment on a point which was one, properly speaking, of a purely administrative detail. If the Minister, to whom the power which the clause conferred was intrusted abused it, then let him be displaced. That course could not too soon be taken; but something must be left to the discretion of the Minister in a matter of comparatively minute Departmental arrangement, and he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINshould be sorry to give the Committee the trouble of dividing on his Amendment if, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think, it dealt with only an "infinitely small" matter. As he understood the Bill, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to him to have 863 under-estimated the effect of the clause, and to be unaware of the enormous powers which he was asking the Committee to confer upon the Secretary of State. The clause would enable the Secretary of State to retain for service at his sole will, while a state of war existed, the whole of the troops who would otherwise be entitled to be transferred to the Reserve; and he could not help thinking that that had not been quite correctly described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as an infinitely small matter. Ho would only add that other War Ministers might not be so scrupulous as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he, therefore, objected to giving them the powers which the clause would confer. Under all the circumstances of the case, he should feel it his duty to press his Amendment to a Division.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had listened attentively to the reasons which had been given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for objecting to the Am end-meat; and that he could not help thinking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had altogether failed to meet the position which was taken up by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He should like to know in what way the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be hampered in the discharge of his duties as Secretary of State for War by the knowledge that his conduct would be liable to revision by Parliament? He did not see how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's authority and power could, in consequence, be in the slightest degree impaired. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it was only after a man had been retained in the Army at the expiration of his period that Parliament would become acquainted with the fact of such retention. He was well aware that that was the case, and that it was seldom Parliament was afforded the opportunity of shutting the stable door before the steed was stolen. But the fear of Parliament and of public opinion might, nevertheless, have some effect on the action of the Government. At all events, it would not be well, in his opinion, to relinquish the power of control which Parliament ought to have in the matter; and, looking at it from that point of view, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham appeared to him to be a 864 very judicious one, and one which was entitled to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the power which was intended was one of a comparatively trival nature, and was practically the same as that which was already vested in the Secretary of State with regard to recruiting. It was the duty of the Secretary of State for War to see that there were a certain number of men in the Army, and it was necessary that he should be able, especially at a time when the country was actually at war, to meet the fluctuations of the Service by taking upon himself the responsibility of detaining men in the Army for a period not exceeding one year after the period of their service had expired. The real question was, whether it was wise and right that the Secretary of State should have that power under the circumstances contemplated in the clause? It might be of the greatest importance that he should be able to exercise such a power at a particular time, and a matter of the kind ought to be left to the discretion of those by whom a great Department was administered; otherwise, what could be the use of having such an officer as the Secretary of State for War?
§ MR. RYLANDSwas sure the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must have mistaken the object of the Amendment. He had had the pleasure of supporting the Government, a few minutes previously, by voting in favour of giving them certain powers which, no doubt, they would exercise on their own responsibility; but all that those who were in favour of the present Amendment asked was, that after those powers had been so exercised, Parliament should be informed of what had been done. The matter, so far from being a trivial one, was one which affected something like one-twelfth of the whole Army. The power which was conferred by the clause was, therefore, a very considerable one; and he might point out to the Committee that he held in his hand a Return precisely of the nature of that for which his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham now asked. On looking at that Return, he found stated there the terms of the re-engagements and retentions for the Service for the year 1877; and it was quite evident that the Government could lay on the Table of the House a similar Return, giving full in- 865 formation as to the number of men who might be detained in the Army for one year under the operation of the present clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had spoken of the question as being one of Departmental administration; but it was a well known fact that behind the Secretary of State for War there were permanent officials who controlled, to a greater extent even than the occupants of the Treasury Bench, the administration of the Army.
