§ In Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) after the words "order a portion" there shall be inserted the words "not exceeding in respect of a wife and children one shilling and sixpence, and in respect of a bastard child one shilling, of the daily pay of a warrant officer not holding an honorary commission."1993
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move to insert, after the word "children" ["maintain his wife and children"], the words "the word 'sixteen' shall be substituted for the word 'fourteen' and."
I think this is a very sensible and quite a serious Amendment. I have had it in view for a good number of weeks. I had it already to put down the very night this Bill passed its Second Reading. For several days it was the only Amendment to this Bill on the Order Paper, and I claim the attention of the Committee for it as an Amendment which is seriously meant, and has a great deal to be said for it. It refers to the liability of a soldier to support his children. Never mind whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, the point is that a soldier ought to support his children up to the age of sixteen, just as much as a civilian. Probably that is the law although it has not actually been decided by a Court of Law. I think, however, we may say it is the only safe course to assume that it is the law that a soldier is liable to support his children up to the age of sixteen. But when an order is made that a soldier must support his children or his wife, the Army Act only contemplates the supporting of a child or children up to the age of fourteen years. There is, therefore, some doubt and difficulty in this matter. Suppose an order has been made upon a soldier serving in the Army, and the child is above fourteen and under sixteen years of age. The Colonel does not know in what position he stands, and he does not know whether the money ought to be deducted from the soldier's pay or not.
This difficulty has been recognised by the Secretary for War. I put an unstarred question upon this point some time ago, and the right hon. Gentleman fully recognised the liability of the soldier, and also the fact that there was some doubt as to whether this might be charged upon the soldier's pay. In order to make the point quite clear I move this Amendment, and I hope my proposal will commend itself to the representatives of the War Office on the Treasury Bench. Just let me point out one more fact which will show that this is really in the interests of the soldier himself. If an order is made under the Summary Jurisdiction Act upon a soldier for the maintenance of his wife or children, only a certain amount can be deducted from his pay. That amount may not be sufficient to meet the payments which are ordered 1994 in the magistrate's order, and in that case there will be a deficiency each week, and when the soldier leaves the Army, all the amount of his deficiencies can be added up, and he will be in arrear to that amount. It is not infrequently the case that a soldier who has been paying all he can be made to pay under the Army Act, finds himself on leaving the Army, saddled with a large amount of arrears, and he is liable for them, especially if the woman or the guardian of the child is represented by a not very reputable solicitor, in which case the soldier may be proceeded against and arrested on a warrant and put into prison immediately after leaving the Army whilst seeking a situation. Therefore, I think it is entirely in the soldier's interests to have the payments clearly defined, and paid out to the maximum amount that can properly be demanded. In the interests of the mother, the children, and the soldier himself, I move this Amendment, and I hope the representatives of the War Office will accept it. I know there is the difficulty about having a Report stage, but in view of the fact that there has been no obstruction whatever, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman fully admits the reasonableness of this Amendment, I hope it will be accepted.
§ Mr. H. BAKER
My hon. Friend said quite truly that this Amendment has been looked upon favourably by the Secretary for War, but he must not take that as meaning that he has given any guarantee that this Amendment would be accepted. My right hon. Friend has said that there is a great deal to be said for this proposal. Perhaps I might point out to the House exactly how the matter stands with regard to the liability of the soldier at the present moment. Under Section 145, Sub-section (2), which deals with this Section, the soldier, unlike the civilian, is open to a double process. He is on exactly the same footing as the civilian, and may be dealt with for the maintenance of children, either legitimate or illegitimate under the law. He can also be proceeded against by the military authorities in respect of his legitimate children. It is true that the age up to which maintenance can be ordered is fourteen under the Army Act, whereas under the ordinary Bastardy Law for civilians at large the age is sixteen. I have made some inquiries why this difference in the law was made, and I find that the age of fourteen goes back for a 1995 very long time. Probably it dates from the Articles of War, and it certainly dates from a time prior to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 which fixes the ordinary age for the civilian at sixteen. Therefore, from the soldier's point of view he is not getting any advantage by the age being fourteen as against sixteen, because he can be got at in two ways instead of one. In reply to my hon. Friend, all I can say is that before this time next year the matter will be very carefully considered, and the Secretary for War will see whether he is able to insert an Amendment of this kind in the Army Act. I am told by those who know that soldiers do suffer in this respect and are victimised unduly. Of course, one does not wish to increase the stringency of the law in cases where it may be used unfairly, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter will be very carefully considered, and if possible next year something will be done to meet this point.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
I do not know what was the origin of the age being fixed at fourteen, but I might remind the hon. Member that the school board system of ages has been fixed since, and it is highly desirable for reasons connected with education that the age should be taken up to sixteen.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-sections:—(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the amount which may be deducted from the pay of a soldier in respect of a bastard child under Sub-section (2) of the cited Section shall, if the soldier is at the time of the making of the order of affiliation unmarried, be increased—
- (a) in the case of a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of a sergeant to ninepence;
- (b) in the case of any other soldier to sixpence.Provided that for the purposes of this Sub-section a soldier shall not be 1996 deemed to be unmarried by reason of the marriage having been celebrated without leave.(3) Where an order has, before the commencement of this Act, been made authorising deductions to be made under Sub-section (2) of the cited Section, whether in respect of a wife or any legitimate or bastard child, it shall be lawful for a further order to be made increasing the amount of the deductions to be made after the commencement of this Act under the former order up to the limit authorised by this Section.Provided that no such further order shall be made in respect of a bastard child if the soldier is married (whether with or without leave) at the commencement of this Act."
