HC Deb 27 February 1879 vol 243 cc1909-34
COLONEL STANLEY

Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Discipline and Regulation of the Army, I cannot but feel conscious of the difficulty of the task before me, and I cannot but wish that my noble Friend and Predecessor (Viscount Cranbrook), who, in the first instance, had this subject brought under his consideration, were here at this moment, by his clear diction and his strong common sense, to make this somewhat complicated matter clear to the House. I do not propose, at this time of the night, to go back into various questions which might otherwise be of considerable interest, nor to trace from remote ages the manner in which the military law of the country grew up; but there are one or two points to which I must advert to show that even from the earliest times it was found necessary that a short, summary, and stringent law should be applied to such forces as were kept under arms. In early days, of course, the proceedings of martial law were of considerable stringency, but were, at the same time, very well defined. Dating from the earlier days of the courts of chivalry—from almost feudal times—we trace them in the form of the Court of the High Constable and of the Earl Marshal, and in that form passing from the jurisdiction of the Earl Marshal—almost a military office—they continue down to the middle of the 16th century. Then came the time when the absolute government of the Army was over, and the Army was almost entirely administered by Articles of War, framed under the Prerogative of the Crown. When the Court of the High Constable and the Earl Marshal had been extinguished, there was still a necessity for a tribunal to deal with military offences; and in 1625 a Commission was issued to certain military officers and civilians authorizing them to punish military offenders, and he was sorry to say "other dissolute offenders," by martial law. Articles of War were issued for their guidance. Three or more persons constituted a Court, and their sentences required the sanction of the Crown before they could be carried out. These Articles contain an outline of the present system, without the present statutory authority. The first part deals with the martial law; the second with the Articles of War, growing out of it, as they now do out of the Mutiny Act; the third with the court martial to try and sentence offenders; and the fourth with the general confirmation of the sentence before execution. The same necessity for this Court seems to have existed under the Commonwealth as under Royal authority; and in 1642 the then Lord General seems to have found himself under the necessity of strengthening his hands by obtaining summary powers to deal with military offences; and he obtained them, for on the 6th of September, 1642, it is recommended that Special power be given him for the restraining and punishing of disorderly soldiers according to the custom of war; and apparently on the very same day the laws and ordinances for the better government of the Army were on his authority framed and confirmed. From time to time military orders and articles for the government of guards and gar- risons were issued, and in some cases special commissions were given to Commanders-in-Chief for the framing of Articles of War. Under that system the Army appears to have been administered until we come to something approaching the Mutiny Act in 1689. That was directly traceable to the following incident:—Several regiments which had enlisted under James II. were ordered by William III. to embark for Holland. Eight hundred of the men mutinied, and declared James to be their King, and that they would live and die by him. On the 13th of March leave was given to introduce the Mutiny Bill, and on the 15th the Government, desiring to suppress the soldiers now in rebellion, issued a Proclamation declaring them, and all that adhered to them, rebels and traitors. That Bill passed through all its stages by the 28th, and I hope the Bill I now ask leave to introduce may pass as quickly. It received the Royal Assent five days after, and it came into operation on the 12th of April following. That Bill was contained in 10 sections. The 1st section enabled the Government to punish any officer or soldier Inciting, causing, or joining in mutiny, or deserting the Army, with death or such punishment as by court martial shall he inflicted. Other sections declared the number and rank of the officers who were to constitute the court martial; section 8 limited the Act and prescribed the form of the proceedings; while the 10th further prescribed that all capital cases should only be tried between certain hours of the day. That Act made no provision for the discipline or government of the Army in minor matters, and made no mention of the Articles of War. Apparently, therefore, the Parliament, by the Mutiny Act, while it strengthened the authority of William III. over the Army by enabling him to punish certain quasi-political offences, left the Army in every other respect to be governed by the Prerogative clauses. Further proof of it is shown by the fact that a court martial was held at Exeter in 1696, when certain men were found guilty under the 23rd Article and sentenced to be shot to death. No such section appears in the Mutiny Act. From that time to the present, although there have been