The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 5, 1863.

another section might hold back; and infallibly that would
lead to the section that held back being regarded with sus-
picion by the authorities. He thought that the being open
to such a contingency would very much detract from the
popularity of the volunteer force, and therefore he called on
the committee to strike out the clause.

Col. SYKES supported the omission of the clause.
Sir G. GREY said, if hon, members examined the clause,
they would see that volunteers could only be used for the
suppression of a riot subject to the sanction of the lord lieu-
tenant of the county and of the Secretary of State. He ad-
mitted the inexpediency of their being generally employed
fir such a purpose; but, subject to the restrictions men-
tioned, he believed the committee might very safely assent
to the retention of the clause.

Mr. BUXTON was persuaded the clause would work the
most serious evil, especially in the case of working men's
corps. It might be possible, in their case, that when called
out to act against the rioters some of the men would refuse
to act, and then the confusion would be aggravated tenfold.
Lord ELCHO said there was no doubt whatever of the
exceeding popularity of the volunteers, knd that th'et popu.
larity had grown up under a law which authorised the em-
ployment of the force in the mode now deprecated, the only
difference between the old and the new law being, that pro-
vision was now made to ensure the volunteers being only
called out in the most extreme cases. He was by no means
persuaded that working men's corps, which he might ob-
serve were among the best disciplined in the service, would
require to take part in the suppression of local disturbances
A great deal of evidence had been laid befo. e the commis-
sion as to the effect of volunteering upon artisans ; and one
of the most remarkable of these effects was that it made men
much more sober, while it made loyal men of chartists.
(Hear, hear.) The bill •was drawn up on the quieta non
movere principle, and therefore it would be well not to re-
ject a provision found to exist in the old law.

Mr. AYRTON hoped the hon. member for Bradford
would persevere in his opposition to the clause. It was ob-
jectionable in principle, and peculiarly so because the vo-
lunteers were subjected to martial law. If they were em-
ployed as mere constables, the thing would be different. He
was very much surprised that the Government should have
thought of reviving such a clause.
Mr. A. EGERTON could not disapprove of the clause,
for it seemed to him that whatever force was employed to
suppress rioting should be as disciplined as possible; and
he reminded the committee that the yeomanry, who were
liable to be so engaged, were subject to martial law.
Mr. POTTER had a very distinct recollection of the
calling out of the yeomanry to suppress the rioting at Man-
chester, and of the dreadful consequences which followed.
He well remembered the odium which long attached to the
yeomanry for the part they were then called upon to take,
and he knew that a friend of his was unable to survive the
horrors of the occasion. (Hear.)
Mr. ROGERS hoped he might not live to see the day
when volunteers would be called out to suppress popular
tumults, but at the same time he must say he regarded the
force not only as a surety for peace abroad, but likewise at
home. (Hear.)
Mr. EVANS, speaking on behalf of the volunteers, was
quite certain that the great majority of them were not
aware that such a provision existed in the Volunteer Act.
Mr. SEL WYN reminded hon. members opposite that
it was not made compulsory upon volunteers to aid in the
suppression of riots ; the clause left it entirely optional
with members of a corps to do so; and, though every one
admitted that, in all probability, no case would ever arise
for the exercise of the power, yet, in the interest of
peace and humanity, it might turn out of very great im-
portance. When they bore in mind the limited number of
her Majesty's troops, and the effect which the presence of a
large military force had in checking bloodshed on the occa-
sion of popular tumults, he might well call upon the com-
mittee, in the interest of humanity, to support the clause.