§ MR. J. BROWNhoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would withdraw his Amendment, which seemed to him (Mr. J. Brown) to be useless. The power which the clause would confer was exactly the same as was given by the 111th Article of the Mutiny Act. The hon. Member for Birmingham looked upon the question raised by his Amendment as being a very important one; but he did not concur in that view. If it really was a very important one, due Notice of the Amendment ought to have been given, and it ought to have been placed upon the Notice Paper, so that the Committee might have had time to consider it. He ventured to think, however, that the matter was not of that great importance which the hon. Member seemed to suppose; and he entirely concurred in what had been said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with respect to it.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he never knew an instance in which an hon. Member had pronounced so decided an opinion as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had done as to the merits of a question which was being discussed in that House, without advancing the slightest argument in support of that opinion. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Mutiny Act, had made a few gestures in the direction of the Treasury, and had, in that off-hand fashion, disposed of the question—quod erat demonstrandum. Such a style of argument was absurd. The hon. Member for Birmingham asked that Parliament should be furnished with such information as would enable it to revise the action of any of the military authorities by whom the number of men serving in the Army might be needlessly increased, and neither of the right hon. Gentlemen who addressed the Com- 866 mittee from the Treasury Bench had touched the real question at issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department wanted to know of what use a Secretary of State for War could be if he were not intrusted with such a power as the clause would confer? But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment before the Committee would not, if carried, deprive the Secretary of State for War of that power. The Committee was, however, asked by the Government to go further, and to be silent while they were denying to the House of Commons the power of revising the action of the Secretary of State. It was absurd, in his opinion, to attempt to convince the Committee that the clause was a right and proper one by arguments so fallacious as those which had been advanced in support of it.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, it would be an extraordinary innovation to introduce into the proceedings of the House in Committee that every Amendment which was proposed should be placed on the Notice Paper, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) seemed to think it should be, before it could be discussed. It was only two or three days before that the Government had postponed two of the most important clauses of the Bill without having given the Committee any Notice whatever of their intention to do so. That was not simply a case of moving an unexpected Amendment, but of withdrawing from discussion provisions constituting the very essence of the Bill, when hon. Members had come down to the House prepared to discuss them. If the Committee was taken by surprise on the present occasion, the last person to complain should be the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeing what a surprise he had given the House on the previous Wednesday.
§ MR. PARNELLshould like to know why it was that the Government declined to give Parliament information which it was clearly entitled to have? Why should they refuse to say in what way they proposed to work the clause? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had, indeed, told the Committee something as to the way in which he intended to work it 867 but the question with which the Committee had to deal was the powers which the clause, if passed in its present form, would confer upon a Secretary of State. The clause would give very extensive powers indeed. It would enable the Secretary of State for War to prolong the period of service of all the Regular soldiers of the Army for a year. That was a very great power, and one which might be used by a Minister to increase the number of men in the Army very materially. He did not mean to say that the present Secretary of State for War would do that; but other Ministers had used the powers with which Parliament intrusted them very extensively. In a recent case, in which it had been decided that the Crown could not call out the Volunteers on foreign service, the Lord Chancellor gave a contrary decision, and the Volunteers were called out. That was a case in which the Act of Parliament was stretched, and he knew no reason for supposing that the present or some future Government might not stretch the clause under discussion in the way which he had indicated. If the Government did not intend to use the clause, what objection could there be to giving the Returns which were asked for? If they did use it, but so seldom that the number of men affected by it was very few, then why should there not be a Return made of that number, in order that Parliament might see how the Government were employing the power which they possessed? Why should they, he would repeat, object to a harmless and necessary Amendment like that of the hon. Member for Birmingham? The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) had referred the Committee to the Mutiny Act; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee were engaged in discussing the present Bill, because it had been found necessary to alter that Act. He would now ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether it would not be possible for him, under the operation of the clause, to exceed the number of men serving in the Army authorized by the Mutiny Act? Indeed, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted that it would; and, therefore, the Committee was entitled to ask that the power which the clause would confer should be limited. But as the Secretary of State 868 for War had declined to accept any suggestion which had been made with that object, he hoped he would, at all events, assent to the proposal that Parliament should, from time to time, be informed what use the Secretary of State might make of the clause.
§ MR. O'DONNELLshould like to know how, unless some provision were made in the clause for the purpose, Parliament was to obtain the knowledge which would be necessary in order to enable it to revise the action of the Government in the exercise of the power which the clause would confer upon them? If a Question were put in that House as to the number of men who were detained in the Army after the expiration of their period of service, did not the experience of hon. Members show that an answer might be returned to that Question which would leave the questioner just about as wise as he was before he put it? Suppose the hon. Member who asked the Question, having good reason to believe that the Secretary of State had misused the power with which he was intrusted, was dissatisfied with the answer of the Minister, was he to move the adjournment of the House in order to express that dissatisfaction? Hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House had given only very recently those who sat opposite to them a severe lesson for presuming to be dissatisfied with the answer of a Member of the Government. Well, if an hon. Member proceeded in that which the occupants of the Ministerial Benches would, no doubt, consider the most unexceptionable and legitimate way, and asked the Government to grant him a day for the discussion of a matter which involved the question of the misuse of the power intrusted to him by the Secretary of State, the probable reply would be that the Government had so much precious Business of their own to transact, and could not possibly set apart