If the hon. Gentleman had given way on the last Amendment he would not have been troubled with this long Amendment, but now I shall insist upon moving this one also. He is young on that bench, and let it be a warning to him to give way at once. He will then get ample return. Last year the Secretary of State for War put in an Amendment which I had suggested the previous year, and he will no doubt next year quietly insert the Amendment I have just moved because of what has transpired to-day. This Amendment is also needed to make the matter quite clear. It is necessary, in order that yon should not have to refer to one or two Acts correcting one another, to have some such Amendment as I propose. Clause 6 does not provide for the existing liability of a warrant officer being increased from the passing of the Act. That is the real point, and that ought to be done. It is entirely in line with the Amendment introduced last year, and with the Amendment which I have just moved, and I hope I shall have some expression of sympathy also on this point.
§ Mr. H. BAKER
My hon. Friend in the course of his remarks has pointed out that other tactics have met with success on previous occasions, and I would therefore certainly advise him to adhere to them on this occasion. The fact that last year the Secretary of State brought forward Amendments which the hon. Member had suggested the previous year shows that he gave them careful and sympathetic consideration during the course of the year, and perhaps the hon. Member will in this case be also prepared to wait for a similar event. When the whole question was 1997 discussed in 1911, it was on the basis that there had been an increase in the soldier's pay since the amounts payable had been last raised. That was some ground for raising them again, but there has been no corresponding increase in pay since then to justify a further rise. I would commend that to the consideration of my hon. Friend. I hope he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Colonel YATE
I beg to move to leave out the word "shilling" ["and in respect of a bastard child one shilling"], and to insert instead thereof "ninepence."
§ Mr. ASHLEY
I most heartily support this Amendment that 9d. should be substituted for 1s. I do not know why the wretched warrant officer should be singled out of the whole community for special treatment in this matter. The pay of a warrant officer in the British Army varies from 5s. to 5s. 9d. a day, and you are proposing to deduct one-fifth of his total income. That is a very large proportion of a man's pay to take away from him for a bastard child, especially when we consider that a civilian is only liable to pay 5s. per week. I believe I am right in saying that a civilian cannot be made to pay more than 5s. per week. We are therefore picking the warrant officer out of the whole of the British community and saying he shall pay at the rate of 7s. per week. This is the man whose pay, given him by the State, is 5s. or 5s. 6d. a day. We ought to have some substantial reasons given why this change has been made and why he should be singled out and punished much more severely than any civilian is under the ordinary law of the land, or at any rate according to the usual custom. I feel rather strongly about the matter, but I will reserve any further remarks until I have heard the views of the War Office.
Mr. F. HALL
It is proposed in this Clause that the increase shall be from 6d. to 1s. per day. I should like to ask on what ground the War Office have found it necessary or advisable to propose an increase of practically cent. per cent. A warrant officer at the present time receives 5s. per day, and, taking one who is liable for two illegitimate children, you are proposing to 1998 take away two-thirds of his pay. It has been admitted up to the present that the needs of the case are met by a payment of 6d. for each child. I am not aware that there has been any increase of pay to account for this enormously increased liability of the warrant officer. The pay warrant officers receive at the present time is quite small enough. They are to all intents and purposes experienced officers; they are men on whom enormous duties devolve, and I think when one comes to consider that their payment is only 35s. per week, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will appreciate the smallness of their income, placing their requirements against the requirements of many unskilled labourers. I sincerely trust the War Office will not press for this 1s. a day, but that they will accept the Amendment. I hope, if necessary, my hon. Friend will press this to a Division, and if he does so I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
There is one point upon which I should like the Financial Secretary to give us some explanation. Reading Section 145 of the original Army Act one sees these limiting words:—These shall be the sums paid by a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant.I believe a corporal is a warrant officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think there really ought to be someone here who could advise us legally on this point. Do we still retain those limiting words in the original Act? If so, why are we in this Clause changing the words which are in the original Act, the meaning of which everybody knows? You say in the original Act that these sums shall be the sums to be paid by non-commissioned officers not below the rank of sergeant. One can at once see that it is only those who are sergeants, or above the rank of a sergeant, who will pay these amounts. Now you use the term warrant officer, and there ought to be some justification for that change in terminology and for the proposals which the Government are making. I would request the hon. Gentleman to look at the Preamble of Section 145 of the old Army Act, which is as follows:—A soldier of the Regular Forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be 1999 the father to the same extent as if he were not a soldier.We are not proposing to alter that in the slightest degree. If you do not attempt to amend this Section how can you carry out that Preamble which I have read? If you go on to say that he is to contribute so much more than an ordinary civilian in similar circumstances — and there is no doubt you are doing that—then certainly you ought to strike out the words which state most distinctly that the soldier shall only be called upon to pay as much as ordinary folk in ordinary civilian life. I would like to have some explanation as to how far we are going in reference to this Section. In the first place, why is the new term introduced, "Officer of Warrant rank," whereas in the previous Army Acts there has been a clear definition, namely, "Non-commissioned Officer not below the rank of Sergeant." Everybody can understand that at once, yet those words are now excluded and we are going to say "below the rank of Warrant Officer" without any exception. What is a warrant officer? Surely there would be some difficulty arising under these words. I submit that such an innovation as is here proposed requires justification and at least some explanation. The probability is that if the Secretary of State will explain to us the situation all our doubts will be removed, but we certainly ought to have some explanation before we proceed to make the payment from the non-commissioned officer in the Army actually more than that demanded from the ordinary civilian under similar circumstances.
