OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 22 March 1878)

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said, he desired to call attention to an Amendment that had been made in that House on Friday last. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that, when on that evening a noble Lord suggested that, with a view of preventing desertion and fraudulent re-enlistment, all officers and men in Her Majesty's Army should be marked, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell) made the announcement that Her Majesty's Government were about to remit to a Parliamentary 1832 Committee the question of the expediency of a revision of the Mutiny Act, and it was suggested that the abolition of branding deserters, and the substitution of a mark upon all officers and men on entering the Army, should be referred to the same Committee. Such an announcement, coming from such a quarter, took him (the Earl of Galloway) by surprise, and he could not but hope that when he made it the noble Viscount was labouring under a delusion and a snare of his own imagination. When the noble Viscount was at the War Office a part of his military policy was to carry things with a high hand, and he could not help thinking that the noble Viscount, in making that announcement, must have been under the temporary delusion that he was at the War Office still, and therefore entitled to make the announcement. Certainly, the announcement ought to have come from a Member of the Government, instead of a Member of the Opposition. Assuming, however, that there was authority for the announcement, then he heard it with very great regret. What was the Mutiny Act? It was a compendium of the regulations for the preservation of discipline in Her Majesty's Land Forces. If a revision of that Act was desirable, it must have arisen from special causes, which must have been known to the Minister for War; and, instead of sheltering himself under the Report of a Select Committee, the Secretary for War should, on his own responsibility, have proposed to Parliament such changes in the Act as he thought were required to make it what it ought to be. If he wanted assistance in making those changes, he should seek it at the hands of the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, of the Staff of the War Office, and, perhaps, of the Law Officers of the Crown. It would be matter for regret if there was collusion between the Secretary for War and the noble Viscount. He was sure the noble Viscount would understand that he meant nothing personal to him; but he would beg to call to mind what had been the chief characteristics of the noble Viscount's administration of the War Department. In the first place, the noble Viscount abolished purchase —and in doing so not only disregarded the decision of the House of Lords, but stretched the Prerogative of the Queen 1833 infinitely more than it had ever been stretched before. He next established a system of brigade depots—a subject upon which he (the Earl of Galloway) hoped to propose a specific Motion later in the Session, when the political horizon would be somewhat less clouded than it was at the present moment, inasmuch as he considered that what had been done would be subversive of military discipline, and would involve the country in extravagant expenditure. In the third place, when the noble Viscount ceased to reign supreme at the War Office, every rank of the Service was at such a pitch of discontent that the illustrious Duke Commanding-in-Chief considered it necessary to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject. He trusted their Lordships would forgive him for having brought forward the subject of the Mutiny Act at such a juncture as this; but he had been impelled to do so because he looked upon the announcement which the noble Viscount made as exceeding the bounds of Parliamentary propriety. He begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remit to a Parliamentary Committee the question of the expediency of a revision of the Mutiny Act?

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, that the Mutiny Acts for the Army and Navy were renewed every year. As they underwent very little alteration from Session to Session, he thought the large expenses of printing them every year— occupying, as they did, 300 pages—might be curtailed; only those clauses which were modified to be included in the volume of Statutes.

§ LORD WAVENEY
said, he agreed with the noble Earl that it was highly inconvenient that such an announcement as that referred to by the noble Earl should not have been made by Her Majesty's Government. He must also enter his protest against the remission of the question of a revision of the Mutiny Act to a Parliamentary Committee. The responsibility of introducing that Act devolved on the Ministers of the Crown, and it was incumbent on them to initiate any changes in it which they might think necessary. It was essential that the renewing Bill should be passed within a very short time, seeing that the existing Act expired on the 1834 25th April. He had heard the announcement of the intention to refer the Act to a Parliamentary Committee with alarm, and if such conduct were to be regarded as a precedent, it would be a very dangerous precedent indeed. There ought to be no sign of wavering or doubt in the War Department at the present time, when on all sides people were perfectly ready to sacrifice individual political feeling in order to thoroughly support the Government in whatever efforts they were about to make.

