ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 88.]

HC Deb 30 June 1879 vol 247 cc959-1002

(Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th June.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 87 (Delivery of soldier on discharge with his wife or child at workhouse, or of dangerous lunatic at asylum).

Amendment proposed, In page 47, line 38, to leave out from the word " sent " to the word " paper," in line 1, page 48, in order to insert the words " any parish in which the soldier has resided at any period before his enlistment for twelve months, but choosing as far as possible the parish in which the soldier has last spent twelve months, and, if this cannot be ascertained, then."—(Major Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

COLONEL STANLEY

thought it would save the time of the Committee if he asked them to postpone this clause. If the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), who had moved the Amendment, would be good enough to confer with him, he might be able to bring up a clause which would recommend itself to the Committee.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. PARNELL

remarked, that some very important questions were involved in the clause, and he thought no harm would be done if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War devoted a little consideration to them. The clause made a very radical change in the present law. It provided that a soldier should have a settlement at the station to which he was attached; and it also provided that if the place of his birth was known, he should have a settlement there also. Now, he thought that both of those provisions were unfair; and it was just as well that the Committee should express an opinion upon the matter at once. It would, he thought, save time hereafter.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had expressed a wish to withdraw a particular Amendment now before the Committee; and neither the hon. Member for Meath, nor any other hon. Member, would be in Order in speaking upon the clause generally on the question of withdrawing that Amendment.

On Question, "That the Clause be postponed?"

COLONEL STANLEY

said, his object in postponing the clause was to save time, and to carry into effect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell.) Inasmuch as matters of considerable importance would have to be taken into consideration, ho should like to obtain the opinion of those who were practically cognizant with them; and he would be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) would be good enough to postpone his Amendment.

MAJOR NOLAN

remarked, that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had got an Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consider at the same time. It was an Amendment somewhat in the same direction as his; and he confessed that it was a much better one. If the Secretary of State for War Gould not consent to the amendment of the clause in the direction he had suggested, he should be pleased if he would consent to the proposal of his hon. Friend.

MR. BIGGAR

desired to make a few observations upon the present Amendment. He did not consider it the most satisfactory plan to adopt, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to state that he would confer with one Member of the House of Commons and try to settle these matters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway was, no doubt, an authority upon military subjects, and, generally, he (Mr. Biggar) was found at one with the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but, nevertheless, he thought it right that every Member of the House should have the opportunity of offering his opinion. In reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo, it was his opinion that if a place were to be selected at all upon which the wife and children of a soldier should be chargeable, surely the proper place was where the marriage had been solemnized. It was only reasonable to suppose that when a soldier got married, the woman belonged to the place at which he had originally lived. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seemed to think that they should not ask that the law relating to soldiers should be made different to the general law with regard to all paupers chargeable on their different places of residence. The right hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that by the Bill now before them it was not proposed to act in conformity with the general law, and that afforded a precedent why they should ask for a change of the law in this particular instance. There was another matter upon which he wished to remark, and that was that the military authorities should not allow the soldiers to marry, if it were possible, and especially under the short-service system. When a soldier enlisted for 21 years there was some reasonable excuse for his wishing to marry; but when a man at 18 years enlisted for six years, with the intention of going in the Reserve at 24, he did not see any excuse for his asking to be married. As far as possible, the military authorities ought to throw all the obstacles they could in the way of young soldiers marrying.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was not disposed, in view of the arrangement which had been made between the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and the Secretary of State for War, to detain the Committee with the consideration of his Amendment; but there were one or two points in connection with it to which he wished to call attention. He was opposed to the clause as it stood, first of all, on the ground of justice; because, when they were debating the question of poor removal, it was always admitted that if a man had lived for a certain number of years in any given place he was entitled to a settlement. Now, a soldier was, above all contradiction, in that position. By his having spent a certain number of years in the Army he had established a claim on the State. In the clause, as it at present stood, that claim was not recognized. A lunatic soldier would be sent down to his native parish, a proceeding which could not be justified on the ground of justice. It certainly would not be calculated to increase military ardour, or to excite enthusiasm in the recruit, if he were to know that the track of glory commenced on the village green, and traced all through the world, was to terminate at the workhouse. That, however, would be the only practical effect of the present clause. There was no reason why an asylum should not be provided for military lunatics. That was what he wished to press on the consideration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, when they had constituted themselves into a Committee of two on this important question. He was glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would have the opportunity of conferring with the Secretary of State for War on the subject; but, of course, he joined with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in declaring that they would not abdicate their functions as critics of any proposals that might be made in Committee. The question of what proper provision should be made for the wife and children of soldiers was, no doubt, a very difficult one; and the more he looked at the clause, and considered every Amendment suggested, the more he was convinced of the desirability of postponing the clause. He trusted, however, that the Secretary of State for War might even now be able to see his way to cause Army asylums to be provided for mentally disabled soldiers. From every point of view—justice, expediency, national honour, and military honour—it seemed very necessary that military asylums should be established.

MR. PARNELL

said, that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was about to confer with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway on this clause, he would not oppose its postponement, because that seemed to be the only course that could reasonably be taken. On Saturday he drew up a number of Amendments to this clause; but, unfortunately, he had not been able to get them upon the Paper. He felt that he owed an apology to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the Committee. As a conference was about to take place, he wished to point out, for the consideration of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway and the Secretary of State for War, some matters to which they might devote their attention. They had, as his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) justly observed, hopes of the establishment of State lunatic asylums for the maintenance of lunatic soldiers, instead of allowing them to go to some workhouse in the country, as might be determined upon, and from thence sent to the lunatic asylum connected with the workhouse. If it were decided to send a lunatic to the workhouse, it would be fair that the cost of maintaining the lunatic should be reimbursed to the workhouse or the Poor Law authorities. If lunatic asylums for soldiers were maintained at the cost of the State, and there were difficulties in the way of sending a lunatic soldier there, it was, at least, proper that the Poor Law authorities, who had charge of the patient, should be recouped by the War Office. Then they were confronted by the question of what provision should be made for the wives and children of soldiers. They all know very well that soldiers in the Army were very seldom allowed to marry. They were only allowed under very exceptional circumstances to marry, and then their wives were placed upon what was called the strength of the regiment. Soldiers were only allowed to marry in consequence of some special good conduct, or on the supposition that the wives could be useful to the regiment in some way or other. He presumed that the clause now before the Committee covered the case of the wives and children of soldiers permitted to marry under the circumstances he had enumerated; and he was of opinion that the cost of maintaining those women and children should be borne by the State. It was manifest that it was for the convenience of the regiment, and for the advantage of the Service, that soldiers were allowed to marry; and, consequently, the wives and children of soldiers ought not to be thrown upon the local rates for support. These were the several points to which he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, when they came to consider the whole matter; and he hoped that they would be able to frame a clause which would carry out the views of the Irish Members in reference to that important question.

Clause postponed.

Clause 88 (Regulations as to the discharge of soldiers) agreed to.

Authorities to enlist and attest Recruits.

Clause 89 (Regulations as to persons to enlist and enlistment of soldiers).