Mr. EDMUND HARVEY
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hesitate before he accepts this Amendment, which is only put forward at the very last moment. It is a serious matter that it should not have been put down on the Paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "How could it be?"] There has been an appeal made from the other side on behalf of these poor, underpaid men, pointing out the hardship it would be to them if they had this amount deducted from their pay. I do not want to see the men in the Army underpaid, but the question whether they are or are not receiving a sufficient wage is one that should be dealt with separately. We have to consider in this connection not only the position of the man, but also that of the unfortunate illegitimate child. This proposal on the part of the Government will make the lot of the unhappy mother of the child easier. There is no doubt 2000 whatever that the death rate among illegitimate children is far higher than among legitimate children, and one reason is the miserable pittance on which the unhappy mothers have to eke out existence for themselves and their child. This House will be doing wrong if it hastily decides to make that pittance smaller.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
There may be something perhaps to be said in favour of the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I would point out that it is also an argument in favour of vice. The hon. Gentleman says that the sum ought to be larger because the mothers are unhappy. But surely that would be promoting vice. One wants to discourage these wrongful alliances, and not to provide an amount of money which would encourage them.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The penalty is on the father; he has to pay the money. The only question before the Committee is, how much money he should pay. That he should pay a considerable sum I think is right, but the amount should be regulated in accordance with his means, for you cannot expect him to pay away the whole of his income. In my opinion it should be the same sum as is demanded from the civilian. Why should a soldier be worse treated than a civilian?
§ Captain JESSEL
I reiterate strongly what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. I cannot see where the justice comes in if a man is to be penalised for being a soldier by having to pay a great deal more than a civilian. As far as I know—and I have studied the question because I am interested in another Bill dealing with this measure which is to be introduced shortly—in the case of a civilian the Court can only make an order of 5s. weekly. That is the maximum sum. Again you are here making a distinction between the rank of non-commissioned officer and warrant officer. A warrant officer may be a sergeant-major, an armourer-sergeant, or a bandmaster, while officers of non-commissioned rank are sergeants and lance-sergeants, and corporals and lance-corporals. I cannot see why a warrant officer should be called upon to pay 2s. more than a civilian. If there is going to be any alteration of the law in 2001 this respect it should be made, not by an Amendment of the Army (Annual) Act, but by legislation promoted either by a private Member or by the Home Secretary, who is the Minister responsible for dealing with matters of this kind. I cannot understand what has induced the Army authorities, when they have so much else to do, to plunge into this very difficult subject. Why should they take upon themselves to alter the law in this respect, especially as not long since we had a Royal Commission which dealt with the whole question of bastardy? I hope that hon. Members who are not in favour of a change being made in the amount payable by the soldier will not, because they feel a natural sympathy for the hardships endured by the mothers of these children, accuse hon. Members on this side of being indifferent to the claims of humanity, simply because they object to differential treatment being meted out to civilians and to soldiers. We who have served in the Army feel it our duty to make this protest against a palpable injustice, and we hope that the Secretary for War will give this proposal his grave consideration. I would like to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment that it does not go far enough, and I hope that he will withdraw it and move another, fixing the sum at 5s. per week. Again, I would like to ask why should a warrant officer without honorary rank pay this large amount, while no limit is fixed on the amount he has to pay if he bears honorary rank? The sergeant-major of the regiment is the warrant officer without honorary rank. The bandmaster very often has honorary rank, yet it seems to me he gets off scot free, or is only liable under the ordinary law to pay 5s. Why should the sergeant-major be penalised to the extent of 2s. weekly? I hope the Secretary for War will seriously consider before he rejects this Amendment?
