Power of Commanding Officer. (Hansard, 20 June 1879)

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 16, to leave out "the" and insert "a" before the words " commanding officer." He was of opinion that it was not desirable to restrict the power of dismissing a charge to the commanding officer of a regiment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
explained, that the word "the" was inserted in the clause in order not to give too wide a power of dismissing charges.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had rightly divined the intention of the draftsman of the Bill, which was clearly to restrict; whereas he (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to extend the protection afforded by the Bill. Every officer who had another officer under him was a commanding officer.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 16, the word " may," and to insert " shall." His object was to make it compulsory on a commanding officer to dismiss a charge, if, upon investigation, he thought it was one which ought not to be proceeded with.

§ SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME
pointed out that in all Acts of Parlia- 332 ment the words "may" and "shall" had nearly the same force.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, the word " may" in the clause applied to the word "dismiss," and that he proposed to substitute for it the word "shall," so that an officer might have no discretion but to dismiss a charge, if he was of opinion that it was one which ought not to be proceeded with.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
wished, with the permission of the Committee, to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Have-lock) to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, and which had for its object to reduce the number of days' imprisonment which it would be in the power of commanding officers summarily to inflict under the operation of the clause, from 21 days to seven, for every class of offence, except absence without leave. He was prepared to accept the principle of that Amendment; and it had always been his intention to impose a limit in the matter of regulation, although he thought it desirable, in the first instance, to set forth the number of days which was not to be exceeded, as was done in the Bill. He had already stated to the Committee the reasons which had induced him to give the commanding officer what, he admitted, was the extensive power of sentencing a man to imprisonment for 21 days with or without hard labour; but he never meant that that power should be exercised in every instance. It should be borne in mind that a great number of the cases which would come under the operation of the clause were cases in which, so to speak, the facts proved themselves; and it would, he thought, be a very fair compromise, if the power of the commanding officer were left, as now, to inflict 21 days' imprisonment for the offence of absence without leave, the power in other cases being limited to the infliction of seven days' imprisonment. Absence without leave was an offence which proved itself, for if a man was not present when the roll was called, there could be no question about the fact of his absence. In those circumstances, it would, he 333 thought, be perfectly safe to leave the power of imprisonment for that offence for 21 days in the hands of the commanding officer; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the question involved in the clause was one which it was fully intended should be dealt with by regulation.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
said, that if he was not mistaken as to the views of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, they coincided with his own in the matter, and that if the substance of the Amendment which he intended to propose was such as he had stated, he could not have the slightest objection to its being moved instead of that which stood on the Paper in his own (Sir Henry Havelock's) name.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the more convenient course would be that the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) should move his Amendment. If he did not wish to press it, it might be withdrawn, and the Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War intended to substitute in lieu thereof could be inserted in the Bill later on.

SIR HENRY HAVELOOK
moved, as an Amendment, the insertion in page 21, line 24, after the word "shall," of the following words:— If he be not under the rank of field officer, or if under that rank, if he be in temporary command of a battery of artillery, a regiment of cavalry, or a battalion of infantry, for the offence of absence without leave. There was also, he said, another Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, which it had been his intention to propose in line 27, and the object of which was to limit the power of the commanding officer to inflict summarily the punishment of imprisonment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven days for any other offence than absence without leave, in which case, he thought, the power should be extended to 21 days for the purpose of diminishing the number of courts martial. He might be permitted to refer to a Question which he had the honour of addressing to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief when he was examined before the Committee up stairs.

§ MR. PARNELL
rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was entitled to enter 334 into a discussion with regard to an Amendment which was not immediately before the Committee, and which stood some way down on the Paper?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member was out of Order in supporting the Amendment which he had moved by reference to another which he had proposed to move in line 27.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
said, his object was to limit the power of the commanding officer, as he had pointed out, except in cases of absence without leave, which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had very properly stated, proved themselves. In the answer which had been given by the Commander-in-Chief to the Question which he had put to him on the occasion to which he was referring, when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and which was whether, in the opinion of his Royal Highness, any practical inconvenience had been experienced up to the present time by the limitation of the power to the infliction of imprisonment for not more than seven days, His Royal Highness said that the number of courts martial was reduced thereby, and that that was an advantage. That being so, and there being no reason to think that any practical inconvenience resulted now from the limitation of the power, it struck him, ho must confess, as being somewhat of an anomaly, that provision should have been made in the Bill for increasing the power three-fold. On the understanding, however, that the Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) intended to propose would limit the power of summarily awarding the punishment of imprisonment to a period not exceeding seven days, except in the one particular class of cases which ho had mentioned, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he was anxious, if possible, to make the matter clear to the Committee. He did not wish to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) in the sense of putting in the Bill what was a matter of regulation. What he proposed to do was to leave out the word "twenty-one" in line 26, and 335 then, in line 35, to insert a separate paragraph, providing that in the case of absence without leave the commanding officer might award imprisonment with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding 21 days. If that were agreed to, the commanding officer would, in dealing summarily with other offences, be exactly in the same position as that in which he now stood.