MR. PARNELL

said, he had an Amendment to the clause, which lie regretted did not appear on the Paper. He was prevented, by unavoidable circumstances, from causing their appearance on the Paper; and, consequently, he was afraid he should have to submit the Committee to some inconvenience in introducing his Amendments. He proposed, in page 49, line 28, after the word " expedient," to insert the words— In addition to those regulations, directions, and forms contained in the blank Schedule of this Act. That Amendment was to provide for the insertion in the Schedule of a set of rules and regulations with regard to attestation and enlistment. It was most unusual to pass an Act of that kind without inserting, at all events, some general provisions and rules, so far as they could be framed by Parliament, and so far as they could be known and devised by the experience they had had in carrying out the desires and intentions of the military authorities and he submitted that it would be right and proper for the Secretary of State for War to agree to insert a Schedule of the rules and regulations with regard to attestation and enlistment in the Bill itself. There were, of course, a great many provisions which were perfectly well known, and about which there could be no practical difficulty whatever; and his Amendment would not preclude the War Office authorities from the right to make alterations in such rules and regulations afterwards. He proposed to leave to the War Office full permission and liberty to make any alteration in such rules and regulations; and, also, full liberty to make any addition to those provisions that they might feel disposed to make from time to time, or that the exigencies of the Service might requuire. All that he asked, in fact, was that the Secretary of State for War should embody his experience in the Bill, so far as he knew what regulations might be necessary for the purpose of attestation and enlistment. He asked that they might have the opportunity of considering what the rules and regulations were that the Secretary of State for War now considered necessary for the purpose of carrying on the enlistment of recruits, and that he considered a very reasonable request. They had had several years' experience of the short-service system of enlistment; and within that time they had had ample opportunity of ascertaining almost everything that was requisite respecting rules and regulations, and the like. It was more than ever necessary now that they should understand the form of attestation and enlistment, and the regulations that had been adopted by the War Office with regard to attestation; because, by a previous clause of the Bill, they had abolished the interval between the time of the sergeant meeting the recruit and handing him a copy of the form of attestation, and the time that the recruit appeared with the sergeant for enlistment. There was nothing to prevent a recruit being taken by a recruiting sergeant forthwith before a magistrate and enlisted, without any interval whatever between the time that the recruiting officer induced the man to think of enlisting in the Army and the time when he was actually bound to the Service. Under those circumstances, it was extremely necessary that the Committee should have the opportunity of weighing well the rules and regulations that had to be adopted by the War Office; otherwise, they might have recruiting carried on in such a hasty and inconsiderate manner that a good many young men would repent that they had ever enlisted. The other day, an Amendment, proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, was rejected, it being there required that no magistrate should enlist a recruit when the man was under the influence of liquor. It might be all very well to say that such an Amendment would throw a slur on the magistrate; but, at least, they had a right, seeing that that Amendment was rejected, to require that rules should be adopted which would provide against hasty enlistments, and the enlistment of persons at a time when they were not in a proper condition to enter into such a contract. They ought, also, to know under what rules magistrates were to act; and, taking into account all considerations, it was only right that they should have the experience of the Secretary of State for War embodied in a set of rules and regulations in the Schedule, to be annexed to the Act, with regard to enlistment and attestation.

Amendment proposed, In page 49, line 28, after the word " expedient," to insert the words "in addition to those regulations, directions, and forms contianed in the Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL STANLEY

was afraid he could not consent to the insertion of the words suggested. Certain duties devolved upon the Office of Secretary of State for War; and so long as the Gentleman appointed was competent to hold the Office, it was required of him to give his directions according to the exigencies of the Service. It was perfectly impossible to describe all the circumstances with which the Secretary of State for War had constantly to deal. All reforms could not be submitted for the consideration of the House, and he would not recommend that such a course should be adopted. These were clauses of mere procedure; and he asked the Committee whether they felt bound, on clauses which were really continuance clauses than anything else, to move Amendments on every clause? He had no objection to offer to a fair discussion of all points; but he felt bound to appeal to hon. Gentlemen to make progress with the clauses.

MR. O'DONNELL

remarked, that after the postponement of one of the clauses of mere procedure, on the ground of its very great importance, the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little inopportune. Furthermore, these clauses of mere procedure might be a matter of small consequence to the Government; but where they had to deal with the terms of a contract—a contract the breaking of which was severely punished—clauses of that kind might have a great deal of importance to persons outside the Government. Besides; it was almost necessary for him to point out a remarkable fallacy which ran through the whole speech of the Secretary of State for War. It must be within the recollection of the Committee that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) did not propose to tie the hands of the Secretary of State for War in any particular; but, on the contrary, the hon. Member for Meath, in his Amendment, expressly left a wide field in those matters of detail which might reasonably be altered from time to time; and so it was less ingenuous on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman than was usual when he addressed the Committee, to see him ignoring what was expressly the view of the hon. Member for Meath, and trying to persuade the Committee that that Amendment was intended to limit the action of the Secretary of State for War. What was sought, and what was legitimately sought, was to make sure that in some general form all instructions relating to essential points, which ought not to be altered without consulting the House, should be incorporated in the Schedules of the Bill; and that all the minor points should be left to the temporary determination of the Secretary of State for War. He could not help thinking that one very important matter which ought to be included in the permanent instructions to be given to the authorities empowered to enlist and attest recruits was an instruction that the enlisting authority should satisfy himself that the recruit perfectly understood the conditions of the Service he was about to enter. On both sides of the House it had been admitted that, at present, recruits were continually deceived in the most serious way by the present mode of enlistment. For instance, a recruit enlisted, as he believed, for home service—he enlisted in a battalion that was at home, and would be at home, for some years—and, therefore, he reasonably imagined that he would have to serve at home. According, however, to the linked battalion system, the unfortunate recruit, who had enlisted in the home battalion, discovered that he had made himself liable for service in the linked battalion serving abroad; and, probably, in a few months time, he found himself serving out in India, which was contrary to his expectations. Such a practice was decidedly prejudicial to the reputation of the Government and the Army; and, beyond the slightest doubt, it was one of the frequent causes of those numerous desertions which took place. They allowed a recruit to enlist in a battalion for home service—they did not tell him that he had thus rendered himself liable for service abroad—the unfortunate man soon found himself so liable and he deserted, for which he was punished severely. Ho (Mr. O'Donnell) could not think otherwise than that many desertions had been occasioned by the acts of the military authorities. Such a provision as he had suggested ought to appear in the Schedule of the Act, in order that the enlisting authority should satisfy himself that the recruit, when he enlisted under the linked battalion system, should thoroughly understand that though he enlisted in a home battalion he was liable to be sent out for foreign service. Such a provision ought to be inserted in the Schedule—indeed, it was to favour an admittedly most frequent source of desertion to leave the point open, instead of settling it while the Bill was before the Committee. Those continual appeals to the Committee not to discuss those clauses were really tantamount to a demand, on the part of the Government, that the whole Army discipline was to be passed in full at the mere ipse dixit of the Secretary of State for War, and the Party which stood at his back. The Secretary of State for War could not have been listening to the words of the Amendment, or heard the speech of the hon. Member for Meath, or he would not have completely misrepresented the express object of that Amendment, and the repeated explanations contained in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. There was nothing asked of the Secretary of State for War but what was legitimate and fair. He was asked to consent to having a few special points placed in the Schedule annexed to the Bill; and he was left full and entire liberty to introduce fresh provisions with regard to new special points which might require to be settled from time to time. He was afraid the Government was relying on the connivance of their Party organs in those matters. While the just and reasonable arguments on the one side were suppressed, the action of independent Members was being misrepresented by a clique of journalists acting, if not avowedly, in de facto, connivance of Her Majesty's Government. They now had the Secretary of State for War utterly and entirely misrepresenting the speech of the hon. Member for Meath, and asking the Committee, in so many words, to disregard the Amendment; while he (Colonel Stanley) had completely misrepresented it, and had evidently not been attending to a single word addressed to him by the hon. Member for Meath. On no other ground could he account for the action of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he could not help thinking, judging by his past action towards the Committee, that if the Secretary of State for War were left to his own independent judgment on the conduct of the Business of the Committee, he would not now be found objecting to a course of conduct hitherto pursued. It was most right, most fair, and most necessary, that some, at least, of the essential points of the contract which the soldier was required to enter upon should be settled in the Bill. His hon. Friend was inclined to leave to the Secretary of State for War full liberty to change, from time to time, the nonessential points it might be found convenient to change; but it was a very serious misrepresentation of the object of the hon. Member for Meath, and it was a most serious injury to the recruit, and a blot on the reputation of the Army and on the good faith of any Government, to refuse on such flimsy pretexts to have something settled with regard to the conditions of a contract, the break ing of which was punished with such extreme severity.

MR. BIGGAR

could not see on what ground the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. In introducing the Amendment, his hon. Friend did not ask that a hard-and-fast line should be laid down; all ho proposed was that the leading general principles should be laid down, while the minor details should, from time to time, be carried out by the authorities at the War Office. They knew, as a matter of fact, that the present system of recruiting was anything but satisfactory; and they were equally well aware of the desirability of some rules being laid down for the proper carrying out of recruiting. Several evils existing in the system could be pointed out—as, for instance, the youthful age at which a recruit entered the Army. It would be well, in his opinion, for a law to be passed the effect of which would be to prohibit a man being received in the Army unless he had reached a certain age. All the authorities he had heard speak on the subject had declared that the present system was most injurious to the British Army, and likewise to the man enlisting. He trusted that the Secretary of State for War would, after all, be able to consent to the provisions of a Schedule containing the rules to be observed in respect to enlistment.