a day for the disagreeable purpose of calling in question the conduct of the military authorities. How, then, could the action of the Secretary of State be revised by the House, seeing that the production of the necessary information was not made obligatory by the clause, and that the Government had got such a thick-and-thin majority at their back? Hon. Members knew very well how the supporters of the Go- 869 vernment flocked into the House when a Division was called, and without having heard a word of the discussion, or without looking to the merits of the case, followed the orders of their Whip and did whatever he told them. Now, any question which might be raised as to the misuse of his authority by the Secretary of State under the operation of the present clause would be sure to be treated in a similar way by the obedient majority at the back of the Government. Therefore, unless it was made obligatory by Act of Parliament that the necessary information should be furnished, neither the House nor the country could hope to obtain it. It was quite clear—and, indeed, it had been admitted by the Secretary of State for War himself—that there might be a great abuse of the power given by raising the number of men serving in the Army to a point beyond that which was sanctioned by Parliament; and, unless that House had some other means of learning to what extent the power had been used, it would be kept in the dark on a most important matter, because the Government would not be likely to supply it with the necessary information voluntarily. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, coming to the assistance of his military Colleague, began by saying that it was a trivial matter, but ended by saying that it was one which was very important. Now, either of those reasons for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment might be very good, taken by itself; but the two taken together appeared to him to be mutually destructive of one another. He could not understand why the Committee should refuse to give facilities for obtaining information which it was really so desirable to have, not only in the interest of the Army, but of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not expect to be always in a majority. There might be a Liberal Secretary of State for War one of these days; sooner, perhaps, than they expected; and it was in their interest, as well as in that of those who sat on the Opposition Benches, that the Amendment was moved. He would express a hope, therefore, though it was almost impossible to entertain it, that they would for once break loose from their mechanical obedience to the Government, and support the very reason- 870 able proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was quite clear that while a state of war existed between Her Majesty and any foreign Power, and the Reserve was called out by Proclamation, there was necessity for communicating the fact specially to Parliament. There was, however, an essential difference between the wording of the two sections of the clause which he should like to have explained. According to the wording of the 1st section, a soldier, on his discharge, might be detained in the Army after the expiration of his period of service for any time not exceeding 12 months " while he is on service beyond the seas; " but in the 2nd section the words were " on active service beyond the seas."
MR . MORGAN LLOYDwished to know, before the Committee went to a Division on the clause, whether what had been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) as to a statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to the effect that the clause, as it stood, would enable the Government to increase the number of troops in the Army beyond the limit annually sanctioned by Parliament was correct? If so, the matter was one of very serious importance, and the information asked for by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) ought, he thought, to be communicated to the House. He would call the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to the point, and if there was any doubt about it, he hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) would have been more worthy of attention if it had been couched in different terms. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Amendment as being entirely useless, and objected to its having been brought forward without Notice. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that it constantly occurred in the course of the proceedings of the House in Committee that Amendments were moved on the spur of the moment arising out of something which took place during the progress of discussion. The Amendment now before the Committee was a conse- 871 quential Amendment arising out of that which had just before been moved by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and which had been rejected. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was correct in thinking that the Amendments related to an unimportant matter, he could not see why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so strongly objected to it. It could, in that case, do no harm, while there would clearly be no unfairness in bringing forward a harmless Amendment without Notice, so that it could not justly be held to be open to the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for Horsham, who appeared to think that the Amendment would be useless, because it was simply intended to obtain information from Parliament. That was a doctrine which ho should not be surprised to hear enunciated by an hon. Member sitting on the opposite Benches; but he was, ho must confess, somewhat astonished that an hon. Gentleman sitting on the Liberal side of the House, especially after the experience which the House had of recent events, should think it was a serious objection to an Amendment that it was meant to secure information for Parliament. He was disposed to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who now filled the Office of Secretary of State for War every credit for desiring to take Parliament into his confidence; but he could not forget that not long since troops had been brought from India to Malta without any previous information having been given to Parliament on the subject. He did not propose by his Amendment, however, to impose upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so great a duty as would be implied in the necessity of furnishing Parliament with information in a case of that kind. All that he asked was that Parliament should be enabled to know to what extent the power which was conferred upon the Secretary of State by the clause under discussion was exercised. It was quite absurd to say that the powers of the clause were trivial and unimportant. In the first place, it was perfectly competent for any Secretary of State for War to increase the Army under the clause without giving Notice to Parliament. And, again, it was very likely to happen that the Secretary of VState for War might, on his own motion, break 872 what was practically a contract with one-twelfth of the Army, and that without the knowledge of Parliament either before or subsequently to the change. He would only add, in final answer to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown), that he should be quite prepared to withdraw his Amendment, be it important or unimportant, whenever important reasons were given for its rejection.
SIR GEORGE CAMPPELLdrew the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the term " active service," in page 46, line 11, which was, doubtless, an error in the drafting.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwas under the impression that the term should be " service " only, and would have it corrected.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 206: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 84 (In imminent national danger, Her Majesty may continue soldiers in or require soldiers to re-enter Army Service).