SIR HENRY HAVELOOK
was quite willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which, he believed, would fully carry out the object which he had in view. He thought, however, that the matter might be made still clearer if, in the proposed Amendment, the word "only" were inserted after the words " in the case of absence without leave."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he would have no objection to make that alteration.

§ MR. J. HOLMS
said, the discussion which had taken place had shown both the importance of the clause itself, and the necessity for its rectification. He understood the main object of the clause was to give to commanding officers greater powers than those which they at present possessed, in order to get rid of the great number of courts martial which it was found necessary to hold under the Act now in force. But it was, in his opinion, necessary to define a little further the powers to be given to commanding officers. For, with regard to the extension of power, although he considered it to be a move in the right direction, so far as commanding officers were concerned, he could not but think it wrong that these increased powers should be intrusted to subalterns. He therefore trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War would take the matter into his serious consideration, and endeavour to schedule the special judicial powers which were to be given to particular officers with a view to their clearer definition. In the German Army, the amount of punishment which each particular officer could award under the special judicial powers given to them was clearly defined. For instance, the officer commanding a company, battery, or squadron had the power of dealing with non-commissioned officers and pri- 336 vates to the extent of awarding eight days' open arrest, five days' medium arrest, and three days' close arrest. Then, the officer commanding a battalion had extended powers, and could award 14 days' open arrest; 10 days' medium arrest, and seven days' close arrest; while the powers of the colonel of a regiment were still more extended. He ventured to suggest that we should have in our Army some scale of a similar character, clearly and precisely defining the special judicial powers to be exercised by officers of each particular rank. He therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in page 21, line 24, to leave out from " summarily " to " An " in line 36, in order to insert—
" (a) An officer commanding a company, a troop, or a battery, may exercise special judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule… . of this Bill;

" (b) An officer commanding a battalion may exercise special judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule…. of this Bill;

"(c) An officer commanding a regiment may exercise special judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule …. of this Bill;

" (d) Officers of superior rank to the foregoing may exercise judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule …. of this Bill."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he was not in a position to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, as it would have the effect of adding to the slight difficulties which already existed. It was well known that there were simply two existing powers—first, that exercised by the commanding officer; secondly, that delegated by him to be exercised by officers commanding companies. He could not see what advantage would be gained by scheduling the various powers in question; and as the whole system referred to by the hon. Member was, besides, foreign to the ways of the Service, he trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. PARNELL
pointed out that there were very strong grounds for the inquiries of the Committee being extended in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms). When the Committee appointed last year to consider the whole question of Army Discipline was sitting, none but the cut-and-dried evidence supplied by the War Office was laid before it; while the Members of the Committee had not sufficient time at their disposal to call independent wit- 337 nesses. He, himself, had moved that the deliberations of the Committee should be prolonged for that purpose; but, owing to the lateness of the year, the Motion—which was not, for that reason, very much to the taste of the Committee—was withdrawn. Had the hon. Member for Hackney been able to call witnesses, he would have fortified himself with arguments which he (Mr. Parnell) believed would have gone a very long way to induce the Committee to accept his Amendment. The Amendment was one which was, to a certain extent, demanded by the necessities of the Service, for the Queen's Regulations showed that something of the kind was needed. They were dealing with a very old Mutiny Act that had come down almost from time immemorial, many sections of which, and of the old Articles of War, had been almost word for word put down in the present Bill; therefore he thought that the customs handed down to us should not be too blindly followed by the Committee. It appeared to him that if the Queen's Regulations gave authority to commanding officers to delegate their powers to inferior officers, the Committee should clearly understand why it was not right that such powers should be delegated by Parliament. He did not, however, think the Committee would be able to investigate the point on that occasion. If, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter before the Report, he would suggest that the hon. Member for Hackney might withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. RYLANDS
considered there were strong arguments in favour of an Amendment of this character. As he understood the clause, the powers of a commanding officer might be exercised by a lieutenant in charge of a company. He held in his hand a Memorandum written by a colonel, holding at the present moment that rank in the Army, which said— Considering that this power is to he exercised by any sub-lieutenant, it is a very dangerous power to give to any man of that rank; And it went on to remark— In view of the idiots sometimes to be found in the command of regiments, it is a very dangerous power.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
pointed out to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. 338 Rylands) that he had already stated that the whole question was to be reviewed, and the clause in this respect modified.