important and considerable changes both in the Mutiny Act and in the Articles of War, the same general line has still been followed. There have been Mutiny Acts passed by Parliament, and Articles of War expressed the Prerogative of the Crown, although in later years statutory power is given to these Articles by a Statute passed by this House. But, passing to the more immediate business, I now come to the circumstances under which it is my duty to lay this Bill on the Table of the House. In 1869—whether following or in consequence of the Courts Martial Commission I am not at this moment prepared to say—instructions were given to the Parliamentary Counsel to prepare a Bill to consolidate the law relating to the Army. It was clear that such a step was necessary, for the Courts Martial Commission commented very strongly in their Report on the necessity of drafting the military law in a clearer form. Instructions were accordingly given to Parliamentary Counsel—I believe in the year 1871 an Army Discipline Bill was handed over to Mr. Davidson, the then Judge Advocate General. His untimely death—a death which, I am sure, those Members who were acquainted with him must deeply regret, for he was a person of great judicial power and of large views—was a loss to Parliament at that time, for it put a stop to any further proceedings in relation to the Bill. The subject was again taken up, I believe, by Parliamentary Counsel under instructions from Lord Cardwell in the Autumn of 1872. A War Office Committee, consisting of officers high in the Service, went through a large portion of the Army Discipline Bill in March, 1873, and suggested certain alterations, which, I believe, were introduced at that period by Counsel. Another pause ensued; some of the questions raised by the then recent organization were not settled, and the Secretary of State for War thought it best to postpone the Bill for another Session. During the Vacation of 1873, Mr. Ayrton was appointed Judge Advocate General, and on the 13th of November he took up the subject, and undertook to conduct the Bill through Parliament. He suggested that the Bill should be altogether assimilated to the Mutiny Act, and that the clauses relating to billeting, moving of troops, and enlistment should, so far as they are included in the Mutiny Act, be inserted in the Army Discipline Bill. Bills were prepared, were submitted to Mr. Ayrton, and he introduced into the Bill, then called the Army Discipline Bill, so much of them as was necessary for the consolidation of the Mutiny Act; but he omitted the enactments of the Army Enlistment Act, 1870, and two other enactments, which had previously found a place in the Mutiny Act. The change which took place at this time in the composition of the House caused us the disadvantage of losing from our discussions on this point the services of Mr. Ayrton; but with a public spirit and good feeling, which is an example to many of us, although both out of office and, out of Parliament, he did not relax from his labours until he had thoroughly completed his revision of the Bill and forwarded it to the Parliamentary Counsel, who afterwards reprinted it in the form as he settled it. We then found ourselves in this position. From the time of the Courts Martial Commission—a period of nearly 10 years—the military law had been so far condemned that, although we were anxious to adhere to its provisions, all felt it was in a confused state, and must reasonably be re-drawn. Pressing business before the House prevented the introduction of the Bill by successive Secretaries of State; but it was always felt—and I think that those who were most intimate with the subject have felt it strongest—that, like the dancing bear, of which it was said that the wonder was not that he danced so well, but that he danced at all, the wonder was not that the officers of the Army administered the law as they found it in the Mutiny Act with so little complaint, but that they were able to administer it at all. When, therefore, attention was called to it in the House, it was felt that many of the sections could not be theoretically or practically defended. My right hon. Friend, now Viscount Cranbrook, gave a pledge to the House that at the earliest possible moment he would have the Bill re-drafted; and he expressed his confidence that 1877 would be the last year in which the present form of the Mutiny Act would be submitted to the House. Owing to the force of circumstances, it was found impossible to proceed with the re-drafting of the Bill in 1877. In 1878 the natural desire of the House for the assimilation of the law was more definitely expressed, and a definite state- ment was made by Viscount Cranbrook during the course of the debate, that he would at once place a Bill before a Parliamentary Committee to be appointed from Members of this House. Then, Sir, came a change in the personnel of the War Office, and when I succeeded to my present position I found myself with a Bill which had been making considerable progress, but was, in many respects, far from complete. Notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts of the able Parliamentary Counsel, it was found impossible to lay the Bill before the Committee in a complete form. Indeed, at one time suggestions were made that the Committee should be asked to postpone their sittings; but I felt that a