a rate not exceeding Four per centum per annum, Million Pounds sterling, to be raised by Loan by on any principal money, not exceeding Three the Government of Canada for the construction of a Railway connecting Quebec and Halifax."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 247; Noes 67: Majority 180.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

MUTINY BILL.-COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the
Chair."-(Sir John Pakington.)

side, and to have nothing to say to him for fear of the consequences. But some years ago he was requested by the late Duke of Newcastle to make inquiries, which convinced him that the hobgoblin fears ex-(Mr. Adderley.) pressed that night in regard to the construction of this 375 miles of railway were unfounded. Let hon. Members remember that Her Majesty's American dominions. extended over an area equal to one-eighth of the habitable globe. This railway gave us communication not only with Canada, and with 10,000 miles of American railways, but with the vast tract of British territory extending across to the Pacific. The consequence of making this railway would be that two days would be saved in going from England to the Northern Continent of America, including the great MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he corn-growing district of the west. If wished, before the Speaker left the Chair, to the House had seen, as he had seen, the make a few remarks generally on the way Canadian Volunteers turn out in bitter in which this Bill had always been treated weather to repel a threatened invasion by successive Governments. He was far without a red coat near them, they would from imputing blame to the present Adthink that the right hon. Gentleman's ministration, who had merely followed the taunts might have been spared. The example of their predecessors; but he must British provinces had taxed themselves blame on public grounds the habit that £360,000 a year for the execution of their had grown up and been followed for a long portion of those works which Lord Dur- series of years of treating with neglect one ham had proposed in 1838, with the of the most important Bills that could be object of binding together by the means passed by Parliament. It was regarded at of physical communication the varied sec- the Revolution as the very foundation of tions of the Queen's American dominions. the liberties of Englishmen, and was esThe evidence of every military man, in-timated as the great bulwark of the Concluding Sir John Michell, the stitution; but in modern times it was present Commander-in-Chief in Canada, was that treated as a mere matter of form, with this railway was absolutely necessary for no greater respect than an old almanack. the military defence of the colonies. It Upon the principle that they should not was, however, to be defended not merely look a gift horse in the mouth it was put on that ground, but on that of its great before them on official authority, as if commercial advantage. There were now they were to swallow everything wholesale in the Government offices memorials from that might be tendered them at the hands many of the large towns in the three king of the officials. So much was this the doms concurring in the commercial necescase, that it was considered as a great sity and advantage of the measure which favour when consent was given by the late the House was now asked to agree to. Administration to place a few copies in Therefore, originating as it did with Lord the Vote Office to make this Bill accesDurham, sanctioned as it was by Lord sible to Members. Last year his attention Grey's proposals of 1851, adopted by the had been roused by a particular clause in late and the present Government, de- the Bill, and he thought it his duty to look manded for purposes of defence, as also through it, and it was only by making a for the more genial and generous objects vigorous complaint that the Bill, which of commerce and of peace, he hoped the was not then printed, was made availHouse would support the construction of able to Members. Why should such a the railway by a guarantee which would measure be treated in this cursory mannot cost this country a shilling. ner, when even a turnpike Bill was printed and circulated before the second reading? On many occasions the Bill had not been in print when the House was called upon to pass its early

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to guarantee interest, at

"

765

stages, and such conduct he considered was derogatory to the House. The offia mere cials had treated the Bill as form. They produced it as they liked, and the question arose, were the officials The great superior to that House? office which had been established in Pall Mall, at a cost to the country of £200,000 a year, appeared to be under no control, and transacted its business in a manner no one could understand. The War Office was originally intended to act as a check upon the Horse Guards; but it appeared that the Secretary at War was nothing else but the humble servant of the Horse Guards. They could not tell at that moment with whom the chief command of the army rested, and all that they knew was that the authority of that House was almost set aside. A Motion was carried in that House the other day for the abolition of military flogging, and with what degree of respect was it treated? The Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington) announced that no manner of notice would be taken of it, and that everything would go on in the usual way. Since that he had heard that the right hon. Gentleman had not even the authority of the Horse Guards to make that announcement to the House. The right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them how that was ; but, if so, it was a very grave affair, and showed that the co-ordinate authorities were not in harmony with each other. The Mutiny Bill was generally passed at a late hour of the night and went through its succeeding stage next day. He contended that it should be circulated amongst Members in the usual way, and that proper intervals should take place between its different stages.