§ MR. J. HOLMS
regretted very much the way in which the Secretary of State for War had replied upon the Amendment, and trusted that the Committee would consider the question a little further. He (Mr. J. Holms) had rejoiced to see the 21 days' imprisonment which stood in Sub-section (a), because he believed that it would get rid of the necessity for a great many courts martial; but the Amendment put down by the Secretary of State for War minimized that advantage by reducing the number of days' imprisonment in cases summarily dealt with to seven. He held that, undoubtedly, at the present moment, a more defined responsibility was required with relation to officers in the Army, and that the Committee should settle some means for ascertaining their powers, whether it be upon a foreign system or not. He could not see that the mode of dealing with this question as suggested by him was in the slightest degree objectionable. On the contrary, the fact of its having been drawn from that nation which understood military matters so well was a strong argument in its favour. Therefore, he again urged that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should schedule the powers to be given to each particular officer; and if he could not give an assurance that the matter should be considered, he should be obliged to take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
moved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 26, after the word " labour," to insert " in the case of the offence of absence without leave."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
pointed out that absence without leave was dealt with in a proposed Amendment to the clause standing in his name.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
moved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 26, to leave out "twenty-one," and insert " seven."

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that the 15 Amendments proposed to the clause, all of which treated of different subjects, had made it rather difficult for the Committee to understand its exact position. It appeared that the 21 days' imprisonment in Sub-section (a) had been struck out, and seven days inserted instead; that, of course, covered his first Amendment. But he had another Amendment, which came immediately after it—namely, to insert after " twenty-one days," For absence without leave, provided that a number of days greater than that for which the offender has been absent is not awarded and for all offences other than absence without leave may award seven days. And the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had another Amendment coming on which confined the 21 days' imprisonment to the offence of absence without leave, so that a commanding officer might award 21 days' imprisonment for an absence of one or two hours. That was a power which he did not think ought to be in the hands of commanding officers. It was believed by some that this power would save a great number of courts martial; but there were, in 1877, only 99 courts martial in which imprisonment was awarded for absence without leave. He would suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to go a little further, and in some way limit this power of giving 21 days for this offence. Although he could not regard an absence of 48 hours as a very terrible offence, he admitted that an absence of three days became more serious, and thought that the Secretary of State for War should propose an Amendment leaving the power of awarding seven days for absence without leave to commanding officers.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
wished to bring under the consideration of the Committee the possibility of extending to absence without leave the fines now exacted in cases of drunkenness. Drunkenness was at present punished by a scale of fines varying from 2s. 6d. to 10s. each, and the Queen's Regulations treated absence without leave and drunkenness in the same way; and, in nine cases out of ten, it was the cause of the latter offence. He thought that if this crime could be diminished, it 340 would be more satisfactory than extending the powers of commanding officers. At present, a man sentenced by the commanding officer to 14 days' imprisonment lost 7s. and his comrades had to do the duty for him; but by the Amendment which he desired to see adopted, the man would have to do his duty, and be fined 7s. as well. He trusted the Secretary of State for War would accept the proposal which stood in his name— namely, in page 21, line 28, after " drunkenness," insert " or absence without leave."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
admitted that the Amendment was one likely to effect a very considerable improvement, and he was willing to accept the words, provided, of course, that the fine was left optional with the commanding officer. By the 134th clause, "absence without leave," ipso facto, carried with it for feiture of pay.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
contended that the system of fining soldiers was a dangerous one, and denied that having entered into a definite engagement with our soldiers it could be fairly and honestly broken. By the accumulation of fines, a large number of men were made desperate and anxious to be discharged with ignominy. If he wanted to know who were the men scheming to be discharged from the Army with ignominy, he should look to the accounts of the men who were fined for drunkenness, and had a number of fines accumulating against them. The number of men annually discharged with ignominy from the Army amounted to the serious total of 2,000. He doubted that we had the right to stop the pay of the men, and make them do their duty as well. Such an act would certainly not be looked upon as fair in private life, and would be likely, in his opinion, to lead to dangerous results in the Army. If he could have found a Teller, he would have divided against the Amendment.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
pointed out that when the system of fines was first instituted in the Army, the fine by a commanding officer for drunkenness involved an entry in the regimental defaulters' book, and subjected the offender to the loss of the good-conduct badge; but an important alteration took place about two years ago, and the fine did not now involve any such entry in the defaulters' book.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
, in view of the disposition of the Committee, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He placed it at the disposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, so that if he thought it necessary he could bring it up on Report.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
said, that this system of treating absence without leave as due to drunkenness, had, to his knowledge, led to desertion. A man who felt this to be unjust naturally left the regiment for one where the practice did not exist. Originally, the fines exacted from the men were given back in the form of gratuities, when they left the regiment; but that had, under the short-service system, been done away with. The fines, therefore, came very heavily on the men, and he begged to move that the highest fine of 10s. be reduced to 7s.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
failed to see the reason why a result of the short-service system should be held to be a ground for making a drunken man pay 3s. less by way of fine. He did not think the punishment excessive. He agreed that there should be more similarity in the punishment; but that was a matter which could not be gone into then.

