Billeting of Officers and Soldiers. (Hansard, 30 June 1879)

§ MR. O'DONNELL
considered this clause gave too much power to a very inferior authority. It provided that— 1022 Every constable of any place in the United Kingdom mentioned in the route issued to the commanding officer of any portion of Her Majesty's Regular Forces, shall, on the demand of such commanding officer, or of an officer or soldier authorized by him, and on production of such route, billet on the occupiers of victualling houses, and other premises specified in this Act as victualling houses in that place, such number of officers, soldiers, and horses entitled under this Act to be billeted as are mentioned in the route, and stated to require quarters. His desire was that the term "every constable" should have some limit. There was a large number of constables in the Irish Constabulary to whom this power ought not to be given, and to whom, he supposed, the Act was not intended to apply. Words ought to be put into the clause to the effect that barony constables, and persons of that kind, were the constables intended, as far as Ireland was concerned. No doubt, the phrase " constable " had a different meaning in different parts of the United Kingdom. In order to raise the question, he would move, pro formâ, that after the word "constable," in line 9, to insert—"Other than a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary." As the clause at present stood, its powers might be used by constables to worry and harass licensed victuallers and others. It was a very nice theory to suppose that every member of the police force was perfect; but, as a matter of fact, he was not; and if the performance of this duty fell to men of little status or experience, he was not at all sure it would not be improperly performed. They all knew cases were constantly occurring in which the police misused the powers intrusted to them.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought the hon. Member might modify his opinions on this subject, because, at the end of Clause 108, there were certain safeguards. For instance, a justice of the peace might require a constable to give an account in writing of the number of officers, soldiers, and horses billeted by such constable, together with the names of the keepers of such victualling houses on whom such officers, soldiers, and horses had been billeted, and the locality of such victualling houses. Generally speaking, he (Major Nolan) did not object to the billeting clauses of this Bill, because they were far better for Ireland than the existing law, and they removed the invidious distinctions which at present existed between England and Ireland in 1023 this matter. Therefore, on the whole, he did not disapprove of these clauses; though before they came to the consideration of the Schedules, which referred to the prices which were to be paid, he hoped the Government would set up the preparatory Committee, because until that was done they could not discuss the prices which ought to be paid to the hotel-keepers.

THE CHAIRMAN
I may point out to the hon. and gallant Member that what he is now referring to does not relate to the Amendment at present before the Committee, which is to exclude the constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary from the operation of the clause.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
said, after the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these billeting clauses placed Ireland in a better position than she was under the old Mutiny Act, he trusted they would be allowed to pass. With regard to the question of the employment of the constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he would ask, if they were not to perform a duty of this kind, who were? Now, that body was classified according to service. He suggested that some words should be introduced limiting the performance of this duty to one of these classes.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that what was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was well worthy of consideration. Practically, the clause would apply to the chief constable in any place, the word "constable" having been substituted for "billet-master," who it was found had little executive power; but there was a great deal, he thought, to be said in favour of the suggestion which had been made, and ho should confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the matter.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
pointed out that in several towns in England there might be only one constable; but that in almost every Irish town there were four or five.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
said, the difficulty which had been raised might be met by the substitution of the words "the senior constable" for "every constable" of any place.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought it would be well for the Committee to adopt the words which had been suggested by the 1024 hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot). They would, in his opinion, meet the case. The fact was, the clause, as it stood, was based on a very old clause in the Mutiny Act, which was framed at a time when it was not anticipated that there would be such a large force of police in Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was probably not aware that there were now 15,000 constables in Ireland. Now, many of those were very young men; and although they were, generally speaking, men of excellent character and exceedingly intelligent, they were scarcely fit to carry out the requirements of the clause. It was very necessary, therefore, that there should be some such limitation introduced into the clause as that proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford. What he would suggest was, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should now adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and that if, after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should find that any further alteration was necessary, that alteration might be made on the Report. He always liked to see the work before him disposed of, if possible, and not put off to another day. To put it off was a kind of procrastination which was not business-like, and which did no good. The Committee, he thought, were agreed as to the necessity of making a change in the clause; and all that was required was the insertion of some words which would affect the object which they all had in view.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, he quite agreed with those hon. Members who contended that it was not right to give the authority which the clause would confer to any constable. What he would suggest was, that it should be intrusted only to the senior constable—that was to say, the constable that was in charge of the police station in any locality to which the clause would apply. If that alteration were made it would, he thought, effect his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan's (Mr. O'Donnell's) object.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
was also of opinion that some such words as " the senior constable of every police station in Ireland " would meet the difficulty.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the point which the Committee were engaged in discuss- 1025 ing was really a very important one. The police force in Ireland was directly under the control of the Government, and not, as in England, under the control of the local authority. Being under the control of the local authority, the police in England were, of course, more amenable to local influences, and would be more careful not to do anything which would give annoyance to the inhabitants of the locality. But the state of things was entirely different in Ireland. There the police were, in reality, the military force. They carried rifles, and were, in fact, better drilled than many soldiers of the Regular Army. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were to see the Irish Constabulary he would say, he was sure, that he never saw in the ranks of the Regular Army men who were superior to them in size or appearance, or in the way in which they went through their drill. Being essentially a military force, they were, as he had already said, under the control of the Government, and in no way under that of the local authority, as was the case in England; and it was necessary, therefore, to be very careful how such a power as that given by the clause should be intrusted to them.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he should have no objection to the insertion, after the words "every constable," in the clause the words "for the time being in charge."