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I should like to join strongly in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman by the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward). I cannot understand why a soldier should not be treated on this question of bastardy just the same as an ordinary civilian. In the latter case the Court, if it adjudges a man to be the putative father of a child, orders him to make a contribution according to his means. It is quite true that this new provision which we are discussing only 2002 fixes the maximum contribution, and that the Court making the order will still have the power to put it at 5s. But it is sure to read the Section, if it includes this special provision that the warrant officer shall pay a sum not exceeding 7s. per week, as if the House of Commons, in passing it, had some special object in view, and as if it must have been intended that, in the majority of cases, 7s. should be the amount ordered to be paid. Why should this departure have been made? It it had been left exactly as it was, and the man treated as a civilian, then the Court would always have had the power to make an order proportionate to the man's means. It is a dangerous precedent to put into an Act of Parliament a provision fixing a maximum above the ordinary rate which obtains in the country and which a putative father may be bound to pay. Why is it being done? If you leave it as it was, you give the ordinary power which was exercised in regard to a civilian, but if you put it in, you are apt to mislead those who make the order, to the detriment of a man who can ill-afford to pay more than the ordinary member of the public.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Colonel SEELY
The discussion we have had has made the point in dispute quite clear. It being admitted that a man should pay in support of his child in accordance with his means, and it being agreed that the scale to be laid down is graduated accordingly, as it is, the question is, Have we graduated it too high for the higher ranks? There are three parties to be considered on whose behalf appeals ad misericordiam can be made—the father, the mother, and the child. The Committee will rightly say that we must not be too sentimental in this matter, and that while we sympathise with the mother and with the child, we must not be too hard on the man. If this proposal had emanated from some very sympathetic Member of the Committee there might have been some force in that contention. I will tell the Committee how it comes about. There have been many cases, sad cases, brought to our notice. There was a particular case which was pressed upon us. It was not pressed upon us by sentimentalists, but first of all by the soldiers in command—the brigadier-general and the officers in the command—and it was brought to the notice of the Army Council that it was a real hardship that a man who had a considerable income in the way of pocket money, as the hon. Member for 2003 Stoke (Mr. John Ward) will know, should only allow this comparatively small sum. If, therefore, you are to graduate the amount, what should be paid for the children, and ought you to graduate further? The apparently hard-hearted Army Councillors sat and considered this question most carefully, and came to the definite decision that in the interests of the mother of the child it was fair to deduct from money which a man would always have over and above his necessary requirements a sum which would give the mother and the child a better chance. If the Army Council have been too sympathetic towards the mother and the child the Committee will rightly vote in favour of the Amendement. If, on the other hand, the Committee considers, and I hope it will, and I appeal to every member of the Committee to believe that it is not likely that the soldiers who recommended this and the Army Council as a whole are overborne by sentimentality—if they think it is a fair deduction to make with full knowledge of the facts in the interests of the mother and the child, then I hope they will reject the Amendment, which I know has been moved with the best of intentions.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I have not heard the whole of the Debate, but from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said I do not think he has given any reason for raising the sum to a shilling a day. I do not know whether he has the whole of the military authorities behind him in bringing about this very great change. I should like to ask him, in the event of a warrant officer being reduced, if he becomes a sergeant or is still further reduced, what will be the position of the mother and child? Is the allowance to be reduced in accordance with his rank, or is he to suffer an additional penalty if he has been reduced? That is an important point to which the right hon. Gentleman might direct his attention. It seems very hard on the mother, after being accustomed to receiving one shilling a day, that the sum she receives should be reduced owing to the fact that the putative father has been reduced in rank. I hope the Amendment will be carried, because I have not been able to discover the reason why the right hon. Gentleman and the military authorities have made this alteration.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTT
The right hon. Gentleman has missed one of the chief 2004 points of our objection to the proposal in the Bill, and why we support this Amendment. Those who have listened to his explanation will consider it to be practically no explanation at all. I wonder if he realises that if this change is made a warrant officer will be liable to pay 7s. a week for a bastard child, while the colonel of his regiment, under the civil law, will only be liable to pay 5s. That seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs, and I cannot imagine that it would be embodied in a Bill by any Government. The right hon. Gentleman is far too fond of shielding himself behind what he calls his military advisers. One day it is the Army Council and another day the General Staff. So far as I can make out, the sole reason for this alteration is that a single case only came before the Army Council, and on that case alone and the recommendations made upon it he considers it desirable that the Army Act should be altered in this manner. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)
Perhaps I may be able to shorten the discussion if I explain to the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) that these figures are maxima, and that it must not be supposed they will always be acted upon to the fullest extent.
§ Mr. TENNANT
The shilling a day in this Clause is a maximum, and it does not follow that it will always be imposed to the full. With regard to the question of the Noble Lord as to the warrant officer who is reduced to a non-commissioned officer, I may say that this Clause does not apply at all. It specifically states that it is only deducted from the pay of the warrant officer.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, that the figures in this Clause are only maxima, but everybody knows that in cases of this sort, where in an Act of Parliament the maximum is mentioned, it has the tendency to become the normal. Therefore the figures in the Clause are almost certain to be acted upon in any orders or decrees which are made. The Secretary for War a moment or two ago said that the persons who had to be taken into account in this matter were the unfortunate mother of the child and the father, but he leaves out of account third parties, who in very many cases deserve as much 2005 commiseration and consideration as others whom he named. It is the case that in very many instances the man who becomes the father of an illegitimate child, either at the time the child is born or not long afterwards, himself becomes a married man. Therefore you have, not only to consider the mother of the illegitimate child and the father, but that man's wife and children. We should be acting in a sentimental but perfectly intelligent way in the interests of the woman if we left out of account the superior claims of a man's own wife and children, but if a heavy tax is to be put upon a man for a fault of this sort, it is very unfair that the penalty for that fault should fall not only upon the mother of the child and the man, who are the sinners in the case, but upon perfectly innocent parties who are involved, namely, his own wife and family. The procedure which is put into this Bill loses sight of the whole purpose of the Act itself. As I read Section 145 of the Act, the whole intention is solely to provide a method of execution in cases of debts incurred under decrees of the Civil Courts, because the Act says that the man shall be liable for the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father to the same extent as if he were not a soldier.
It is clear that the Act contemplates, so far as the weight of the penalty is concerned, that there is to be no departure from the ordinary liability of a civilian, and it is only because it is felt necessary in the case of a soldier to make special provision for protecting his uniform, accoutrements, and so forth, from being taken in execution that the Section goes on to provide for the possibility of the Army Council or an officer deducting the amount which may have to be paid. In these circumstances it would be a most unjustifiable proceeding to suddenly incorporate in this Act, not merely a variation of the amount for which a man may be liable, but a complete alteration of the whole purpose of the Section in the original Act. If that is to be done; if the Army Council or the officer is to be given the power, not merely of execution on behalf of the Civil Court, but themselves practically to impose under this Bill a greater penalty than has been imposed before in all similar cases, we are straying from the ordinary intention of the Army Act. I agree with what fell from the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), that it is a monstrous thing merely because a man 2006 happens to be serving the Crown and wearing His Majesty's uniform that there should be a different law in respect to a matter of ordinary social life, and that owing to his special connection with service in the Army he should be treated in a different fashion and on a different grade of punishment from the ordinary civilian. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. He appears to resist the Amendment merely upon the strength of someone or perhaps a few individual cases, no doubt cases which have stirred his sympathy and would no doubt stir our sympathy if we knew the facts, but he entirely forgot the very old and true saying that hard cases make bad law, and I think we should be in danger of creating a very much greater injustice, not only to unfortunate soldiers who have made a fault of this sort, but also to those who are dependent upon them, and who are perfectly innocent of any sort of fault, if we departed from the law as it at present stands, and imposed this greater penalty.
§ Mr. ASHLEY
I would ask the Committee to deal with this subject in a practical way, and to put sentimental considerations for the moment out of their minds. What are the facts that have emerged from this discussion? Under the Statute Law of England at present no civilian can be made to pay more than 5s. a week for the support of an illegitimate child.
§ Mr. ASHLEY
That may be so, but, broadly speaking, the money which may be handed over to the mother is 5s. a week. Also a Bill is being brought in to increase that amount—I think a very excellent Bill and one which many of us will support. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do under this Clause to-day? He proposes that we should enact that a warrant officer should be liable to pay 7s. a week, whereas the law of England says no one else shall pay more than 5s. a week. It may be said that is the maximum. I agree they will not always be mulcted in 7s. a week, but we are laying down that they may. Is the commanding officer to follow the Army Act or the Statute Law? Is it not conceivable that an action would lie on the part of a soldier against the command- 2007 ing officer for having deducted 7s. a week, whereas the law of England only allowed him to deduct 5s. a week? I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider the matter till Report stage and consult the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ Mr. ASHLEY
That makes it all the more important that the right hon. Gentleman should justify his proposition which, with all due deference, he has not done. He did not deal with the point why a civilian should be treated in one way and a soldier in another. It would make the Committee ridiculous to pass a law which conflicts with the law at present, and which may put officers in a difficult position, because they will not know which law to obey.