§ MR. O'DONNELLcertainly did not condemn the provision of this clause which provided, in case of imminent national danger, that there should be the power to require soldiers to continue in or reenter the Army Service, nor did he object to the provision which required that the occasion of such imminent danger should be communicated to Parliament. But he did object to the provision which allowed Government to dispense with the communication to Parliament, and substitute Proclamation in pursuance of an Order of Her Majesty in Council. He could not help thinking that this provision came down from times when it was very difficult to re-assemble Parliament. At the present time, however, no such difficulty existed, and the first thing Government should do, when a case of imminent national danger arose, if Parliament was not sitting, was to call it together. He was, therefore, of opinion that this should appear in the Bill, instead of the authority to substitute Proclamation in pursuance of an Order of Her Majesty in Council. He, therefore, moved to leave out from line 20, page 46, all the words from "if," down 873 to the word " Council," in line 22, inclusive. The clause would then run—
It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency, the occasion being first communicated to Parliament, to direct from time to time that all persons enlisted under this Act, &c.Thus, he held, would sufficient care be taken for the interests of the nation as against an external enemy on one hand, and in the interests of the nation as against the Government on the other. If the Government were always obliged to communicate with Parliament the occasion of what it considered to be imminent national danger, it was quite clear that a most useful check would be imposed on the carrying out of a policy of adventure; and when he called to mind the numerous and urgent complaints which had been raised in recent years against the manner in which Government had taken advantage of the separation of Parliament for the Recess or for Holidays to commence upon a new and startling policy, he could not but believe that his Amendment would be largely supported, at any rate, upon the Liberal side of the House. At the present time, there was no reason why Parliament should not be assembled with sufficient expedition to grant all necessary authority to the Government for the legitimate defence of the interests of the country.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not consent to the omission of words which had been adopted by Parliament after deliberate discussion, and introduced by Lord Cardwell in his Enlistment Act of 1870. He (Colonel Stanley) conceived them to have been very properly introduced in the present Bill, and believed that, had Lord Cardwell thought it necessary that Parliament should be consulted during the Recess, he would not have put those words into the Act of 1870. There was on that occasion great discussion. It was felt that there might be a time when the Secretary of State for War might have to act on his own responsibility, and that, as Parliament must be called together very shortly afterwards to vote the necessary Supplies, it would be certain to have an early opportunity of confirming the policy of the Government. But it was thought, on the other hand, that to limit the Government and say that the Reserves should only be called out when Parliament was actually sitting, 874 would be, in many cases, to let slip time which might be of vital importance to the welfare of the country, and thereby lead to greatly increased expenditure. Such were the reasons which induced Lord Cardwell to place these words in the Act of 1870, from which they had been taken and renewed in this Bill without any alteration. Under the circumstances, it would be his duty to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the analogy between the circumstances referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and those contemplated by the present clause began and ended with the words imminent national danger or great emergency. " 'With regard to the extension of service when Parliament was not sitting, he could not admit that any argument had been advanced in its favour. It was to be borne in mind that the preceding clause just carried authorized the Government to extend the time of the soldier's service for a period of one year, which, in his opinion, was sufficient. But when it became a matter of extending a soldier's service to double the term of his original enlistment, he thought that Parliament should certainly be consulted before the Government were allowed to exercise the powers given by the clause. For those reasons, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be accepted. There was an opinion among many people that the tendency of the governing classes in this country was, if possible, to get the Army into their own hands, in order to use it for the purpose of taking away the liberties of the people, and, of course, that contention would be very powerfully aided by the principle sought to be established by this clause, that the Executive Government should be able to advise Her Majesty to double the period of Army Service after the Prorogation of Parliament.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that these clauses dealing with enlistment were contained in the Enlistment Act of 1870, when they were fully considered by Parliament, end he regretted very much that the Government had put them into the present Bill. The Amendment before the House was not upon the Paper; and he ventured to say that this course of raising Amendments on the spur of the moment, however neces- 875 sary they might be, had been followed with five-sixths of the Amendments proposed to the present Bill. The practice had been going on during the progress of the Bill to a very inconvenient extent, and he did not think it fair that Amendments should be brought up in the way referred to. The hon. Member who had just sat down said that the clause would enable Government to re-enlist men for the term of their original enlistment—that was to say, for 12 years more, without the control of Parliament. But was this a thing which could be done in the dark? He (Sir William Harcourt) knew perfectly well that Parliament would have the knowledge of what was going on; and if it should be of opinion that enlistment ought to go beyond the four or five months that had, perhaps, elapsed, it would say so when the Estimates were brought before it. Therefore, he was unable to see that any practical grievance existed with regard to the clause, and he was quite sure that had the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) looked into the matter a little further he would not, upon the spur of the moment, have proposed this Amendment. The clause which was now before the Committee, as well as a number of those which followed it, had been fully considered when the Enlistment Act of 1870 was passed; and, that being so, he asked whether the Committee ought to go on discussing them so minutely, and trying to alter Acts which had been so fully considered, and so recently prepared, as the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill? Ho entreated the Committee to leave the enlistment clauses alone, and allow them to pass.