§ VISCOUNT BURY,
in answer to the Question of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Galloway), had to say that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War had determined to remit to a Parliamentary Committee the question of the expediency of a revision of the Mutiny Act. The noble Lord (Lord Waveney) had pointed out that it was essential that the Bill should be passed within a very limited time. That was true; but it was not the intention of his right hon. Friend that the Act should be referred to a Select Committee until after the Mutiny Bill had been passed for the present year. It was known probably to most of their Lordships that a great many Notices of objections to various clauses of the Bill had been given in the other House of Parliament, and if these were to be considered in the House of Commons, they must lead to long discussions, which would delay the progress of the Bill. His noble Friend had reminded him that the initiative in respect of the Bill rested on Her Majesty's Government — that the Bill was brought in on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. That was true; but he must, at the same time, point out that the Mutiny Bill differed from no other Bill brought into either House of Parliament in this respect. Like all other Bills, it might be referred to a Select Committee of the House in which it was brought forward for the consideration of the whole of its provisions. The course which the Secretary for War intended to pursue after the passing of the Mutiny Bill was this— His right hon. Friend thought it the most convenient course to refer the whole question of the administration of our military law to a Select Committee, with the intention of producing a revised Mutiny Bill next year. The Mutiny Bill was of very old date. It had been 1835 re-modelled to suit various emergencies on various occasions, and it was now found to be cumbersome and also to contain ambiguities which ought to be removed. No doubt a Select Committee would be able to produce a much more perfect instrument. It was no' part of his duty to defend his noble Friend (Viscount Cardwell); but he was bound to point out that when the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) assumed the noble Viscount to have made an announcement for which he had no public authority, his noble Friend had in his mind an answer given by his right hon. Friend in "another place." Replying to a Question put to him in "another place" some time ago, his right hon. Friend said that the Mutiny Act would be referred to a Select Committee.

LORD HOUGHTON
thought that if the Act were referred to a Parliamentary Committee, it ought to be to a joint Committee of the two Houses.

§ LORD STRATHNAIRN
begged leave to submit to their Lordships, with professional deference, one or two observations respecting the subject before the House. He believed that the proposal to submit the revision of the Mutiny Act to a Committee of the House of Commons was quite a novelty and not one which afforded a reasonable prospect of practical improvement. He ventured to add that this opinion did not refer in any way exclusively to the House of Commons, for whose legislation and proceedings he had the greatest possible respect, but referred equally to their Lordship's House. He submitted that, as a rule, civil and military' questions were safest in the hands of their respective Departments, whose experience qualified them to deal with the subject. Legal military matters were of the special competence of the Judge Advocate General's Department, whose subordinate officers were distributed throughout the Army. If the revision of the Mutiny Act were placed in the hands of a Parliamentary Committee, its first step would be to send for officers of the Judge Advocate General's Department and select military officers to give them information on the subject. This would be a waste of time and trouble. In these circumstances, he thought the revision of the Mutiny Act would better be entrusted to a Military than a Parliamentary Committee

§ VISCOUNT CARDWELL
said, that from his experience of his noble Friend (the Earl of Galloway) in the House of Commons, he was sure that his noble Friend was quite sincere when he said that he meant nothing personal by his observations. He could assure him that there was no collusion between himself and the Secretary for War. He never presumed to make any announcement on Friday on behalf of Her Majesty's Government or of the Secretary for War —he had simply referred to a statement that had been made in "another place." The idea of a reference of the Mutiny Act to a Select Committee was not a delusion and a snare of his imagination, but a measure proposed by the Secretary of State some time ago, as the noble Earl might have found if he had taken some slight pains in making himself acquainted with the records of Hansard. It might have been as well for his noble Friend to have been at the pains of such a reference before lecturing him on Parliamentary propriety.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
expressed his deep regret that he had laid himself open to the correction of the noble Viscount, and thanked him (Viscount Card-well) for the courteous way in which he had commented on his mistake.

§ LORD WAVENEY
had heard the statement respecting the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) with very much satisfaction, so far as it went; but regretted the determination of the Government to refer the Act to a Parliamentary Committee.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, this was not an explanation, and the noble Lord was not entitled to a second speech on the same subject.