MR. PARNELL

said, he intended to take a Division on the Amendment, because it was a very reasonable one—so reasonable, in fact, that he was surprised that the Secretary of State for War had not thought it right to agree with it. He altogether demurred from the suggestion the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made — that because these were clauses which were in the Army Enlistment Act of 1870 they ought to be passed over without discussion or alteration. Why, the Government themselves had altered several of them, and had introduced fresh clauses. Since 1870 they had seen it necessary to modify, very materially, many of the clauses of the Army Enlistment Act; they had introduced fresh clauses, and just now one clause had been withdrawn altogether from consideration, in order that it might he materially altered, if not entirely changed. If the Government were inclined to alter these clauses—the Government, who were in the House of Commons at the time of the passing of the Army Enlistment Act—if they were prepared to alter and bring in new clauses, he certainly thought that independent Members of the House were entitled to make Amendments where they considered them necessary; and more particularly those Members who were not, in any sense, responsible for the Army Enlistment Act of 1870. He had no wish to fetter the action of the War Office in this matter; but merely asked that the Department should tell them what rules and regulations they considered proper with regard to attestation and enlistment, and that they should cause them to appear in the Bill. He left to them full power to make any alterations in those rules and regulations subsequently, upon the understanding that such alterations should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. There were, certainly, precedents for what he proposed; because there was no other Act of Parliament besides that Army Discipline Bill in which such unfettered power would be given to a Minister to make alterations. Every Act of Parliament had certain rules and regulations embodied in it; but, afterwards, power was given to the Minister to make rules and regulations, on condition that they should be submitted to Parliament. The Secretary of State for War wished to retain power to make rules and regulations without submitting them to Parliament. It was only recently that they had succeeded in obtaining an audit of the accounts of the War Office; and, no doubt, it was only one by one that they would be able to break down all the obstacles which the War Department raised. He felt compelled to take a Division on that question; and he was of opinion that had the Secretary of State for War had a desire to facilitate the progress of Business, he would have at once assented to the present very reasonable Amendment.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that upon the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War he wished to make one or two observations. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman deprecated discussion of these matters on various grounds—he described the clause under consideration as a continuance clause. They decidedly objected to continue what they thought to be bad; and it was no argument at all to say that, because the clause happen to be a continuance one, it ought to be passed. That was the cry raised when the Mutiny Acts had been under discussion; for people and the Press said—"Don't meddle with what has gone on for years." Strange to say, the very journals which took a leading part in denouncing the hon. Member for Meath for his interference with the Mutiny Acts had now altered their tone, and admitted that the hon. Member had rendered great service to the public and the Army by his criticism of these Acts. And, surely, their memories were not so treacherous that they did not remember that the same thing was said of the Prisons Act—"Can't you leave it in the hands of the benevolent and excellent Home Secretary? " Appeals of that kind had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the question, and the best justification of the criticism which the present Bill had so far received was to be found in the action of the Government, and in the clauses they themselves had postponed for further consideration. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was anxious to facilitate the passing of the Bill, he ought to weigh more carefully than was his habit the suggestions which were, from time to time, made. If there was any one Member of the Committee who had a right to make suggestions upon a question of that kind, it was the hon. Member for Meath, because he had studied the subject minutely, and he was a Member of the Committee appointed to revise the Mutiny Acts. His attention to that subject had been uninterrupted for several years; and, therefore, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to suggest that they should pass over the Amendment and not discuss the clause, on the supposition that it would facilitate the Business of the Committee, seemed to him the most extraordinary fallacy that could be offered. He recommended the Treasury Bench not to contract prejudices against suggestions coming from that part of the House, and not to imagine that when a proposal was made from the Benches occupied by the Irish Members it was made with the object of embarrassing them. All the suggestions he and his Colleagues made were made with the bonâ fide object of amending im- portant legislation; and no suggestion that had ever been made during the progress of the Bill was more intimately connected with the good of the Army, or with the ideas which would discourage desertion and make the recruits and soldiers satisfied with their position, than the suggestion which had just been made by his hon. Friend. The Secretary of State for War stated that the question of attestation forms, and of rules and regulations which formed the contract into which the soldier entered, was a matter which had to be altered from time to time. They did not ask the Secretary of State for War to put in the Schedule those small matters which varied according to the strength of the Army; they did not wish to fetter him at all. A variety of minds had been exercised upon the question of Army Law; and if the Secretary of State for War would give them the leading regulations and conditions of the contract between the State and the soldier in the Schedule attached to the Bill, they might, from time to time, be able to devote that attention to the subject which was required of them. He advised his hon. Friend to persevere in his Amendment, and thought much good would be done if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could only receive it.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn, because it was utterly impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to state what were to be the conditions of enlistment. That was more especially the case now that a Commission was sitting to inquire into that and other matters, and their Report was not yet published.

MR. PARNELL

said, his hon. and gallant Friend entirely misunderstood the Amendment. He said it would be impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to state the rules and regulations for enlistment, until the Commission had delivered its Report. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would explain how they were to act until such Report had been published. Did he suppose they would have to abandon all enlistment and all attestation until the Commission had fully considered the question? He told them it was impossible for the Secretary of State for War to frame rules and regulations. Where, then, were they to get their regulations from? What he simply asked was that, for the time being, the rules and regula tions necessary, in the view of the Secretary of State for War, for enlistment, should be inserted in the Schedule appended to the Bill. He left full power to the Secretary of State for War to alter those rules at any time afterwards, or even to add to them, if such a course was, in his opinion, desirable. Therefore, when the Commission had made its Report, when it had decided the question of short or long term of service, it would be perfectly open for the Secretary of State for War to alter those rules, or to make any addition to them required by the altered circumstances of the case.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 17 Noes 169: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No. 137.)

MR. PARNELL

said, that the next Amendment he had to propose was one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have no difficulty in agreeing to. It contained a provision which was in every Act of Parliament he was acquainted with, except the present Bill. At the end of Clause 89, he proposed to add the words— Provided always, That any such order so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament, within the next forty days after the same has been so laid before such House, resolve that such order ought to be annulled, the same shall after the date of such resolution be of no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meanwhile under such order or to the making of any new order. That was a clause which had been inserted in all the important Acts of recent years. It was inserted in the Prisons Act and in the Factories Act; and wherever power was given to any Minister to make rules and regulations, at the same time provision was inserted to the effect that those rules and regulations should be laid before Parliament. He had copied the clause he proposed to insert from the Factory Act of last Session. That Act was, perhaps, the best sample of drafting they had had for some time, and it simplified that clause in a very material manner.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words, " Provided always, That any such order so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament, within the next forty days after the same has been so laid before such House, resolve that such order ought to be annulled, the same shall after the date of such resolution be of no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under such order or to the making of any new order."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

COLONEL STANLEY

felt it his duty to demur to the Amendment, very much for the same reason as he objected to the previous one. Parliament was asked to prescribe certain limits within which the duties of the Secretary of State for War were to be exercised. He thought it absolutely necessary that in such Services as the Army and Navy, those who had to administrate discipline, and had to provide for the ordinary procedure of the regulations from day to day, should have the requisite power retained in themselves, always controlled, as it might be, by Act of Parliament. It was perfectly impossible to work any Departmentin the manner now proposed. If anything were really wanted, it was pretty well known that on the occasion of the passing of the Estimates the Secretary of State for War, and. others with whom he acted, were put through a very severe, though not unreasonable, cross-examination; and upon those Votes almost every manner of subject could be discussed. Further than that, there was a practice which now prevailed of moving for Returns; and those Returns were, as a general rule, granted without opposition. It would be absurd to lay on the Table of the House all the orders that might be given; because the effect of that would be that Parliament would then transact the common business of the Army, which was now transacted by the Secretary of State for War.