Sir J. SHELLEY thought that, for the sake of peace
and humanity, the clause ought to be rejected. (Hear,
hear.) There was no doubt that a small body of soldiers
was most effectual for the suppression of a riot ; and if
volunteers were to be made useful in the same way, their
presence ought to be made obligatory, and not optional.
(Hear, hear.) He telieved the clause would have a very
bad effect upon the interests of the volunteer force—and he
felt most strongly, as the commanding officer of a working
men's corps, that it was most impolitic to place volunteers
in the situation contemplated by the clause.
Mr. W. E. FORSTER should vote for the amendment
of the hon. member for Oldham. If the volunteers were to
be employed at all in the suppression of rioting, it would be
much better that their attendance as a body should be made
compulsory than that it should be left optional with mem-
bers to undertake the duty. Otherwise, in cases of extreme
emergency, it would be much better that the volunteers
should be called upon to act merely as special constables.
Mr. HEADLAM quite agreed as to the general inexpe-
diency of employing volunteers to disperse a mob. At the
same time, if the restrictions attaching to the exercise of the
powers enforced by the clause were taken into account, it
would be apparent that no danger could follow from it. He
could conceive circumstances in which it might be exceed-
ing desirable that such a power should exist. For example,
in the north of England, where there were many artillery
corps, it might be most useful to place such corps in strong
positions, leaving the regular troops free to act against the
mob. (Oh, oh.)
Earl GROSVENOR would very much prefer to see the

volunteers act as special constables. (Hear, hear.) He

deprecated the responsibility which the clause threw upon
colonels of regiments, and it should receive his opposition.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR likewise opposed the clause.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON then announced that,
as such appeared to be the general wi,h of the committee,
the Government were willing to withdraw the clause.
(Jheers, accompanied by cries of " No, no," from the Op-
position benches.)
The clause was accordingly negatived without a division.
On clause 21,
Sir It. CLIFTON proposed, in line 17, after " cause," to
leave out to and including " officer," in line 19, and insert
"such causes respectively to be committed to writing, and
communicated to the accused by the adjutant of such corps
and the existence and sufficiency of such causes respectively
to be judged of by a court to be summoned by the command
ing officer, and to consist of one captain, two subaltern offi-
cers, and two non-commissioned officers or privates of the
same corps." The clause, as it stood, gave commanding
officers power to dismiss officers as well as privates of corps,
without any court of appeal being open to them. He trusted
the committee would show its sense of the gratitude due to
those gentlemen who came forward in the most patriotic
manner when the noble lord at the head of the Government
called "wolf," by opening to them a court of a:pcal against
what might be very arbitrary treatment.
Mr. H. LEWIS said he had received numerous commu-
nications from both officers and privates, one and alt
demnatory of the clause as it stood. It was said that it did
not apply to officers, but, whether it. did or not, it was equally
to be objected to, for it might have the effect of blighting the
prospects in life of private volunteers. (Hear, hear.) At
present the preatest harmony prevailed between officers and
privates ; but if such a power as this were given to com-
manding officers, that harmony would no longer prevail.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON hoped the committee

would retain the clause as it stood.
Lord ELCIIO said it would be impossible to maintain
any discipline without that clause. If a volunteer desired
to leave his regiment, he had only to give 14 days' notice,
with an appeal to the Sovereign through the Secretary for
War in case of need. He regretted to have to remark that
printed papers had been sent round to various commanding
officers, referring to a dispute between the South Middlesex
and the Queen's, sad also an extract from a speech of the
hon. member for Nottingham. He ventured to say that
that was not a proper step to take ; it had a tendency to
create ill-feeling, and the tact that it had not done so was
a proof of the healthy state of discipline of the volunteers
generally. He had also heard of some Volunteer Defence
Association, of which he believed the hon. member for
Finsbury was chairman,

Mr. COX said he had nothing whatever to do with that
ur any other association of the kind, though he would con-
fess that he was a" full private" in the volunteers.
Lord ELCHO said perhaps the hon. gentleman could
state whether there was an association of that kind in
existence now or not.

Mr. COX said he did not know. He had nothing to do
with it.

Lord ELCHO regretted he had been misinformed, He
had heard, however, that the very improper proceeding of
sending round printed papers had been adopted by certain
volunteers. Ono of those papers had reflected upon Lord
Ranelagh, who took proceedings against the parties, and
would no doubt have succeeded had not an apology been
offered and accepted. He thought, it a commanding officer
were fit to have any power at all, he was fit to be entrusted
with the power contained in the clause.