§ MR. BIGGAR
considered the fine of 10s., which amounted, in the case of a soldier, to four week's income, was too heavy.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the course followed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in cases of drunkenness might very well be followed. People fined by these Courts had an opportunity of earning money to pay the fines easily, so that the punishment hardly amounted to anything at all; but the case of a soldier was very different; he had no such opportunity of earning money, and it was, therefore, manifest that the scale in use by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction should not be exceeded. He thought that had the hon. and gallant Member for Letrim (Major O'Beirne) taken 5s. as his standard, it would have been sufficiently high. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the point, and agree to reduce the amount to 7s.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
said, it ought to be taken into consideration that the men got no gratuities whatever after three 342 years' service, and the fines, consequently, fell upon them very heavily. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not noticed this point, which was a very important one. The men on short service got back none of these amounts, which went into a fund, out of which soldiers on long service received allowances. He thought that the system should be altered, and that the short-service men were entitled to share in the fund, if they had behaved themselves well.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the question of the destination of the fund arising out of the fines had been recently under the consideration of the Under Secretary of State for War. The Committee were not then dealing with the destination of the fund, but with the fines upon drunkenness. This system, which had resulted from the recommendation of a powerful Committee, had, as far as he was aware, with one or two slight defects, been working, on the whole, very well.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
said, there were men in the Army who could not help getting drunk, and who, spending their whole time in prison, left their comrades to do their work. It was necessary, he thought, to consider the good soldier, as well as the bad soldier; and the system of fines had the effect of reducing the number of these drunken fellows, by taking away the money which they would otherwise spend in drink. There was nothing which a good soldier felt more than having to do duty for these drunken and useless men. It was to be borne in mind that the fines for drunkenness were upon a graduated scale. For the first two offences a man was admonished; for the next he was fined 2s. 6d.; for the fourth offence, 5s.; for the fifth, 7s. 6d.; and after that, 10s. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Beirne) would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
said, as the Committee did not appear to wish to go to a Division, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 35, after officer, to insert— And to forfeit his pay for any day or days, not exceeding five, during which he shall have been absent without leave, 343 said, that the 174th Article of War, which was not embodied in this Bill, provided that— Any soldier shall be liable, at the discretion of the commanding officer, subject, however, to right of appeal, to forfeit his pay for any number of days not exceeding five, for which he shall be absent without leave. This was very important, because, as he had already pointed out, a soldier in that way sentenced by the commanding officer to stoppage of pay was subjected to a regimental entry. It was, therefore, necessary to know whether the commanding officer was to have both the power under the 174th Article of War, and that under the Sub-section (c) of the present clause?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the stoppage of pay was made ipso facto for the time the soldier was absent, under the 174th Article of War; but it was now to be awarded by the commanding officer. He did not know where the law was laid down; but it had been the custom from time immemorial that where a soldier was absent from 4 o'clock on one day until 3 o'clock next morning, two days' pay might be stopped, and it was thought better, on revising the Bill, to make it clear that the soldier should forfeit his pay for the time for which he was absent. But it was provided, in Clause 135, that the commanding officer might restore him any portion of the deduction which he might think fit.