§ MR. PARNELLthought there was a great deal of force in what bad been said by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) with reference to the particular Amendment before the Committee; because he did not see how, if it were accepted, Her Majesty could be placed in a position to deal with a great national emergency, if it was necessary to wait until Parliament was summoned before the Reserves were called out. It might happen, although it was not very likely, that the country was about to be invaded; but, in that case, it would be known beforehand what was going to occur, because it would be necessary to get together ships, as well as soldiers and sailors. The kind of 876 national dangers and emergencies, however, likely to arise, was something like the sending over to the Bosphorus last year, when the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had taken up an entirely different position from that which he held on the present occasion. At the time referred to, the objections to the Government policy of not consulting Parliament were pointed out by the hon. and learned Member, and by his right hon. Associates, in the most able and eloquent speeches; but he was now showing the Committee that the control of Parliament could not possibly be availed of. Anyone, of course, was at liberty to change his opinion, and he had no objection to a change of opinion on the part of the hon. and learned Member. The clause, in his opinion, gave power to Government to enter into war, and to put troops into the field for the purpose of carrying it on, without consulting Parliament; and it was of great importance to consider this power, because it was well known that Government could always find money for the purpose of war. For instance, how were they carrying on the 'war at the Cape? They had long since spent the money voted, and yet they were still going on with it. Again, how were they bringing home the troops from India? There must be many ways by which Government could get money; and, of course, when once war had been entered upon, the country was obliged, so to speak, to stick to them. These considerations had, no doubt, been present in the mind of the hon. Member for Dungarvan when he proposed his Amendment; but he (Mr. Parnell) could not help thinking that there might arise a time when it would be of great importance to the country to have the power contained in this clause. He was afraid the Committee would have to leave these powers to the Government, great as they were, and possibly to be used, as they might be, in such a way as to avoid consulting Parliament until, at all events, the mischief had been done. He was quite sure that the progress of the Bill had not been delayed by his not putting his Amendments on the Paper, although ho pleaded guilty to having omitted to do this. Had he put all his Amendments on the Paper, they would have been much more numerous than those which he had proposed to the Committee. He did not at 877 all agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford that, because the Enlistment Act was passed in 1870, when none of the opponents of the present Bill were in the House, that imperfections, when they were found, should not be amended. The Government themselves had shown that there were imperfections in the Bill, because they had introduced several Amendments into it; and, besides, while the hon. and learned Member was absent from the House, the Committee had passed several Amendments of a beneficial character which were not on the Paper, because they were obviously useful and important. As far as the present Amendment was concerned, he thought it would not be wise for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to press it to a Division, because it would, if adopted, limit the power of the Crown in cases where there might be real emergency and danger.
§ MR. O'DONNELLcould not conscientiously withdraw his Amendment. He quite agreed with the general tenour of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford with regard to the Amendments of hon. Members; but, somehow or other, a custom had grown up of leaving very little time for placing Amendments on the Paper. The Amendment which ho had just moved had been in his mind for some time; he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not occur to him on the spur of the moment, and it had been his impression that it would receive the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Party, because he thought that it was the very objection which had been brought against Lord Beaconsfield's policy, that he always embarked the country in foreign expeditions and afterwards came to Parliament. He did not think that objection had ever been raised in the House with so much eloquence and effect as on the front Opposition Bench. He felt a little disappointed at the change which had taken place in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, and thought that, inasmuch as the front Opposition Bench now deliberately agreed that the matters in question ought to be settled without consulting Parliament, it should be taken note of that they gave up nine-tenths of the contention which it had been raising against Her Majesty's Government for the last three years. 878 On this ground he trusted that, although he might have given a little trouble by raising the present question, he should deserve the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for the brilliant vindication of Lord Beaconsfield just elicited from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The hon. and learned Member had said that any person must see premonitory symptoms for months and weeks before an attack was made upon this country; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) wanted to guard against the possible chance of a Government being in power which would regard a trifling emergency, such as picking a quarrel, as a reason for calling out the Forces to guard the honour of the country, and afterwards for coming to Parliament and saying—" Our Army is in the field, our flag is waving, and will true-hearted Britons open their purse-strings? " Of course, he well knew that true-hearted Britons would pay, and the Government would be supported. He wished the Amendment to be put to the Committee, but did not intend to proceed to a Division.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Discharge and Transfer to Reserve Force.
§ Clause 85 (Transfer of soldier to Reserve when corps ordered abroad) agreed to.
§ Clause 86 (Discharge or transfer to Reserve).