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he should have no objection to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
asked, whether the point at which the Committee had now arrived was not that at which it was desirable that the scale of prices to be paid to the proprietors of licensed victuallers' houses, under the operation of the Bill, should be fixed?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he thought it would be better that the discussion on that point should be taken on the Schedule fixing the scale of prices.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, the matter ought, in his opinion, to be settled without further delay. It was of con- 1026 siderable importance; and it was doubtful whether, when the Schedule came to be 'discussed, it would be open to a private Member to propose an alteration in the scale, and it would be only right, therefore, that a preparatory Committee should be set up. He should like, therefore, to know whether it was proposed to set up such a Committee? The most practical way of dealing with the question would be to settle it at once.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he did not think there was any necessity for proceeding in the way which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. The Bill under discussion was an entirely new measure; and it would be open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to propose any changes which he might think desirable when the Schedule came before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that in the case of an ordinary annual Bill, like the Mutiny Bill, it would not be open to any hon. Member, without the consent of Her Majesty's Government and a Resolution of the Committee of the Whole House, to propose an increase of the charges which might be made under the operation of any clause. He understood, however, that the present Bill was not to be regarded as a measure in any way analogous to an ordinary Bill. He had to point out that, in accordance with Clause 2, the Bill would not come into force except in pursuance of some Act of Parliament to be hereafter passed. This Bill, therefore, and any Amendment introduced into it, would be, if left to itself, wholly inoperative. Under these circumstances, it might, he thought, be fairly held that a Member should not be prohibited from proposing to amend the money provisions of the Schedules of the Bill, although the assent of the Government and Resolution of the Committee had not been previously obtained as regarded the financial points involved, and although it would be necessary that such authorization should be obtained in the case of an enforcing or reviving Bill passed year by year.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he objected to some of the exceptions which it was proposed to make under the operation of the clause. He, therefore, begged to 1027 move the omission of sub-section 2, which provided that an officer or soldier should not be billeted " in any canteen held or occupied under the authority of a Secretary of State." He could not understand why a canteen, occupied under the authority of the Secretary of State, should be exempted from an obligation to which other victualling houses were liable. Canteens held, or occupied, under the authority of the Secretary of State, were, ho thought, fit and proper places in which to billet soldiers; and he could see no good reason why they should not be made use of for the purpose. He, therefore, begged to move the omission of the word " nor," in line 10, down to the word "nor," in line 12.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the canteens were intended only for the accommodation of the soldiers in barracks, and were not fitted up so as to be capable of affording sleeping accommodation, except to those in charge of them. They were, in fact, established for military purposes, and there was no spare accommodation for the billeting in them of troops.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
contended that there was no need for the exemption which was made by the clause. In those cases in which there was room enough, canteens ought to be made use of for the purpose of billeting soldiers. Where there was not, of course, it would he impossible to make use of them. But, in any case, the exemption seemed to be an invidious one. If canteens were not fitted for the purpose of billeting soldiers, then they ought to be returned as being unfit; if they were fitted, then they should be returned as being so, in the same way as any ordinary victualling house. The billeting constable would know whether there was room or not, and would act accordingly.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved the omission from the clause of the 3rd sub-section, which provided that an officer or soldier should not be billeted— On persons who keep taverns only, being vintners of the City of London, admitted to their freedom of the said Company in right of patrimony or apprenticeship, notwithstanding the persons who keep such taverns have taken out licenses for the sale of any intoxicating liquor. He could not, he said, quite understand why the exemption was proposed.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the exemption was one which had been allowed ever since the year 1761, and one which had, he believed, been provided for in the Charter of the Vintners' Company.

