HC Deb 26 March 1878 vol 239 cc39-66

(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, The Judge Advocate, Colonel Loyd Lindsay.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th March.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 22 (Courts-martial may not sentence to corporal punishment in time of peace).

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that this clause dealt with the question of capital punishment, and the Amendment he proposed was, in page 13, line 16, to leave out the words "during the time of peace within the Queen's dominions." What he wished to assert was the principle that corporal punishment should not be inflicted under any circumstances whatever. The clause as it stood only provided that the punishment should not be inflicted in time of peace. He was compelled to direct his Amendment to the clause in instalments of the nature of the one he now proposed.

MR. GATHORNE HAEDY

thought there could be no reason whatever, why, in time of disturbance, there should not be the power of inflicting this short and decisive punishment, when no recourse could be had to prison discipline. He, therefore, could not consent to strike out the words.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

said, that for his part, if the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor Power) had not brought forward the question of flogging on this occasion, he (Mr. Taylor) should have been content to await the result of the Committee on the Mutiny Bill—and that for two reasons. In the first place, if this question was brought forward at this time, no Vote of the House would afford any indication to the country of how much that House was opposed to flogging in the Army; and secondly, because, as he understood the hon. Member, he did not propose the abolition of flogging, but only to reduce the number of lashes from 50 to 10. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: No, no.] In that case, he would withdraw the observation; but he hoped the hon. Member would not go to a division, because the result would not stand well before the country. He trusted and hoped that the Report of the Committee would be such that no Government would ever again venture to introduce flogging in the Army. Not only was this brutal punishment degrading to the Navy and Army who were injured by it, but we were the last nation in the world who made use of it; and he did think that after the examination that would be made by the Committee, the clause would not be brought forward in any new Mutiny Bill. If it were to be re-introduced, the House would be able to make a strong stand against it. He would promise to oppose it by every means possible, and he believed that in future times there would be no flogging in the Army. He believed that the only reason why the Government had postponed year after year the bringing in of a new Naval Discipline Act was that it would be impossible to retain the cat in a new Act. Many years ago, Lord Clarence Paget described it as a Draconian code. For many years in that House he (Mr. Taylor) had opposed the flogging clauses of the Mutiny Act with varying non-success, until public opinion was fairly moved on the question. When a specific Resolution was moved by Mr. Otway in that House, and a majority obtained against flogging in the Army, it was then supposed that Government would deal with the question, and that flogging would be abolished; but, unhappily, there still remained in the Mutiny Bill this provision for flogging in time of war. He believed the reasons why no great objection was made to this condition were two. One was that we were rather in a dream of universal peace, and that the question would not arise. Another reason was, that it was believed that in time of war, in presence of the enemy, no commander would venture on such severity towards his troops. He was reminded by that of an officer who wrote to him on remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way (Major Nolan), on the wholesale flogging of soldiers in the field in Abyssinia. The officer said that, no doubt, the hon. and gallant Member was right; that the power of the provost marshal was unlimited, and led to a great deal of cruelty and injustice. They might have been mistaken in allowing the flogging clauses in the Mutiny Bill to pass year by year without criticism; but now the hon. Member had brought them face to face with the question, and he did hope that no Government would propose, and no House would sanction, the continuation of this degrading punishment. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member not to divide now; but if he did, he would vote with him.

MR. PARNELL

considered that the opinions of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) were entitled to the greatest respect from everybody. He had for so many years devoted his attention to this subject, that those who had only recently had an opportunity of considering the matter ought not to disregard anything that came from him, or they might incur the suspicion that they were not doing what they did out of regard for the interests they desired to serve. But he wished to point out that the powers of flogging were wider than was supposed. Not only could it be administered in an army on active service in the field, but on board ship when not in commission. He presumed that soldiers could not be flogged on board ship without the operation of this Act. He did not, however, know how the law stood with regard to soldiers on board ship in commission, or whether they were bound by the Marine Mutiny Act. With regard to the general question, of course, as there was to be a Committee on this subject, and as the House seemed very strongly impressed last Session with the necessity of doing away with flogging altogether in the Army and Navy, and as Her Majesty's Government seemed to consider the desirability of doing away with it altogether, if that favourable disposition continued, he thought the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would bring great opposition on himself, if he did not accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). Many hon. Members of that House might look upon the opposition which some of the Irish Members had felt it their duty to make to this Bill was an opposition which might have been actuated by other motives than those they had avowed. He did not think hon. Members of that House, or even the Secretary of State for War, after what he had stated on the previous night, could give credence to that opinion. Although they might feel it their duty to move the various Amendments on the Paper, yet in view of the appeal of the hon. Member for Leicester, it was incumbent upon them to see whether, if they persevered, they would not really do harm to the cause of the abolition of flogging in the Army. It was true this subject would go before the Committee fortified by the vast majority of public opinion in favour of the abolition of flogging, and also fortified by the general feeling and sentiment of that House. It was important that nothing should be done to put a stop to that sympathy; and it might be that if they went to a division after the speech the Secretary of State for War felt it his duty to make on the previous night, some hon. Members might be led to walk into the Lobby on behalf of a punishment they really did not believe in. Consequently, this question of the abolition of flogging might appear in a less favourable light than it did last Session, and he could not help seeing that there were circumstances which rendered it undesirable to carry the opposition shown by this Amendment further. If the hon. Member for Leicester had taken up the subject upon every Mutiny Bill, flogging would have been abolished before now. After unexampled exertions, the House was anxious for the relaxation of the Easter Recess, and would probably regard a prolongation of the debate with dissatisfaction and annoyance; and he could not, therefore, take upon himself the responsibility of urging the hon. Member for Mayo to persist in his Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

