that

"By the Constitution of this Realm, no Forces may be raised or kept by the Crown in time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, within any part of the Dominions of the Crown, excepting only such Forces as may be actually serving within Her Majesty's Indian Posses

sions.'

change in the proposed direction, mainly War, a German Legion was raised. on the ground of adverse military opinions In the Act authorizing that Legion to and doubts as to the financial value of be raised, it was distinctly laid down It did not serve the measure. But, in the Report of that that it should not serve within the Committee, which appears to have been United Kingdom. agreed to by the noble Marquess, who within the United Kingdom; but it did was himself a Member of it, there serve in Malta, and it did serve at the In this instance, therefore, a is not a word which points to any Cape. Constitutional or legal objection. Now, clear distinction was purposely drawn perhaps, it may be said that the facts between service in the United Kingdom I have endeavoured to lay before the and in other parts of Her Majesty's House, if they prove anything, prove too Dominions. But, besides being unwarmuch, and that if there is this complete ranted in law, the view adopted by the power in the Crown of employing these noble Marquess is also inaccurate in Indian troops within Her Majesty's fact; he asks this House to declare Dominions outside the limits of Her Indian Possessions, they may be brought into the United Kingdom. The question now before us is not the question of their employment within the Whatever United Kingdom at all. Constitutional doctrine may be laid down on that point by no means necessarily applies to the case before us. Now, if we are to read these words liteThe noble Marquess appeared to object rally, they must be subject to an interto any possible difference from the inter-pretation which in his speech the noble pretation which he was pleased to put Marquess repudiated. upon the word "Kingdom" in the Bill of Rights. He argued that any commonsense interpretation of that term must be held to extend to all the Dominions of the Queen with the exception of India. I believe that such an interpretation is unwarranted in law, and inaccurate in fact; and I think I have a higher authority to appeal to on the subject than even the great authorities quoted by the noble Marquess. The provisions of the Bill of Rights, as they originally stood, and as they were quoted in many successive Mutiny Acts, use these words, "this Kingand these only—namely, dom;" and when Great Britain and Ireland were united, Parliament itself supplied a definite interpretation of the term; because, from the year 1801, you will find that in substitution for the words "this Kingdom" in the Preamble of the "the Mutiny Act, these words occur United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;" and, therefore, I say, that the view put forward by the noble Marquess, with regard to all the Dominions of the Crown being comprehended in the words of the Bill of Rights, is entirely unwarranted in point of law. But, further, there has been since the authoritative interpretation to which I have alluded, an actual occurrence which, I think, shows how the country and Parliament viewed the matter At the time of the Crimean

I cannot help thinking, that when he gave Notice of this Resolution, he had forgotten the existence of Forces which throughout our Colonies are raised for the service of the Crown-the existence of those Colonial Forces which may at some day play so important a part in the defence of our United Empire. He says that he does not mean to include the Colonial Militia; but there are Colonies in which not only a Militia, but a Force is raised in form the same as our standing Army, under the powers of the Colonial Parliaments and the Prerogative of the Crown. No doubt such Forces are at present small in numbers; but they are likely greatly to extend, with the increasing desire of the Colonies to take measures for their defence against any possible attack by an enemy of the Empire. In New South Wales and Victoria Forces are permanently maintained-mainly artillery - under the Colonial Acts, without the consent of the Imperial Parliament, for the defence of the Colonial harbours and towns liable not only for service in the Colony, but to embark and serve according to regulations to be made by the Governor; and, according to the words of the Resolution, it would be contrary to the Constitution of this Realm that these Forces should be raised and maintained. Now, I listened with great attention to the speech

of the noble Marquess to ascertain precisely where it was that this great Constitutional crime which he imagines us to have committed was to be found. I fail to detect exactly what that crime is; but it appears to me, from his speech, that the whole question at issue is one of the financial control of this House. I do not gather that he disputes that the obtained. I may, however, be allowed movement of those troops was within the Prerogative of the Crown. I do not think he disputed that we were justified in advising that movement. I do not think he disputed-I believe he agreed -that we should be performing our duty if we proposed a Vote to the House to defray the expense of that movement. The whole point of his speech, it seems to me, turns upon thisthat the Vote was not moved before these Forces were actually ordered to be sent to Malta. It is usual, I admit, and in every way proper and convenient, that, before expenditure is incurred, this House should be asked to sanction that expenditure. There have, however, been numerous cases in which that salutary doctrine has been departed from, on account of the special circumstances of the time, and we maintain that the special circumstances of the present case were such as to warrant our taking this action on our own responsibility before proposing a Vote to the House of Commons. We may, in this matter, have been somewhat to blame for having done that which, I am bound to say, we have very rarely felt disposed to do-for having accepted the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. I find that the right hon. Gentleman, not very long ago, used the following words with reference to our action in proposing a Vote of Credit to this House :

present crisis. I admit that we are not at this moment-and I hope we may not be-in a state of war. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I fail Hear, hear!] I have not asked the House to consider the precedents under which, in a state of war, expenditure has been incurred by Governments before the sanction of this House was

"If a sudden emergency did arise, the Government must know their duty too well to wait for a Vote of this House. No Government worthy of its place but would, on a sudden emergency, give the orders which the circumstances of the time might demand, and then come down at the earliest moment in their power to ask the concurrence of the House in what

they had done. Undoubtedly, that is the principle on which all Governments have acted in this country: a principle which has never been challenged.'

Now, that is precisely the course which we have adopted. The real difference between us and those who sit upon the other side of the House is thisthat they disbelieve in the reality of the VOL. CCXL. [THIRD SERIES.]

to refer to one instance that of the
Abyssinian Expedition-in which an
Expeditionary Force was sent out with-
out a state of war existing, composed of
Native Indian troops. That Force ar-
rived in Abyssinia on the 26th of Sep-
tember, 1867, but the Vote of Credit
was not moved until the 26th of Novem-
ber in the same year; yet I am not
aware that Parliament at the time con-
sidered that any Constitutional or legal
rule had been broken, or
even in-
fringed, by that course of proceeding.
But, again, I say we differ from the
noble Marquess and many of his Fol-
lowers in our appreciation of the circum-
stances of the present crisis. It is not a
time of war; but is it a time of peace, in
the real meaning of that term? This House
has sanctioned the Declaration on the
part of Her Majesty that the present is
a time of emergency; and it was because
we believed that it was a time of emer-
gency that we thought it necessary to
show quickly and decisively to the world
that we were able, if need be, to wield
the Forces of an united Empire. The
time that elapsed from the date when
the decision was arrived at, to the date at
which local circumstances in India ren-
dered it necessary that the Expedition
should sail, was but very short for
the purpose of settling all the practical
difficulties that had to be arranged;
and that might, perhaps, have pre-
vented the departure of the Expedi-
tion within the time allotted. What
would have been said of us if we had
come down to this House and an-
nounced to the world that this policy
was to be adopted, and it had been
afterwards found that the practical
difficulties to which I have just referred
had prevented its execution? We be-
lieved, that, in order to insure the suc-
cessful carrying out of that policy, it
was necessary that until the actual
movement of the troops occurred, the
sanction given by the Government
should be kept secret; and, so far
as we were concerned, we were anxious
that that secrecy should be maintained
[First Night.]

L

--

longer than turned out to be actu-
ally possible. We took this course,
because we knew that, in spite of the
attacks of those who have long been en-
deavouring to mislead foreign nations
as to the real feeling of this country,
and who now would seek to minimize
her power and depreciate the valour and
the loyalty of their fellow-subjects in
India our policy would receive the
approbation of a patriotic Parliament.
We knew this, because that policy was
but the natural if not the necessary com-
plement of what Parliament had already
approved as the only one which was
really likely to secure an honourable
If the noble
and a permanent peace.
Marquess the Leader of the Opposition
differs from the course which we have
felt it our duty to pursue, I would ven-
ture to suggest that he might more pro-
perly meet it with an alternative policy
than with a Constitutional Motion, which,
after all, is but a shelter for all kinds of
objectors to the policy of the Govern-
ment. If he approves the course we
have taken, surely we have a right to
ask for his support. We have, at any
rate, a right to ask the House if they mis-
trust us, to relieve us from those onerous
and difficult duties which, for more than
two years past, we have been endeavour-
ing to perform. But if, in their opinion,
we are to be maintained in the position
which we have the honour to hold, then
let them, by their votes, support us
against the petty cavils, the ceaseless
misrepresentations, and the vulgar per-
sonalities of those who appear to be-
lieve everything that is good of foreign
Ministers, and nothing but what is bad
of their own countrymen.

MR. FAWCETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I ask you, as a matter of Order, whether it is usual for a Member of this House, without specifying names, to charge a section of this House with vulgar personalities?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH rose to continue his speech, but

MR. FAWCETT again appealed to the Speaker to say whether the right hon. Baronet was in Order in using the words which he had just mentioned?

MR. SPEAKER: I understood the right hon. Baronet was about to make an explanation of the words he used. The House will hear his explanation.