§ MR. PARNELL
regarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as affording a very good argument why the privilege in question should be taken away. The free vintners of London had been so long exceptionally treated that it was time, in his opinion, they should give up their monopoly- for the good of the Army.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, the argument of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), if carried to its legitimate conclusion, would go to the extent that a man might be deprived of his hereditary property on the ground that it had been so long in his possession that he ought to possess it no longer. His family had enjoyed it for a very long time, and therefore it ought to be taken away from them. It would scarcely be right, he thought, that the Committee should accede to such a proposition as that, and abolish a privilege which had now existed for a considerable time, especially as the hon. Member had given no Notice of his intention to move such an Amendment in the clause. The change which the hon. Member proposed might be a very proper one to make at some future time; but the Committee, ho was sure, would be of opinion that it ought not to be made on a sudden, affecting, as it did, several hundreds of persons.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not press his Amendment. The question which it raised was purely a London question, in which Irish Members had little or no interest. It was one, also, which in no way affected the general public.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that the matter was one in which the public generally were not interested. The exemption given by the clause to the publicans of London was, in his opinion, unfair; and it could hardly, with justice, be argued that they had a vested right to the exemption, because it was given to them by the provisions of a Bill which had to be renewed year by year.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, the privilege had been given by an Act passed in the reign of Charles II., and that the reason for conferring it was that the free vintners did not reside on the promises in which they carried on their trade. They had shops, but not dwelling-houses in which soldiers could be billeted.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, that if the vintners of the City of London had not houses in which soldiers could be billeted, they would not be returned by the constable for the time being in charge as being in a position to afford the necessary accommodation. If, on the other hand, they had houses, there was no good ground, so far as he could see, why they should be exempted from the operation of the clause. If the licensed victuallers of London were exempted, why, he should like to know, should not a similar privilege be extended to the licensed victuallers of Kilmallock? There was, in his opinion, very little force in the argument that, because the London publicans had enjoyed a certain exemption for several years, they ought to be allowed to enjoy it for ever. It would, therefore, he maintained, be better that they should be placed on the same level as licensed victuallers in other parts of the United Kingdom. He would not recommend his lion. Friend the Member for Meath to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he did not, at the same time, think that the Amendment ought to be withdrawn.

§ MR. PARNELL
would remind the Committee that the present Bill was, after all, only an annual Bill. The question raised by his Amendment was, under those circumstances, placed upon a different footing from that upon which it would stand if they were engaged in passing a measure which was intended should be of a more permanent character. If the privilege to which he objected were now done away with, it would be only for one year; and, at the expiration of that period, Parliament would be in a position to see what was the effect of the proposed change. If it was found that it operated injuriously, then the privilege might be restored. It was said that the vintners of the City of London had no houses in which soldiers could be billeted; but he was never before aware that they were so poor, or that they carried on their business in places something like a Noah's Ark. He had 1030 always been under the impression that those gentlemen had good houses; and he had very little doubt but that they would be found adequate to carry out the requirements of billeting.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
said, he could see no good reason for the exemption of the vintners of the City of London from the operation of the clause. He knew of instances, in his own experience, in which troops marching through the City had accommodation provided for them there.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought the Amendment was a very sensible one, and one, therefore, which the Committee would do well to accept. He was under the impression that troops were never billeted in the City of London; but his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had just informed the Committee that instances in which they had been had come within his own knowledge. The proposed exemption, he might add, was, so far as he could judge, likely to be of no benefit to the citizens of Loudon; while it might have the effect of causing considerable inconvenience in the case of troops marching through the City. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to say whether, in his opinion, the privilege was one which should be allowed to continue to exist?

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
explained, that the proposed exemption was the natural consequence of the privilege enjoyed by the City of London, that no troops should march through it without the sanction of the City authorities. Leave had to be obtained from the Lord Mayor before they could be marched through; and the privilege had its origin at the time of the Great Fire in London, when the Lord Mayor found fault with the officer in command of the troops for proceeding as far as the Mansion House, and not stopping at Temple Bar.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he understood that troops could march through the City of London without the permission of the City authorities.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, they could march through the City, and that the prohibition which had been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) related only to troops marching 1031 with fixed bayonets, colours flying, and bands playing, adding that the 3rd Buffs were exempted from the prohibition.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
proposed the omission from the clause of sub-section 5, which provided that an officer or soldier should not be billeted— In the house of any shopkeeper whose principal dealing is more in other goods and merchandize than in brandy and strong waters, so as such shopkeeper does not permit tippling in such house.