remarked, that he was unable to agree with the mild course suggested, however judicious it might appear. It must be a very unpleasant thing for any hon. Member to vote in favour of flogging in the Army; and the best policy, therefore, would be to allow the odium to rest on parties who voted in favour of the retention of flogging, while those who opposed it should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject. It seemed to him that at least some Member of the Government should express an opinion, that, in proposing a new Mutiny Bill to the House, there should be some modification of such a clause as this. They ought not to leave this question of flogging in the Army to the mere chance that the Committee would vote against it, and that the Government of the day would vote against it. They would have first to get a Committee who would make such a recommendation, next a Government that would support the Committee, and they would also have to get the general support of the House next year. It would be a more simple matter if the Government would give way and get rid of the system once for all. Irish Members were held up to odium, because they raised questions and proposed Amendments which they sincerely felt were important not only to the cause of humanity, but also to the British Army. Now, he thought it was only right that some consideration should be given to the soldiers who were the bone and sinew of the Army, and he should therefore be disposed to follow whatever course the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) felt disposed to take. Mutiny Bills had been passed for a number of years without opposition, and there were no concessions. His opinion was that the only way to get concessions was to make rather determined opposition, because reason and common sense did not carry as much weight as they ought to carry.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

, in recommending the adoption of the course suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), trusted the Government would give the Committee some information as to the possible character and constitution of the Committee or Commission who were to sit on this Bill, because such a Committee or Commission would be viewed with jealousy or otherwise according to its constitution. No one was more opposed to flogging than he was. It seemed to him that it should be confined to the most degraded characters. At the same time, it was very difficult to say what was to be done with bad characters in the field. It was difficult to say whether, if flogging on service were to be abolished, some more serious penalty would not be summarily inflicted.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Sir, with regard to what the hon. Member has said, the Committee will be appointed by this House, and will not be in my Department.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

I beg pardon; I thought there might be a Royal Commission.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

May I ask if the Committee is to be appointed immediately, and to report this Session?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Certainly. I intend to ask for the Committee directly, and it will sit as soon as possible; but I think not before Easter.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

, with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and the remarks on the Committee that might be appointed, said, that the hon. Member for Leicester founded his impression entirely on the supposition that some Committee would be appointed that would easily be induced to abolish flogging—in fact, he thought that they had already killed the cat; but, judging from the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who had charge of the Bill, and whose influence would be great in appointing the Committee, and doubtless in shaping the decision of the Committee, he did not think they could rely upon the support of the right hon. Gentleman in abolishing flogging in the Army. Therefore, they had really nothing to go upon so long as Her Majesty's Government took no steps to meet them half-way. Soldiers were liable to corporal punishment to the extent of 50 lashes, and there was nothing to prevent a man who had received 50 lashes to-day being sentenced to receive another 50 lashes in three months time. After what had been said on the subject, he should not, however, press the two Amendments before the House; but he would test the feeling of the House upon a subsequent Amendment, by which he sought to reduce the number of lashes which it was now within the power of a commander to inflict. He wished to reduce the number of lashes from 50 to 10, which he considered itself a most severe sentence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment following, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER rose to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out "fifty" and insert "ten." In a sentence of corporal punishment 10 lashes was a very severe sentence. Those who had seen soldiers flogged knew how quickly any man subjected to that punishment became insensible. He could not conceive how any man could bear such an infliction. It was simply impossible except in the case of a man of iron constitution.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

remarked that he had an Amendment previous to that. He wished to move the omission of the words, in line 22, "or any breach of the Articles of War." If we were to have flogging, the nature of the offences should be distinctly denned. It should not be left to the interpretation of the commanding officer to say what was or was not an Article of War. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 22, to leave out the words "or any breach of the Articles of War."—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. PARNELL