Sir DE LACY EVANS said ho would support the
clause, not because he thought it was necessary, as the
power was already given by the old Act; but he thought
that that recognition of it might be useful. It should be
remembered that here there was an appeal to the Secretary
for War, and the only object was to make that power
permanent.
Mr. BUXTON supported the clause. He thought there
was no alternative but to leave the power in the hands of the
commanding officer. _ _

Mr, COY said he wished to say a few words, because ho
had no doubt that immediately after the vote ho was about
to give he should be dismissed from his position as a full
private volunteer. (A laugh.) He had no sympathy with
noble lords who came down to that home and charged a
said thatn!
private member of Parliament with being the chairman of
societies formed to bring about dissensions amongst the
volunteers. Very few of the volunteers knew that there
was any such arbitrary power of dismissal already in exis-
tence ; and if the proposed clause were to be carried, half
would like tlaue
ri,thetvtolunteers would leave at once. They would never sub-
' the coramat di,
et.i.
expoiabne dismissed at a moment's notice without warning
were
bei a ion. (Hear, hear.) Petitions upon the subject
prepared throughout the country. It had been
notice and volunteer could discharAe himself at 14 days'
volunteer 3"1 'mother corps • but he knew a case where a
had.
give
volunteer h,, Wag Mter discharged n notice and before the 14 days expired
nhteer's name was Hutchins.
(Rear,
anti
"Nn
prevented him, and as a discharged
) „file:0;)m joining any other corps.
Lord ELCIIO‘ rile."
ou9e to hear the language

of the letter in which Mr. Hutchins had sent in his resig-
nation. When shown at the War-office, it was ordered that
Mr. Hutchins should be dismissed, and not be allowed to
resign.
Sir J, SHELLEY supported the clause.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER also supported it. There must be
that power or a court-martial, for volunteers were men with
arms in their hands, and required somebody to take care of
them, It was evident that that power must be given to the
commanding officer or a court-martial. (Hear, hear, from
Mr. Cox.) The hon. gentleman said " Hear, hear," but he
could tell him that volunteer courts-martial would be most
unpopular institutions. It should be remembered that
pending the proceedings the volunteer must be placed under
arrest. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the feeling to which
the hon. member for Finsbury alluded was very much exag-
gerated ; and he could certainly say for the Yorkshire corps
that they had no wish to be governed by a committee instead
of by their commanding officer, neither did he think that the
power given by the clause was likely to be arbitrarily used,
because commanding officers knew very well that such con-
duct would diminish their corps. Besides, in case of any
abuse of the power, there were two remedies—one by appeal
to the War- office, and another by a charge laid before the
lord lieutenant. He could only speak as a captain of volun-
teers, but he knew the feeling of the county from which he
came, and he believed the volunteers there were fully pre-
pared to submit to whatever might be necessary for the
maintenance of discipline.

Earl GROSVENOR said he had been so frequently at-
tacked by the press respecting the transaction alluded to by
the hon. baronet, that he trusted the house would allow
him to give some explanation. (No.) He would if it were
wished. (No. no.) With respect to the proposed clause,
it should be borne in mind that the commanding officer had
the power of dismissal by the old act, and the best guarantee
against a misuse of it was the fear that he would lose half
his company. The force had now been in existence three
years, and yet he never knew of an arbitrary exercise of the
power of dismissal.

Sir DE LACY EVANS said that as an old soldier, he
could not help concurring that means should be established
for the preservation of discipline. He believed that the
volunteer private had the power of resignation within
fourteen days, and therefore it was necessary that the
commanding cfficer should be provided with some sort of
compromise. He did not see how the house could refuse
the limited power asked for on the present occasion. He
was glad the noble lord (Earl Grosvenor) had not mentioned
the name of the person alluded to, and congratulated him on
the mode in which he bad conducted hla two battalions.
Col. SYKES supported the clause. The power, he con-
sidered, was necessary, but the difficulty was how it should
be exercised.
Mr. CONINGHAM said he was not surprised that vo-
lunteers were jealous of more power being given to com-
manding officers after the case in the papers of that day.
That was in the regular army.
Col. BARTTELOT rose to order. That case was quite
irrelevant.
Mr. CONINGHAM said that in that case, notwith-
standing the commanding officer had been censured, he was
going to be sent back to India to try his hand a second time
at his peculiar mismanagement.
Col. BARTTELOT deprecated the allusion to a gallant
officer serving his country in a foreign land. He contended
that there were very few cases in which commanding officers
had abused the powers entrusted to them. He hoped the
noble lord would maintain the clause as it stood.
Mr. W. T. EVANS said that in the corps to which he
belonged there had been very few disputes of any sort. He
should support the clause.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—.
For the clause as it stood lOB
For the amendment
Majority
to.
The clause was then agreed
The remaining clauees, with certain verbal amendments,
were agreed to,
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said that, as some dis-
satisfaction had been expressed by the clerks of the War-
office relative to the new schedule of remuneration, it would
be withdrawn and the old schedule substituted for it.
The schedule, as amended, was agreed to, and the bill
passed through committee.

The house then w SUPPLY.
ent into committee of supply.
On the vote of £5,329 for embassy houses abroad,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS protested against the vote, and
asked how long the annual vote was to be taken for the re-
pairs, &c ,at P era. This year the vote was upwards of L 3,000.
Mr, COWPER said he was afraid the expense would con-
tinue so long as the Ottoman Empire existed,
Mr. KINNAIRD and Mr. DODSON objected to the vote,
and called attention to the growing increase of the annual
vote for camel and ordinary repairs.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the vote, It was a good
palace, and a convenient residence ; it was a substantial
building, but every such residence involved an annual
expense, and the wear and tear of furniture had to be pro-
vided for.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS also complained of the charge for
the residence at Therapia, and asked why an ambassador at
Constantinople required two residences.
Lord PALMERSTON said the second residence was re-
quired because all the Turkish Ministers went to Therapia
in the summer, in consequence of the heat at Constantino-
ple, and our ambassador bad to reside there during that
period, to be able to communicate with them.
Mr. FE RRAND asked if the architect at Constantinople
was an Englishman or a Turk, and if any control was ex-
ercised over him.
Mr. COWPER said the clerk of the works was a resident
Englishman. There was complete control over the expen-
diture, because he had to send home his estimates for
approval before any work was done. The expense of living
in Turkey was very great, and the residence itself was very
large. Many things had to be sent from England to Con-
stantinople.
In answer to a question,
Mr. COWPER said the salary of the clerk of the works
was £4OO a-year, which was included in the estimate.
Mr. DODSON said the clerk of the works was no doubt
a competent man to spend money. He was at a loss to
understand ho w the Home Government could check expen-
diture at Constantinople. He hoped the vote would be less
next year.
Mr. COWPER said the vote would be £l,OOO less next
year than this. The extra expense this year arose from
the necessity of a new zinc roof and certain furniture that
was actually required.

Sir B. LEIGHTON thought two residences unneces-
sary, as the two places were not far apart.
Col. SYKES said that if they got rid of the clerk of the
works they would save £2,000 a year.
Lord H. CECIL said it was a god suggestion, and moved
the reduction of the vote by £lOO,

