in the meantime retain the services of the | that to a certain extent I think he has misold soldiers as long as you can. I confess understood the object and intention of the that I do not understand exactly the mean- noble Earl who proposed the Amendment, ing of the noble Earl when he speaks of and that he has also, in some degree, mis the object to be attained by allowing com- apprehended the effect and principle of the manding officers to get rid of bad soldiers at Bill as it stands. The noble Duke has the end of their term of service; for they stated truly, that if this Bill had not been may be got rid of as easily at ten as at introduced, it would be competent for Her twelve years. But, my Lords, I do not Majesty's Government to introduce, by want to get rid of the services of any men; their own authority, the provisions of this and my opinion is for the adoption of the Bill; and that, my Lords, is one of the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Go- reasons why I say that we need not and vernment, believing that in the allowance ought not to be called upon to interfere for good service, and in the pension of 1s. with the authority of Parliament in a matper day, the great object which I have ter for which the ordinary powers of stated will be attained, There is only one the Executive Government are sufficient, other point to which I will refer relating to Therefore, I am not in the least alarmed the question at large, I mean the difficulty by the announcement which the noble and inconvenience of providing for the re- Earl opposite has thought proper to make, lief of troops under the Bill as it stands; that on the adoption of the Amendment of but I entreat your Lordships to remember, the noble Earl he should not feel it his throughout the consideration of this ques- duty to proceed further with the measure; tion, that the law of this country has in- and it is not an announcement which will, variably enabled the Government to raise I think, alarm the military portion of those men for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one whom I have the honour to address. But years' service; it has always been in the when the noble Duke goes on to say that power of the Government to order an en- this Bill must be better than the present listment for any period; and the person state of the law, because it is now compefilling the office which I have the honour tent to the Government to order the Comto hold must have obeyed the order. Now, mander-in-Chief to give directions for an as to the inconvenience and difficulty at- enlistment for even a more limited period tending the relief of troops, the Govern- than the Bill proposes, I beg to remind ment is perfectly aware that it is bound to your Lordships that that power of the provide for the removal of all, and for the Executive Government is not taken away relief of troops at the proper period. In by this Bill. This Bill does not prevent respect to climate, the noble Marquess ap- the enlistment for a shorter, but it does pears to have forgotten that every regi- prevent the enlistment for a longer, period ment serving abroad has a depôt of men than ten years: it deprives the Governin this country, to fill up the places of ment of the power of enlisting for fourteen those who are serving abroad; and it will, or twenty-one years; but it does not deof course, be the business of the officers to prive the Government of the power of take care that men are sent out regularly doing that which the noble and gallant to fill up vacancies as they occur in the Duke would, I believe, condemn in comregiments abroad. Such an arrangement mon with every officer in the service and will undoubtedly entail expense, and the every Member of this House, of ordering expense must be incurred; but if the ser- an enlistment for a period shorter than ten vice derives advantage from the system, years. It takes away the power of extendfor that expense the country will, in my ing the enlistment, but it leaves the Goopinion, be amply compensated. I see no vernment as competent to order an enlistreason, my Lords, for the Amendment ment for seven years as they were previous proposed by the noble Earl. I do not to the passing of this Bill. The difficulty think that the principles upon which the of dealing with this question would, I Bill rests have been at all shaken by this think, be greatly simplified, if we could be night's discussion; and I cannot, therefore, sure that we were all aiming at the same recommend your Lordships to adopt the object. Now, my object is the same as Amendment. that of the noble and gallant Duke, and of the noble Lords connected with the Army, who have opposed the Bill. We wish to retain the old soldiers in the Army at the expiration of their first period of service; LORD STANLEY: I have not the presumption to enter into discussion upon these points with the noble and gallant Duke; but he will forgive me for saying, of ten years a soldier feels he has not got half through the period of the lengthened. service, he thinks that he shall probably get tired of it before it is concluded, and, therefore, that he had better take the opportunity to leave the service while he can get it. Whereas, a man that has served for twelve years will feel that he has served through more than half the period which entitled him to the retiring pension; and that he has a comparatively short period to serve for his second. I hope that the noble Earl, after what passed here the other night, and after what has passed in the other House, will not persevere in his announcement, that upon the period we now fix for the first period of service will depend the soldier's pension. The soldier is equally entitled to that pension by a service of twenty-one years, whether that service has been served in periods of twelve and nine years, or in periods of ten and eleven. If the noble Earl should persevere in that, I must say that the Army and the country will have a right to regard this decision as founded not upon principle, but upon political, if not personal, feeling. I trust, that whatever may be your Lordships' decision, the soldier's pension will not be made to depend upon it. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) persists in his Motion, I shall certainly vote for it, though I am far from undervaluing the opinion which has been expressed by the noble and gallant Duke, that under the present Bill you may expect the re-enlistment of old soldiers; but looking to thisand this point was not touched by the noble and gallant Duke at all-that if you can reckon on their re-enlistment for a period of eleven at the end of ten years, you may with much more confidence and certainty reckon on their re-enlistment for nine at the end of twelve years. but I am not quite sure that the object of The Committee then divided on the Amendment :-Contents 38: Non-Contents 30; Majority 8. List of the CONTENTS. DUKES. MARQUESSES. EARLS. Clarendon Verulam VISCOUNT. Falkland Earl of Malmesbury Earl of Tankerville NOT-CONTENT. Lord Wrottesley Earl of Leicester Marquess of Conyngham Lord Sefton Marq. of Northampton LORD DE ROS then moved the Amendment of which he had given notice : That any soldier, at any period within one year previous to the completion of the term of limited service for which he shall have been first engaged, or, in the case of every regiment under orders for service, other than in Great Britain and Ireland, within two years previous to such completion, being approved as a fit person, &c., may (at any time) be re-engaged for the further term of six years and seven years; and in like manner, within the like period, previous to the completion of such second engagement, for a further term of five years, whether in infantry, cavalry, or ordnance corps; such further term or terms to date from the expiration of the first or second period of service, as the case may be." The noble Lord made a few observations in support of his Amendment, which were inaudible. EARL GREY observed, in reference to this Amendment, that it appeared to him there would be some advantage in not confining too closely the period within which a soldier might re-enlist in the Army. On the other hand, it had been pressed upon him that there would be considerable danger and much inconvenience in extending this period in the manner now proposed by the noble Lord. If, therefore, he (Lord De Ros) would limit the period to six months after the completion of the service, there would be no objection to an Amendment of this description. LORD DE ROS was understood to assent to this proposition. LORD STANLEY approved of the limitation, and suggested to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) the importance, in this case, of making some distinction between regiments on home and regiments on foreign service. If men belonging to a regiment ordered on foreign service sailed at a time which was within one year of the period when according to the terms of their enlistment they could claim their discharge, the result would be great expense to the country, and great mischief to the particular regiment, and he therefore put it to the noble Earl for his consideration, if it would not be advisable that power should be given to re-enlist the men in such a position previous to their sailing. The principle of re-enlistment would not be interfered with by such an arrangement; and in this way, it was indisputable, they might avoid the chance of losing the service of men in a He suggested, as the foreign station. noble Earl was determined not to extend the period for men in regiments on home service beyond six months, that in case of regiments ordered abroad the period should be twelve months, and that power be granted to re-enlist those soldiers whose term of service would expire within one or | sire to remain in such colony, it shall be lawful two years. EARL GREY would have no objection to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord. He thought, however, that the better way of obtaining the desired end would be to name no particular number of months, and to leave to soldiers under orders for foreign service the power to contract a new engagement. Amendment agreed to. On the Clause as amended being put, The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH moved an Amendment. As the Bill stood, soldiers out of England could only be reenlisted by the same persons who had power to enlist men under the Mutiny Act; that Act prohibited general officers and regimental officers from enlisting men; but abroad there would be many occasions when no qualified civilian could be found, or when it might be extremely inconvenient to interpose a civilian between the soldiers and the officers, particularly in India. It would be better to adopt the words of the Mutiny Act, adding, any person duly appointed by Her Majesty, by any warrant signed by the Secretary at War," to attest and enlist soldiers for Her Majesty's service. 66 EARL GREY had no objection to the Amendment, which was inserted, and The Clause was agreed to. On Clause 4 being proposed, The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH proposed to insert after the 4th Clause the following provisos : "Provided further, and be it enacted, that if, at the expiration of such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any soldier entitled to his discharge, being on any foreign station, shall not be willing to reengage or to continue in Her Majesty's service, or in the service of the East India Company, the commanding officer of the regiment in which he may be serving shall, as in the case of soldiers in valided, take the usual measures, with all conve nient despatch, for the conveyance of such soldier to England, and on the arrival of such soldier in England he shall be finally discharged: provided always, that during such time as may elapse between the expiration of such terms of service as aforesaid, and his final discharge in England, such soldier shall remain subject to all the provisions of any Act which may be then in force for punishing mutiny and desertion, as fully as he may have been subject thereto before the expiration of such terms of service. Provided also, that if, at the expiration of any such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any soldier being in any of Her Majesty's colonies shall claim his discharge, and shall signify to the governor of such colony, through the commanding officer of the regiment in which he may be serving, his de for such governor, if he shall think fit, with the soldier to remain therein; and thereupon such solconsent of such commanding officer, to permit such dier shall be finally discharged, and shall not be entitled to claim to be conveyed to England at the public charge at any future period." He said, his object was to take the time necessary for bringing home the soldier from a foreign station not out of his period of enlistment; but after that period had expired, and at the same time to keep the man under military discipline. In the West Indies and the Mediterranean stations there could be no difficulty in sending the man home at any time; but it was by no means so with regard to Australia, and more particularly the East Indies, and