thought this an important Amendment. If he were to make an assertion that there was not a single Member of that House who understood the Articles of War, he should not be very far from stating the truth. Judging from the experience of this Session and last Session, he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War understood them himself. He believed it was only the combatant branches of the Service that were placed under the Mutiny Act, and it appeared to him to be a great hardship that any breach of the Articles of War should be punishable by flogging. The Articles of War were very numerous, and were continually being altered. It was perfectly impossible for any private soldier to know what these Articles were, or what breaches of the Articles of War rendered him liable to punishment. If the Committee read these Articles of War, they would see for themselves that there were all sorts of crimes and offences put down of a trivial character, such as ought not to be punishable by flogging under any circumstances whatever. It was rumoured abroad that the Secretary of State for War had determined to pass this Bill ipsissima verba without the alteration of a single line. Now, he thought it might be better, under these circumstances, to place the House of Commons under martial law. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman thought the House was under martial law already. It would be better if the Secretary of State for War brought in a short Act to operate until Easter, providing that all Members of the House of Commons should sit silent.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the hon. Member had on one or two occasions attributed to him powers which he did not possess. Yesterday, he believed it was said that he had an intention of reducing the hon. Member, with some other hon. Members, to impalpable pulp. Now, he neither had the power nor the desire to do that. He had asked the House to pass the Bill in its present shape under the following state of things:—It was going to be referred to a Committee. The hon. Member for Mayo seemed to think that he (Mr. Hardy) would sit on that Committee. He had a great deal too much to do for that. He should take no part in its deliberations, nor endeavour to affect its voice in any way. He certainly asked the Committee, as far as they possibly could, to pass the Bill in its present shape, with a view that there might be a thorough investigation hereafter into the whole subject.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 82: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 70.)

MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved, in line 23, to reduce from 50 to 10 the number of lashes that might be ordered by the Commander-in-Chief. The question of the number of lashes was, he said, a very important one, because he was told that the severity of this corporal punishment depended, to a great extent, upon the size or length of the handle of the lash which was used. Therefore, he should be glad if the Secretary of State for War would give the Committee some information on that point. He remembered that in the course of the discussion which took place last year, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) recommended that the First Lord of the Admiralty in the one case, and the Secretary of State for War in the other, should become responsible for the character of the lash to be used. The right hon. Gentleman's attention had been directed to the matter since then, and, perhaps, he could give them some information on the point. In any case, he thought that he would be justified in asking for the opinion of the Committee upon the question that the number of lashes should be reduced from 50 to 10.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 23, to leave out the word "fifty," in order to insert the word "ten."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)

Question proposed, ''That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

remarked, that the subject had not been brought before him. He would remind the Committee that the cases of flogging which were here referred to were cases which might arise on active service in the field. He would make another appeal to the Committee to get through the Bill as quickly as possible, and would promise a complete inquiry into its operation.

MR. PARNELL

reminded the Committee that when the discussion on the Mutiny Act took place last Session, the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt), in response to an Amendment which was then moved, undertook to see that no cats should hereafter be used in the Service except such as were of a pattern approved by himself. That arrangement might or might not have been carried out with reference to the Navy; but he was inclined to think it had been, because he observed that in the Prison Rules issued this Session by the Home Secretary, provision was made with regard to the size and weight of the cat, the number of knots on the lashes, the strength of the cord, and so forth. In short, the Rules provided that there should be an uniform cat for all the prisons under his jurisdiction. Now, it was true that in the Army there had been no punishment of this kind inflicted during the last year or two; because this country had not been at war with any of the European Powers, and it had not been necessary to inflict corporal punishment. But the country might be involved in war, and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to deal with this matter. They could not have the Report of the Committee, which was promised, for another year—this Bill would be in force during all that time, and even for a longer period—and, consequently, it behoved the House to make provision that this punishment should be of a rather more humane character, and that the selection of the weapon should not be left to the caprice of the officers commanding regiments, but that the Secretary of State for War should himself see that the cat was of such a nature that it should not be an instrument of torture but a mere instrument of punishment. He hoped that the Secretary of State for War might see his way to giving a similar undertaking to that which both the Home Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty had already given.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

intimated that he could not support the Amendment, as to do so would be to admit the principle that flogging ought to be inflicted. He hoped the hon. Member would not compel the Committee to divide. If he did, for his part, he must walk out of the House—and all the more because it was not a practical question until the country was at war.