MR. RYLANDS

was astonished at the doctrine which had just been laid down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. They heard too much of the assumption, on the part of the Government, that because they occupied the position of Executive Administrators the House of Commons was debarred from laying down certain rules as to the course of Public Business. In fact, the very same argument that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had just used would justify the Home Secretary in coming down to the House, and—in many cases of Acts of Parliament—positively refusing to be bound to submit to lay on the Table any regulations he might make under the Bills, the charge of which devolved upon his Office. It was only a short time ago that, in reference to the Valuation Bill, an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House stood up manfully in defence of the rights of Parliament, and in favour of there being some check upon the central control of the Local Government Board. He voted in the last Division. He had some slight hesitation in voting; but he did so entirely in the sense that the Government ought, in the present Bill, to place Parliament in that position that would enable them, to some extent, to control the action of the Department. But while he had some hesitation in voting for the last Amendment, he had not the slightest in voting for the one now before the Committee, because it seemed to him so reasonable. Whenever any regulations were to be made, it was only right and proper that Parliament should be made acquainted with them, and that they should be laid on the Table of the House. There was another reason why the Amendment ought to be accepted, and that was, that it was extremely undesirable that regulations of that kind should easily be changed. One of the greatest objections to the present system was, no doubt, that men were called upon to enlist sometimes when they were not clear as to the conditions of the contract. It was quite evident that, as far as possible, those conditions should be known; that they should appear in a regular and authorized form; and that the form of contract between the recruit and the War Office should not lightly be changed. There could be no reasonable objection to the Government allowing a Copy of such regulations to lay on the Table of the House, not in any sense that the consent of Parliament should be required; because, unless Parliament expressly dissented from them, no doubt the regulations made by the Department would continue.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) had stated that the effect of the Amendment was to require the assent of Parliament to these regulations. He did not think that was so at all. As he understood, the rules would be laid on the Table of the House, and would be open to the whole world; and if any Member of the House, or the public outside, thought any of them unreasonable or unfair they would criticize them, as they had a right to do. For instance, any Member of the House might dispute their validity by bringing in a Motion in a formal way. He might not, however, have the chance of obtaining a place within 40 days, and so have no opportunity of asking the opinion of the House on the question at all. Still, however that might be, the fact remained that if the Amendment were carried these rules would become public property, and discussions could be carried on—in the newspapers, at any rate—from time to time. At present, however, they did not know what these rules were, and had no means of knowing their contents, except by making a very formal Motion for a Return of Papers, which Government could either grant or not, as it chose. The rules might work great injustice to the recruits; because, without some such provision as this, men, on enlistment, had really no means of knowing the conditions under which they would serve. They were taken before a magistrate and sworn to be members of the British Army, and they were told nothing more. If there was anything objectionable in these rules the recruits should be able to know them, and so to join with their eyes open, and have no cause of complaint afterwards. As the matter stood, great injustice might be done them, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would divide.

MR. O'DONNELL

was afraid that the last speech of the Secretary of State for War gave a further illustration of the extraordinary tactics to which he had already had recourse. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had evidently not paid the slightest attention either to the Amendment or the arguments by which the hon. Member for Meath supported it. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the orders which the Secretary of State should make should be laid upon the Table of the House; and he also proposed, in the ordinary common form which was usually incorporated with such Motions, that any orders or regulations made in this way should be valid until they were invalidated by a Vote of the House. If he was not very much mistaken, the Secretary of State for War had represented that the effect of the Amendment would be to invalidate any orders during the period that they were waiting for validation. That, as he understood, was just what the hon. Member for Meath did not propose, and just exactly what was not contained in his Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told them that under the Amendment all orders, and all recruiting returns, and all forms relating to the Department, which came to hand from all the recruiting centres, would have to be laid on the Table of the House. But he under stood the hon. Member for Meath distinctly to propose that only the general and special orders which the Secretary of State made, from time to time, should be laid on the Table. He protested against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman standing up and stating to the Committee, as the views of the hon. Member for Meath, what distinctly were not the views of the hon. Member for Meath, and what was not in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, nor contained in any portion of the arguments advanced by the same hon. Member. What could be the object of this sort of tactics? Could the Government believe that their partizan Press would only report the speeches of the Ministerial Benches, and repress all the statements of the Opposition? Were they satisfied that only their extraordinary misconceptions of the statement of the hon. Member would get publicity, and that publicity would be refused the Amendment moved from that side of the House? He could not congratulate the Members of the Government on that policy; and, certainly, he did not think they could congratulate themselves on it. They were told that on the Army Estimates they could demand information upon all these points. They were told to ask for everything on the Army Estimates, and to move every point on the Army Estimates, to raise any number of questions on the Army Estimates. Yet, if they did anything of the kind, they were accused of obstructing Public Business. If they brought forward questions of this kind on the Army Estimates, they were told, again and again —" Why don't you take advantage of the time when Bills are passing through the House, to embody your objections in the form of Amendments? " They were being boxed from legislation to Army Estimates, and from Army Estimates to legislation; and, certainly, it seemed to him that the Government was not distinguished for candour, in their representations either on Army Estimates or on Bills going before the House. Let the Government come fairly to the consideration of the matter, and save their time and avoid the policy now inaugurated with double force—first, misunderstanding; secondly, misrepresenting the speeches and Amendments of himself and his hon. Friends. It was not to the advantage of the Business transacted, or to the advantage of the reputation of the Government; and they might be perfectly sure that even if a few partizan journals did follow the hint given them, that could not prevent the facts of the case coming to the knowledge of the country.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

supported the Amendment, because he thought it was a very reasonable one. He could not understand the objection to place these Returns on the Table. It could not give anybody any trouble, and it would be highly satisfactory to know what the Government had done. The thing had been done previously, with regard to enlistment, in short and long services; and he did not see why the Government should not do it again.

MR. PARNELL

thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have misunderstood the purport of his Amendment, as he had said the effect of it would be to suspend these rules and regulations until Parliament had approved them. Now, as a matter of fact, the effect of the clause in various other Acts, of which this Amendment was a copy, was simply to cause the rules and regulations to be laid on the Table of the House. Any Member had then an opportunity of directing the attention of Parliament to the matter; but nothing more would be done, in all probability, unless some alteration of vital importance had been made in these rules and regulations by Ministers. Rules laid on the Table, in pursuance of a section like this, were seldom or ever challenged; but, still, it was important for Parliament to have the power of checking a Minister, if it desired to do so. It was that power of controlling a Minister which was what the War Office seemed to be very much desirous of evading. Not only in this matter, but in a good many others, it had put itself in an exceptional position as regarded the other Departments. He pointed out, a few months ago, that it had evaded the control of the Auditor General for a great many years, and had refused to submit to his audit of its accounts; and now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to submit his Department to Parliament. He told them that they could move for Returns if they wanted them; but how did they know, when they did move for them, that they would get them? The giving of such Returns depended entirely on the Government; and it was very difficult indeed to show a reason why they should be granted before they bad got the Returns. Then, besides, a multitude of questions was continually cropping up, with which it was not to be expected that private Members of Parliament could keep themselves acquainted. But when they had the Papers laid on the Table, any hon. Member could study the rules and regulations, and could direct attention to the matter. To suppose that these orders and rules would be of no effect until they were sanctioned by Parliament was entirely a mistake; for his Amendment specially provided, at the end, that only after a Resolution carried to the contrary should they be of no effect. And that then, even, the Resolution should only take effect as to the future, and should have no effect as to the past. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had left the matter entirely unanswered, he thought he might accept the Amendment.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, of course, there was a difficulty in following an Amendment when it was not put on the Paper. He was quite willing to accept the correction; but it would not affect his views.

MR. PARNELL

replied, that he had already apologized for not having put his Amendments on the Paper, and nobody regretted more than he did that he had not been able to do so. He was conscious that it was exceedingly inconvenient to the Committee; but it was also evident that his Amendments must suffer more or less from this fact, because the Committee did not thoroughly understand them. There were also many Members who were not in the House when he explained them; and, therefore, did not know what they were about, and, consequently, voted more or less blindly. However, the points in this Amendment were so palpable that, after he had ventured to direct the attention of the Committee to them, he did expect the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have accepted it.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that whatever might be the ultimate judgment of the country upon this discussion, it was very desirable that they should have correct information. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath had been very much mis-stated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but they now knew exactly what that proposition was, in clear and definite terms. It was a very important point, founded on Acts of Parliament already passed by the House. In the last Division the Government had refused to put the rules and regulations in the Schedule of the Bill, and the Committee, siding with them, had endorsed their view. The proposition now was, that as the Government would not place these rules in the Schedule of the Act, to give an opportunity of judging of their scope and character that they should be laid upon the Table of the House. So that if Parliament should disagree with anything in them, Parliament might have the power of annulling the order. That was so very simple and plain a proposition that it did not seem necessary to him to write it down in black and white, in order that it might commend itself to intelligent comprehension. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, unfortunately, had not seen his way to accept this proposal; and, consequently, they were placed in this position—that if they assented to the proposition, the control of Parliament on this subject was not valuable at all. On the other hand, if there was anything which Parliament viewed with suspicion, and of which Parliament had always been distrustful, it was the power of the Army, and the power of the military authorities. The Constitution was interlaced. with provisions designed to prevent the civil power from being made subject to the Army. And it, therefore, followed, on strictly Constitutional principles, that there was more need for Parliament retaining control over the proceedings of the War Office than over the proceedings of the Home Office. Yet they assented to this proposition. Whilst they would not trust the Home Secretary in the administration of Home affairs, they were willing to trust the War Secretary in the administration o the Army. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath took very good care that every word and syllable of his Amendment should be justified by precedent; for he went to the Factory Acts for it, and took from one of them the Amendment now before the House. Ho would appeal to anyone, who might think it worth while to follow their proceedings, whether they should surrender this principle unless they were prepared also to surrender a great Constitutional principle? It was a matter very similar to the proposition brought forward by Sir Boyle Roche, in the Irish Parliament, when he said that he was in favour of the abolition of the whole of the Constitution, in order to save the remainder. In the same way, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in order that he might pass a clause of this Bill, was in favour of abolishing, or, at any rate, of refusing to recognize, a very important Constitutional principle which had been deemed to be necessary in reference to prisons, factories, and places of that kind. He failed to see on what grounds the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could justify this extremely unconstitutional position, and he trusted his hon. Friend would divide. These Divisions were not a very enlightened way of settling a question; and it would be far better, instead of marching up and down the Lobby, if the Government were to act in a spirit of intelligent compromise. This proposition was brought forward by Gentlemen distinguished by their services for the Army in connection with legislation and matters of this kind. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), who had differed from them on the last occasion, had now announced his support of the present proposition; and, as an officer in the Army, he was well entitled to have his views heard on the subject. As a Member of the Committee, also, he had devoted considerable time to it, and ought to have his views considered. When he urged a policy of intelligent compromise on the Government, he did not mean to say at all that they should accept propositions made by persons who knew nothing at all of the matter; but he did think the Government should recognize proposals brought forward by persons who had devoted themselves to the consideration of these matters, and whose Amendments were based on sound Constitutional principles.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 148: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 138.)

MR. O'DONNELL

observed, that this clause gave power to the Secretary of State to make all the regulations he might choose with regard to troops; and the Government had refused to give any information whatever as to what these regulations would be, and they had even refused to submit them to the House as they were made from time to time. He could not but think that this was treating the question in anything but a serious view. The Amendments moved were not even attended to by the responsible official; and the Government simply seemed to be actuated by a desire to pass the Bill through the House just as it stood. This was not a serious way of legislating; and it seemed to him that they wanted to treat the matter in an Opera Bouffe spirit, just as they had treated University legislation. He was not going to take a Division against the clause; but he should vote against it, and he should negative it, in order to give Members an opportunity of expressing a conviction that this was not the right way to deal with important questions.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 90 (Justices of the peace for the purposes of enlistment).

MR. PARNELL

moved, in page 49, line 35, to leave out " although he is not," and insert " provided he is."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had a similar Amendment lower down; to leave out from "although he is appointed, &c.," down to "Act," in line 39, inclusive.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. O'DONNELL

moved, in page 50, line 11, to leave out the sub-section. This paragraph was merely a survival of the time when there was no such thing as Foreign Enlistment Acts, prohibiting the enlistment of soldiers in foreign dominions. It was all very well for the House to say that soldiers should be attested within the United Kingdom and the British Colonies; but it was a very difficult thing when it was done outside the limit of Her Majesty's Dominions; and, if he was not very much mistaken, they had no power to do anything of the kind. It was tried in Washington, during the Crimean War; but the United States Government objected, and the proceedings of the British Representative were very summarily stopped. There was hardly a country, at the present time, in the civilized world in which Foreign Enlistment Acts were not in vogue; yet, by this Act, they authorized an official, accredited to a particular Government, and bound to observe the rules of the country, and to respect the laws of the country, to violate these laws by enlisting soldiers. All these Governments prohibited foreign enlistments; yet this clause allowed the British Consul, or similar official, to violate that law. He, therefore, begged to move the rejection of the paragraph.

COLONEL STANLEY

was quite aware that these powers were not put into very frequent use. At the same time, he did not think that a reason to strike them out of the Bill. Unless he had totally misapprehended the hon. Gentleman, he only referred to the enlistment of foreigners. This sub-section would apply to enlistment abroad of a British subject, and, therefore, subject to the enlistment laws of the country. Then, again, if he referred to the next clause, he would find that persons who were aliens might be enlisted up to a certain number in Her Majesty's Regular Forces. For both these cases, he apprehended, it would be necessary to have this clause; and he thought the words ought to be left in. Of course, the policy of Englishmen in foreign States was another question.

MR. PARNELL

thought this was a very old-fashioned clause, entirely obsolete and out of date, and, therefore, one which might be done away with. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the powers given by it were not often exercised; but, for his part, he believed they never were, at any rate, since the Foreign Enlistment Acts. It would, certainly, be extremely dangerous to enlist even British subjects, for complications might arise. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred them to the next clause, and asked them how they would enlist aliens, unless the Consul in foreign parts had this power? But it would clearly be a breach of the Enlistment Act to enlist an alien; and he presumed the object of Clause 91 was to enable the Government to enlist aliens in this country, or within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty. He really thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might give up the sub-section, for it was never used at the present time. It was exceedingly unnecessary, and, on more than one occasion, it had given rise to complications. He remembered that when Sir John Graham, at Washington, during the Crimean War, did take a prominent part in enlisting men in New York, and other American States, for the Crimean War, the United States Government complained; and their complaint had such force, that the Government found it necessary to recall Sir John Graham.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would not divide on the question, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would undertake to introduce some words providing that this clause should not be used in any country where there was legislation against foreign enlistment.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, it could not be.

MR. O'DONNELL,

if that was so, would withdraw his objection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

moved, in page 50, line 15, after "officer," to insert "on full-pay." If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Clause 166, he would find that amongst officers, under military law, were included officers on half-pay, retired-pay, and otherwise. It appeared to him very undesirable, if that was the case, that officers on full-pay should be prevented from attesting recruits; because they were the very officers who would be able to give a man information of the nature of the Service—what regiments were abroad, what regiments were likely to go abroad, and how long they were likely to stay. They would also be able to contradict any popular delusions which were prevalent with regard to the Army. There was one, very commonly believed for many years—that deserters were branded with a hot iron. A man desirous of enlisting would be able to get correct information on such a subject from an officer who was serving in Her Majesty's Service.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, when they came to Clause 166, he might have to ask the Committee to listen to some observations on the subject, dealing with the whole question of full and half-pay.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, this Amendment had raised a very important question, and he conceived that the difficulty could only be settled by dealing with the whole question of half-pay. It had never been the custom for officers on full-pay, or, in other words, officers who were amenable to military law, to attest recruits. That had been held to be entirely a civil duty. If the Government intended to press the clause which put officers on half-pay under the Mutiny Act, they certainly must alter this clause. It was most desirable to keep enlistment in the hands of civilians; and, at present, officers on half-pay were considered to be civilians.

MR. PARNELL

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, because it really was very important that there should be an independent tribunal concerned in the enlistment of the recruits. Even officers on half-pay might have a bias; and it was very desirable that they should only have civil magistrates to deal with the matter. It would be far better than to leave the clause as it stood.

Amendment negatived.

MR. PARNELL

asked whether the word " soldiers " meant only soldiers of the Regular Forces, or soldiers belonging also to the Auxiliary Forces? because, if it were the former, he should have to move, in line 16, to insert, after " soldiers," the words "of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces."

COLONEL STANLEY

replied that if the hon. Member would look at Clause 180, he would see that the word " soldier" included— Any person belonging to Her Majesty's Regular, Reserve, or Auxiliary Forces, and who is, for the time being, subject to military law.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Special Provisions as to Persons to be Enlisted.

Clause 91 (Enlistment of foreigners and negroes).

MR. PARNELL

moved to leave out the words— " So, however, that the number of aliens serving together at any one time in any corps of the Regular Forces shall not exceed the proportion of one alien to every fifty British subjects, and that an alien so enlisted shall not be capable of holding any higher rank in Her Majesty's Regular Forces than that of a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer. This was one of the old parts of the Mutiny Act, and it was entirely unnecessary now.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, this was a clause of somewhat antiquated character, and he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give them some information on the subject. Whether it was desirable that the proportion of aliens to British subjects should be one in 50 was for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to judge, and he would not express an opinion on the subject; but he wanted to know what was the exact meaning of the second portion of the clause, which said that negroes and persons of colour might be enlisted? What did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman understand by the words "persons of colour?" Did it include an Afghan, or did it apply to a Belooch, or an Arab? This was really a matter of very practical and pressing importance, for the Government must be very well aware that there were very many Afghans in Her Majesty's Service. They were, of course, principally employed in the Indian Forces, to which this Act did not apply; but there were many Belooches and Arabs employed by Native Powers on the coast of Africa; and, supposing Her Majesty should desire to employ on that coast a corps of these Belooches, which was an event not at all improbable, could she enlist them under the clause of this Bill? Were these words meant to draw a definite and intelligible line as regarded the question of persons of colour, or was it meant to apply to negroes alone? He should very much like to know what was the meaning of the law. Also, he believed some aliens were now employed as officers in Her Majesty's Service; and he should like to know if it was the case that, while they might be employed as officers, an alien, when employed as a soldier, was debarred from ever rising to the condition of officer, under any circumstances whatever?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

said, that, in his opinion, the words "negroes, or persons of colour" meant a negro, or something like a negro—such as an octoroon or a quadroon—and that Arabs, and the other persons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, would not come within the meaning of the clause. He would leave the question of the policy of the clause to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

MR. PARNELL

asked whether Zulus would come within the meaning of the term "person of colour?"

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that the term "person of colour" had always by custom been interpreted in the sense in which it was interpreted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. As regarded the policy of not allowing an alien to hold higher rank than warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, there had always been a considerable, and not an unnatural, jealousy against employing, in positions of trust connected with the Regular Forces, those who were not natives of the country. Personally, he saw no special reason why, under certain circumstances, aliens might not rise to ranks higher than those named in the Bill; but it had always been held that those ranks were sufficient to cover the ordinary run of men who were likely to enlist; and, inasmuch as the limitation had not been found to work unfavourably, he could find no reason for making the change in the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Meath.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it would seem to be a hard case that a negro, or a man of colour, should be precluded from arriving at the rank of commissioned officer. The hon. and learned Attorney General had given, no doubt, the best opinion as to the meaning of the words "person of colour;" but, from the tone in which it had been delivered, he (Sir George Campbell) thought it was one which admitted of very considerable doubt. He foresaw that great difficulty might arise if the clause was passed in its pre- sent form. At the same time, it was very hard that Her Majesty's Government should be debarred from enlisting in the Colonies the persons to which it referred. Under the circumstances, therefore, he suggested that the clause should be postponed, with a view to its further consideration.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out that the clause only applied to the Regular Forces; and that, if the limitation of number was withdrawn, the Crown might be able to bring into this country Forces mainly composed of aliens, which he, for one, did not wish to encourage, or see done. It was all very well to allow the Colonial Forces to be recruited by Natives; but, by constituting the Regular Army of aliens, they might have a Force like the Turcos brought into England, which, in his opinion, the people would not like. He was certainly unwilling to give the Secretary of State for War such a power. He did not think that the Proviso gave unlimited power to enlist negroes, but that it was to be read with the principal clause in the sense that if the negroes were aliens they were to be limited in number. There was no greater licence to enlist alien negroes than any other people who were aliens. The Proviso had been only put in its present form to prevent these persons being treated as slaves; it was, practically, a provision against slavery. In his opinion, the Proviso was subject to the limitation in the principal part of the clause, and he could see no reason why any power should be placed in the hands of the Crown to fill the ranks of the Regular Army with aliens when brought into this country. Therefore, for his own part, he proposed to admit the clause as it stood.

MR. O'DONNELL

read the clause as not guarding against the possibility suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). It appeared to him that the clause might be passed; and yet that the Regular Army might, practically, be crammed with persons who, in race and sentiment, were really aliens. Were not the Punjabees, Ghoorkas, and other British subjects in India, aliens? He thought there would be a very strong feeling in this country against having the martial races of India in the Regular Army; but the Government could get any quantity of these people, who, as soon as their territories were added to our Empire, ceased to be aliens, and could be crammed into the regiments. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kircaldy (Sir George Campbell), that the term "person of colour," made use of in the Proviso to the clause, was singularly obsolete and difficult, and that it ought not to be introduced. At the time this Proviso was originally made, negroes everywhere outside the British Dominions were liable to be treated as slaves, and an Act was, therefore, passed to say that whenever a negro enlisted in the Army he should be treated as a British subject. Now, however, a negro might be a fully protected citizen of the United States, and to treat him as a British subject might involve very unpleasant consequences. He thought the first part of the clause might be allowed to pass without amendment; although he felt it to be ungenerous, after allowing aliens to enter the ranks, to say they should not rise higher than the rank of warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer. But the fact was, a number of German gentleman, connected with the Royal Family, who, but for that connection would be aliens, were not only officers, but held positions of command in the Army. He spoke with the utmost respect for the Royal Family, and treated this question quite seriously; but could not help thinking that this system might not merely be limited to connections of the Royal Family, but extended, say, to numbers of the Polish nobility in exile here, or others only technically aliens. Provision ought also to be made by a new clause against the enlistment of the Natives of India in the Regular Forces. He intended, at the proper time, himself to propose to amend the clause relating to negroes, by leaving out the word "although," in line 27, and inserting, after the word " dominions," in line 28, " in a country where slavery prevails." He could not but think that the Government would withdraw what seemed to be an ungenerous restriction against coloured aliens being rewarded for their services in saying that they should not rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer. If the Government would consent to strike out that limitation, the limitation as to number might be agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

said, that he was in clined to think that any number of alien negroes might be enlisted, and might serve; but the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) having interpreted the section in a contrary sense, he was doubtful whether or not he (the Attorney General) had placed upon it a right construction.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the matter was one about which there ought to be no doubt whatever. His disposition was to bow to the opinion of the hon. and learned Attorney General; but, at the same time, he could not but think that the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was deserving of consideration. But, seeing no object in pressing the clause forward at that moment, he thought it should be postponed. He could not understand why, if aliens were allowable in the Army, any restriction should be placed upon their promotion, although, of course, he could see why their number should be limited. He suggested that the clause should be postponed, and re-drafted in a manner which would leave no room whatever for doubt.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

doubted whether the Proviso was wanted; but hoped it would not be necessary to postpone the clause.