§ MR. O'DONNELLcould not see why the distinction was drawn by this clause, in regard to a free passage to the United Kingdom, between soldiers who wished to be sent home and those who were permitted to stay at the place where they were serving at the time they became entitled to their discharge. He, therefore, intended to move to leave out the words " not afterwards have any claim," in line 18, page 47, in order to insert the words " equally entitled." Why should the Government not pay the passage of men discharged abroad, who, thinking they saw a chance of earning a livelihood at the place where they were discharged, wanted to remain, but who were afterwards obliged to come home to the United Kingdom? Why should the Government pay the passage of the man who came home immediately, 879 and not that of the soldier who came back in six months? He thought the Government ought to accept his Amendment.
§ COLONEL STANLEYhoped he should not be considered discourteous in asking the Committee not to accept the Amendment. Under this clause a soldier had a perfect option, when discharged abroad, either to come home or, at his own request, to stop where he was serving. He held it would be perfectly monstrous to say that a soldier should have the power at any time to come down upon the Government for a passage, say, from the Cape. The clause was perfectly well understood by the men; there had been no complaint as to the operation of it, and he trusted it would be accepted by the Committee without alteration.
§ MR. BIGGARheld that the operation of the proposed Amendment would be beneficial to the Government. It was well known that a number of men would try their chance in the Colonies; but, having no option in the case, they were simply obliged to come home, rather than stay with the risk of having to pay the whole cost of the passage home to the United Kingdom. While, on the one hand, it could not possibly end in loss to the Government, it would be a great advantage to some of the discharged soldiers that they should be able to get a free passage home after remaining for some time in the Colonies.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 87 (Delivery of soldier on discharge with his wife and child at workhouse, or of dangerous lunatic at asylum).
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, the principles contained in this clause were rather Connected with the Poor Law of the country than with military questions. The clause dealt with lunatic soldiers, and provided what was to be done with them after discharge from the Army. Under the provisions of the clause, a lunatic soldier, with his wife and children, were to be sent to the parish in which the soldier was born. Now, he considered that a very unfair arrangement; and he proposed, instead, that a lunatic soldier should be sent, if possible, to the place at which he spent 880 the last 12 months before his enlistment. There seemed to be a general feeling in the House that when a man had spent a certain portion of his life in a particular parish, that parish should provide for him. The principle, that when a soldier became a lunatic he should be maintained at the expense of any particular parish, appeared to him doubtful. He should have thought that a lunatic soldier ought to be maintained out of monies voted by Parliament, under the Army Estimates. He begged to move the insertion, in line 88, page 47, after the word " to," of the words—
" Any parish in which the soldier has resided at any period before his enlistment for twelve months; but, supposing the parish in which the soldier has last spent twelve months cannot be ascertained, then to any parish in the United Kingdom where he appears by his attestation paper to have been attested.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSregretted that the Amendment had not been placed on the Paper, for then he would have had an opportunity of consulting with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the subject. He would suggest, not that they should postpone the clause, but that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, leaving the Government to consider the matter before the Report, as this matter would require some communication between the two Offices.
§ MAJOR NOLANreplied, that if the Government held out any hope that they were going to accept the principle of his Amendment, he was perfectly willing to postpone it till the Report. He did not care about the words of his Amendment at all; but the principle was a very simple one—one which ought to be discussed in Committee.
§ MR. SCLATER -BOOTHobserved, that there were practical difficulties in the way of carrying out this Amendment; but there would be no difficulty in making the power of removal conform to the general law.
§ MAJOR NOLANstated, that he proposed the Amendment from his recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on another Bill, when the question of the removability or irremovability of paupers was being discussed. He then suggested that a man who had resided 12 months in a parish should have a claim on that parish. He (Major Nolan) 881 now proposed the same law in regard to soldiers. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to move something of the same sort in better words he should be very happy to withdraw his Amendment.
SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that in discussing the question of the removability of paupers he might have suggested a 12 months' limit; but this suggestion, which had to do with the removability of lunatic soldiers, was another matter. It might be a very serious hardship to carry out the proposed rule.