MR. O'CLERY

observed, that the soldiers of all other European nations must wonder that Englishmen could be found to join an Army in which men were subject to so degrading a punishment as that of the lash. Let them contrast the position of the Regular soldiers at home with that of the Regular soldiers of any Continental Army in which flogging was absolutely out of the question. Take, for example, the French soldier. The moment he put on his uniform, he was then and there invested to some extent with a nominal rank, and death alone was considered as the fitting punishment for any great offence. The uniform on that simple soldier was respected throughout France—in the theatres, the railways, and, in fact, everywhere. Point to the uniform of a British soldier, and it was tabooed. A private soldier dared not go into a first-class carriage; or if he did, he was at the mercy of any railway official who might choose to put him out of it, even although he had paid his first-class fare. A soldier, wearing the uniform of this country, which boasted so much of the deeds of its soldiers, dared not go into a dress-box in a theatre, simply because he had not Her Majesty's commission. Another instance of the stigma which attached to these men was to be found in the fact that at the very moment when standing in front of their enemy with the prospect of receiving a bullet, there was this further prospect in view for them—that they might get the lash from their own officers. Certainly, the prospect was not a very cheering one to the soldier, and he (Mr. O'Clery) was inclined to think that it would be wise to abolish altogether the inhuman punishment of flogging. Either they thought their soldiers were worthy of the name of soldiers or they did not. If they were only to be regarded as malefactors in disguise, over whom must always be kept the lash, why not say so, and have done with the speeches which were being continually made at social and other gatherings in response to the toast of "The Army, Navy, and Volunteers." He thought that the position occupied by the soldier in this country ought to be well known, and he was sure that the soldiers of nearly every other country must look on with amazement at Englishmen who prided themselves so much on the liberty they enjoyed willingly subjecting themselves by entering the Army to punishment of this kind. He would vote for the Amendment, but he did not wish in doing so to be understood as supporting punishment by flogging. There was nothing, in his opinion, which had such a demoralizing effect on the soldier. In case this country was at war, the Volunteers would most probably be placed under the Articles of War; but he questioned whether Englishmen who hitherto had been engaged in professions in the country would care to subject themselves to such punishment as flogging.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, it seemed to him that as the Committee had not been called upon to divide against flogging altogether, it was a matter of consistency whether they ought to go to a division on this question or not. He certainly had the very highest respect for the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and he thought that there was great wisdom in what he had said. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was totally unable to vote in favour of administering 10 lashes to a soldier, if, at the same time, he were in favour of abolishing the punishment altogether. It seemed to him that if they had debated the question of abolishing the punishment and taken a division and been beaten upon it, it might then have been justifiable to propose to reduce the number of lashes. Indeed, he rather apprehended, if next Session it was proposed in the new Bill to re-instate flogging as part of the discipline of the Army, that probably some course of that kind would be taken. But if the Committee were, under present circumstances, to divide upon this question, and they by any chance got a vote in favour of the diminished number of lashes, it would certainly be said, and said with some effect, that the House of Commons had already considered the question of flogging, and had come to the conclusion that it was right that 10 lashes should be inflicted. On these grounds, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor Power) would not divide the House. Their object would, he thought, be better attained hereafter under the guidance of their able and experienced leader on this question—the hon. Member for Leicester.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

thought that the position taken up by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was a most illogical one. The hon. Gentleman had said that he could not vote for the Amendment, because by so doing he would assert the principle that 10 lashes might be inflicted. But if the hon. Member sat silent while the question that 50 lashes might be inflicted was put from the Chair—and silence gave consent—was he not still more responsible for the very thing the odiousness of which he recoiled from? If he only considered the point a little, his sound intellect and clear reasoning powers must show him that he (Mr. O'Connor Power) occupied the only logical position. Therefore, he was unable to accede to the hon. Member's appeal, even though it had been, backed up by the authority of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). When he consented, a short time ago, to abandon the two previous Amendments, he distinctly indicated to hon. Gentlemen that he should ask their opinion upon the question whether it should be 50 or 10 lashes? That was the time for the hon. Member for Galway to have interposed. He did not see that it was possible for him to withdraw from, that engagement. It was open to him to move the rejection of the clause, but the chances were that they would fail in any attempt to abolish flogging altogether. Therefore, he thought it better to seek to mitigate the evil of which he complained; and if, because he was entirely opposed to this punishment, he was told that, in endeavouring to mitigate the evil, he was taking up an illogical position, he must say that his Irish understanding failed to grasp the situation. If the hon. Member for Leicester wished to convince him that his position was sound, he must throw a little more light upon it than he had yet done.

MR. O'DONNELL

suggested, as a most important point for the consideration of the Committee, whether it would not be advisable that the Government should be able to go to the country, in the present position of affairs, and ask men to enter a Service not degraded by flogging, in the first place, and, at any rate, not terrorized over by excessive flogging, in the second place? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could hardly do a better thing, or one more calculated to popularize the Service at this moment than to frankly announce his intention to altogether abolish the horrible custom of flogging in the Army. At the very moment when a Ministerial journal was ringing with contemptuous phrases for a Service in which the use of the knout was retained, the Government would be doing a by no means inexpedient nor unwise thing if they abolished the knout in the British Army. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was illogical and untrue to the position he had taken up in that House on the question, when, because he could not abolish a gross evil altogether, he refrained from making an endeavour to mitigate it. His reputation for consistency must suffer by the adoption of such a course.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

failed to see that he had been guilty of any inconsistency in the course he had taken on the question. The reason he did not vote for the Amendment was, because he thought he saw a chance of making a good fight against flogging to any degree whatever when the new Mutiny Bill came before the House. He would not support the Amendment, because he was not in the habit of voting for anything he did not wish to see carried, and he should be very sorry to see a proposition in favour of 10 lashes adopted, for that was the effect of the Amendment before the House.

DR. KENEALY

asked for an expression of opinion upon the question from the military officers and hon. Gentlemen skilled in military affairs, sitting in the House.