§ Colonel GREIG
I think that the Committee is under some misapprehension. The soldier and the civilian have always been treated, and in the Statute Law at present are treated in a different manner, and for very substantial reasons. A number of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side do not seem to have borne in mind the Section of the Army Act with which they are dealing. Section 145 contains the statement of a general principle, but it is a principle confined to this, that you are to treat a soldier, so far as regards payment, as much as possible as a civilian:—A soldier of the Regular Forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of his children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father, to the same extent as if he were not a soldier; but execution in respect of any such liability, or of any order or decree in respect of such maintenance shall not issue against his person, pay, arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments, regimental necessaries, or clothing.Up to that point the civilian and the soldier are the same, except that you cannot take the soldier's pay, regimental equipment, and so on. Now comes a Sub-section which treats the soldier as a very different person from the civilian:—Nor shall he be liable to be punished for the offence of deserting or neglect- 2008 ing to maintain his wife or family, or any member thereof, or for leaving her or them chargeable to any union, parish, or place.Then the Sub-section proceeds further down to make a distinction as regards liability in respect to and as a consideration for this exemption that the soldier has in comparison with the civilian, and says this:—The Army Council or officer shall order a portion not exceeding in respect of a wife or children one shilling and in respect of a bastard child sevenpence of the daily pay of a non-commissioned officer.Of course the essence and principle and scope of the Army Act is that the civilian and the soldier are different persons. You cannot take his pay or his equipment, or seize him and bring him up for desertion, because his services might be wanted to defend his country, but if you put him in that position you are entitled at the same time to say, "You have to maintain your wife and children, and we are going to take a little more of your pay than in the case of a civilian."
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I do not think the hon. Member quite apprehends the point I was trying to make. He said the case did not come under this Section. I think it does, because an order may have been made for 7s. in the case of a warrant officer who is reduced to a non-commissioned rank or to the ranks How is the mother to get the money? If the warrant officer is reduced to non-commissioned rank, there is no longer any right to deduct 7s. from his pay. That is the point to which the right hon. Gentleman might direct his attention.
§ Mr. BUTCHER
Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the effect of the Section: Would it be possible under that Section for the Secretary of State to order 7s. a week to be paid by the warrant officer? The objection has been taken on this side that a Civil Court can only order a warrant officer to pay 5s. a week. Then it is suggested that the Secretary of State may order a warrant officer to pay 7s. a week. Is that really the true effect of the Clause? If it is so, it seems to me a very obvious hardship upon the warrant officer that the Secretary of State should be allowed to impose an additional 2s. a week beyond what a Civil Court would impose upon him. 2009 If that is not the effect of the Clause, the objection which has been raised on this side is met to a certain degree. I am inclined to think the effect of the Clause is not to allow the Secretary of State to give more than a Court would give, and that the Secretary of State could only give an order for payment of 5s. a week.
§ Mr. KING
I want rather to protest against the way in which this Debate is going on. The whole question is raised by a Clause of this Bill. I put down an Amendment at the very earliest opportunity raising these various points. I brought it forward and got sympathy from the Secretary of State, and withdrew it because he is going to consider it. After I sat down an hon. Member got up with a manuscript Amendment and no one now knows what it is, and without understanding the Army Act and without having read it, as his speech very clearly showed, he has wasted a great deal of time by throwing dust…
§ Mr. KING
I am trying to show the dust before I clear it away. I am not going to argue this case, because it has been very well put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig) and by others. I will only point this out. Those who have spoken on the other side think that a man cannot have several illegitimate children. It is possible that he may have more than one illegitimate child. Looked at from that point of view, it is quite obvious that 7s. a week may be quite inadequate for the amount that may be demanded from him by law, and if a larger amount than that is demanded by law, when he leaves the Army there will be a large amount of arrears attaching to him. If that is the case and the mother or the guardians of the child have got a pushing solicitor, they will have a warrant for him as soon as be leaves the Army. I have known cases of men leaving the Army who have been paying as much as they were ordered to pay by this Army Act, but were yet persecuted when they left because of the amount of the arrears. That is a point of view which is quite ignored by hon. Members opposite. They do not see that the provision which is introduced by this Clause is as much in the interest of the man as in the interests of everyone else. Therefore I hope the Secretary of State will resist this 2010 Amendment. Anyone who understands the question knows that it is perfectly ridiculous, and, if I have not made it so, I am willing to get up again and make another speech.
Mr. F. HALL
I was rather surprised at the statement of the hon. Member that he had brought certain Amendments before the notice of the War Office dealing with the very point referred to in the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. Yet in his closing remarks he implored the Committee to adhere to the Bill as printed. I really cannot understand what he can mean. Perhaps he really has something in his head that he has not been able to explain fully, therefore I cannot help thinking we shall all be looking forward with the greatest possible interest to reading exactly what the Amendments are that he intended to bring before the House. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Colonel Greig) he referred to the second part of Clause 145 dealing with desertion. Does he think it would be feasible or proper that if a soldier were ordered abroad he would, to all intents and purposes, under the civil law be regarded as having deserted his wife? It is in order that the soldier may be protected that the Clause has been regulated in that manner. The Secretary of State has not informed the House of the reason for increasing this from 6d. per day, as it has been from time immemorial, to 1s. a day. If he had come forward with the suggestion that there should be an increase from 6d. to 9d. I cannot see really, although our sympathies might have been with the soldier, how we could have resisted it. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and I cannot help thinking that many Members on the other side also will agree, we say, at all events, the soldier should not be mulcted in a heavier fine—for it is a fine, after all—than the civilian. The Secretary of State was particularly anxious to impress upon the Committee that we should not be too sympathetic in this matter. I quite agree with him. But it is not a question of being too sympathetic; it is a question of treating the soldier and the civilian alike by putting them on equal ground. We are not here to ask exceptional treatment for the soldier, but simply that he should be treated on the same lines as the civilian. It may have been the case that hitherto he was treated, for some reason or other, slightly more advantageously than the civilian, 2011 but when you come down and ask to increase the amount from sixpence to a shilling per day for each illegitimate child, I cannot help thinking that, at all events, if the Secretary of State would leave the question to hon. Members to decide according to their ideas of justice, a very large majority would vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.
§ Colonel SEELY
I shall answer the questions which have been asked. The first was asked by the Noble Lord opposite as to what would happen in the case of a warrant officer being reduced. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was quite correct in what he said with respect to that matter. I have taken legal advice on the subject. It may be said that it would be very hard on the wife or the mother. It is always the case that the wife or the mother is placed in a position of hardship when the father suffers pecuniary loss. That is the answer to the question which has been asked.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
May I ask whether the same effect would not take place in the case of a warrant officer giving up his commission? He would then not be liable for the illegitimate child at the same rate, while the warrant officer would be paying the higher sum.
§ Colonel SEELY
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to finish my explanation. The next point was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward), who asked whether we had, in point of fact, consulted the Government's legal advisers on the question. He suggested that, if we had not done so, we might put this off. We did consult the Government's legal advisers before the change was made. Of course they may be wrong, but we rely upon them, and we do not think that they are wrong. The third question asked was, why should a soldier have more deducted than a civilian, or, indeed, than a commissioned officer? The answer to that was given by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me. There is this, also, which should be remembered. In the case of a child no deduction is made except after an order of the Court. The Court awards a maximum deduction of 5s. a week. We have taken power to be able to deduct a further sum. Why? In order, not to pay more than the 5s. which would be payable under an order of the Court, but to do what is always necessary, as 2012 those who know the circumstances in these sad cases are aware, namely, to pay off arrears. We have taken this power under the Bill in order that arrears may be properly paid off. If that were not the case, arrears might not be paid off at all.
§ Colonel SEELY
We have had two points to deal with. The first is whether it is right that a man should pay the same rate when he gets more money, and the second is whether in the case of the civilian the mother gets more or less than in the case of the soldier. I think I have pointed out what the law is. The Courts make a similar order, and the man is liable to make up those arrears and the doctor's fees. I think the Committee will see that the whole case falls to the ground on this particular point. I cannot say that we will consider it again in any way whatever. I have taken legal advice, with which I am quite satisfied. If the Committee wishes to go to a Division, I would only appeal to it to do so soon. There is no suggestion as to going behind the arrangement which was come to. It was agreed that we must get the Bill by to-night for the convenience, not so much of the Government as of another place which has to discuss it to-morrow. There are one or two important points which can be raised here before the discussion closes. There is, for example, the horse census question, with respect to which I have undertaken to give a reply. I think that will be in order on the new Clause. Perhaps, in view of the explanation I have given, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that part of Section 145 of the Army Act deals with a soldier who has deserted or left in destitute circumstances his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age. There is 2013 nothing in the Section about arrears at all. If the Court has ordered 5s. to be paid, you have no possible right in law to deduct 7s. The only question of arrears is in relation to legitimate children.
§ Colonel SEELY
I have tried to make this matter quite clear. What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is not very germane to this particular question. In point of fact, we have been acting on the highest legal advice for years past. Again I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision. If hon. Members go on raising legal points…
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
It is not a legal point. The Section refers also to liquidation. Liquidation means the liquidation of that which the Court has ordered. You cannot in liquidation of 5s. deduct 7s.
§ Colonel SEELY
I am so anxious that we should come to an agreement on this point that I will give a further explanation. The Court awards 5s., and it is not paid, but although it is not paid it is still due. Suppose that there is 30s. due, in order to liquidate that sum the Secretary of State, under paragraph (b), orders a deduction of 7s., 5s. of which is in respect of the weekly payment, while the remaining 2s. goes towards the liquidation of the arrears of 30s. which have accrued when nothing was being paid.
§ Major M'CALMONT
There is one question I wish to ask. Why is it that the warrant officer, one of the most deserving of His Majesty's soldiers, has been singled out for this, what I regard as very nearly an insult? Instead of making the scale a sliding one, the warrant officer has been selected, under Clause (6), for a special rate which can be levied against him which does not apply to a quarter-master-sergeant.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I wish to know definitely from the Secretary of State whether the Section of the Army (Annual) Act which is sought to be amended by the Amendment now before the Committee gives to the Army authorities any right to impose any penalty on a soldier which is not imposed upon him by the Civil Court, or whether it is simply to protect his wages from deduction beyond a certain amount after an adjudication has been made upon him by the Civil Court?