§ MR. PARNELL
wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with reference to Sub-section (b) of this clause, whether it re-enacted the substance of the 77th Article of War? The Article of War in question gave a power to levy fines which should not exceed 4s. a-day, whether imposed by a court martial or by a commanding officer. That provision did not appear in the present clause, which only enacted that the fine should not exceed 10s.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in referring to Sub-section (b), which had been already passed.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, that it was a very important matter to deprive a soldier of his good-conduct pay. It ought to be specified that absence without leave did not necessarily carry with it a regimental entry. If his right hon. and gallant Friend could give him an 344 assurance upon the point, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment. A commanding officer did not necessarily sentence a man to lose his pay for absence without leave; perhaps, for three convictions for absence without leave, a commanding officer would stop a man's pay for two or three days; then an entry was made in the regimental defaulter book, and if a man were in receipt of good conduct pay he lost that. It appeared to him that an injustice would be inflicted, if a soldier should be made to forfeit his pay as a matter of course on conviction for absence without leave.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
did not think that a soldier absolutely lost his pay under the circumstances mentioned. He did not understand that that was the effect of the Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that if a soldier was absent without leave he did not necessarily lose his pay, A commanding officer, if he chose, might sentence him to forfeit his pay—to order, in fact, that he should not be paid for the time he had been absent. If a man were absent from his regiment and neglected his duty, it was only fair that he should lose his pay for the time he was absent. Clause 135 gave power to a commanding officer to remit the whole or any portion of any deduction of pay in any case where it might seem to him to be just. He might say that he followed the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Colonel Alexander), although, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) said, it did not follow, as a matter of course, that the pay would be stopped, for a commanding officer could remit the deduction. He fully agreed that it was right that there should be some power to remit a deduction if a commanding officer did not think the case was one which made it necessary that the pay should be stopped. Although a soldier technically forfeited his pay, it was in the power of his commanding officer to remit the deduction. With respect to good conduct pay, that was a matter which depended upon the Royal Warrant, and that case did not arise under the Bill.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. J. BROWN
wished to point out that the clause did not provide for the case of an officer being in charge of the wings, nor an officer in charge of head-quarters, nor did it seem to him that the case was met by the Amendment. An officer in charge of the wings probably would not be the commanding officer of the regiment, and while in charge of the wings he ought to have the power of exercising the punishment provided by the clause; also an officer left in charge of head-quarters, at any time, would be fit to exercise the powers given to him by this Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that he had already given a promise upon this point to the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), and he would repeat that he would consider the point with reference to half-battalions. There was a great deal of difficulty in providing for all the cases; but he would endeavour to put the matter on a thoroughly satisfactory footing. He might say that he should not like to go beyond the rank of field officer in the extension of this power. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to remind him of the matter on another occasion, he would endeavour to meet the case.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
was opposed altogether to the extension of the powers of commanding officers. The men were much more satisfied when they were punished by the sentence of a court martial than by an individual. Giving the power to a commanding officer was only to avoid the extra trouble of calling a court martial.
On the Motion of Colonel STANLEY, the following Amendment was made:— In page 21, line 35, insert as a separate paragraph— "In the case of absence without leave, the commanding officer may, if he is not under the rank of field officer, or if under that rank is in temporary command of a battery of artillery, a regiment of cavalry, or a battalion of infantry, award imprisonment with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding twenty -one days.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the Amendment which he proposed to move. Under certain circumstances, this clause would apply to Volunteers who might be subject, for the time being, to mili- 346 tary law. It was, therefore, most necessary that the clause should be carefully scanned with regard to its bearing upon Volunteers. He was aware that they were then only dealing with the extended powers of a commanding officer in the case of absence without leave. The extension of the power of a commanding officer appeared to have been drawn from the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon courts martial. But the recommendations of the Royal Commission went further, for they proposed to extend the powers of a commanding officer in the case of all offences to a sentence of imprisonment for 21 days. To that recommendation he was entirely opposed. Camps of instruction were now formed, and Volunteers were subject to discipline. A Volunteer who went into those camps did so under the impression that he could rid himself of all his obligations to the Service after the expiration of 14 days, and this new law was to be put upon him, which would take away his right to resign at the end of that period, for a commanding officer had power given him to put him in prison for 21 days if absent without leave. Of course, he did not for one moment stand up in favour of any man who was absent without leave; but they must consider most carefully the effect that this provision would have upon Volunteers. They should not have such provisions as would make Volunteers afraid to go into camps of instruction. If the power was given to send Volunteers to prison for 21 days by the sentence of a single officer, he believed the effect would be that Volunteers would not be so ready to go into camps of instruction as they were at present. It was the object of all commanding officers to get Volunteers into camp, and he thought the provision would interfere with that which they wished to do. He did not think the same effect would be produced if power were given to the commanding officer to award imprisonment for 14 days only; for every Volunteer knew that he was subject to military law for the period of 14 days. This provision had been made, no doubt, with reference to the interests of the Army; and so far as the Army was concerned, he gathered from the opinions of the Committee that it was accepted; but as regarded Volunteers, he could not accept the clause, and felt bound to rise to protest against 347 it. He thought it would interfere most materially in the formation of these camps of instruction; and, however much they might wish for the discipline of the Volunteers to be increased, on the other hand, they must remember that they were not an entirely military Force, but were only a quasi-military Force. This power of imprisoning a man for 21 days, because he happened to be absent from the camp for three or four hours, would, he thought, be considered by many Volunteers to be a very heavy penalty. In active service it was, no doubt, well to have such a provision as this; but in time of peace he could not see that it was necessary in the case of Volunteers. He moved, in line 5 of the Amendment just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, " to leave out " twenty-one " and insert " fourteen."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. It was admitted on all hands that 21 days was not an excessive period. With regard to the fears of the hon. Gentleman as to the Volunteers, he (Colonel Stanley) thought that it was a very unlikely thing that any Volunteer would so commit himself as to require this punishment to be awarded to him. He must also take into consideration that a commanding officer, in dealing with such a matter, would probably not exercise the full powers given him, nor would take any steps which would raise doubt or difficulty. But he would base his objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member on a broader ground. He had every reason to believe that the Volunteers were anxious, when they took upon themselves these military duties, to accept them upon the same terms as the soldiers by whose side they served. He defended the opinion which he expressed earlier upon the Bill; for though the hon. Member, no doubt, spoke from good information, yet he might not be aware of the representations which had been addressed to the "War Office from many quarters. There was a general feeling that the Volunteers were anxious to accept the full liability and the full restrictions of soldiers when they went into camp with the Regular troops. He trusted the hon. Member would not insist upon his Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
did not see his way to accept the clause which 348 they were now upon, for it seemed to him to be perfectly unworkable. It did not provide for many cases which were constantly occurring in different parts of the world. In India, and in the Colonies, where regiments were broken up the clause would be inapplicable. Some times companies were under the independent command of captains; and sometimes not more than two or three officers and the commanding officer, with one company, might be present with the Colours at head-quarters, while the bulk of the regiment might be hundreds of miles away. He was opposed to this extension of the power of imprisonment to 21 days; he had an Amendment to substitute 14 days, which he withdrew in favour of another for seven days. It seemed to him that 21 days' imprisonment was too much. Supposing there was a case of misunderstanding— a man might be at a distance from head-quarters and the means of communication might be uncertain, and he did think that this clause gave a commanding officer great extension of power, which was quite unworkable.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought that this power of imprisonment ought to be limited in some way. There were several ways in which the clause might be amended, one of which was to give a power to award seven days' imprisonment for absence without leave of, say, for five days. The power ought to be limited by providing that the number of days' imprisonment should not exceed the time during which the soldier had been unwarrantably absent. If that were done, a man would know at once what punishment he might expect to receive. Graver cases of absence without leave could be dealt with as a matter of course by a court martial. He thought, however, that a punishment of 21 days being placed in the hands of one man, without restriction, was too great a power. It was said that a hard case made bad law; but a commanding officer might consider that a man required some punishment for other offences which he was supposed to have committed; and, therefore, if he were absent for only one day, he might sentence him to the full period of imprisonment for 21 days.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the matter to which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had 349 referred could be met by regulation, if found to work harshly. It appeared to him, however, that there might be circumstances in which one day's absence might be punished too severely, and the case of absence for over seven days could be dealt with in another way. He was disposed to accept some limitation such as that proposed, and was willing either to put the words in then, or to consult with his advisers with regard to doing so.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