MR. BIGGAR

hoped the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) would re-consider his decision upon this question, as it involved the point, not whether 10 lashes should be continued, but whether the punishment of 50 should be altogether abolished; so that, on the most logical grounds, the hon. Gentleman was bound to support the Amendment. It had been urged, as against the Amendment, that England was not at war at present; but it was notorious that there was a noisy Party that had been encouraging the country to go to war. It was well-known that some Members of the Government took one view, and others a different view upon the question, and that the Prime Minister was in favour of going to war.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, a discussion on the foreign policy of the Government was hardly relevant to the question before the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it must always be inconvenient to have to stop in the middle of a sentence, or before one had concluded an argument; and especially was it so in this instance, when he had been going on to show that the question of flogging in the Army might come prominently forward during the next three months. Suppose England went to war within that time, this clause would come into operation, and the rank and file of the Army would be liable to the punishment of flogging. They all knew how strongly the punishment was disliked by the men of the Army, and there could be no doubt that it would act as a check upon men volunteering into the Regular Service. At Truro, when some Volunteers were asked whether they would be willing to go on active service, only one of the number responded. An eminent military authority had recently given the number of efficient Volunteers; but if many of them were only willing to wear their uniform on State occasions, they could not be calculated upon as likely to join the Regular Army in case of necessity in the defence of the country. But if the Articles of War could be made less severe, there would be a better chance of inducing Volunteers to enter the Regular Service of the country, and so to make some addition to the bonâ fide fighting forces of England. The fact that a number of gentlemen had refused to volunteer for active service under present conditions, was an argument in favour of changing them, and in support of the Amendment.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that if the Government would engage not to go to war until the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill had been presented, there would be no necessity to press the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 84: Majority 139.—(Div. List, No. 71.)

On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, there seemed to be no provision limiting the period during which these sentences of 50 lashes might be inflicted. He moved to add to the end of the Clause the words— Provided always, that no sentence of corporal punishment shall be inflicted twice in the same year.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That no sentence of corporal punishment shall be inflicted twice in the same year."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 251: Majority 212.—(Div. List, No. 72.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 23 (Power to inflict corporal punishment and imprisonment).

MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved to omit the words "with or" in line 26, on page 13. The hon. Member said, the clause was a very harsh one in that it gave power to inflict corporal punishment, hard labour, and solitary confinement, and contained no provision to prevent the authorities from sentencing a prisoner to hard labour immediately after he had endured a flogging. There ought to be, at any rate, some limitation as to the time which should intervene between the infliction of the corporal punishment and the commencement of hard labour.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 26, to leave out the words "with or."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'with or' stand part of the Clause."

MR. PARNELL

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have taken some notice of the Amendment. He could scarcely think the right hon. Gentleman meant to leave the clause as it stood in the Bill, for in its present form it was simply barbarous. The time had come to make some alteration in the Mutiny Act, at least as far as the provision under consideration was concerned. It seemed impossible, however, to appeal to the Government successfully, for the Secretary of State for War seemed determined to pass the Bill as it stood without altering a word or a line. It was not for him to inquire as to the motives of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was mistaken if he supposed that, by refusing to make any concessions, however small, he was likely to avoid a Report on the Amendments, because it would compel him, and those who acted with him, to take divisions upon questions which the right hon. Gentleman might have reasonably conceded. It was not humane, it was not to be tolerated that courts martial should be empowered to inflict sentences of hard labour and solitary confinement in addition to flogging. No considerations of getting away into the country for the Easter Recess ought to interfere with the Secretary of State in his wish to amend the Bill, and set the House right in the eyes of the country.

MR. J. HOLMS

wished to appeal to Irish Members to let the Bill pass for this year, having obtained from the Government the concession of a Select Committee, which was to inquire into the whole of the matters dealt with in the Mutiny Bills. The Committee would be composed with great care, by the Government, assisted by the Members sitting on the front Opposition bench. They would have to deal with many matters of detail, and he thought such matters had better be left for the calm consideration of a Committee upstairs, than con- sidered in the heat and hurry of a Committee of the Whole House.

MR. O'DONNELL

, said, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) did not seem rightly to appreciate the difficulties of the Government. Last year the Government engaged in a precisely similar manner to appoint a Select Committee; but the lamented death of a Member (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) put an end to the proposal; and there were a number of things which might intervene between this and next Session to prevent them from carrying out the intention which they had recently announced. He thought, therefore, that it would be better for the Government now to make some temporary concessions, in order to show that they were in earnest in their desire for reform. Appeals to Irish Members were all very well, and were very frequently made; but he thought it would be as well to address such appeals to Her Majesty's Government, whose duty it was to do something from year to year to remove some of the more gross inequalities, and so lighten the labours of the coming Committee.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

hoped it would be quite understood that he made no appeals to Irish Members. He had long ceased from doing so, for he had found that there was no use in it. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who chose to lecture him as to his duties, seemed to think it was part of his duty to reply to any and every speech which might be made by himself and his Confederates—

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the word "Confederates."