CAPTAIN MILNE-HOME
moved, in page 56, line 32, after "houses," to insert "and all other persons." The object of his Amendment, he said, was to bring the wording of the clause into accordance with that of Clause 104, in which the provisions of the Bill were made to extend not only to all inns and hotels, but to "all houses of persons" selling brandy or strong waters by retail. In the clause before the Committee the words "all houses of persons" were omitted.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the Amendment was unnecessary, for the clause provided that the list made out should include " all keepers of victualling houses within the meaning of this Act; " and Clause 104 provided that " all houses of persons" selling brandy or spirits of any kind should come under the operation of the Bill.

§ MR. J. BROWN
called attention to sub-section 6, which gave authority to a Justice of the Peace, on the request of an officer or non-commissioned officer authorized to demand billets, to vary a 1032 route by adding or omitting any place for billeting purposes; and suggested that it would be desirable that provision should be made in the clause for informing the Quartermaster General by telegraph of the proposed change of route. Otherwise, he would have no means of knowing how matters stood, and great confusion might be the result if he was kept in ignorance of the direction in which the troops were marching, and the place in which they were about to be billeted. Under these circumstances, the Justice of the Peace ought, he thought, to have the duty imposed upon him of informing, by telegraph, the officer in the Quartermaster General's Department, who might originally have signed the order for the route, of the alteration which it was intended to make in the line of march.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the matter was one with which, in his opinion, it would be best to deal by means of regulation. The sub-section in question was framed to meet the case in which it might occur that there would be inconvenience attending the billeting of the troops on the line of route originally marked out, and in which it might be found desirable to march them to a point further on, or to halt at a point nearer than was at first intended.

§ MR. J. BROWN
said, that there was the objection to dealing with the matter by regulation that the Justice of the Peace would not, in all probability, be acquainted with and would not be subject to the regulations.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
said, the commanding officer was the person who would have to obey the regulations, and he, of course, would be acquainted with them.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that, under subsection 3 the keeper of a victualling house, if he felt himself aggrieved by having an undue proportion of officers, soldiers, or horses billeted on him, might complain to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; and pointed out that the words " court of summary jurisdiction " must be taken to mean the Court of Petty Sessions, from whose decision, whatever it might be, no right of appeal was given. Now, a man upon whom a portion of a regiment might have been quartered for a length of time might wish to carry any grievance of which he had to complain, in the event of the 1033 decision of the Court of Petty Sessions being against him, before a higher tribunal; and, in his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, it was but fair that he should be enabled to do so. There was no good reason why he should not have the power of appealing to the Court of Quarter Sessions, for instance.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
pointed out that the power of appeal which the hon. Member proposed to give would really be of no use to the keeper of a victualling house; for all that could be done, if the decision of the court of appeal was in his favour, was to order the troops, which had been billeted upon him, to be billeted elsewhere, and they would probably have left his house long before.

§ MR. PARNELL
contended that the right of appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions might be of use in many cases; and as the exercise of the right would be entirely optional with the keeper of the house, ho could see no good reason why it should be refused to him. If he thought he could do himself any good by appealing, he would probably take that course; if not, he would refrain from doing so.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, there was really less excuse for the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the clause by constables than almost anyone else, because they were supposed to understand thoroughly well the nature of the duties which they had to perform; and the Committee had decided that it was only to a duly qualified officer that the carrying out of these billeting clauses should be intrusted. That being so, power should, he thought, be given to inflict a heavier penalty than the clause proposed on a constable who transgressed its provisions. As the clause stood, the offender was made liable, on conviction, to a fine of not less than 40s., and not exceeding £5. Those amounts appeared to him to be too small, seeing that it was difficult to know to what inconvenience and expense and annoyance the owner of a house might not be put, by having troops billeted upon him. He was not able to say whether it was open to him to propose that the maximum fine of £5 should be 1034 raised without raising the minimum; but he should like to move, by way of Amendment, that the word" five" should be omitted from the clause, and the word "ten" inserted instead of it. £10 would not, it seemed to him, be at all too high a sum to impose as a fine on a constable who had been convicted of committing any of the very serious offences which were set forth in the clause. It would be a very serious offence, for example, for a constable, in consequence of the receipt of a reward, to excuse or relieve a person from his liability to have troops billeted upon him—an offence against which subsection 2 was directed—or that he should billet or quarter on any person without his consent, persons or horses, who were not entitled to be so billeted, as provided against by sub-section 3; and he ought, he contended, to be made liable to a heavier penalty for such offences than the clause proposed. He begged, therefore, to move that the word "five" be omitted from the clause.

ASSHETON CROSS
said, he had no objection to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman.