Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ARMY ORGANIZATION-COLONELS OF
THE ORDNANCE CORPS.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has considered the case of the Lieutenant Colonels of the Ordnance Corps who will be placed on half-pay on the 1st October next, and whether he proposes to take further steps to retire the pre-warrant Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels of those Corps, so that the half-pay Lieutenant Colonels junior to them may be employed, instead of being compelled to retire from the Army; and, if it is not the case that the actuarial calculations prove such future steps would produce an economy in pensions, and that the efficiency of the Service will be increased by the retirement of the seniors instead of the juniors?

ARMY-THE REVISED ARMY WAR-
RANT-ARTICLE 23.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the difference of wording of Article 23, recently inserted in the Revised Warrant of the 25th of June 1881, and Article 22 of the same Warrant, which provides that General and Field Officers, exceptionally promoted for distinguished service in the Field, shall be selected for promotion on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, and that their service shall be published in the London Gazette; and, whether he proposes, in any future revision, to alter the said Article in accordance with established and constitutional precedent?

tions, using precisely the same words, for colonels and officers of higher rank. I presume, however, that the real suggestion of my noble Friend is that the reasons for these promotions should appear in The Gazette. Hitherto service in the field has been the only service mentioned in a Gazette, and with the object solely of doing honour to the officer; and I am disinclined to weaken the effect of these notices by extending them to promotions for other causes.

MR. CHILDERS: Sir, my noble Friend's Question appears to me to be based on two misconceptions. In the first place, by Article 27, all promotions are made upon the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, approved by the Secretary of State. Secondly, Lord Cranbrook's Warrant of May, 1878, Articles 18f, 21h, and 23f, established MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my promotions for captains, majors, and hon. Friend, I have to state that this lieutenant colonels on account of discase has been under my consideration tinguished service of an exceptional for nearly two_years. Lord Morley's nature ot herthan in the field; and the Committee on Promotion and Employ-present Warrant only allows such promoment in the Royal Artillery and Engineers specially dealt with it, the result being that a large number of colonels and lieutenant colonels promoted before October, 1877, have been retired; but I do not think that I could offer better terms to those who remain (that is to say, three colonels holding ordinary district commands, and 15 lieutenant colonels) than the terms offered in the recent Warrant, of which they did not avail themselves. The last words of my hon. Friend's first Question implied that an officer is compelled to retire from the Army when unemployed. This is not so, those officers having the option of going to half-pay for five years with the chances of re-employment. In reply to the second Question, I can only say that I am not satisfied that economy would be the result of any feasible plan ex- COLONEL MILNE HOME asked the tending the retirement of lieutenant Secretary of State for War, What comcolonels of Engineers. Such an exten-pensation will be given to officers in the sion would have to be very large if any Royal Scots and other regiments where additional boon were to result to their the present uniform is to be changed

LORD EUSTACE CECIL Nogave tice that he would take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.

ARMY ORGANIZATION-UNIFORMS OF
SCOTCH REGIMENTS.

MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; the regu- | and he wished to know at what stage of lated compensation will be granted on the Bill he was to move them? the officers' application.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PARNELL.

MR. LEWIS said, that, seeing the Attorney General in his place, he would now ask him the following Question, of which he had only given the hon. and learned Gentleman private Notice namely, Whether Mr. Parnell, M.P., having been arrested on the 13th of October, under the provisions of the 44th of Victoria, cap. 4, sec. 1, and having been released from custody on the 11th of April, can be lawfully rearrested and detained in custody under the original warrant; and whether, if a new warrant is necessary, it must not be issued in virtue of a new offence?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. Member said he gave me private Notice of this Question; but I received no Notice whatever until I entered the House. I must, therefore, ask him to put his Question on the Paper, to be answered by myself

or the Irish Law Officers to-morrow. MR. LEWIS gave Notice that he would ask the Question to-morrow. As it related to the liberty of the subject, he thought that no great Notice ought to have been required under the circumstances. He had left the Notice in the room of the Attorney General nearly an

hour ago.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): What is that?

[merged small][ocr errors]

THE CHAIRMAN said, they must be moved at the end of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Correction of misprints in 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58).

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENE

RAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN) moved, in page 3, after line 31, to insert

[blocks in formation]

He explained that the Amendment had been rendered necessary by the addition of the word "or" after "order."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON rose to move the insertion of a new clause to provide that there should be paid to every soldier engaged in special service relating to the recovery of rents, ejectments, and evictions in Ireland, a daily sum, by way of extra allowance, over and above his regular daily pay, equal to the daily extra sum allowed for similar service to each member of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that this clause and the clause which follows, relating to the rates to be paid to carmen, are not in Order, because they propose to increase the sums considered to be necessary by the Crown in the Estimates for the Army, and, therefore, they cannot be put. The third clause of the hon. Member is in Order.

MR. HEALY, on the point of Order, wished to ask if the Chairman was aware that the late Chairman of Com

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.-[BILL 105.] (Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Campbell-Ban-mittees (Mr. Cecil Raikes) allowed the nerman.)