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

I move that the words of the right hon. Gentleman be taken down. He has used the word "Confederate," which is an objectionable and threatening word. The right hon. Gentleman last night used threatening language to hon. Members, which was allowed to pass then; but we will not allow this to pass.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. Member for Mayo was himself out of Order in applying the epithet "threatening" to language used by a Minister of the Crown, and added, that the word "Confederate" was not by itself, or as used by the right hon. Gentleman, a word of abuse or contempt.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he had not, in using the word "Confederates," any intention to cast any imputation on anybody. He himself was surrounded by a number of "Confederates," with whom it was his pride to act, and he had never yet heard that "Confederacy" was a term of offence. The Irish Members had professed themselves to be a Party separate from the other two Parties in the State, and must, therefore, be described as a Party who had confederated themselves together for certain purposes of their own. He was, therefore, quite at a loss to understand the objection which had been taken to his use of the word. If he were to reply to all the remarks that had been made over and over again—to the same arguments, if such they could be called, that had been repeated, in different words—he should detain the Committee as long as it had been detained by others. Passing on to the subject-matter of the discussion, he would remind the Committee that the clause was one which referred only to time of war or to the circumstances contemplated in the preceding clauses, which had already been debated for two hours. The clause was inserted as a mitigating clause in the Mutiny Act of 1868, and, in spite of the many small wars in which the country had been engaged since that time, there were only three cases of corporal punishment recorded, and those all took place in the year 1873.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that, so far from the Irish Members having acted as confederates in reference to this measure, the Committee must be aware that on several points they had been divided in opinion, had spoken on opposite sides on various questions, and on not a few occasions had assisted the Government in pushing the Bill forward. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had ceased to appeal to the Irish Members, for it was of no use. That was unjust, because many of the Home Rule Party had left the House rather than support some of the Amendments moved by their Colleagues, because of the opportunity that would be afforded for debating the Bill when it came from a Select Committee, and others had deprecated persistence in proposing Amendments now; but still he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) contended that the Government were unreasonable, because they would not accept a few Amendments to remedy patent and admitted evils, and as an indication of their feelings that the law required amendment. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman had come down to the House apparently determined to force the Bill verbatim et literatim upon hon. Members—a course of which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought the House had a right to complain. He was inclined to make every excuse for the Secretary of State for War, on account of the strain which the present state of the country put upon him; but he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would get through his work better if he would not take offence at everything that was said or done, and then retort in language as offensive as any that had been used. He appealed to hon. Members whether the right hon. Gentleman did not use just now, for the purpose of saying things as stinging and disagreeable, offensive and harsh, as it was possible, when he made the speech in which, he described certain hon. Members as "Confederates" of the hon. Member for Meath? The meaning of the word, used offensively, in the English language was, as a general rule, ''sharper." In gambling, the word "Confederate" was used to denote a person engaged in producing results of a not very creditable kind. What would the Committee have said if he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had spoken of the Judge Advocate General as the "Confederate" of the right hon. Gentleman? He should have been stopped immediately.

THE CHAIRMAN

informed the hon. Member that he was not in Order in assuming that he would be treated differently from any other Member of the House, and that it was not customary for hon. Members to cast such imputations upon the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he had no intention of doing so. He only wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman and his "Confederate," the Judge Advocate General, who sat by his side, and who had not thrown the least light on the Bill, or offered a single observation, seemed determined that the Bill should pass without alteration. If that was the case, he thought it ought to be plainly understood. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that great alterations in the Bill were necessary. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) chose to divide, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would support him, although he had not previously done so.

MR. PARNELL

wished to reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and for that purpose would move to report Progress. They had been invited to refrain from taking any action on that Bill because the Secretary of State for War had promised a Select Committee to inquire into it; but the same promise was made last Session, and yet it was not kept. But the fact that there were a number of hon. Members in that House who were determined to expose all the abuses and cruelties under which Her Majesty's soldiers were suffering, could not fail to have a very important and beneficial effect on the deliberations of that Committee. Besides, it was contrary to the principles of Constitutional freedom to prevent Members from expressing their conscientious opinions. If such a system of repression had always prevailed in that House, they would not have been in the proud position they held now. They would have still been very much as they were in the Middle Ages. A very slight acquaintance with history would convince anybody that reforms had always been due, in the first place, to the persistence and courage of a minority. He now thought they ought to stop, and, with that view, he would move to report Progress.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

seconded the Motion. So far from being an inducement to hon. Members to forego their opposition to the objectionable parts of this Bill, the appointment of a Select Committee was a well-known expedient resorted to for the shelving of a disagreeable subject. Over and over again Select Committees and Royal Commissions had reported without the slightest effect. He saw no force, therefore, in the appeal which had been addressed to himself and other hon. Members by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). If the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to conduct the discussion with something like coolness, Progress might have been made; but he only impeded Business by his perpetual interruptions, raising false issues, and exciting the House. Why did he not allow his young "Confede- rate," the Judge Advocate General, to say something, or the Financial Secretary for War, who might be glad of an opportunity of fleshing his maiden sword on that occasion? He saw no necessity for a display of temper on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he did hope the Committee would be allowed to proceed with its Business.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. FRENCH

I must say I have heard with much stronger feelings one remark which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman than I heard that to which attention has been called. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of hon. Members who were obstructing the Bill as the Irish Members. Well, there are many Irish Members on this side of the House as well as on that who do not agree with them. I am one of them. I must observe that I do not think that these hon. Gentlemen in any sense represent the Irish Members, or anyone else except themselves.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

I ought to apologize to the hon. Member, and other Irish Members, for having used a general term. When I said Irish Members, of course I referred to those who have been discussing the clauses of the Bill, and I certainly did not intend to include the general body of the Irish Members in my remark. I only referred to a section of them.

MR. O'DONNELL

advised the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) not to be greatly disturbed by imputations of the kind referred to. It was not very probable, judging by his conduct on Irish and general questions, that he would be exposed in any future Parliament to the odium he now complained of.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

Sir, I rise to Order. I do not think that that is language which ought to be addressed to a Member of this House. In the course of these divisions, with very few exceptions, I have voted with those hon. Gentlemen who have been termed "Confederates." I object to the term, although I admit it has been explained away; but I object still more strongly to the language just used, or to any hon. Member rising in his place and signifying that if any Irish Member expresses views which he deems it his duty to express, he is to be threatened that he will not be returned again. Is an outcry to be got up against a Member because he expresses his views, and are we to be told he will not be returned again? I say that, if that is possible to be done without rebuke, this House would not be a place worth sitting in.

MR. PAENELL

I think the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) ought to take the trouble, when he rises to address the House on a point of Order, to accurately report what has been stated by the previous speaker, and to which he wishes to take exception. I listened very attentively to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and nothing that he said in the slightest degree or extent could bear the interpretation which the hon. Member for Youghal has placed on it. I think I may add that the hon. Member for Youghal reserves his valuable assistance on occasions of this kind for the enemies of the Irish Members. He has never come to my assistance on any occasion that I know of.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood the hon. Member for Youghal to rise to a point of Order. I may say, however, that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan had used any words of the kind bearing the meaning imputed to him by the hon. Member for Youghal, he would be out of Order; but I understood the hon. Member for Dungarvan to express his opinion as to certain results that may happen; and he is quite entitled to so express himself.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, there was no threat whatever in his language. He had simply used an expression which was very common in that House. At the approach of the General Election, hon. Members constantly told one another that such or such a course would result in the diminution of their respective Parties. Now, he held a similar opinion with respect to the results of the next General Election in Ireland. Personally, he had nothing but a high opinion to express of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), but repudiation on political questions only begot repudiation. The final settlement of these matters lay with the country, and he had done nothing more than remind the hon. Member that there was a country to consult. As regarded the Bill, he thought that, notwithstanding the promised Committee of Inquiry, something ought to be done at once. The Committee, even if appointed at once, would probably be a long time in reporting. There were clauses in this Bill which the sense of justice of the House could not allow to pass. One, which established public slavery, he begged the permission of the House to read.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that this would be out of Order.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, in that case then he would content himself with remarking that there were a number of clauses in this Bill of an antiquated and pernicious character. One hon. Member had spoken of the Bill as almost hundreds of years old; but, surely, that was not an argument which would weigh with the House. At least, one clause would have to be amended before the Bill left the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

complained that not one argument had been employed by those who condemned the conduct of the opponents of the Bill. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) ought to have shown why he differed from his fellow-Members from Ireland. If he had given his reasons, they might have been convinced by them. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to get very hot in the discussion. Now, he had always understood that this was a sign of a bad case.

MR. PARNELL

, expressing a desire that Business should proceed, withdrew his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 291; Noes 28: Majority 263.—(Div. List, No. 73.)

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he had placed the following Amendment on the Paper:—Page 13, at end, leave out "the periods prescribed by the Articles of War," and insert "seven days." His object was to minimize, as far as he could, the punishment of solitary confinement. He had, on a former occasion, made a proposal of a similar character, and, therefore, he did not feel at liberty to press this Amendment on the attention of the Committee on the present occasion.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 (Power to commute corporal punishment for imprisonment, &c.)

Mr. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the Amendment which he had on the Paper to this clause was to add at the end— and, if the imprisonment exceeds eighty-four days, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any twenty-eight days of such imprisonment; but, for the reason just stated, he should not move it.

MR. PARNELL

stated, that he had a series of Amendments which he had intended to move in this clause—first, as to the amount of solitary confinement; secondly, as to the number of lashes; thirdly, as to the intervals between the periods of solitary confinement; and, fourthly, the desirability of taking away from courts martial the power to inflict solitary confinement, &c. All these points had already been decided in divisions which had been taken, therefore he did not propose to press the points further.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (Power to commute a sentence of cashiering) agreed to.

Clause 26 (Power of imprisonment by general, garrison, or district courts martial).

