Lords Sitting of 21 April 1873

MINUTES.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND—Lord Inchiquin, v. Lord Kilmaine, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Limited Owners Improvements* (65).
Committee—Report—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny*

MUTINY BILL.
(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was surprised that the noble Marquess the Under Secretary of State for War had not taken an opportunity of giving an explanation of the alterations proposed in this now historical Bill. These alterations were very important, and he thought they should not be assented to without their full purport being made known to their Lordships. His attention had been drawn to the matter through several Petitions which had been sent to him for presentation to the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEbegged to remind the noble Marquess that when moving the second reading of the Bill he called attention in a few words to the alteration in what used to be the 40th clause in the Mutiny Act. Under that clause the soldier was exempted from the liability which devolved upon every man to support his wife and his children, whether legitimate or illegitimate. By the 107th section of the Bill now before their Lordships it was proposed to put an end to that exemption, and to render the soldier liable in respect of his wife and of his children in the same way as all others of Her Majesty's subjects; but, in order to secure that the public might not be deprived of the soldier's services, the War Department had felt obliged to limit the principle established by Clause 107 to this extent:—First it was proposed that, in the case of non-commissioned officers of a rank not lower than that of sergeant, the amount for which the man should be liable should be 6d. a day, and that in the case of privates and of non-commissioned officers under the rank of sergeant the amount should be 3d. a day. Another limitation was in the shape of a Proviso that where the putative father of a child was resident outside the petty sessions district in which the mother resided, and in which the summons against him was to be heard, money sufficient to pay his travelling expenses to the latter place should be lodged in the hands of the commanding officer. In some cases this would no doubt, prevent poor women

723
enforcing the law; but, on the other hand, if the expenses were to be paid by the public, there might be collusion between the soldier and persons residing in a place to which he desired to make a little trip. It was the duty of the War Office to protect the public against a conspiracy, and at the same time to take care that the soldier did not escape the consequences of his folly. He had not thought it necessary to go very fully into the matter on the second reading, because from the thin attendance on that occasion—particularly on the opposite benches—he did not think the proposed alterations excited any very great amount of interest.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought it would have been desirable to print the Bill with the Amendments before they wore asked to discuss them in Committee. The restrictions to the liability under the 107th clause were very important, and it might be that they amounted practically to a denial of a boon which Parliament by that section would purport to grant. There had been so many instances lately of the imperfect manner in which Bills were drawn that it was desirable to have clauses, and amendments in clauses, very closely looked to.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked whether there was any reason why the Bill should not be reprinted? The alterations were very important. He did not understand who was to pay the expenses of the soldier's journey.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that if the claim against the soldier was made out the expenses would be recovered from the soldier in the shape of stoppages; but if it failed the money lodged by the mother would be forfeited, as having been applied to the expenses that had been incurred.
LORD CAIRNSasked whether he was right in supposing that if a poor woman deposited what to her was a considerable sum of money—perhaps two sovereigns—to pay the soldier's expenses from a distant place, and made good her claim on the hearing before the magistrates, she was only to recover the money by instalments, procured from the man in the shape of small stoppages of 3d. a day? If this were so he thought an Amendment was required, because such a provision would, in many cases, render the section a dead letter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that where the soldier was at a distance no doubt the section might often prove a dead letter; but he did not see how that was to be prevented except at a risk of loss and inconvenience to the public. The amendment of the 40th section of the Mutiny Act had long been canvassed, and all these matters had been carefully considered, and there was no help for it. This Bill had come up from the other House; and on the second reading no objection was made to it by any of their Lordships. It was absolutely necessary that the Mutiny Bill should be passed without much further delay.
LORD CAIRNSasked when the existing Mutiny Act expired?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, on the 25th inst., and therefore it was essential that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent on the 24th.
House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
MARINE MUTINY BILL considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

BASTARDY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
Commons Amendments considered.
Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Motion for consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments and the Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to some of the Amendments made by the Lords, read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had introduced an Amendment to make valid orders made by magistrates in ignorance of the slip in the Bill of last year. He thought this Amendment, though right in itself, might bear rather hardly on persons against whom such orders had been made, and who might have appealed against them, but had not done so because they knew they wore invalid.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think the objection of his noble Friend well founded. The effect of his Amendment would only be to make valid orders which but for the slip in the Bill of last year would have been

725
valid. It would not make valid orders which were invalid on any other ground, and therefore it would work no injustice; because if there were no such Amendment the only effect would be in the case of persons whose orders were invalid by reason of the slip in the Bill of last year to oblige such persons to institute proceedings under this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the explanation of his noble and learned Friend removed his objection.
Further debate resumed accordingly.
Motion agreed to; Commons Amendments and Reasons considered; Amendments to which the Commons disagree, not insisted on; Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, agreed to, with Amendments; consequential Amendments made; and Bill returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.