Lord PALMERSTON said that if they dismissed him
the result would be disadvantageous, as they would be
obliged to have a Turkish clerk of works.
Sir G. BOWYER was at a loss to understand why a clerk
of the works was required, the residence being finished.
Mr, COWPER said if they dismissed him they must de-
pend on the ambassador employing Turkish people, and
tchheercekbeing no efficient control, the bills in all probability
would be higher than now.
Mr. FERRAND supported the amendment for the dis-
missal of the clerk of works.
Lord R. CECIL ridiculed the idea of the home Govern-
ment being able to check the expenditure under the clerk
oafsstihseta:tt horeskusrvaetyCoro expenditure,
Mr. COWPER said they were enabled effectually to
in
the o
forffi office
ehe
who Boardhad
beenof W oartk se
ehnaedteann
tinople. (Laughter.) The Board of Works knew as much
about the control of expenditure at Constantinople as was
necessary. It was impossible to get a respectable man to
go to Constantinople for less than £4OO a year, on whom
they could rely to prevent imposition. The Board of Works
had a scale of prices paid in Constantinople, and were en-
abled by it to check the expenditure. It would not do to
trust to the Turks in those matters.
Sir O. BowyEß thought the Under-Secrotary of State
ought to defend the Turks from the aspersions that had
been
cast on their honestybythe
Works.
Lord PALMERSTON said no more was done here than
was done by every gentleman in England who had a large
residence to check expenditure.
at our eFEubßa:Bl3i4eAaN
tim said the grossest jobbery was practised
&fended the continuance of the clerk
of the works on the ground of economy.
After some discussion,
Mr. CHILDERS said it would be better to follow the
practice of France, who allocated annually a fixed sum for
the embassy house,.
It would be well for the house to fix
the
expenditure on the Constantinople residences at £2,000
a year.

Mr. COWPER
said this
ensu-
ing year, part being for ordinary, and part for special re-
pairs. If the ambassador was to be his own clerk 6f the
was an estimate for the
works, he doubted if the work would be so economically
done. Tfie clerk of the works at Constantinople was a more
responsible man than the one at Paris, who was paid only
£lBO a year.
The committee divided. The numbers were—
For
the amendment 74
Against it ......
Majority ,
The amendment was carried, and the reduced vote was
then agreed to.
The vote of £748 for the British Consulate at Constanti-
nople was then agreed to.
On the vote of £lO,OOO for the new Foreign-office,
Mr. A. SMITII said the original estimate for this build-
ing was £200,000; 475,000 had been already voted, and
now .DIO,OOO were asked for. A sum of £137,000 was still
to be Noted for completing the work.
Mr. COWPER said, of the money already voted only
£18,868 had been expended, and the balance had been paid
into the Exchequer. At present there had been no actual
expenditure on the building, and before any was spent a
complete and definite estimate would be had from the
architect.

Sir G. BOWYER was at a loss to understand why the
building should cost so much money. He advocated sim-
plicity and not ornaraentation in the crection,and he doubted

if they required so large a building as that contemplated.
The old Foreign Office only cost £50,000.
After some further conversation the vote was agreed to.
The following votes were also agreed to :—£8,673 18s 2d
for the expenses of the Industrial Museum, Edinburgh ;
£1,459 for Aberdeen University; £22,000 for the expense
of the Probate Court Registries; £3,727 for the General
Register House, Edinburgh; £20,000 for the Public. Record
Repository ; and £1,806 for providing premises in Doctors-
commons for the principal registry of the Court of Probate.
A vote of £1,500 was then taken on account of the site of
the new Foreign Office; and of £12,000 for the formation
of tt e approaches to New Westminster Bridge.
On the vote of £10,357 for New Westminster-bridge,
Mr. COWPER explained that £17,000 were for the com-
pletion of various works, rents, rates, taxes, &c. It was not
intendfd to do anything with regard to the steamboat pier
until after the embankment was completed. The rents of
the property connected with Westminster-bridge, known as
the Bridge House Estate, were paid over to the Exchequer,
and it was contemplated to sell them and pay that amount
also into the Exchequer, towards liquidating the cost of the
new bridge. It was impossible now to make any change in
the arrangements for the heavy traffic passing over the
bridge.

The vote of £983 for the National Gallcry (Dublin) was
agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
In reply to several hon. members,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Committee of Sup-
ply would be resumed to-morrow (this da.%).