MAJOR NOLAN moved, in page 14, line 9, at end, to add— And may sentence any non-commissioned officer to reduction to the ranks, or to be reduced to any inferior rank of non-commissioned officer, and, in case of reduction to the ranks, may further sentence him to any punishment to which a private soldier is liable, with the exception of corporal punishment. At present, if a non-commissioned officer was brought before a court martial, he must be sentenced to reduction to the ranks, and it was not in the power of the court to award less. Now, this meant a great deal to a sergeant. Taking it from a money point of view alone, there was a great difference between 15s. 9d. and 7s., which were the incomes of a sergeant and a private soldier. Therefore, it was an enormous blow to reduce a sergeant to the ranks; and it was such a heavy punishment, that he de- sired that courts martial should have power to mitigate it. Moreover, the position of a man's wife and family was wholly changed. The fact of several sergeants being reduced affected the position of every sergeant who remained in the regiment. Justice would, in many cases, be met by reducing a man to the rank of corporal. It was urged against his proposal that if a sergeant was reduced to a lower rank of noncommissioned officer, he would not have the respect of the privates; but this, he considered, was mere fancy; and he had known several strictly analogous cases, where a system precisely similar to what he proposed worked very well. Take the case of the Navy. In that branch of the Service there were two classes of non-commissioned officers—first-class petty officers and second-class petty officers, and it was a common thing to reduce a man from the first-class to the second-class. There was also a case in the Army in which, if a man was in the rank of sergeant-major, he might be reduced to the rank of sergeant. There was also the case in which a lance-sergeant or temporary sergeant had been reduced to the rank of corporal. That was the main part of his Amendment, which also provided that a court martial should not sentence a non-commissioned officer to be flogged. This further part of the Amendment, however, would not prevent a provost martial from flogging a non-commissioned officer in time of war. If this Amendment, with its two propositions, was accepted by the Secretary of State for War, he believed it would do a great deal to increase the position of non-commissioned officers. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to wish to make no alteration or Amendment in the Mutiny Bill, and he (Major Nolan) would not pronounce any opinion as to whether he was right or not in that course; but he would point out that there were ways of effecting what was proposed by this Amendment without any change being made in the Mutiny Act. This, however, could only be done by the Secretary of State for War, and the sole way in which he, as a private Member, could bring the matter forward was by moving this Amendment to the Mutiny Bill. If, therefore, the Secretary of State for War would promise to make the Amendment in another way in which he had power, this Amendment would be at once withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "and may sentence any non-commissioned officer to reduction to the ranks, or to be reduced to any inferior rank of non-commissioned officer, and in case of reduction to the ranks may further sentence him to any punishment to which a private soldier is liable with the exception of corporal punishment."—(Major Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. H. SAMUELSON

, in supporting the Amendment, said, it was not a new proposal, it having been before the House on previous occasions. When the subject was last before them, the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) opposed the proposal, though he said that on more than one occasion he had, on the very day that a sergeant had been reduced to the ranks, promoted him to the rank of corporal. Now, he thought on that ground, they ought on the present occasion to claim the vote of the hon. and gallant General in favour of this Amendment. For why should they refuse to a court martial a discretion already possessed by a commanding officer? There was another hon. and gallant Member—the hon. Baronet the Member for Sunderland—(Sir Henry Havelock), who opposed this proposal on the ground that he desired to maintain the high position of the sergeants, and he therefore refused to give this discretion to the courts martial to inflict a less severe punishment than they had now the power to do. It seemed a strange argument to say that the present proposal would have the effect of lowering and not of raising the status of the sergeant. At the present moment, when one of the great desires was to obtain for the Army a high class of noncommissioned officers, it was well worthy of the consideration of the Secretary of State for War whether he could not improve their position in such a manner as that which was indicated by this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman did so, it would tend to render the Service more popular, and attract to its ranks a higher class of young men. Non-commissioned officers, although they did not bear the commission of Her Majesty, were at the same time, in one sense, officers, and it would raise their self-re- spect, maintain their status, and improve them altogether, if as regarded corporal punishment, they could be placed in a higher position than the ordinary privates of the Army. At all events, he felt there were cases in which sergeants ought not to be reduced to the ranks, but to a lower grade of the non-commissioned rank.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

hoped the Amendment would be pressed, because there was, at present, great difficulty in obtaining non-commissioned officers in the Army, and this might tend to improve their position.

COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY

said, this was a matter which must depend upon the experience of military men, and as far as he knew, and from inquiry, he thought the predominant feeling amongst them was in favour of leaving matters as they were. It should be remembered that a non-commissioned officer was only tried before a court martial for a very serious offence, and it was thought wiser, if it was proved, to reduce him at once to the ranks, because of the serious character of the offence. When he had been reduced to the ranks, if the commanding officer thought he was a deserving man, it was in his power to re-instate him. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be wiser to leave this matter in the position it was.

MR. PARNELL

considered the Amendment was an extremely reasonable proposal, because, if the commanding officer alone had the power to re-instate the sergeant, his chances were excessively small. A man might be the wearer of the Victoria Cross, or some other medals for his bravery, and yet it was not in the power of a court martial, however much they might wish it, to mitigate this punishment of reduction to the ranks.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, it was very difficult for anyone to say decisively what the opinion of the officers of the Army was on this subject; but he had spoken to hundreds, and his own opinion was that there was a preponderance in favour of the first part of his Amendment, if there was not as regarded the question of corporal punishment.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

was at a loss to know the reason why this provision was maintained. If this power was given to courts martial, he presumed they would not regard it as an instruction to inflict the lesser punishment, if the higher one was deserved. As the law stood, it was a policy of extremes, and a court martial was placed in the difficulty of not being able to adequately measure the punishment which ought to be inflicted for an offence. He trusted a division would be taken on the matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 204: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 73.)

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at nine of the clock.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.