already been nearly brought, to dis- | against the system, he had been anxious grace. He trusted that they would also break up the brigade depôts, which had cost us an enormous sum-upwards of £5,000,000-and which had utterly and absolutely failed, proving the most humiliating and costly military failure we had ever had. He foresaw that the object of the Secretary of State for War was to break up the brigade system, and to do away with the linked battalion system, and he welcomed the prospect of such a result. to obtain the services on the Committee of officers who, while having great knowledge of the subject, had not committed themselves strongly to pre-conceived opinions. He wanted to have as perfect and as impartial an inquiry as possible. It would then remain for the Government to consider what steps should be taken, and if they had occasion to come to Parliament, it would be his duty, or his Successor's, to make the necessary representations to the House. He wished COLONEL STANLEY said, he hoped at the present moment to keep his mind that, as the discussion had arisen in a perfectly clear on the matter, and to be somewhat irregular form, he might be assisted by the authorities to whom he excused from replying in any great de- had referred in arriving at the best retail to all the points which had been sult on the evidence which would be obraised. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had tained by the Committee. There aplaunched into quite a prophetic vein. peared to be some misapprehension in the They had prophesied many things which House as to the functions of a Commitmight or might not come to pass. The tee; but he knew of nothing that could question was, however, very simple. be done by a Royal Commission which Matters of principle must be left for the could not be done equally well by a Comconsideration of the Government and the mittee. There would be no more diffiHouse. There were many matters of culty in a military Committee going to detail which, if they affected principle, different localities, if that was desirable, would, of course, be brought under the than for a Commission to do so. As to cognizance of the House. A great many officers of the Marines serving on the points were points of detail important in Committee, the system of the Marines themselves, and which would go a long was entirely distinct; they had their way to correct the defects hitherto expe- own barracks, and they were not interrienced. In introducing the Army Esti-woven with the military system of this mates, he had frankly explained what he conceived to be the faults of the existing system. He had spoken with some reserve as to the steps which might have to be taken hereafter; and, although he did not go back from the substance of the opinions which he had previously expressed, he could not help feeling that in a matter of that vast importance a careful inquiry and examination of facts by the best technical minds which they were officially able to command would be of advantage to the Government and the House in considering the steps which might be required to perfect our Army system. He did not wish them to express an opinion for or against the depôt-centre system; that was a matter fairly worthy of inquiry. He did not conceive that the Committee would be justified in laying aside the short service and the Reserve system; nor did he think they would be right in departing from the principles of the localization scheme. Feeling strongly on the matter himself, and knowing that many others had expressed their opinions for and country at home. They had distinct functions to discharge, they were in no way concerned in the inquiry of the proposed Committee, and it would not be convenient or even right that they should be members of it. He had explained in general terms the object and scope of the Committee; and one prominent consideration which had weighed with him was that by appointing a Committee, and not a Commission, they might obtain more promptly the recommendations which the military authorities might think it requisite to make. He did not think it would be convenient or right for him to say more on the subject. As to the statement that officers had failed to carry out Lord Cardwell's system thoroughly, his Lordship did not expect his system would be carried out in a day; but it would be generally admitted that great progress had been made in carrying out the system, and still continued to be made. He was not aware that it was ever intended that the brigade depôts should be centres of commissariat arrangements. It would be ab surd if regiments having their depôt in the middle of England, and having to go to a port of embarkation, were to have their waggons and stores in the heart of England, instead of finding them nearer the port of embarkation. As to the systems adopted in other countries, it ought to be remembered that we had our own particular lines to pursue, which were forced upon us by our insular position. That position gave us great advantages, although it also had its disadvantages; and we could not blindly copy any foreign system, however good it might be. He hoped that, after those explanations, the Motion for the adjournment of the House would be withdrawn. be solved was how to combine the institutions of the country so as to combine what might be called an armed nation for the purpose of defence with an Army for foreign service, and that was a problem which it seemed to him totally impossible for the members of one branch only of the Service to solve. MR. PARNELL said, that the shortservice system was designed by the late Government when our foreign policy was very different from the policy pursued by the present Government. Short service gave us a large number of Reserves, as had been proved last year; but these Reserves could not be sent to Afghanistan, Africa, or Burmah, to carry on petty wars. If the present foreign policy of the Government was to be persisted in, they would require a very different, and a far more extensive, Army organization; but he warned the House not to be led away by the apparent failure of the short-service system into sanctioning an organization of the Army which would enable an ambitious Minister to enter upon aggressive wars, either large or small, all over the world. MR. J. HOLMS said, he was glad that the officers who were to conduct the inquiry were to be selected outside of the War Office; but he thought a Royal Commission ought to have been appointed in preference to a Committee. He was also glad to hear from the right hon. and gal-in South Africa-not to be led away lant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the Government were determined to adhere to the short service and the Army Reserve systems. What was wanted in the way of inquiry was a calm consultation between military men of large knowledge of the subject and men who were large employers of labour, so that they might come to a sound decision as to the principles upon which they ought to proceed. The present system, there was no doubt, had broken down most completely, for it was quite obvious to everybody that the men, or rather, boys, who were now being sent to fight the Zulus were not exactly the type of soldiers that were required. He would suggest that it would be well if the Government re-considered their decision, and appointed a Royal Commission instead of a Committee. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War took no notice in his remarks on what was the most important point in the question before the House-namely, that the Committee was to be composed of officers of the Regular Army alone, and that officers of the Militia and Auxiliary Forces were to be excluded from it. He thought it would be satisfactory to the country if the proposed investigation were to be of a less one-sided character than that suggested. The problem to Colonel Stanley THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, whether the conversation which was now being carried on was or was not directly in Örder he would not say; but it was important to call the attention of the House to the exceeding inconvenience of the course which they were now pursuing. It must be generally admitted that there was nothing of greater importance for the conduct of Business in the House than that they should know, with some degree of certainty, what Business they were called upon to discuss when they met, and especially when the meetings of the House were fixed for Morning Sittings with a special view to the discussion of particu lar Bills. Those hon. Gentlemen who came down to the House at some inconvenience to themselves might fairly expect that they would be allowed to proceed with the discussion of the Business for which they were assembled. He was perfectly aware that it was within the Rules of the House that any hon. Member might move the adjournment of the House, and that upon that Motion he had a right to offer such remarks as he might think necessary to justify what he had done. But it was a distinct abuse of the Motion for adjournment, if that opportunity was taken to introduce subjects which had not been put upon the Notice Paper, and for which no opportunity of discussion had been regularly sought, and to bring them on in anticipation of the regular Business of the day. Hon. Gentlemen would see easily enough to what mischief that system might lead. For instance, on an ordinary day some hon. Member who had a Motion to bring forward stood first; but another who had not been equally successful in the ballot might cut in, and, saying that he was not satisfied with an answer he got from a Minister, might move the adjournment of the House and raise the whole question. If hon. Members would consider it as a matter of fairness among themselves, they would see that it was not right to resort to such a course, except in a case of emergency, which nobody would say the present case was. But beyond that, this was a mode by which Business might be indefinitely, and to any extent, retarded and, in fact, rendered impossible. The House must remember the circumstances of the Bill which was down for discussion that day. It was a Bill of very great importance; it was one to the preparation of which the Government had given very great attention; it was of considerable magnitude; and had been discussed, he was afraid to say on how many occasions, at very great length. There was still a great portion of the Bill to be dealt with, and the Government were prepared to give a large part of the time that remained of the Session to its discussion. They did not desire to limit the discussion on the Bill; but it ought to be clearly understood, not only in this. House, but out of the House, that it was impossible for Business to be carried on in a way which was advantageous to the country, or creditable to the House itself, if it was not done with something of regularity. And he must say that the discussion which had been going on for half-an-hour or an hour, whatever the intention of the hon. Gentleman right that the circumstances should be known which, in the present state of things, rendered it impossible for the House to make that progress with the Business of Parliament which the country expected at their hands. Of course, he admitted that the Question put to his right hon. and gallant Friend was one of great importance. one which at another time might be made the subject of a debate, or of a Question; but his right hon. and gallant Friend having given an answer, he thought they might have been allowed to proceed to the Business of the Day. But now they had had, not only further discussion upon particular Business, but the hon. Member for Meath made it the occasion for raising a general discussion on the foreign policy of the Government. It seemed to him utterly impossible, if that was the way they were to conduct Business, that they could get on with Business at all. He did not know that he could object in point of form to what had been done; but it was only right that the House and that others should be informed that it was impossible that the Business of the House could be conducted if such proceedings were of frequent recurrence. MR. GOURLEY said, that with the permission of the House he would withdraw the Motion. At the same time, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would always act up to the good advice he had just given them. MR. PARNELL: Upon this question I beg to say a word or two, and I shall not take up one-fourth of the time which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. ["Order, order!"] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already exhausted his right to speak. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? MR. PARNELL: No. MR. SPEAKER: Then the Question is that the House do now adjourn. Question put, and negatived. who had originated it, or whatever SOUTH AFRICA - INSTRUCTIONS TO SIR GARNET WOLSELEY. QUESTION. the interest which he admitted attached to the question which had been raised, was now taking a turn which would have the effect simply of obstructing the pro- MR. PARNELL wished to repeat the gress of the Business of the House. Question he had put to the Chancellor That might be a matter of great satis-of the Exchequer as to the Instructions faction to some persons. It was a course given to Sir Garnet Wolseley. The which the House might be content to right hon. Gentleman declined to answer condone, or even to approve; but it was, the Question on the plea that the Instruc THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question. tions, if communicated to the House, he was hardly able to find his way might, by being telegraphed to Madeira, through the present measure, on account reach the Cape before the officer who was of the alterations which he had mento carry them into effect. But as there tioned. The scale of punishments had was no telegraph from Madeira, he been altered in this way. The former wished to know, Whether the Chan- scale was made by enactment of the cellor of the Exchequer would state what House of Commons, which declared the the Instructions were after Sir Garnet leading punishment which courts marWolseley had left Madeira for the tial were to have the power to award; Cape? but by the Bill now before the Committee, Parliament did not enact all the punishments which were to be awarded by courts martial. The Bill only enacted some of the punishments, while others were put down in the form of a Proviso, or left to be awarded under Royal Warrant. This proceeding, which was an entire departure from established practice, was, to his mind, perfectly unintelligible; and, inasmuch as the Mutiny Act had always laid down the punishments which courts martial could award, he could see no reason why that course should be departed from. He, therefore, moved, in page 19, after line 7, to insert, "n. Forfeitures, fines, and stoppages," to restore the scale of punishments to be awarded on conviction by court martial to its original formthe form that was included in the Bill of ORDER OF THE DAY. ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL-[BILL 88.] (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th May.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Punishments. Clause 44 (Scale of punishments by last year, and the form in which he concourt martial). tended it should always remain. He also wished to remark that the mode of inserting the Provisos relating to exemptions, which, in the present case, were as important as the clause itself, was a departure from the course instituted by Parliament. COLONEL STANLEY said, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) had not heard that he had said the word "agreed" across the Table of the House. The term "stoppages" might be open to the technical objection that it was not, perhaps, the right word, inasmuch as the punishment indicated was a matter of course; while the restoration, which often took place, was an act of grace. With that reservation, he accepted the words of the Amendment. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, the object of the Amendment, standing in his name, was to include in the scale all the punishments which could be inflicted by courts martial. If hon. Members would turn to page 146 of the Blue Book laid before the House, they would find that the Bill presented to the Committee contained in the scale of punishments those which he now proposed to add to the present Bill. He thought the Committee ought to be informed why the Secretary of State for War had departed from the arrangement which was laid before the Select Committee, and which was approved by the Commissioners. It was only yesterday he had read in the leading journal, that after the very careful manner in which this Bill had been considered and approved by the Select Committee, it was unnecessary further to discuss it. MAJOR NOLAN said, with reference But if the Committee would compare to the new punishment of reduction to a the two Bills, they would find that that lower grade in the case of soldiers and which was now under discussion had non-commissioned officers, that its inbeen almost entirely altered and re- sertion was not a question of drafting, drafted; and although he was a Mem- but of principle. He was not quite cerber of the Committee, and had paid tain as to the meaning of the word great attention to the Bill laid before it," soldier,' soldier," as employed in this Bill. Mr. Parnell Amendment agreed to. tirely novel. He maintained that officers of the Army had been managed hitherto by the simple punishment of being removed from the Service, and by no other; and he could not understand why it was now considered necessary to institute a more severe punishment for the purpose of keeping them in order; and he could not, for his own part, avoid expressing his surprise that a soldier in the posi The Secretary of State for War had introduced the punishment of reduction to a lower rank in the case of non-commissioned officers in a subsequent clause. It was left out of its proper place at the time the Bill was drafted; and he had some little fear that, unless the present clause was amended, they might be precluded from providing for that punishment later on. COLONEL STANLEY said, the suggestion of the Secretary of State for War, tion of the hon. and gallant Member was, he believed, already noted and, in effect, agreed to. He apprehended that it would be safer to insert the punishment at the part of the Bill now reached; but would confer with those who were competent to give an opinion on the subject. 66 SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME hoped his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War would say agreed," as he had done in the case of the last Amendment, to that which he now begged to submit to the consideration of the Committee; in which event, he begged to assure him he would give great satisfaction. He ventured to point out what, to his mind, appeared a strong objection to this clause, which was that it enacted that "All officers when cashiered shall be inca who had passed a long time in the Service, should have concurred in casting this slur upon officers of the Army. Again, with regard to the unreasonableness of this Proviso. He considered there was no offence which an officer could commit of a non-military character, save one, which it would be reasonable to visit with such severe punishment as that provided for by this sub-section, and that was treason, which all hon. Members would agree could not be punished too severely. But the punishment now proposed was a civil disability. He, for one, would have had no objection to it had it been dependent upon sentence of court martial; and he was certain the officers of the Army had such confidence in the justice of the sentences of courts martial that they would not object to this power being conferred upon them; but against the disability as it pable of again serving Her Majesty in any stood in the Bill there was the very capacity, military or civil." The sub-section 3, therefore, which made this provision, he proposed to omit, on the ground that the Proviso was novel and unreasonable as well as unnecessary. First, with regard to its novelty. He ventured to point out that reference was made in the margin of the Bill to two sections Nos. 76 and 87 of the Mutiny Act. Now, one of these two sections, he admitted, did refer to a similar Proviso which existed under the old Act; but it had only reference to the case of an officer who sheltered someone under his command from being brought before the civil power; but in the case of the other section, he begged to point out to the Committee that it had no reference whatever to the subject of the 3rd sub-section of the present measure. Again, as far as his recollection went, he had no knowledge that the disability to serve Her Majesty in any capacity ever did follow the sentence of cashiering by court martial; and for these reasons it appeared to him that the proposal that it should henceforward follow was en strongest objection. It would, of course, |