COLONEL STANLEY

thought that the Proviso might be dispensed with, if the Committee saw no objection to that course; but, perhaps, he might be allowed to make a note of the point, in order to see what was its real bearing, and refer to it on Report. With regard to aliens not being allowed to rise to higher rank than that mentioned in the clause, if the Committee were in favour of striking out the words in question, he had no objection. He admitted that the system of allowing them to rise higher in the Service might be open to abuse; but he confessed that he went a little further than some people, in the hope that such persons might be found fitted to rise in the ranks. The Committee would have to bear in mind that Parliament had passed a special Act for the purpose of dealing with foreign legions.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

held that if these words were struck out the Crown might make all the aliens in the Regular Forces, in the proportion of one in 50, officers at once. The question involved a good deal more than the promotion of aliens to the rank of officers; and he was too old a Whig to give the Crown such unlimited powers. No wonder the Secretary of State for War was ready to accept these powers. There was no Secretary of State for War who would not be willing to receive such a boon at the hands of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would really be giving power to the Crown which, since the days of William III., had never been heard of for a moment. He (Sir William Harcourt) was much too old a Whig to hear of such a thing.

MR. RYLANDS

thought, after listening to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that the Amendment had better not be made.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

wished to ask, whether, at the present time, an alien could be appointed by commission in the British Army?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLDER)

expressed the opinion that aliens could not be appointed officers by direct commission without having first ceased to be aliens.

MR. PARNELL

said, the provision, after all, appeared to have been introduced for the purpose of guarding against a state of things in English history which was not likely to re-occur. On the other hand, there were dangers existing, and which were likely to exist in future, which could not be guarded against. It had been pointed out that they might have negroes, Zulus, and all kinds of people in the Regular Army if his Amendment were accepted; but there was nothing in the world which would prevent our having them in the Regular Forces now—that was to say, as soon as they become British subjects. When Zululand was conquered, there was no reason why Zulus should not enter the Army; and all that was necessary to their obtaining the highest position in the regiment was that they should become naturalized British subjects. He referred to this subject, in order to show that the possibility involved in the objections taken to his Amendment existed already. Many persons had so risen in the Service; and, owing to the vast extent of the Empire, there was hardly a people of colour in the world who could not be brought into the Army, if the Government felt so inclined. It was clear that the Committee were asked to retain an old provision of the Mutiny Act, merely because it was devised against an old danger.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'DONNELL

did not think the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) would be gained by the limitation upon aliens which existed in the clause, which provided that none of those persons who enlisted as private soldiers, no matter what might be their country, could become officers. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the clause guarded against aliens being brought into this country in the Regular Forces. But it was held that Her Majesty could naturalize an alien, and that a naturalized subject could become an officer; so that any number of these foreigners getting naturalized could be made officers, and the provision would not apply, because they were not aliens when they were made officers. Therefore, he (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to say that while this clause did effectually bar the promotion of aliens who entered the Service as privates, it did not at all affect the possibly large number of aliens who might be first naturalized, then made officers, and afterwards raised, by the favour of the Crown, to the very highest ranks in the Army.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out that a foreigner, except by special Act of Parliament, could not be naturalized unless he had been resident in the country for five years.

MR. O'DONNELL

replied, that having satisfied that condition, and being capable of naturalization, they could become officers, and, therefore, no safeguard was given under the clause. He ventured to point out that while there was distinct power in the clause against the promotion of poor men, there was really none against any number of wellborn foreigners being made officers; and the opinions of these might be just as disagreeable to the country as those of poorer men.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

thought it would be very desirable that it should be made clear that the restraint on Her Majesty against employing alien officers should not be confined to the ranks; and, therefore, he would propose to leave out the words " so enlisted," in line 24, page 50, which would prevent any alien, whether appointed from the ranks or by commission, from holding the position of officer in the Regular Forces.

COLONEL STANLEY

saw no objection to leaving out the words.

MR. BIGGAR

thought that no aliens should be allowed to enter the Army at all. At the time of the Crimean War he remembered to have seen the German Legion, and from their appearance he was by no means impressed with the idea that it was a good thing to have them serving with the Army. On the contrary, he came to the conclusion that the money spent upon them had been thrown away. He held that the Army should be a British Army, and not an Army of aliens, either in a large or small degree, and thought that it would be best to withdraw the clause altogether.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

said, there was great force in the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but he trusted that the Amendment would not then be pressed. Perhaps the hon. Member would allow the matter to stand over until the Report; and, in the meantime, it should be considered.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

desired nothing more than that the clause should be made clear. He had no opinion, one way or the other, with regard to it.

MR. PARNELL

suggested that the clause should be withdrawn, and that Sir Henry Thring should be allowed to exercise his great talent upon it; the Committee would then have a clause in the Bill which would meet the exigencies of the present day. He did not agree with the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the clause should be postponed for further consideration, because the Committee would not be able to consider it on Report at all. If any Amendment was necessary, he was sure that Sir Henry Thring would produce a clause that would be satisfactory to the Committee.

Sin GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it was only a question of drafting, and the matter could be left until Report; but he asked the Government seriously to consider whether they were prepared to withdraw the latter part of the clause, which related to persons of colour; because if it was left out of the Bill it would, in his opinion, be quite impossible to keep up the Colonial Forces.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, the points raised were matters of drafting, as had been very truly pointed out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but they were of a kind that it would not be safe to introduce at a moment's notice. He should be better satisfied to look into the whole question before Report, and preferred that the Amendment should stand over.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he had to move an Amendment, at the end of line 26—namely, to add the words—" And the same restrictions shall apply to Natives of Asia and Africa, not of European descent." If the country was not to have aliens in the Army, ho could not see why there should be any distinction made between technical aliens belonging to a foreign country and the large masses of people without any sense of loyalty to our Government, except a mere acquiescence in the authority of that which was strong. He held that these were as much aliens as the former; and failed to see why the Secretary of State for War should not immediately admit that the same restrictions with regard to the admission of aliens should also apply to the admission of Asiatics or Africans in the Regular Army. The Punjaubee, Ghoorka, Mahratta, Kaffir, or Zulu—all these people might become our fellow-subjects technically, but they should not be eligible for service in the British Army; because its character would be disordered by the presence of any considerable number of such men. He, therefore, thought it worth while to provide against the introduction of the Natives of Asia and Africa who, though technically our fellow-subjects, were, in reality, nothing of the kind.

COLONEL STANLEY

thought it would be a mistake to insert the words proposed, which would give rise to great difficulties in the attempt to settle whether the persons in question were of European descent or not. The endeavour to trace the genealogy of a negro would be a matter involving some difficulty.

MR. PARNELL

said, the Amendment guarded against a more practical and serious danger than that which was guarded against by the clause—namely, the bringing over of the Natives of India or South Africa and their enlistment in the regular regiments, as well as their forming part of the garrisons in those countries. There was nothing to prevent regiments from being filled up with Natives and being brought back to this country; and in that way, practically speaking, a very much more dangerous power was given to the Crown than that which the clause sought to guard against. The power given to the Government to enlist aliens, in the proportion of one to every 50 British subjects, was most objectionable; but as the question was a novel one, he suggested that it would be better to give Notice of a new clause, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of considering whether it was right to leave to the Crown the power of recruiting to any extent in South Africa, or in any other Colony which we might annex.

MR. O'DONNELL

proposed to amend his proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "descent," in order to insert the word "parentage," which would render unnecessary the genealogical researches alluded to by the Secretary of State for War.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, this would not entirely remove the difficulty, because the parentage of Natives was sometimes doubtful. He wished to point out an important consideration bearing upon this matter. Hon. Members were aware that each country engaged that its subjects should not enlist in foreign Armies. The consequence of this would be that if aliens were enlisted in the Army, the Government to which they belonged would have the right of recalling them from the Service at any time; and no Government could refuse this demand, because it would be a violation of neutrality to do so. This would be a conclusive reason why, at the very moment they wanted them, aliens would have to be dismissed from the Service, and a very strong reason why they should not become officers in our Army; because if they found the regiments deprived of their officers by the demand of a foreign Government, it would destroy their organization altogether. Therefore, he thought this legislation with regard to aliens must be maintained. He was as unwilling as anyone to see this country filled with regiments of Ghoorkas, enlisted as British subjects; but Parliament had always its controlling hand upon them, and therefore he was not afraid of that occurring. He objected to the Amendment on the ground that it drew an invidious and odious distinction between different classes of British subjects.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'DONNELL

moved to leave out the word "although," in page 50, line 27, and after the word "dominions," in line 28, to insert the words "in any country where slavery prevails." This would merely have the effect of bringing the section down to the requirements of the present day. When the section was first passed there was a chance that a person of colour, born outside Her Majesty's Dominions, might be treated as a slave; but that was now impossible in most civilized States. The Proviso, as it stood, would raise the difficulty mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); and they might have a demand made upon them by foreign States for the return of persons of colour serving in the ranks of our Army; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could not see why an alien negro should have the powers which were denied to an alien European.

Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 27, to leave out the word "although."—(MR. O'Donnell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'although' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

again asked the Government to re-consider their decision in this matter. There was no reason whatever to place negroes, or other persons of colour, in a different position to other aliens. If they were British subjects, they could be enlisted like other British subjects; and if they were not British subjects, they must be aliens, and should be treated as such. He could not see why a special provision was necessary to deal with persons of colour, or why negroes were to be treated in a different manner from white men. So far as he could see, the clause only provided that every negro, or person of colour, born out of Her Majesty's Dominions, who had enlisted, should be entitled to all the privileges of a British subject. He must again repeat that if negroes were British subjects, no special authority was needed to enlist them, for they could be enlisted like anyone else; and if not British subjects, they must be aliens, and their enlistment should be governed by the general provisions relating to aliens. This Proviso was founded on the 56th clause of the old Mutiny Act, and was totally unnecessary.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

trusted that if the Government could not see their way to altering this clause now, they would give an assurance that, if possible, it should be done upon Report. They might debate all night upon this matter without coming to any satisfactory conclusion, as things stood at present. He thought it was very desirable that the Government should make up their minds upon this matter, and decide this question one way or another.

MR. PARNELL

was of opinion that this clause should be postponed. There was some reason why the clause should be altered from the way in which it originally stood, because when the provision in the Mutiny Act, upon which it was founded, was passed, slavery existed in many parts of the world. Probably, the reason for this clause in the old Mutiny Act was that it enabled slaves to escape, and, by enlisting, obtain protection in the British Army. But, as it stood at present, the Proviso did not accomplish that object; and, really, it was only a compromise between the draftsman of the Bill and the Government. The Government appeared to want to retain the old form, and the draftsman seemed to have inserted it, although with the opinion that it was absolutely unnecessary; and so between the two a hash had been made. He thought there was considerable force in the argument of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and perhaps it would be well to retain a power to enlist slaves who had escaped from countries where slavery existed, and had enlisted into the British Army. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion that the Proviso was totally unnecessary, and, in his opinion, seemed to be based upon the idea that slavery did not exist at all. Under the circumstances, he thought it would save time if the clause were postponed until the Government had made up its mind as to what to do in the matter. He should, therefore, suggest that the Government should postpone the clause, in order to save further discussion then.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that it seemed to him that they could do without the introduction of this clause into the Bill, as they had ample power already to enlist persons from countries where slavery still prevailed. The Proviso only gave persons who enlisted in the British Army the privilege of British soldiers while serving with the Colours. He did not think that there was any necessity for doing that by this Proviso.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that this clause only threw the protection of British citizenship around the negro while actually serving in the British Forces. When the negro had served in the British Army, and had left it, the protection of British citizenship should be around him still, in any part of the world in which he might settle. It seemed very ungracious to say, as this clause in effect did, that negroes should be protected while serving in the British Army, but when they had left our Service they might be compelled to fall back into slavery. He did not think that could be the intention of the Government, and thought the best plan would be to omit this Proviso.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had promised to consider this clause before Report; and if he arrived at the conclusion that it ought to be left out, then it would be left out of the Bill. There were some points in connection with this Proviso which had not been touched upon by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford. It might be that the meaning and intention of this Proviso was that a greater number of negro aliens should be allowed to enlist in the Army than the proportion provided in the former portion of the clause—namely, one alien to every 50 British subjects. But, still, it was desirable that there should be inquiry into this matter; and he would not express any definite opinion as to the clause. If there were ultimately found to be no practical necessity for the provision, and no necessity for enlisting a greater number of negro aliens than one in 50, then he thought that the Proviso might be altogether dispensed with. It was a subject which required reflection, and Her Majesty's Government ought to have an opportunity of consulting those practically acquainted with the matter before coming to any decision upon it. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) seemed to consider that if the negro subject of any foreign State entered Her Majesty's Service, he would only be entitled to the privileges of a British subject while actually serving in Her Majesty's Forces. No State could complain of one of its subjects, while serving in Her Majesty's Army, being entitled to the same privileges as a British subject. The clause, however, did not make such persons British subjects, but only gave them certain rights while serving in Her Majesty's Army. It seemed to him that the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to consider this matter and to deal with it on Report, was reasonable; and he hoped that the Committee would allow the clause to be passed on that understanding.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan pressed his Motion to a Division, he should certainly vote with him. This Proviso was, so far as he could understand, contrary to every principle of International Law. It declared that the negro should be liable to be enlisted into Her Majesty's Army, and be entitled to all the privileges of a natural-born English subject, and in that way he was placed in a different category from any other alien. Let them take the case of a white American, and of a black American. The white American was an alien as to whom it was not declared that he could be lawfully enlisted, and enlisted to the privileges of a natural-born British subject; but if a black American were enlisted, he was made subject to an entirely different rule. With reference to an American subject, the American Government could say that he was a citizen of their State, and should not be enlisted, and must be allowed to return to his country. There was nothing whatever in this clause to prevent that being done in regard to a white American; but the black was dealt with in an entirely different way. If the intention of the clause was to deal with every citizen of foreign States as a natural-born British subject, the Government were entirely wrong. They had no right whatever to enlist a black American subject, and to put him in a different category to other aliens. If the Government contested this point, he should go to a Division against them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

said, that his hon. and learned Friend was quite right in saying that the same provision should be applicable both to white and to black aliens. The difference that existed between the two was this—that there was a practical necessity for allowing a greater number of alien negroes to enlist in the Army than of any other kind of aliens. That was the practical question which his right hon. and gallant Friend would have to consider. It did seem to him to be eminently reasonable to allow this clause to pass, and then to let the Government see whether the Proviso could be altogether dispensed with and struck out.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that, no doubt, the object of the provision, with regard to negro aliens, was not so much with regard to enlistment in America as in certain Colonies in the West Indies. In his opinion, this clause was perfectly unworkable, and he should vote for its rejection, unless an undertaking were given that it should be dealt with on Report.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, there might be some necessity for making provision for the enlistment of negroes into West India regiments. The negroes who would be enlisted into these regiments would be, many of them, persons who had escaped from barbarous States where slavery still prevailed. There was no reason to enlist black aliens belonging to the United States of America. The Amendment, which he was desirous of proposing, provided for this contingency, and exactly met the case of negroes born out of Her Majesty's Dominions, and in a country where slavery prevailed. By that provision the enlistment of negroes from the United States would be prevented; but they would be enabled to enlist the subjects of the King of Dahomey, or the King of Bonney, or other countries where slavery now existed. There was nothing in international comity which should make them protect the claims of slave holders.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 65; Noes 18: Majority 47. — (Div. List, No. 139.)

MR. O'DONNELL

did not wish to move another Amendment then; but he should like to ask for some explanation as to the manner in which negroes who had been enlisted into the British Army were to be treated after they had left the Army. It was provided that negroes from slaveholding countries were to be treated as natural-born subjects, so long as they were in our Forces. He should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would insert a Proviso that a negro who had passed through our Service should afterwards retain the privileges of a natural-born English subject? If this country protected the negro while he was in its Service, it ought also to protect him afterwards. He might be a pensioner, and consider himself still in the Service of this country; but if he had served any time in the British Army, he ought always to have the protection of a British subject around him.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he had no objection to take the point suggested by the hon. Member into consideration. He could not, however, give any promise with regard to the matter now, for it would involve some very nice principles of International Law if any alteration were made. The hon. Gentleman would observe, however, that a man while serving in the British Army acquired the status of a British subject, but was not made one. He would, however, consider the point of International Law which arose in the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 92 (Liability of apprentices enlisting) struck out.

Clause 93 (Claims of masters to apprentices) agreed to.

Clause 94 (Application of apprentice provisions to indentured labourers) agreed to.