MR. HADFIELD said, he quite concurred in the complaint made by the hon. Gentleman as to the non-distribution of the Bill. He believed the reason given was that it was to save the expense of a few additional copies, and the Yearly Indemnity Bill was treated in the same way. At present the arrangement was that the Bill was printed and deposited in the office, where a copy might be had by any Member who applied for it; but they were not distributed like other Bills, though in his opinion none that came before the House deserved more serious consideration than the Mutiny Bill. The passing it was a mere farce. He was glad that the flogging clause was to be modified.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he en

tirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and with his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), with regard to the great Constitutional importance of the Mutiny Bill; and he could assure his hon. Friend that he had not the slightest wish to treat the House with anything like disrespect, or to undervalue the importance of the question.

He would remind his hon. Friend that the Mutiny Bill was introduced, if he was not mistaken, before he had entered upon his present office, and his experience was so short that it could hardly be expected that he should make any change in the usual practice. He believed his hon. Friend would find that the mode in which this Bill had been introduced in the present year was exactly in accordance with the practice of former years. The noble Lord opposite, who held the same position in the late Government, would confirm him when he said that the after Mutiny Bill was not treated like other year, Bills, only because, year with some slight alterations, essentially the same Bill. [The MARQUESS of HARTINGTON: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend had expressed some strong opinions as to the present relations between the War Office and the Horse Guards, having gone so far as to say that the Secretary of State for War was subordinate to the Horse Guards. Speaking from a very brief experience, he would say that his hon. Friend had taken a very erroneous view of the actual powers of the two Departments. Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

it was,

On Question that the Preamble be postponed,

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, that what he meant when he spoke of the relations between the War Office and the Horse Guards was that it was difficult for the House and the country to understand which was responsible. He had spoken of the two Departments as co-ordinate, not of the War Office being subordinate.

Preamble postponed.

Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power to constitute Courts Martial).

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he wished to take that opportunity of noticing a fallacy which prevailed very much in military minds-namely, that it was by reason of the prerogative of the Crown

anxiously, but in vain, for the mention of some substitute. The only alternative I heard suggested, was that dismissal should be substituted for flogging. I speak before military men, who I confess are far better judges than I can be of such a matter; but

to dismissal from the army as a substitute for the punishment of flogging you will find it wholly inadequate, and at the same time you will incur the danger of men committing offences with a view to incur the punishment of dismissal. Under these circumstances, and after consultation with his Royal Highness the Commander-inChief and other authorities in the army, and with their full concurrence, I have made two concessions which I hope the House will deem to be large concessions. I apprehend there will be no difference as to retaining the present law with respect to an army in the field in time of war. I therefore only propose changes with reference to punishment in the army in time of peace. The changes I propose are twofold. The first is that corporal punishment shall be limited to three offences of the gravest character-namely, mutiny, aggravated insubordination, and disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) wishes to change the language I have used with regard to the offence of insubordination. I was assured that the word " aggravated" would lead to no difficulty, as they are technical terms and well understood in

paramount duty as the officer charged with maintaining discipline in the Queen's army. I was very sorry to hear from my hon. Friend (Mr. Darby Griffith) during the earlier part of this evening that I am open to the charge of having treated the decision of the House with disrespect. II must express my belief that if you trust hope that is not the general opinion of the House; for, in taking the course I have, nothing was further from my intention. The House had arrived, by a majority of 1, at the decision to abolish altogether the practice of flogging in the army in time of peace; and it became my duty upon a subsequent evening to state that upon so important a question the Government could not look upon a majority of 1 in a House of 215 Members as a final decision of the House of Commons upon this question. As it was therefore necessary to give the House an opportunity for re-considering the point, I thought the easiest and most courteous method of doing so would be to retain the clause in the Bill, and I gave the most public notice possible of my intention, in order that hon. Gentlemen might have an opportunity of again raising the question. But, although I have since stated that I intended to retain the clause in the same form as it is now before the House, I was not aware, and I believe few are, that the clause in the Bill differed from the Queen's regulations upon the subject. That I thought was a state of things hardly defensible, and resolving to abandon the clause, I considered how I could frame a clause which would at once satisfy the the army. But the words suggested by House and those officers who were charged the hon. Member are more clear, and I with the discipline of the army and at the have no objection to their being adopted. same time be consistent with the Queen's I propose that corporal punishment shall regulations. The desire to get rid of this be limited to the three offences enumerated punishment must exist with us all, for not- in the clause. There is another concession withstanding the majority in favour of involved which I consider to be of a still abolishing the punishment was represented larger character, and the House will see by a single vote and the decision a matter that it is a material change. It is that solof chance, I could not help thinking as I diers in the first class shall be exempted listened to the debate which preceded the from corporal punishment altogether. I division that there existed a strong and am quite aware that in making this proconscientious opinion among a large num- posal I am going further than many officers ber of hon. Gentlemen that the discipline feel to be safe. They would retain the of the army could be maintained without power of punishing even first-class soldiers resorting to flogging. I have therefore for certain offences. My opinion is that, resolved to propose the clause which I have on the whole, it would be better to draw placed upon the paper. It makes large a broad line, and to enact that no man concessions, and I trust the House will shall be subjected to corporal punishment deliberately consider it. In the course of until by his own misconduct he has dethe debate I was much struck with the graded himself to the second class. At very generally expressed opinion that if this time there are 170,448 soldiers of flogging were abolished some other pun- the first and 17,142 of the second class, ishment must be instituted. I watched so that 91 per cent of the whole army VOL. CLXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

