SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 March 1885)

§ MR SEXTON
I object. The Motion is only on the Paper for the first time to-day, and consequently Members have not had an opportunity of putting down a Notice of opposition.

§ MR. SPEAKER
This is an Order of the Day, and the fact of the hon. Gentleman's objecting does not prevent it from coming on.

§ MR. SEXTON
I thought that when such a Motion appeared on the Paper for the first time objection could be taken.

§ MR. SPEAKER
That applies only to a Notice of Motion.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that before the Bill was read a second time he should like to ask whether the Government were in a position to state how the Volunteers from the Colonies would be circumstanced in regard to military law when they were serving with the British or Indian troops? A similar question had been put the other day; but he believed that no clear or definite answer had been returned.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, he would answer the question as far as he could. The question involved the consideration of a great many Acts of Parliament which were not at present before him. He might say—to speak generally —that all the Volunteer Forces raised in any of the Colonies—with the single exception of the Cape Mounted Rifles, who were under a discipline of their own—were, when on military service, placed by the Colonial Legislatures under our military law. There were some modifications in the application of that law, however, so far as such Forces were concerned, the most important of which was that they were not liable to corporal punishment. Again, some of the Colonial Forces could only be tried by courts martial consisting of their own officers. Looking to those discrepancies, and to the importance of placing all men serving under the same flag under the same discipline, he had advised—and he thought the arrangement would be carried out—that the Colonial Forces serving with the British Forces should be put unconditionally under Imperial military law; but that could only be done with the sanction of the Colonies themselves. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton) had spoken of the Bill having only been circulated that morning—

§ MR. SEXTON
No; I said this stage had only appeared on the Paper this morning.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
I think it was put on the Paper on Saturday.

§ MR. SEXTON
Yes; but this is the first Sitting of the House since it was put down.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, that, at any rate, the Bill was a simple one. 368 It was merely a renewal of the old Army Act, with only four Amendments in it, all of which were very simple. He should not have asked the House to read it a second time that night if it had proposed any serious change in the law. If the second reading were now agreed to, he should not propose to take the Committee stage until Thursday.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that the law observed in the Colonies as to Colonial Volunteers would have effect when the Volunteers were serving beyond the jurisdiction of the Colonies?

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, he could explain that matter. Under the 177th section of our Army Act, Colonial Forces serving with our Forces were placed under our military law, except so far as the law of the Colonies was inconsistent with that law. Of course, if the Colonies made their law consistent with ours, the Colonial troops would be under our military law altogether.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had not taken exception to the second reading of the Bill on trivial grounds, or merely for the purpose of causing inconvenience or annoyance to Her Majesty's Government or to the House; but he had had a very distinct and definite object. No one was better aware than the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the hon. Member had brought before the House very often a special grievance as to the Regulations of the Army. At present, the Army Regulations were such that the wives of soldiers when deserted were practically left unprotected. The hon. Member, in bringing the matter before the notice of the House, had acted from time to time not merely in obedience to his own feelings, but in consequence of representations which had been made to him and to several other Members of the House by persons interested in removing the grievance. The amendment the hon. Gentleman wished to bring about in the law was to compel soldiers to maintain their wives when removed to a distance from them. At present, it was optional with the Commanding Officer to compel the soldiers to maintain their wives; but 369 the hon. Member desired to remove that option.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, that he had two years ago consented to make a promise which was then optional compulsory. It was compulsory now.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, that his hon. Friend had watched the case much more closely than he had; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should be very much surprised if his hon. Friend were wrong. It was for the reason he had mentioned that the hon. Member had objected to the second reading. He would point out that hon. Members had been taken at a considerable disadvantage by the Government in regard to this Bill. If a Member of the Government were to be allowed to give Notice of the second reading of a Bill for the following Sitting at the very moment the House was rising, then all opportunity of blocking such Bill was taken away, and, consequently, all opportunity of securing that it should be taken at a proper hour of the night.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
I think I am right in what I said. In the Army Act were the words, "The Secretary of State may order," &c.; but in consequence of the action of the hon. Member, those words were changed to, "The Secretary of State shall order a sum not exceeding," &c.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the Act said "not exceeding," so that the Secretary of State might do what he liked.

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said, he thought it extremely unfair that this Bill should be read a second time at that hour of the night. There were a large number of Members who were extremely interested in all affairs relating to the Army; and he had no doubt— and he was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was now seeking for the second reading of the Bill also had very little doubt—that if proper Notice had been given by the Government of their intention to move the second reading that night, many Members would have been in their places who were now absent—who were absent simply because they were under the impression that the Government would not attempt to go on with the Bill at that hour of the morning. However, he merely wished to enter this protest. With regard to the question raised by the hon. 370 Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), he should be very glad if he could elicit a little information from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County, that the Volunteers and Colonial Forces serving with the British Army were under British military law. He (Mr. W. Redmond) wished to have an emphatic assurance on that point. Were these soldiers who were serving with the British Army at their own expense under British military law? That was a question which had been raised before, and in which he knew a great many people to be interested. If those men were not amenable to British law, were they amenable to Australian law; and, if not, then to what law?

§ MR. KENNY
said, he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was quite correct in the point he had raised; for though the word "shall" had been substituted for "may," the obligation was still practically optional, inasmuch as the Commanding Officer could order the soldier's wife to receive "any sum not exceeding," &c. He could order a very small sum to be paid. The condition of the law was very unsatisfactory, the obligation being really a nullity. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General ought to accede to an adjournment of the debate. A quarter past 2 in the morning was an extremely unreasonable hour for such a discussion as that. The question involved was very complicated and very interesting; and looking at those facts, and at the unusual hour at which the Bill had been brought on, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I really hope the House will accede to the second reading of this Bill to-night. It will, I think, be seen that the point referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, is one which, if raised at all, should be raised in Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend does not intend to bring 371 on the Committee stage until Thursday, which will give ample time for hon. Members to bring forward any Amendments they think it right to bring forward. Under the circumstances, I trust the House will not think it desirable to agree to the Motion for Adjournment.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he thought that it would perhaps be as well for them to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and put down Amendments for Thursday; but, with all respect to Mr. Speaker's ruling, he was still in great perplexity as to why the Standing Order embodying the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule did not apply in this case, when a Member objected to the Order being proceeded with.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The ruling I have given has been given more than once from the Chair, and there can be no doubt about it.