also to a certain extent in the case of regiments quartered in Canada. In order to insure a favourable passage, it was necessary that the soldier should not leave India before the 15th of November, or after the 15th of March. He would thus be sent from the distant stations so as to arrive in Calcutta by February, and reach England in July, though his time of service might not expire until the April following. In the case of Canada, also, there were certain periods of the year when the men could not be sent home, and he thought that in all these cases it was better that the loss of time should fall on the men than on the Government. EARL GREY said, according to the term of his enlistment, a man would be discharged the day it terminated, at the place where his regiment happened to be at the time; and being so discharged, he would of course be conveyed home in the same manner as the men discharged as unfit for service. Soldiers engaged for ten years, must serve those ten years where they were wanted, and would continue to do duty with their regiment till the day of their discharge; if they accepted it, they would be conveyed home, unless they preferred settling in the country, which in some of the colonies might be the case. In those instances no inconvenience would arise. But a great inconvenience would be created by fixing by law a matter that should be regulated from time to time according to the necessities of the service; if they gave a right to the man to be conveyed home by the first convenient opportunity, they left it to the man to judge when that opportunity occurred: this might give rise to inconvenient differences between him and his officer. It would be better to let the law stand as it was; he believed the conduct of the Government of this country to the soldier would always be fair and satisfactory. The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH said, his object and that of the noble Earl were the same. The noble Earl wished to retain the men till the end of their term of service, and admitted they were to be sent home at the public charge. But the noble Earl confounded the position of the soldier who would be sent home under this Bill, with that of a soldier sent home under the present law. At present the man never ceased to be a soldier, and remained subject to martial law. A soldier discharged in India became immediately a free man; they could not prevent him from settling as a colonist, or even taking foreign service. The noble Earl did not know the danger of this in India; the colonization of India would be its separation; could they set free 200 or 300 soldiers in the city of Benares without danger? The noble Earl risked the creation of insurrection: he did not know the country for which he legislated; he entreated him to reconsider the subject maturely. He agreed that the time occupied by a man's return ought not to be taken out of his term of service; but he wished to give him a right by law to that which he was sure no Government would refuse; above all, he wished the noble Earl to consider the dangers that might arise from the colonization of India, from the insults that might be offered by the soldiers to the religion and prejudices of the natives of the country. EARL GREY said, the number of soldiers discharged in India was exceedingly small. As he already stated that evening, it was not for all the colonies quite one per cent, and it was still less in India than elsewhere. The noble Earl must be well aware, that in India soldiers entitled to their discharge were all anxious to volunteer into other regiments, or into the East India Company's forces, to such an extent, that very serious complaints had ever been made by the East India Company at the large number of non-effective men that were thus allowed to remain in the service. He thought the provisions under the Bill as it stood were sufficient, and that it would be exceedingly dangerous to keep men under military law indefinitely, and at the same time give them a legal right of judging what would be the first convenient opportunity of sending them home. The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH said, the noble Earl quite mistook the condition of soldiers in India, if he supposed that all were equally desirous of remaining there. The old Indian soldier certainly was in general anxious to remain; but it was dif ferent with the man who was but a short time in India, and was unaccustomed to the climate. It did not follow, because a man was ten years in the Army, that he might be more than half a year in India; and it should be borne in mind, that when this measure was in full operation, the number of men entitled to their discharge annually in India would be the eleventh or twelfth of the entire Army in the country. The number of men who would have to be marched down from the upper provinces every year to be sent home, would not be less than 700 or 800; and he would leave it to their Lordships to judge of the consequences of such a body passing through the country, and no longer subject to military control. EARL GREY thought the absolute provision of the Act, by which the men might be detained two years above the term, would enable them to obviate any inconvenience. He hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment. After a few words from LORD COMBERMERE in support of the Amendment. LORD STANLEY thought, on a question of such importance he was justified in appealing to the noble Duke at the head of the Army, who was so well acquainted with India, for his opinion upon it. The object of all parties was the same. The question which thus had been brought under the notice of their Lordships amounted to this: were the troops which from time to time might be discharged in India, and in similar possessions of the British Crown, were they to be discharged, and at the moment of their discharge were they to be released from all military discipline or restraint? It appeared to him that, according to the Bill as it stood, they would not remain under military authority up to the time of their landing in this country; but, on the contrary, would be set free from all such restraints. He conceived, that until the discharged soldier could actually be landed in England, he ought to be continued on the strength of the Army, and he ought to receive pay and subsistence till he reached this country. The question before the House was one most important in its principle, and most important, also, in its probable consequences-so important that he begged the attention of the noble Duke to the subject; and he begged, in addition to |