2 C

consists of men of the first class, who, I convicted of such an offence could receive under the proposed change, will be exempt was fourteen years' penal servitude, and from corporal punishment. The House will yet it was proposed to make an exception believe that in making these proposals we in favour of the soldier, who was to be have endeavoured to show deference to its punished by the infliction of fifty lashes. expressed opinion. The concessions cannot Having due regard to the honour of the be regarded as otherwise than large in military profession, the House could hardly character; and I confess that, while giving pass the clause with these words in it. credit for praiseworthy motives, I feel He had no objection to the proposal that some little disappointment that they have every soldier of the first class should, for not proved satisfactory to hon. Gen- certain offences to be specified in the Artlemen opposite. In these few words I ticles of War, be degraded to the second have explained to the House the changes class; but he thought the word "deI propose, and I shall have an opportu- graded" was not a good or happy expresnity of answering inquiries. Considering sion. It was important that the offences the immense importance of the discipline should be specified; because the number of of the army, the great concession we now offences that were visited with corporal propose to make the decided opinion of punishment had increased from three to many experienced officers that corporal seventeen since 1833. Then a question punishment should be retained, and, I may add, the desire of many well-conducted soldiers that it should be retained, I hope a decided majority of the House will sanction the proposals I have now the honour to submit.

MR. OTWAY said, the question was strictly as to Clause 22; but the right hon. Gentleman had discussed the clause he proposed to substitute, and he therefore inferred that he might discuss not only the clause to be substituted, but his own Amendment to it. It was with considerable regret he felt compelled to press that Amendment, because he fully admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had in a fair spirit announced concessions by no means inconsiderable. He gratefully acknowledged the courtesy with which not only the right hon. Gentleman but all his Colleagues treated all those who differed from them. But to his mind this question went beyond considerations of courtesy. The clause as he proposed to amend it, by making it declare that no soldier should be subjected to corporal punishment, would initiate a policy capable of acting most beneficially on the British army. But, by the clause as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, an unnecessary and undeserved stigma would still be attached to the army. In the amended clause of the right hon. Gentleman there were matters which he did not think the Committee could possibly agree to. He had introduced an offence not previously named in the Mutiny Act, and he had most unnecessarily cast a reflection on the whole army by making an offence of an indecent character specifically a military offence. Another objection was that the smallest punishment a civilian

66

an

arose as to the process by which a soldier was to be "degraded ?" Was it to be on the authority and by the power of the commanding officer, or was it to be by a military tribunal? The expression army in the field was vague and uncertain, and not recognised by law. It might be a corn-field or a coal-field. As the preamble of the Bill spoke of " time of peace,' the corresponding expression ought to be "time of war,' or "active service.' The use of the word "misbehaviour" seemed tautological when the offences were specified. He would now ask the Committee to consider his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had made some remarks with reference to the small majority by which the Motion was carried the other evening; but he might remind the House that many of the most important measures ever passed in Parliament had been carried by a majority of 1, and it was a remarkable circumstance that the clause for flogging in the Mutiny Act was only carried by a majority of 2 in a House of 90 Members, in 1863 or 1864. The right hon. Gentleman ought not, therefore, to taunt hon. Members about the smallness of the majority the other night. He should ask the Committee to vote for the Amendment which he was about to propose, because they would be thereby supporting their own decision. He should propose to omit all the words after "flogging," and the clause would then be in exact accordance with the previous vote of the House. He did not see how any Member who had voted upon that occasion in favour of the Resolution could, without the greatest inconsistency, decline to support his Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman would