MARINE MUTINY BILL.

(The Earl of Longford).

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

applicable were cases of the most aggravated kind and the position in which the Bill in its present form placed them was this-that whereas the power of inflicting that punishment for those offences had ceased to exist, no punishment of any other description had been substituted for it. There was a Royal Commission now sitting whose attention had been directed to that subject, and if that Commission had thought fit to report in favour of the total abolition of flogging, he apprehended they would have at least recommended or suggested some other mode of dealing with the class of offences which he had just indicated. But, as things now stood, nothing of that sort had been done, and those very aggravated cases under the Mutiny Bill were really unprovided for. It might perhaps be said a soldier could be shot for mutiny; but he asked their Lordships whether so extreme a punishment as that could be inflicted when flogging had been deemed too severe? The power of shooting a man on the spot was so grave that it could be justial-fied only in the most serious cases. Therefore the military authorities were placed, as he had said, in the most awkward position in this matter; and should they have any instance-as he hoped they would not-of aggravated mutiny or anything of that kind, in consequence of that portion of the Mutiny Act having been would clearly understand that the fault did expunuged, he trusted their Lordships not rest with the military authorities. the same time he could not help thinking

THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in moving that the Marine Mutiny Bill be now read the second time, said, their Lordships would be aware that discussions occurred almost annually on the subject of corporal punishment in the army, when this measure and the other kindred measure which also now stood for a second reading—namely, the Mutiny Bill-were presented to the other House of Parliament. By the Bill of last Session the power of sentencing prisoners to corporal punishment was restricted to a very few cases of aggravated offences. This year the House of Commons had adopted a further Amendment, one not proposed by the Government, and not supported by any considerable authority-the effect of which was that sentences of corporal punishment in time of peace were wholly abolished for all classes of offences. It might be doubted whether it was together wise to withdraw that power from the military authorities; but he did not ask their Lordships to reverse the decision of the House of Commons. He could only hope that its effect would not be prejudicial to the efficiency and discipline of

the army.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Earl of Longford).

now

At

THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE said, that before the House agreed to the second though he was not the person to propose reading of these Bills, he wished in addition any alteration in the decision of the House to what had fallen from his noble Friend of Commons-that this subject had hardly (the Earl of Longford), to point out to their received the amount of attention which its Lordships the rather awkward position in importance deserved. He certainly adwhich matters now stood. He certainly mitted that the punishment of flogging was had no intention of asking their Lordships in itself degrading; but it was the deterring to make any change in the Mutiny Bill as effect of a punishment to which they had to sent up by the House of Commons; but it look, and he did believe there really was an was only right their Lordships should un- immense deterring power exercised over derstand the position in which the military the men by the knowledge that this punishauthorities stood now that corporal punishment would be inflicted for gross misconment had been wholly abolished, without duct. The civil law had lately adopted any other punishment whatever having been substituted for those offences for which it had hitherto been inflicted. Accodring to the wording of the Act as it passed last year, the power given to pass sentences of flogging was extremely limited, but it was still retained for the very grave offences of mutiny and insubordination accompanied by personal violence. The cases, therefore, to which that punishment was

corporal punishment for various offences, and with what result? Since "garotting" had been visited with flogging they had had far fewer cases of that crime than before. That exactly illustrated what he meant by saying that this punishment had a great deterrent effect; and it was on that ground alone that the military authorities felt it was undesirable wholly to abolish it. Another serious point was this. He under

stood that the present Mutiny Act was not i no substitute for corporal punishment. He intended to do away with that species of felt sure that it was always a painful duty punishment when the army was in the for the illustrious Duke and for officers of field; but if it was done away with in time the army to advocate the retention of corof peace, it seemed to him very questionable poral punishment in time of peace, but they whether it should be inflicted the moment felt that without it the discipline of the the army took the field-the time, above army could not be kept up, and he for all others, when they desired to raise the one believed that a very large majority of tone and morale of the troops. The object officers were of this opinion. He reof them all must be to keep the army effi- gretted that the other House should have cient, not only in respect to general duty, but decided this question without waiting for especially in its discipline. In this country the Report of the Royal Commission; and an army not in thorough discipline would that the matter should there have been be most distasteful to the people, and they treated as a party question, the announcemight depend upon it it would give great ment of the numbers having been, it was trouble not only to the authorities but to stated, received with loud cheers from the the public at large. He therefore hoped, Opposition. He trusted, however, that the as that punishment had now been struck change would not be detrimental to the out of the Mutiny Act, that the Royal service. Commission now sitting would give the subject its very gravest consideration. That punishment having been expunged from our military code without waiting for their Report, he repeated that he did trust the Royal Commissioners would now more thau ever devote their most anxious and serious attention to the question of what substitute should be adopted for the very powerful means which had been placed in the hands of the authorities for preventing dangerous, troublesome, and undisciplined men from committing themselves in the way they sometimes did. He was the last man to stand up for any improper punishment; but he had thought it right that their Lordships should know the exact position which they now occupied as regarded the whole question of punishments in the army.

EARL GREY also regretted that the result of the division had been received in "another place" with loud cheers. Of late years new notions seemed to have sprung up as to the duties of an Opposition. It was certain that, in old times, it used to be considered the duty of those who had held high office under the Crown to be present when Motions of this kind came under consideration: but, on consulting the Division List, he found that not a single Gentleman who held office under the late Administration was present, to take part in the discussion, or to vote on one side or the other. Thirty years ago, when he was Secretary at War, this question of corporal punishment occasioned a great deal of excitement. There was a strong opposition to the continuance of corporal punishment; VISCOUNT HARDINGE said, he was not but he thought it his duty to resist the surprised that the illustrious Duke who was Motion for its abolition. He wished to reresponsible for the discipline of the army strict the punishment as much as possible; had brought that subject forward. Very but he believed that entirely to do away great concessions had been made by the Go- with it in extreme cases would be dangervernment in respect to it. Before last year, ous to the service and disadvantageous to corporal punishment was applicable to no the really good soldier. The father of the fewer than twelve different offences; but noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) gave the Government on that occasion consented him the most able and efficient support in to restrict it to two-namely, mutiny and meeting this Motion, and it was very much gross insubordination. It was true that owing to his aid and assistance that he was under the old Mutiny Act flogging could able to convince the House of the danger be commuted to penal servitude, and he of agreeing to the Motion. When he subbelieved that under the present Bill also sequently sat upon the Opposition Benches a soldier could be sentenced to penal ser- he thought it his duty to assist the Governvitude as well as to dismissal from the serment in resisting a similar Motion. vice. But penal servitude could be applied only in extreme cases; and as to dismissal from the service, even with ignominy, many soldiers would actually commit gross offences in order to get dismissed. Therefore, under that Bill, there was positively

Of

late years, however, a new doctrine had sprung up, as to the responsibility of the Opposition. It used to be thought that the Members of the Opposition who had served the Crown were not less responsible than the Members for the Government, and

that they were bound to use their best ef- I pediency of corporal punishment, it apforts to prevent the passing of any mea-peared to him that Her Majesty's Governsures prejudicial to the public service, and ment might have inferred from the debate to give the House the benefit of their advice and official experience. These remarks were, he thought, called for by the conduct of those who were in Opposition both on one side and the other.

said, he would direct their Lordships' attention to a subject which had been discussed on Thursday evening-the Report of the Select Committee upon the Conduct of Business in their Lordships' House. It appeared to him at that time that the best way to proceed would be for their Lordships to assent to the Report, and that the recommendations of the Committee should be discussed in detail afterwards, at their Lordships' discretion. He had inferred, however, from the debate of the other night, that their Lordships would prefer that the recommendations of the Report should be embodied in a set of Resolutions to be proposed seriatim. That wish of their Lordships he had endeavoured to carry out. He thought the most convenient course would be to move the Resolutions separately, and their Lordships could discuss them one by one as they were moved. He begged to move the first Resolution.

Moved to resolve

"That it is expedient that Notice of an Intention to ask a Question should be given in the Minutes, except in Cases which admit of no Delay."-(The Lord Privy Seal.)

heads of Departments, or unless it was apparent that the Question was such as to show the propriety of suspending the rule in that instance.

LORD TAUNTON said, he did not think the present practice of the House led to any serious inconvenience, for noble Lords usually gave notice of Questions when they were of such a character as probably to give rise to discussion. He thought it undesirable that any positive rule should be laid down.

LORD LYVEDEN said, that the Resolution carried out the intention of the Committee in making the recommendation. In the other House, the Speaker would stop any Member seeking to put a Question without notice, as being contrary to the rules of the House. In their Lordships' House, however, they had no similar functionary whose duty it would be to stop any irregularity. The great point to be attained was, no doubt, to put a stop to the practice of putting without notice Questions which were likely to give rise to debates.

EARL GRANVILLE suggested that the noble Earl should vary the Resolution, and follow more precisely the words of the Committee. This would stop the practice of putting Questions without notice, when

would not prevent the putting of urgent Questions, although they might possibly give rise to discussion.

THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND said, there ought to be some rule on the subject which should be sufficiently distinct to prevent debates being raised upon Questions; but the rule could always be suspended in cases in which the House might think discussion desirable.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX said, he thought that the Resolution of the noble Earl went beyond the recommendation of the Com-there was no necessity for haste; but mittee, and, if carried, would put a stop to many Questions which might be fairly asked without notice. In the other House of Parliament there was a very convenient usage, no discussion being permitted on a Question being asked. He concurred in the opinion that it was not desirable to stop the putting of Questions in all cases without formal notice; but, at the same time no Question which was at all likely to give rise to debate ought to be put without notice having been given. The proposal of the noble Earl, in its present form, might put a stop to a number of Questions that were not likely to raise debates; and it was scarcely expedient to go quite so far as that.

EARL RUSSELL said, he saw no objection to the Resolution as proposed. It would have the effect of stopping any noble Lord from putting a Question at ten minutes past five o'clock, and thus initiating a debate which might last a considerable time, to the great inconvenience of those noble Lords who had given notices. He thought it might fairly be left to the discretion of noble Lords not to put Questions early in the evening without notice, unless they could be answered at once by the

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if their Lordships followed the precise words of the Committee they might not attain the object the Select Committee had in view. That object was not merely to prevent the putting of Questions without notice; for that object might easily be gained by the refusal of the Minister or the other Member of the House to whom the Question was addressed to give an answer until he should have had an opportunity of informing himself upon the subject to which it related. The real evil was the debate which was sometimes raised by putting a Question. It had been complained that Questions had been put and discussions raised without notice; and it went forth to the public that many noble Lords who might have been most anxious.