Mr. O'CONNOR, POWERthought the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) might be granted without any fear of coming into collision with the existing law. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was accurate in saying it could not be carried out. He remembered very well all the discussions which had taken place in the present Parliament on the question of poor removal, and he remembered that one point suggested was the difficulty of proving that paupers had not come over from Ireland a short time before and quartered themselves on English and Scotch Unions. There could be no such difficulty in determining the case of the soldier, for his previous career was known, and they could always determine the parish in which he had claim. There was always a difficulty in settling what general claim a man had, and it had often been complained by hon. Members representing sea-ports on the Western coasts of England that if the Law of Removal were altered, greater facilities would be given to the Irish to come over and quarter themselves upon those parishes; but about the soldier there could be now no doubt at all of the general claim he could establish; and he would ask the Committee what would be more likely to discourage recruiting in the Army than to find a soldier lame or blind coming home and resting in the workhouse of his native place, where all his friends were, and that the fact should be known that, after giving his life and his liberty to his country, he had come back as a burden on his native parish? He thought that the present system was a very great hardship, and that a principle should be laid down of sending a soldier to the parish in which he 882 was attested and recruited. In all probability he had been previously in that parish for some period, devoting himself to industrial work, which gave him a claim upon the community. He should listen with very great respect to any arguments of the right hon. Gentleman; but, surely, he did not mean to contend that men travelled long distances in order to be attested. Men would not go far to seek a recruiting sergeant; and he did not think there was any part of England in which they need go far to find one. Therefore, he maintained that the place in which a man was recruited was that on which he had a claim for relief.
§ MR. MUNTZdid not think this proposal would be at all fair. Men very often went into a parish and enlisted there, and it would be very hard to throw the burden in that case on that parish. He would suggest, however, that the clause did require some alteration.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHoffered, if the Amendment were withdrawn, to consider whether anything could be done in the matter; but pointed out that the term "settlement" had, by recent legislation, been altered so as to be equivalent to "a status of irremovability."
§ MR . PARNELLremarked that the position in which they found themselves was a very good example of the inconvenience resulting from the steps taken by the President of the Local Government Board to settle this very important question of the removability of paupers. This clause was brought from the old Mutiny Act, and it embodied all the old imperfections of the law; and yet they were now asked to accept it when there was an easy way out of the difficulty. He was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman had moved for the Committee of which he gave Notice on this subject. He was told that there was a Committee sitting on this question, and they ought to put off deciding until that Committee had reported. Any delay which might arise was certainly not the fault of the Irish Members, but of the Local Government Board, for this question had been repeatedly brought before Parliament and they had been put off with excuses; and, finally, instead of the grievances which undoubtedly and admittedly did exist being remedied, they were put off with 883 a Select Committee. If they were to save any time, he did not see how they could take any other course than that of postponing the clause. It raised questions of the greatest magnitude, and it was impossible to deal satisfactorily with it until they knew the intentions of the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the general legislation concerning the removability of paupers. They were asked to send a lunatic soldier to a workhouse. That was not a proper place for him. If he was to go anywhere he should go to a lunatic asylum, provided at the expense of the State; and he should not be maintained at the expense of the parish in which he was attested. As it was pointed out, the soldier might have only been there a very short time. The right hon. Gentleman offered to consider the Amendment on the Report; but that Amendment only raised one of the questions contained in this clause, and it would be far more satifactory to wait for the Report and then to consider a matter of this magnitude. He really would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the postponement of this clause, especially as he had postponed several others, and they would then have an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman must have some views. Did he propose to wait for the Report of the Select Committee? If that was so, what was the good of going on now? In reality, the Report was not required at all, for these grievances existed and were patent to everybody. They had occurred over and over again, and large expenses in consequence had been thrown on the rates for the maintainance of soldiers who had passed the best portion of their lives in Her Majesty's Service. He remembered, several years ago, a work which interested him very much, called The Soldier's Daughter, Wife, and. Widow. It referred to the Crimean War, and the end of the story was that the girl finally became chargeable to the parish. It certainly was a very fair finish to the gallant services the soldier rendered that, after his death, his wife should be left a pauper. But was it not more ignominious that he should be himself left chargeable to the parish after his own services with the Army, because he had the misfortune to become a lunatic? 884 There were many other imperfections in this clause, which he would not detain the Committee over at this time; and he hoped the Government would accept his proposition, as otherwise they might be engaged in a discussion which must be most protracted and difficult. He begged to move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Parnell.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdid not at all say that this clause should be postponed in order to insert fresh words, but in order to make the removability of soldiers identical with the removability of paupers. His object would be to make the removals exactly in accordance with the existing law. He should be very glad if the Committee which was now sitting on this subject had reported before. They were certainly making progress. Ho was surprised at what had been said, when he remembered that his Motion for the Committee had been blocked for two months by a Notice of objection given by the lion. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Ho also wished to correct a mistake. The practice of the Service was to retain these lunatics in the hospital, and only when over-full were they removed to their parishes. That was the existing practice, and, no doubt, it would be continued.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, within the last 12 months he had brought under the notice of the Department the case of a soldier not born in Ireland; but who, having served 28 years in India, became a lunatic and was sent to the parish of Dunis. Complaint was made, and the correspondence was on record. The notice of the Government was called to the subject by the late Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing); and he was informed by that hon. Member that he was received with but scant courtesy, and no notice whatever was taken of his letters and representations. He added that his experience was that the practice as described by the right hon. Gentleman was not carried out.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think the statement of his right hon. Friend had been thoroughly understood. His statement was to the effect that a Committee was now sitting to decide this point; but, in the meantime, he was 885 perfectly willing to frame the clause so as to provide that soldiers should be treated in the same way as any other pauper lunatics. When the law was altered, of course this law would be brought into accordance with it.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to make an explanation with regard to the charge made against him by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). That charge was that for two months he had blocked his Motion on this subject. If that was so, it was entirely unknown to him. The circumstances of the case were shortly these. When the right hon. Gentleman placed his Notice on the Paper, he was of opinion that there was no necessity for the Committee, as the grievance was so thoroughly understood. However, his hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for LimeriCk (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) being very much interested in this matter, came to him and asked him to withdraw it. He agreed to do so; and shortly after he asked that hon. Gentleman to go to the Clerk at the Table and take the Amendment off the Notice Paper. He said that he would, and he supposed that he had done so; he himself was away in Ireland at the time, and it was entirely without his knowledge that the Notice remained on the Paper, because he supposed that his lion. Friend would have at once executed the commission.