wished to say a word or two in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had expressed an opinion that the Volunteers were anxious for the enforcement of further discipline. He ventured to say that the representations which had been made to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have emanated entirely from the officers of Volunteers. He believed that the officers of Volunteers were very much in favour of obtaining military power, and of having some such means of punishing those under their command as were usual in the Army; they were anxious to extend the little power they had at present, and to make it very much more. He ventured to suggest that if that were done it would be a very dangerous course to pursue in relation to the Volunteer Force. The Volunteers were unduly praised by some people; while, on the other hand, other persons unduly depreciated them. He assumed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought highly of the Force; but the way in which he was now going to treat it was by imposing upon it penalties which did not at present exist by law. He was not going into a legal argument upon the matter; but it was his conviction that further legislation on this point was of extremely doubtful utility. He thought that it was a matter of great doubt whether the Military Act ought to be applied at all to Volunteers, although brigaded with, and acting with, the Regular Forces. At the present time, there was great doubt upon the Acts relating to the matter, as to the extent to which Volunteers could be punished; and it was sought by the present Bill to settle and extend the powers to punish Volunteers under certain conditions of service, and to place them on 350 the same footing as the Regular soldiers. By the terms of his engagement, a Volunteer was entitled to rid himself of it by a fortnight's notice; but here they were proposing to inflict a punishment for various offences which would extend beyond that period. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman alleged that he had learned from the Volunteers that they were disposed to submit to all those matters. To that he (Mr. Hop-wood) answered that if the Bill were passed all the liabilities which a man would undertake on entering the Service ought to be drawn to his attention, and to be publicly exhibited at the places of drill of the various corps. Ho felt quite sure that if they were to tell the artizans of Lancashire, Cheshire, or Yorkshire, that whenever in pursuance of their desire to get more instruction in military matters, or with the object of obtaining a summer holiday, they chose to go into camp along with the Regular troops, they would then be liable to the extreme penalties of this measure, he thought they would at once refuse to go. He thought that the adoption of such provisions as these would defeat the intention and object of them, and that they would, in the result, do mischief rather than good. The Volunteer Force, by the very terms in which it was created, was not to be ruled in the precise manner in which soldiers were disciplined; and to try and apply the same rules to Volunteers was a contradiction in terms, and did away with the object and altered the character of the Force.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out to the Committee that it was not in Order then to discuss the questions relating to the Volunteer Force.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that the Bill referred as much to Volunteers as to other Forces of the Crown. Volunteers gave their services freely and voluntarily, and submitted themselves to the same discipline as the Regular Forces. He thought that they were entirely in Order in discussing whether any particular clause of the Bill was suitable or otherwise in its application to the Volunteers. He did not think that there was any reason for applying these stringent regulations to the Volunteers. He did not believe that they were in favour of the extension of the punishments to which they would be subjected.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, that the Chairman had just now ruled that it was not in Order then to discuss the question of the Volunteers.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that he had just pointed out to the Committee that that was not the proper time to raise any question with regard to Volunteers. Of course, there was no doubt that the Volunteers were dealt with by the Bill; and in the clauses relating to them any question with regard to the Force could be discussed. But, certainly, hon. Members were not in Order in speaking of the Volunteers upon an Amendment which proposed to substitute 14 for 21 days' imprisonment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that if brigaded with Regular troops, the power which they were then discussing would be applicable to the Volunteers; it might be inflicted upon the Volunteers under the Bill by a commanding officer, who might be, and probably would be, an officer of a regiment of the Line. Any Volunteer might be sent to prison for three weeks by an officer of the Regular Forces, who knew nothing about him, and by whom his case could not well be considered. He did not wish to enter into the general question of the Volunteers; but, at the same time, he wished to point out that there was a tendency all through this Bill to increase punishments and render them more severe. In every line of the Bill they met more severe punishments and increased terms of imprisonment. It was said that the placing this increased power in the hands of commanding officers would have the effect of reducing the number of courts martial. It would, unquestionably, increase the severity of sentences by commanding officers; but whether it would reduce the number of prisoners sent before courts martial he doubted. He would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether he could not introduce some provision for decreasing the punishments which might be awarded for slight absences without leave? He believed, at the present time, a soldier, who was unlucky enough to have been absent a short time, was driven to desert! from fear of the consequences. He had known the case of a soldier who was brought before him for having deserted, to which act he was driven by having been absent one night without leave. If 352 soldiers knew that the punishment for temporary absence would not exceed seven days' imprisonment, they would return to their barracks and would not desert, and thus the services of the soldier would be gained, and the expense of punishing him would be saved. Many military men must be fully aware that in many cases a soldier was afraid to return from fear of the severe punishment which he would suffer for having been absent for a short time without leave.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the advantage of giving an increased power to a commanding officer would be great. Fewer courts martial would be held, and a soldier would not be kept away from his duty for such a long period if dealt with summarily the next morning. There was a general opinion that much good would be done by giving a commanding officer increased powers of dealing with absences without leave. But in respect of other offences the Government did not wish to press for any increased powers to be placed in the hands of commanding officers.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought there was some justification for the change proposed in giving commanding officers increased powers of dealing with cases of absence by soldiers without leave. He thought, however, that they ought to be careful not to give commanding officers authority to inflict heavy punishments in all cases, but that they should limit the amount of punishment which might be inflicted in particular cases. He wished to point out to the Committee that absence without leave was one of the most numerous classes of offences committed in the Army. During the last year there were no less than 3,347 cases occurring of absence without leave. Upwards of 3,000 of those cases were tried by court martial. Therefore, what the right and hon. and gallant Gentleman was pressing the Committee to do was to give commanding officers power to deal summarily with a large number of those cases. He did not complain of that; but when he considered that this power would be exercised in some cases by men of not altogether sound judgment, and that the more men that were sent to prison the more they injured the efficiency of the Force, he thought they should look with jealousy upon the power of a commanding officer to inflict such a punishment, He remembered, 353 very well, that in the proceedings of the Royal Commission which sat a number of years ago, evidence was given before them with reference to the number of summary punishments inflicted in different regiments, and it was shown that the number varied very much indeed. It was brought out as clearly as possible that, some commanding officers were a great deal more severe than others, and that while numerous punishments were inflicted in some regiments, in others the number of punishments inflicted was very small indeed. That was most important, as showing that in giving commanding officers these summary powers they ought to surround them with sufficient safeguards.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
was sorry again to trouble the Committee with any observations upon this matter. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Burnley had really taken the trouble to listen to what had passed during the last hour or two; if he had, he would have known that the power given to commanding officers was by no means what he seemed to think. They desired to give this power to the commanding officers in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan)—that was to say, that short absences without leave should be punished by imprisonment not exceeding seven days, and absences for periods beyond that, according to the length of time for which a soldier was absent, up to 21 days. Of course, in cases of absence without leave for extended periods, a court martial would be the proper tribunal. He did not think, therefore, that they were giving commanding officers any such extended powers as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. On the contrary, he believed that the powers which they had given would be completely limited and restricted. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the Committee would agree to give commanding officers a power to award imprisonment for a period not not exceeding 21 days.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that at present, if a man was more than five days absent, he must be tried by a court martial, and when so tried, a man really got more than 21 days' imprisonment. Under the new scale, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposed to introduce, a 354 man would get the same number of days' imprisonment as he did at present when his absence was for a period less than five days.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
inquired whether the Secretary of State for War was aware whether the prisons would, in all cases, have sufficient accommodation to carry out sentences of imprisonment for 21 days? Many prisons had. very inferior cells, which were only suitable for confining men for a few days. If, therefore, the period of imprisonment was increased to 21 days, cells which would be suitable for a few days' imprisonment might be found totally unsuitable for a longer period.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that in cases of absence for over five days, it was now necessary that there should be a court martial; in such cases, a man was sure to get 21 days' imprisonment. In future, a man would get less than that amount of imprisonment.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
begged leave to withdraw his Motion.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
moved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 27, after "twenty-one days," to add— Provided, that in every case where the power of summary award by a commanding officer exceeds a sentence of seven days' imprisonment, the accused person may demand that the evidence against him should be taken on oath, and the same oath as that required to be taken by witnesses before a court martial shall bo administered to each witness in such case. He thought that such a provision as that was necessary where they were extending the power of commanding officers in the matter of imprisonment. At present, cases of absence for over five days were tried by courts martial, and evidence was then, of course, taken on oath. In some of these cases it might happen that considerable doubt might arise as to the circumstances which constituted the offence; and it, therefore, seemed to him desirable that in the case provided for by the Amendment the evidence should be taken on oath.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
assented to the Amendment, on the understanding that if he should find there would be serious practical difficulty in carrying it out, 355 the Amendment should be struck out on the Report.

