§ (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Stanley.)
§ COMMITTEE.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Persons subject to this).
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK)moved, in page 2, line 26, after "officer," to insert "whether of the Regular Forces or the Militia."
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that the Mutiny Bill had been built up during a long series of years upon the principle that only such persons as received pay from the State could come under its provisions. He objected to the alteration of the Militia Laws by the introduction of words into the Mutiny Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it would give some distinct explanation as to the cause of the change which the measure proposed to effect.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that very question had been discussed for two hours and a-half the other night, when the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) made a Motion on the subject, but did not press it to a division; and the House, having negatived his Motion, then went into Committee on the Bill. Every commissioned officer of Militia in the House was, he believed, in favour of the proposal of the Government.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought the objections urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire were deserving of more consideration than they had yet received from the Secretary of State for War. He feared that if care were not taken serious difficulties might arise from the passing of the Bill.
§ EARL PERCYurged that the necessity of brigading the Militia and the Volunteers with the Regular Army made it inconvenient to exempt the Reserved Forces from the Mutiny Act.
§ MR. CHILDERSwished to know whether Militia officers under this Bill were to be regarded as officers on leave when out of their regiments; and whether, in the event of their desiring to go abroad, they would have to write on 1043 every occasion to Pall Mall to ask permission?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied that they would be under that obligation; but that provision would be made whereby the rules would be found not to operate with too much stringency.
§ MR. CHILDERSIs it a matter of law?
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was obliged to ask for leave every time he went abroad, and he remembered on one occasion, when he had accidentally omitted to obtain leave, being complained of by some other general officer.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in the case of a general so distinguished as the hon. and gallant Member, it would be impossible to refuse him leave to go abroad.
§ MR. H. B. SAMUELSONpointed out that there were a large number of Militia officers in the House, not one of whom had spoken against this proposal. He thought Militia officers might be presumed to be the best guardians of their own interests; and, if they placed confidence in the Secretary of State and the Administration of any rule laid down by him, the Amendment might very well be accepted.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses, 3, 4, and 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Power to constitute courts martial).
§ MR. E. JENKINSsaid, there was serious inconvenience existing under the present law from the length of time which might elapse after an officer or soldier was arrested before he was brought to trial. As an instance he mentioned the case of Captain Roberts, of the 94th Regiment, who was kept under arrest from the 20th April to the 27th June, without being tried by court martial, although there were facilities for calling a court martial in the neighbourhood where he was. He asked, whether the Secretary of State for War would take measures to obviate the inconvenience and hardship of such delays? But for his illness in the earlier part of the Session he would ere now have taken the opportunity, which he 1044 hoped still to find, of calling attention to the case of Captain Roberts.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved that as the hon. Member intended calling attention to the case of Captain Roberts, the matter need not be gone into now. As to the general question, it was often impossible absolutely to fix the time for the holding of courts martial owing to the difficulty of procuring the necessary evidence, which had frequently to be obtained from a distance. He quite agreed as to the desirability of putting a prisoner on trial as soon as possible, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief always impressed upon officers the desirability of holding courts martial at the earliest possible period. When the matter came to be discussed it would be seen that there were reasons for delay in the case of Captain Roberts.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that for 100 years or more, until two years ago, an officer could not be under arrest for more than eight days, and the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee showed the danger of a change.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 7 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (No second trial for the same offence, but revision may be allowed).
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved an Amendment, providing that no person who had been tried by court martial for any offence should be subsequently punished for the same offence by order of the colonel; and instanced the case of a non-commissioned officer degraded by his colonel.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 7, after the word "revision," to insert the words "and no person subject to this Act, who having been tried by court martial for any offence, having be subsequently liable to be punished by order of the colonel of the regiment for the offence for which tried."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
§ GENERAL SHUTEopposed the Amendment; alleging that he could not believe in any instance having occurred of a non-commissioned officer who had been acquitted by a court martial being afterwards punished for the same offence. The power now invested in colonels was often an advantage to incompetent noncommissioned officers, and was never, and, indeed, could hardly be, abused.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the present power would never be abused. A non-commissioned officer was charged with stealing papers and other things from officer's rooms, and some officers, without knowing they were authorized, sat as a court martial to try the man. The finding was quashed because the officers had not proper jurisdiction; but the colonel deprived the man of his rank, as such a person could not exercise jurisdiction over soldiers with advantage to himself or to them. It was only in such cases that the colonel would exercise this power.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmaintained that once a man was tried—whether the finding was legal or illegal —you had no right to punish him again for the same offence.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that in ordinary cases when a man was acquitted there was an end of the case, and he did not see why a soldier should be deprived of the advantages which were possessed by a civilian.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he had been 28 years in the Army on full pay, and he had never known a case in which a man, having been acquitted by court martial, had been reduced to the ranks.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANthought there was sufficient warrant for the Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman had given no good answer to his hon. and gallant Friend.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that the proper remedy in the case alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman would have been to order another court martial properly constituted.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 155: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 66.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Crimes punishable with death).
§ MR. PARNELLmoved an Amendment which was not on the Paper; his object being to deprive a court martial of the right of awarding the punishment of penal servitude, leaving it the right of awarding the punishment of death or of hard labour. In many cases, he said, a soldier was tried by court martial for an offence committed in the heat of passion, 1046 and there was no question of moral turpitude, such as would be found in prisoners undergoing penal servitude.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to know whether under this clause the punishment of death would apply to Militia officers?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that as his hon. and gallant Friend had the reputation of being thoroughly acquainted with the Law of Mutiny, he must know that if Militia officers were brought under the section they would be subject to its penalties. With regard to the Amendment, it proposed that for the gravest offences which a soldier could commit, there should be no punishment whatever between the penalty of death and imprisonment with or without hard labour. The House would not, he hoped, agree to such a proposal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 16 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 24 (Power to commute corporal punishment for imprisonment, &c.)
§ MR. PARNELLproposed to omit the figure 7 and to insert that of 3, as he thought three days would be a sufficient punishment of solitary confinement for the offences mentioned in the clause.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 39, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the word "three." — (Mr. Parnell.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out that it was in time of war only that this punishment was inflicted, and therefore it was awarded very seldom.
§ MR. PARNELLAnd on board ship it can be done?
§ Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 35: Majority 188.—(Div. List, No. 67.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 25 agreed to.
§ Clause 26 (Power of imprisonment by general garrison or district courts martial).
MR. GATHORNE HARDYinformed the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) that having 1047 consulted a number of officers with reference to the suggestion made last year, that non-commissioned officers above the rank of corporal should not be degraded to the rank of private when found guilty of misconduct, their feeling was that the power of degradation to the ranks was essential; and the non-commissioned officers themselves preferred it, if it were accompanied by the prospect of regaining their rank through good conduct.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 27 (Power of imprisonment by regimental or detachment courts martial).
§ CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, that courts martial, instead of being obliged to reduce sergeants to the ranks, should have power to reduce them to the rank of corporal.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had consulted His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on the subject, and His Royal Highness and the other heads of the Military Department thought the power of reducing to the ranks was quite essential.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 27 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 34 (Apprehension of deserters. Transfer of deserters).
§ MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of the clause, because it enabled a police constable to apprehend any man whom he suspected to be a deserter, without a warrant, and bring him before a magistrate.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 35 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 39 (No person acquitted or convicted by the civil magistrate or by a jury to be tried by a court martial for the same offence).
§
On Motion of General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 22, line 11, after "corps," by inserting
and all such punishments inflicted on a noncommissioned officer without trial by court martial shall be reported to the superior officer in command for the information of the Commander in Chief, for review, in the same manner as ordered for trials by court martial.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 40 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 55 (Re-engagement of soldiers for a further term. Boon service to be reckoned).
1048§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 31, line 25, after "eighteen," to insert—
And all listed men whose period of service has not been completed may obtain their discharge by purchase at the rates of payment fixed by the rules laid down by the Secretary of State for War, who from time to time shall alone decide, by public regulations, as to whether the exigencies of the Service limits the application of the rules for granting discharges, either wholly to all the Service or only partially to to some parts of the Service.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYobjected to the insertion of the words, on the ground that it was impossible to lay down a general rule which would apply to all particular cases.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BIGGARmoved to report Progress. Out of 110 clauses they had reached 55. There remained several important Amendments which could not fairly be discussed so late at night. If there had been such a necessity to push on the Mutiny Bill, surely the Budget might have been postponed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ MR. MACDONALDsupported the Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. BIGGARthought that when Clause 55 was disposed of, Progress should be reported.
§ MR. PARNELLasked, if the Government would undertake to report Progress when Clause 55 was passed? Up to Clause 93 the business was merely formal, and might well be postponed.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government were unreasonable. He had endeavoured to facilitate business. But an example of obstruction had been set the other night by hon. Members opposite, who would not allow the Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to proceed; and not only so, but the Government followed their disorderly Followers into the Lobby. ["Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the expression just used was certainly one that should not be used of hon. Members.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it was impossible to proceed with the discussion of the clauses at that late hour—a quarter past 1 o'clock. As to the "unopposed clauses," he had himself a number of Amendments to propose, though, unfortunately, circumstances had prevented him from putting them on the Paper.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had been in daily attendance at the House, though he now said he had been prevented by "circumstances" from putting down his Amendments.
§ After some time—
§ MR. BUTTthought the hon. Member ought to have waited till they came to one of the clauses which he wished to amend. He regretted that the time of the House should have been wasted in this miserable and wretched discussion. If, at this hour of the night, any Member really wished to propose a serious Amendment, he (Mr. Butt) would support the Motion to report Progress—and so, also, he thought would the Secretary for War. But when there was no Amendment to a number of clauses, he must express his disapproval of the course taken by the hon. Member for Meath. It was a course of obstruction —and one against which he must enter his protest. He was not responsible for the hon. Member for Meath, and could not control him. He, however, had a duty to discharge to the great nation of Ireland, and he thought he should discharge it best when he said he disapproved entirely of the conduct of the hon. Member for Meath. If the hon. Gentleman really had any Amendments to propose, he would support him; but he would not support him when he threw out vague suggestions that it was possible on some future day he might have Amendments to propose.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when he was attempting to explain why he had not put down Notice of his Amendments.
§ MR. GREGORYexpressed, on the part of several hon. Members, his acknowledgements to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) for his manly protest.
§ MR. BIGGARdefended himself from the charge of obstruction, and said the Government had wasted more time than all the other Members of the House. ["Question."]
§ After long time—
THE CHAIRMANagain said, the action of the Government had nothing to do with the Motion before the Committee, which was that Progress be reported.
§ MR. BIGGARwithdrew his Motion to report Progress.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 56 to 93, inclusive, agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.