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)

hon. Member for Galway to move an Amendment of a similar character? Was the ruling which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had just given, given with a knowledge of the course taken by his Predecessor?

THE CHAIRMAN: I have not, at Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to. the moment, been able to read the ruling MR. SEXTON said, he wished to put to which the hon. Member refers; but I a question to the Chairman on a point have a distinct recollection of it. The of Order. He had given Notice of his Rule then laid down, as I recollect, renintention to move the insertion of two ordered it possible to move such an Amendthree new clauses at the end of Clause 3, ment in a Bill which had not any force

in law, but which required an annual | provided, more than eight miles out and eight Act of Parliament to bring it into force. miles back, and shall not be driven at a pace But the present Bill is of a different exceeding six miles per hour." character, because it becomes an Act which is in itself law; and, therefore, the ruling to which the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) has referred does not apply.

MR. SEXTON remarked, that the gross sum involved was not a very large one, and the expense was one which was under the control of the War Office. THE CHAIRMAN: Whether the sum be large or small, as it is larger than is considered by the responsible Minister of the Crown to be necessary for the Public Service, it would be an increase; and, being an increase, it would be quite out of Order for a private Member to move it.

At present, in some parts of Ireland, it was no uncommon circumstance to find a car crowded with six or seven soldiers, who were driven great distances, often by inexperienced persons and sometimes by the soldiers themselves. The consequence was that the horses were frequently rendered useless to their owners for any further work for a considerable time. The horses were driven at a headlong speed and were often covered with foam. In the present excited state of Ireland, when the direction of affairs was presided over by persons at a distance, he considered that it was desirable for Parliament to interfere, in order that there might not be added to all the other elements of confusion, excitement, and ill-feeling, cruelty to animals, and the wanton injury and destruction of private property by persons in a subor

MR. BIGGAR said, the second of the proposed clauses raised a question of very considerable importance-namely, whether very gross cruelty was not practised in the way in which the cars were used by the police and the mili-dinate position. He simply asked that tary? It might be that there were outrages and cases of cruelty to animals in certain parts of Ireland; but he was prepared to contend that much greater cruelty was practised by persons in the pay of the Government in putting the law into force.

MR. SEXTON observed that, if it would be in Order, he should be glad to move the latter part of the second of the proposed new clauses, which merely related to the manner in which the cars were to be used. He was personally acquainted with the fact that a great deal of cruelty was practised towards horses in Ireland, and that the property of the car owners was very much damaged. The only object of the latter part of the clause was to impose regulations upon the police and military in regard to the use of private property in Ireland, so as to prevent, in future, not only cruelty to horses, but damage to property. He should be glad to know whether it was competent for him to move the latter part of the clause ?

THE CHAIRMAN: That portion of the clause, I think, would be in Order.

MR. SEXTON said he would move, then, after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause:

"No car shall be used for the conveyance of more than four soldiers, and shall not be driven upon any one day, unless a change of horses be

when a magistrate or other officer took a car for the purpose of serving evictions, he should see that the horse and car were used in a fair and proper way. Of course, the regulations which were submitted in the clause would be subject to modification at the discretion of the Committee. He simply threw them out as the basis of a rational settlement; and if the proposal were accepted, he felt sure that it would be received with thankfulness by the Irish people. He was also satisfied, from the courtesy which was always displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that the proposition would receive fair consideration.

64

New Clause

'No car shall be used for the conveyance of upon any one day, unless a change of horses be more than four soldiers, and shall not be driven provided, more than eight miles out and eight miles back, and shall not be driven at a pace exceeding six miles per hour,”—(Mr. Sexton,)

brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. CHILDERS: I do not think that it is either expedient or neceseary that I should enter at length into a discussion of the question; but I think I can give the hon. Gentleman very good reasons why I object to the clause, when

I say that, as a matter of fact, the cars | tention was that when cars were seized which have been employed in Ireland under the compulsory clauses of the have practically been obtained by the Act there should be due compensation. ordinary process, and not under the awarded; that care should be taken that compulsory clauses of the Act. In one no unfair use was made of the cars; case, where complaint arose, the cir- that the horses should not be over cumstances were considered by myself on driven, and that the cars should not be an appeal at the War Office, and that crowded. He had read in the papers which was deemed to be just was done. the other day an account of a case in I think, therefore, that the clause, as which the use of cars having been proposed to be altered, would really only refused, the soldiers and police seized apply to the employment of cars in Ireland them, and drove them at such a rate in a manner in which they have never that the knees of the horses were cut yet been employed, and would, therefore, and broken. In every instance the car be entirely nugatory. I would suggest used was improperly crowded. He was that it would be much better to leave not in a position to state that the facts the matter as it is now, so that any reported in the papers were absolutely complaint as to the unfair use of cars true; but he thought some inquiry ought may be dealt with by the authorities to be made into them. What he desired at the War Office. They have only now to obtain from the right hon. Genhitherto been employed when necessary. tleman the Secretary of State for War What I promised the other day, on was an assurance, in the event of injury the second reading, was that I would being done to the horses, or where there look into the matter carefully before was a complaint of overloading and next year, and I added that if any com- damage to the cars, he would at once plaints were made in the meanwhile I cause an investigation to be made, and would consider them, and they would see that the person who made the combe dealt with on principles of justice. I plaint was properly compensated. He cannot, therefore, give my consent to the presumed that, as far as the clause moved introduction into the present Bill of a by his hon. Friend was concerned, he clause which would not affect the general could scarcely expect the last part of it practise, but would only deal with cases would be inserted, seeing that the first which have not hitherto occurred, and portion had been ruled by the Chairman which are not likely to occur. For these to be informal. All he desired was that reasons I hope the hon. Member will an assurance should be given by the not press the clause. right hon. Gentleman that whenever a compulsory seizure of cars was made, and it could be proved that the horses had been driven unfairly and the property damaged, the owners of the cars should have a claim for compensation.

MR. HEALY thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was placed in a position of considerable disadvantage in having had his clause curtailed. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be unaware of the fact that a considerable number of seizures of cars had been made by the military authorities under the compulsory clauses Eof the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been no seizure by soldiers.

MR. CHILDERS: What I said was that no complaints had arisen except in one case. In the particular districts in which it has been necessary to employ cars the Government have not taken advantage of the powers of the Act, and we have been very careful to see that no injustice was done.

MR. HEALY said, that that being so did not do away with the opposition of the Irish Members, nor in the slightest degree alter their position. Their con

VOL. CCLXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. CHILDERS: I have no hesitation in giving an assurance to that effect, inasmuch as that is the principle upon which the War Office has already acted.

MR. BIGGAR said, it seemed to him that the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether satisfactory, as it only went to a certain length. The right hon. Gentleman promised that compensation would be made in all cases in which it could be shown that the horses or cars had been unfairly treated. In such cases, of course, the owners would be entitled to be paid for the damage done; but the right hon. Gentleman made no provision whatever for the unfortunate horses. It was, unfortunately, the custom in Ireland, when

2 B

evictions were to be carried out, to drive the horses over heavy roads, at an unreasonable pace and for an unreasonable distance. In fact, the amount of cruelty perpetrated in this way was very much in excess of anything that had taken place in the cases which had been cited in the House as instances of cruelty to

animals.

MR. CHILDERS: Of course, I cannot undertake to compensate horses; but I will see that justice is done to owners, where exceptional arrangements have to be made.

MR. SEXTON said, his object in moving the clause was to obtain an assurance that the owners would be compensated for any injury inflicted upon them. He had every confidence, after the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, that when a well-founded complaint was made to him the owners would receive due compensation; and he would therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the clause.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON said, he had now to move a clause relating to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children. He proposed in page 3, after Clause 5, to insert the following

Clause:

[blocks in formation]

shall be construed

"(1.) As though the word 'shall' stood in the place of may' in sub-section 2, Clause 6:

"(2) As though all the words after commanding officer of such soldier,' in sub-section 3, were omitted."

The object of the clause was to interpret the 145th section of the Act of 1881 in such a manner as to compel a soldier to maintain his wife and children, whether such children were born in wedlock or otherwise. The existing law was, in his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion, seriously defective. Several years had passed since a clause was inserted in the Mutiny Act, declaring that every soldier belonging to the Regular Forces was liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife

and children to the same extent as a civilian. But although several years had passed since that provision, declaring that the soldier should be made liable for the first of his natural obligations, was inserted, it was nevertheless the fact that the provision had been rendered altogether nugatory by the stipulations with which it was surrounded. It had been stated, that in the first parochial year following the insertion of this provision in the Mutiny Act, the total amount paid by the Secretary of State for War to the wives and children of soldiers, and towards the maintenance of children whose mothers were not married, amounted to £1,500. He had since learned, however, that this statement was altogether inaccurate; and he was informed by a leading member of an association which took an interest in the question that the total amount paid by the Secretary of State in the first parochial year, instead of being £1,500, was only £58. He thought that fact was amply sufficient in itself to show that the provision which had been inserted in the Act, which professed to place a soldier on the same level as a civilian, had totally failed. He would explain in a few words what the present serted his wife and children and enlisted position of a soldier was. If a man deinto Her Majesty's Army, what steps had the wife to take in order to obtain proper support for herself and family. In the first place, she was obliged to go to the Union and obtain relief; and then she was required to procure a summons to be served on her husband's commanding officer, wherever he might happen to be. It was a shameful fact that the organization of the British Army was conducted in such a way

that before a man became liable to these obligations care was taken to remove him from the town in which he was likely to become liable, before the woman could take any steps to assert her rights. But that was not all. The wife had, in the first instance, to go to the workhouse; in the second place, to apply to the Board of Guardians for a summons against the commanding officer; in the third, she was required to serve the summons at the place where the soldier was quar tered; and, fourthly, she was required to deposit with the summons a sum of money sufficient to take the soldier from the place where he was quartered to the

« ZurückWeiter »