§ MR. J. BROWN
remarked, that so much had already been said on the subject of absence without leave that he did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name with regard to it.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
moved, as an Amendment, in page 22, line 7, before the words " court martial," to insert the word "district." He said that his object was to provide that an appeal from a commanding officer's decision should not lay to the officers immediately serving under his command. By the present Articles of War, if a soldier was fined any sum exceeding 10s., he might appeal, if he pleased, from the decision. He had a right in that case to be tried by a district or garrison court martial. No doubt, there was a difficulty in bringing together officers to compose such a court, and for that reason the appeal had not been retained to a district court martial. He thought, however, that it was not right that an appeal from a commanding officer's decision should be only to those officers immediately under his command.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
had no objection to the insertion of the word "district," although there were some practical difficulties in the way. It had been pointed out that in some cases they would have appeals set up as a matter of course; and it was then undesirable that a district court martial should in every case be bound to assemble. He had no objection, however, to making the appeal lay to a district court martial in any case which was sufficiently serious. But supposing the soldier was sentenced to one day's imprisonment, it was not right that he should have an appeal to such a court martial. To give a soldier a right of appeal to a district court martial in every case would lead to a considerable amount of trouble and expense. He thought that the difficulty would be met, however, by providing that where a soldier appealed from the decision of his commanding officer, and obtained a hearing by a district court martial, he should then be 356 liable to. suffer a greater punishment at the hands of the court martial than he had originally received from his commanding officer. By adopting that course, he thought appeals would not be made frivolously and. without undue ground. He should, therefore, agree to the Amendment giving an appeal to a district court martial; but, at the same time, he should insist that there should be no limitation on the soldier's receiving a greater punishment from the court martial than had been originally awarded by the commanding officer. He might say that he did not wish to punish unduly, but only to prevent the right of appeal being abused.