§ Mr HUNT
It appears to me from what has been stated that a warrant officer, with four or five children, has got to pay two shillings a week more than anybody else. I really cannot see how there can be any possible doubt about this matter. The Secretary of State for War is the very last person who ought to…
§ Mr. HUNT
The hon. Gentleman cries "Divide!" but I do not know that his remarks are any more sensible than mine. The right hon. Gentleman might very well give way. The Debate is hopelessly against him and the justice of the case is hopelessly against him. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will vote from a sense of justice and apart from party considerations, they will assuredly vote for doing justice to this particular class of British soldiers.
§ Colonel YATE
I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. I cannot follow his argument as to the case of a warrant officer. A man is sentenced to pay so much, and the payment dates from the date of the sentence. I cannot understand the necessity of taking the proposed amount or how it is lawful. All hon. Members who know the custom of county magistrates in reference to affiliation orders will agree that the ordinary payment in the case of a man earning about 30s. or 35s. a week is 3s. 6d., and that to put on 7s. a week in the case of a man drawing 35s. a week is a most unusual thing. The right hon. Gentleman states that this is being done by the advice of his Army Council. Well, some of the advice which I have heard quoted as having been given to the right hon. Gentleman makes me think sometimes that the sooner he gets rid of some of the Army Council the better. In this case I cannot follow the advice of the Army Council. It is a great injustice to put on this 2s. beyond what is allowed by the law of the land, that is 5s., and I shall press this to a Division.
§ Question put, "That the words 'one shilling' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 120.
|Division No. 50.]||AYES.||[6.50 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Meagher, Michael|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Gill, A. H.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Ginnell, L.||Middlebrook, William|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Millar, James Duncan|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Glanville, Harold James||Molloy, M.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molteno, Percy Alpert|
|Alden, Percy||Goldstone, Frank||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Arnold, Sydney||Greig, Colonel James Wilson||Mooney, John J.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morgan, George Hay|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Morison, Hector|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Hackett, J.||Muldoon, John|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Munro, R.|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)||Hancock, John George||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Murphy, Martin J.|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Beauchamp, Sr Edward||Hardie, J. Keir||Neilson, Francis|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Boland, John Pius||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hayward, Evan||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)||Hazleton, Richard||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Brace, William||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Brady, P. J.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Dowd, John|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Malley, William|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Higham, John Sharp||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hinds, John||O'Shee, James John|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hodge, John||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hogge, James Myles||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Holt, Richard Durning||Parry, Thomas H.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipwich)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Clough, William||Hudson, Walter||Pointer, Joseph|
|Clynes, John R.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||John, Edward Thomas||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Radford, G. H.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Reddy, M.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Crooks, William||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jewett, Frederick William||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Cullinan, John||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Keating, Matthew||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Kelly, Edward||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Kilbride, Denis||Robinson, Sidney|
|Delany, William||King, J.||Roch, Walter F.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dillon, John||Lardner, James C. R.||Rowlands, James|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Doris, W.||Leach, Charles||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Duffy, William J.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col A. R.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Lundon, Thomas||Schwann, Rt. Won. Sir C. E.|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Lynch, A. A.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||McGhee, Richard||Sheehy, David|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Falconer, James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Shortt, Edward|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Kean, John||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Field, William||Manfield, Harry||Snowden, Philip|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Furness, Stephen||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Walters, Sir John Tudor||Wiles, Thomas|
|Sutton, John E.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wardle, George J.||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Tennant, Harold John||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Watt, Henry A.||Wing, Thomas|
|Thorne, William (West Ham)||Webb, H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Toulmin, Sir George||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Verney, Sir Harry||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Newman, John R. P.|
|Astor, Waldorf||Fletcher, John Samuel||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baird, J. L.||Gastrell, Major W. H.||Norton-Griffiths, John|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Gibbs, G. A.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gilmour, Captain John||Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Goldsmith, Frank||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barnston, Harry||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Grant, J. A.||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Haddock, George Bahr||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bird, Alfred||Harris, Henry Percy||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Boyton, James||Hibbert, Sir Henry F.||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Cassel, Felix||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cator, John||Hunt, Rowland||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Swift, Rigby|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender||Kimber, Sir Henry||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Knight, Captain E. A.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lewisham, Viscount||Touche, George Alexander|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lyttelton, Hon, J. C. (Droitwich)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mackinder, H. J.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Malcolm, Ian||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Younger, Sir George|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel Yate and Mr. Ashley.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Mount, William Arthur|
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Rowland Hunt) does not appear to be in order as it stands. It ought to be moved without the words referring to Section 4 of the Act of 1881.