COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th March.] (Hansard, 19 March 1875)

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
moved an Amendment the effect of which would be to allow a court martial to sentence noncommissioned officers to a lesser punishment than reduction to the ranks, by giving it power to reduce them to a lower grade of rank, or to put them at the bottom or in any other position on their list.

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
thought the Amendment was not necessary or desirable, inasmuch as a non-commissioned officer need not be tried by a court martial, but could be reduced to the ranks without it. To place him, therefore, at the bottom of the list by sentence of court martial would be a useless waste of power. A commanding officer was not obliged to promote a non-commissioned officer according to seniority. It was only the class of duty that was affected by seniority, not pay or promotion. If a man was not fit to be a serjeant he was seldom fit to be a corporal. If he was 133 degraded, he lost authority over the men, and it was far better that he should at once be reduced to the ranks and recover his position by good conduct.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 64, line 9, to leave out all after "be" to "State," and insert "served on the commanding officer of such soldier, and the said commanding officer," said, it was intended to transfer to the commanding officers of regiments a power which was now exercised by the Secretary of State for War, and which was most embarrassing to him. It was a matter of great regret to commanding officers of regiments that they had not the power so to direct things in relation to the wants of soldiers' wives as that they should not be sent away dissatisfied. Commanding officers should have a power which they now had not, to compel soldiers to support their wives and children in the same way as civilians were bound to support theirs. He submitted that soldiers' wives should be compelled to show their marriage certificates. When he commanded a regiment, he felt the want of such a power; however, as he apprehended that his Amendment would embarrass the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he would withdraw it.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
said, that the Mutiny Act formerly exempted the soldier from the necessity of supporting his family. That provision was repealed, while Lord Cardwell was at the War Office; but the concession was accompanied by so many difficulties as to be altogether valueless. When any order had been made against a soldier, copy of such order should be left at the office of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and the said Secretary of State might withhold a portion, not exceeding 6d., of the daily pay of a noncommissioned officer not below a serjeant, and 3d, of any other soldier. When such 134 soldier was quartered out of the district where the action arose, the summons should be served on his commanding officer, and such service should not be valid unless there be left therewith a sum sufficient to enable the soldier to attend the hearing of the case and return to his quarters; and no summons should be valid if obtained after an order had been given for the embarkation for service out of the United Kingdom. He would therefore in page 64, line 10, move, as an Amendment, to leave out "may" and insert "shall" the Amendment having no reference to the case of women who might have claims upon soldiers. The words "may" and "shall" might almost be taken as convertible terms.

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
denied that the words could be regarded as convertible terms. It must be remembered that the Army was in an artificial position, and the Secretary of State ought to have a certain amount of discretion in his power. Soldiers were especially liable to charges of this kind by loose women who knew they had a better chance of getting money out of them, than from civilians who could and did constantly abscond. There were two things to guard against, vexatious charges, and collusion. The late Government were responsible for the wording of the clause; but after very anxious consideration he did not know how it could be improved.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said, the clause was framed by the late Government with the view, while admitting the liability of the soldier in such cases, of protecting him against got-up charges. As such, it was of a tentative character, the principle of liability being entirely novel to the Army. He wished to know how it had worked.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, it was a principle put forward by the late Lord Hardinge, that the Crown alone should interfere with the pay of the soldier, and that no other authority should intervene at all. The only case in which that rule was broken was that of drunkenness, when the pay was stopped by the commanding officer. No 135 instance had been brought before him as a grievance, and he was informed that the Act was considered to work well.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he thought that as a change had been so recently made, the question was whether it would work well. He could confirm the statement that the clause had been introduced by the late Government as merely tentative.

§ MR. STANSFELD
moved, line 13, after the word "soldier" to add words enabling the Secretary of State to withhold a portion of a soldier's daily pay for such a time as might suffice for the payment of the amount required to be paid under the order or decree of the justices.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
objected to the Amendment, the object of which, so far as it could properly be done, was carried out by the clause.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
moved, as an Amendment, in fine 15, to leave out after "decree" to the end of the Clause—namely, that part relating to the summons. No woman could now proceed against a soldier in a case of affiliation without first lodging money enough to bring him from the place where he might be and then to convey him back. She must, in fact, lodge £2 which could only be repaid to her out of a payment of 6d. a-day. That was a bar to the possibility of the woman getting justice.

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
opposed the Amendment. The soldier must have money to travel to the place where he was summoned to appear, and how was he to get it? It was not to be expected that the captain should provide for his travelling expenses, and his comrades were not likely to make a purse for him. The clause had been in operation for two years. The hon. Member had not brought forward a single case of hard- 136 ship nor had he proposed an alternative. Had he done so, it would have been considered. But the Government were certainly not prepared to strike out the provision altogether.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that in 99 cases out of 100 the necessity of lodging £2 was a practical denial of justice to the woman. Certainly the poor betrayed woman should not be called upon to make a deposit which was beyond her means. Let the Government pay the money, and then deduct it from the soldier's pay.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
resisted the Amendment, as there was no practical complaint against the working of the present arrangement. No instance had been brought forward of any such denial of justice as had been assumed by the last speaker to be its effect; and in the absence of any such proof he hoped the House would retain the proviso.