§ MR. RYLANDS
rose for the purpose of suggesting that it might be possible to restrict the power of appeal to cases in which the sentence of imprisonment exceeded seven days. They had a Proviso already for cases in which imprisonment amounted to seven days, for in that case evidence must be taken on oath. He should suggest the insertion of a Proviso for limiting an appeal to a district court martial to cases in which the sentence of imprisonment exceeded seven days.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that perhaps his hon. Friend was not aware that any soldier sentenced to deprivation of pay had a right to appeal to a court martial.

§ MR. RYLANDS
inquired whether that was a district court martial?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the clause, as it stood, would cover everything, and the soldier would have a right to be tried by a court martial.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, that it was only in cases of fines for drunkenness that a soldier could at present appeal to a district court martial. In all other cases his appeal lay only to a regimental court martial under the 50th Article of War.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), that the law was as he had stated, and he thought it was one of the present anomalies for which there was no reason. He considered it of great importance that a soldier should have a complete right to appeal to a competent court.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
did not know whether it was worth while to leave it optional to make the appeal to a regimental or district court martial, He 357 would give his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Arthur Hayter) an undertaking that the words "have a right to be tried by a court martial " should be altered to "have a right to be tried by a district court martial."

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it would make considerable difference whether the appeal were to a regimental or a district court martial. A regimental court martial would only have power to inflict a short term of imprisonment, whereas a district court martial might give a longer term.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
stated that he would not move the Amendment which stood in his name—to provide that a court martial hearing an appeal from a commanding officer's decision should not be empowered to award a punishment greater than was originally awarded by a commanding officer.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he had an Amendment to propose, but could not explain it in the short time which would elapse before the Sitting was suspended. He would therefore move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Sir Alexander Gordon),—put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
It being now Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.