§ MR. P. MARTINobserved, that there was some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause, and when it was pointed out he thought the Government might, perhaps, accede to the suggestions already made. The clause conferred a new power on the Secretary of State, which, at present, he did not possess. Was it in accordance with the spirit of our laws, or the dictates of humanity, that the soldier who became affected in mind, perchance from exposure on active service, should be liable on his return, if destitute, to be thus arbitrarily sent to his place of birth? His wife and children, too, might be taken from old friends and associations. It was especially unfair to Ireland. Under the Codes regulating the removal of Irish-born poor, the authorities in England were not entitled to send over destitute persons of Irish birth, who had become lunatics, to Ireland. The sending, by the Scotch authorities, of those dangerous lunatics to Ireland had been con- 886 demned as cruel, illegal, and unjust. Remonstrances had been made by more than one Irish Chief Secretary, in his official capacity, against the practice. Yet, what might be the effect of this section, if sanctioned by the Committee? A soldier born in Ireland, who had left when a child, resided for many years and married in England, then served his country as a good soldier for the best part of his life, could, if he became a lunatic, be sent, with his wife and children, even though they had a settlement in England, to the parish where lie had been born. This would be, in its operation, most inequitable and unjust. Why should parishes which furnished soldiers be subjected to those burdens. He would ask the Committee whether the proper course was not to act in analogy to the principle laid down in the Poor Laws, and to let the State which had the advantages of the services of the soldier also provide for him? Why should not the State be charged with the soldier's maintenance? There was not, it was said, at the present time, sufficient accommodation. It might be provided. It was a great hardship, he thought, that this state of things should be allowed to prevail, and it certainly was not retained to the honour of this country. Very often these illnesses were brought on by the services of the soldier to the State, and the State certainly ought to care for his declining years. He was perfectly ready to accept any suggestion from the front Bench, because he was perfectly sure it was well-intentioned; but they ought not to wait for any Report of this Committee, because he knew, as one of its Members, that its Report would be powerless to touch the principles set down in this clause. In its operation the clause would affirm principles more than once rejected by the House. It had been introduced without consideration as to its practical effect; and he did trust that they would have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be amended.
§ SIR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, they were practically creating a new Law of Settlement which did not merely affect broken down men or lunatics who might be discharged from the British Army, but also affected every parish where there was a depôt centre. Looking at this question from another point of view, he 887 was almost ashamed to find the way in which they dealt with men who had served the country well in tropical climes, and had become mentally affected from no fault of their own, but from the service they had gone through. Yet they were going to treat these men as pauper lunatics. Soldiers who had fought for their country in Afghanistan and Zululand were to be treated as paupers, and made dependent on the eleemosynary contributions of the district in which they were born. He protested against any such doctrine, and maintained that they owed a debt of gratitude to these men for services which could not be discharged in this way.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was evident this clause would postpone itself, as it was then nearly 7 o'clock. This was a very important question, exciting a good deal of feeling, both inside and outside the House. He hoped, therefore, the Government would make up their minds what qualification they would propose in this clause. The Government ought not, certainly, to complain of obstruction, if they were not prepared, at the next Sitting, to state distinctly what would be done in this matter.
§ MR. BIGGARpointed out that the case of a soldier was very different from that of a man who occupied his time in business pursuits. He would like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman, if he intended to propose an Amendment in this clause, that lie ought to have it ready the next evening.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, of course, the time had now come to report Progress; but he might say that they were not likely to take this Bill on Tuesday next; their arrangements had been made. If they were able to get the Votes which would be proposed in Supply later that evening, he proposed to go on with this Bill on Monday. If they did not, they must take the Navy Estimates on Monday.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
§ It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.