of the Crown. statement of any hon. Member made in this House or out of it, but personal attacks on the Government, and mainly on the Prime Minister, such as those which were made by members of a certain deputation who waited on a Member of the late Government-I forget who it was-and whose expressions I think fully deserved the application to them of the words which I employed. I appeal to this House to support the Government against attacks of this nature made outof-doors, not so much because we who now sit here happen to be the existing Government of the day, as because I believe it to be the true English principle that in a time of national difficulty the Ministers of the Crown, as such, irrespective of differences in domestic politics, are entitled to the support of all patriotic citizens. Sir, I trust that this House, by rejecting the Motion of the noble Marquess, and adopting in lieu of it the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper, will not only declare that, in its opinion, the hands of Her Majesty's Government ought not to be weakened in the present state of foreign affairs, but will also say, with no uncertain voice, that the policy we have ventured to adopt, while consistent with the Law and Constitution of England, is calculated to prove to the world that when danger threatens us the ties of our Empire will be drawn but closer and closer still; and that in defence of the cause, as we believe it to be, of right and freedom and of civilization, we can, if necessary, marshal, not only the inhabitants of the small Islands within these narrow seas, but the peoples of distant shores and varied climes, united by those ocean waves which are at once the symbol and the bond of the world-wide Dominions of our Queen.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, being of opinion that the constitututional control of Parliament over the raising and employment of the Military Forces of the Crown is fully secured by the provisions of the Law, and by the undoubted power of this House to grant or refuse Supplies, considers it to be unnecessary and inexpedient to affirm any Re solution tending to weaken the hands of Her Majesty's Government in the present state of Foreign affairs,"—(Sir Michael Ħicks-Beach,) -instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the not the Question."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I am bound to say that when I used 1. mondo I had in my

295

The Military Forces

{COMMONS}

Malta, and that there was in 1775 "a
rebellious war " also "within the King-
dom "-that is to say, in the Colonies in
America. The right hon. Baronet next
came to the so-called precedent of 1870,
and displayed his utter inability to grasp
the question that was at issue, by failing
to see that the case of 1870 told alto-
gether against his view. Why, in 1870,
the number of men-20,000-was voted
by the House, and, after being voted,
was distinctly referred to in an Appro-
He would make a fair
priation Act.
offer to the Government-let them now
place the number of men distinctly in
the Estimates; let them refer to it again
in the Appropriation Act, and not an-
other word should be said upon the
question of legality, although there
would remain much to be said upon the
Constitutional aspect of their policy,
and upon the discourtesy with which
The
they had treated Parliament.
right hon. Baronet had next taken up
a different line of defence, and one
inconsistent with that which he had
adopted in the previous portion of his
speech. He seemed to have tried a
number of arguments which answered
one another, in the hope that, if all but
one should be upset, some single one
might yet remain which would hold
good. After arguing that the Bill of
Rights did not prevent the Crown from
raising an Army in time of peace any-
where in the Realm outside of the United
Kingdom, he proceeded, a little later, to
contend that even the Indian Army itself
was raised with the consent of Parlia-
ment. That contention was utterly un-
true. Parliament neither voted the
number of men nor paid them. But,
said the right hon. Baronet, their service
outside of India was always contem-
plated. No doubt it was in time of war,
but the present was a time of peace.
The right hon. Baronet further contended
that the words "other sudden and urgent
necessity" covered the point. In the
first place, he would reply, without
going into the question of whether any
sudden and urgent necessity" existed
in Europe at the present time, that the
word other," taken in connection with
the word "invasion," which preceded
it, and which, undoubtedly, applied to
India alone, showed that the meaning
of the words "other sudden and urgent
necessity," was a sudden and urgent
necessity applying directly to India.
Jeung? A alauce declar-

66

ing that the troops when employed out-
Those cases, of
side of India should not be paid by India
except in certain cases.
course, must be cases which referred to
India. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]
He was glad to see that the right hon.
Gentleman, who, in 1858, had first brought
before Parliament the necessity for such
a clause, expressed his full assent to that
view. Moreover, if it should be again
contended that the words "sudden and
urgent necessity" applied to the needs
of the Empire in general, he would fur-
ther reply that Parliament was sitting
when Government decided to use these
troops, and that to Parliament the ques-
tion should have been referred. The
right hon. Baronet then came to certain
cases of the use outside of India of Indian
troops. He first named the case of a
Madras regiment which served at Singa-
pore from 1867 to 1871. Those troops,
he would point out, were left in Singa-
pore, which had been part of India.
would be found that they were men-
tioned in the Estimates voted by that
House. The right hon. Baronet then
alluded to the case of some troops who
served at Hong Kong at the same time.
They also were mentioned in the Esti-
mates. The Amendment of the right
hon. Baronet said that the control of
Parliament over these troops was secured
by the provisions of the law, and by the
No law but the Bill of
power of the House to refuse Supplies.
What law?
Rights, which the Government had
broken. What power to refuse Sup-
plies? On the 3rd of March, 1864, that
eminent Conservative Minister, General
Peel, had, by anticipation, directly an-
swered the eminent, but less eminent,
Conservative Minister who had just
spoken-

It

"If any part of the Indian Native Army could be employed without a Vote "and by these words they would see previous Votedirectly that General Peel had meant a

"of this House, those troops are altogether removed from Parliamentary control. In the case of ordinary troops there are two checksthe Mutiny Act, and the money voted by Parliament for the pay of the troops. Neither of these checks apply to Indian troops. Native Indian troops are not liable to the Mutiny Act, being expressly excluded from the operation of that measure; and the House has no control over Native troops through its privilege as to money Votes, because those troops are paid in the first instance by the Indian Government,