pledge, especially given under such circumstances, should be redeemed at any hazard, and, therefore, I laid the draft before the Committee, without professing that it was a complete measure. They reported upon it; and I am bound to say that their Report seemed to me as favourable, on the whole, as it could possibly be, under the circumstances in which it was presented to them. If I may venture to do so, I should wish to bear my humble testimony and extend my sincere thanks and those of the Government to my hon. and learned Relative opposite (Sir William Harcourt) for the pains and care with which he piloted this Bill through the deliberations of the Committee. In acknowledging his kindness, I am happy to state that, as far as possible, the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce follows the general lines of the Bill laid before the Committee. The Bill was to consolidate and amend the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War; and though I am afraid it looks rather bulky and formidable, I hope hon. Members will not think it unduly so, when they remember that the Mutiny Act contained 110 clauses, the Articles of War 192; and, further, that we have endeavoured, in certain matters, to bring within the scope of the Bill portions of the Enlistment Act. Heavy as the task has been in some respects, it has not been our wish that the Bill should be too much changed in character. A great many alterations take place; but they are mostly in form and construction, although there are some extremely important changes in principle made here and there, upon which I will very briefly touch. It is divided into five parts:—Enlistment, billeting, empress-ment of carriages, certain miscellaneous provisions, and the application of the Act, together with certain saving clauses and definitions. The first part, again, is sub-divided under the heads—crimes and punishments, courts martial, and execution of sentences. As to the first part—crimes and punishments—we have retained the old language where it is clear, believing it is more easily read and interpreted, its very familiarity to the soldier being a point of some importance. We have, however, taken a distinct departure in one respect, and we now classify offences by grouping together offences of a similar character, ranging the various groups, as between themselves, in a manner which is intended to impress the soldier with their relative importance. Thus we have—first, mis-behaviour in the field—the greatest crime a soldier can commit—by sentinel on duty; mutiny and insubordination, by way of showing that, after misconduct in the field, mutiny ranks next; then desertion, absence without leave, disgraceful conduct, drunkenness, and other offences, which I will not detain the House by specifying. With regard to crimes and punishments, these appear to me the chief differences in principle. We have differentiated between offences on active service and those not on active service, active service being, by the way, defined as meaning service in war or when in occupation of an enemy's country. We have farther defined, or attempted to define, desertion, which has been so far extended as to include merely abandoning one regiment for another. We have now endeavoured to restrict it to quitting or deserting the Service. We have found it necessary to set up again, as in one of the earliest Mutiny Acts, the crime of fraudulent enlistment as such, not treating it as desertion, but as a fraudulent breach of an engagement, with a view to a fraudulent contract. The Bill then proceeds to declare a scale of punishments, and in this we follow the precedent of the Naval Discipline Act, making a considerable deviation from the existing practice. At present punishments are constantly designated as "such punishments as a general or other court martial may award." The Bill defines the maximum punishment, and then, under the head "Scale of punishments," provision is made that a court martial may award that or a less punishment. Passing next to courts martial, we have re-arranged the old law, but we have maintained the principle. Now, courts martial will be divided into two classes in respect of the mode in which they are convened. First of all, courts martial are now convened under the authority of the Statute alone; and, secondly, under authority, derived mediately or immediately by Warrant from the Crown. The first class, under Act of Parliament, are regimental courts martial and detachment courts martial; secondly, general courts martial and district courts martial. I should add to these a fifth sort, detachment general courts martial—which can be convened without Warrant—having the powers of a general court martial, but only under special circumstances, for the protection of the life and property of the inhabitants of a country in which the troops are acting. The law will remain unaltered for regimental or detachment courts martial, which will still be convened by Statute; but we do not see the advantage of keeping up the separate name for detachment general courts martial, and we propose to merge it, with its functions, into regimental courts martial, keeping the extraordinary powers merely under the same circumstances which under the former Act rendered extraordinary powers necessary. General courts martial will remain unaltered, the convening authority being, as hitherto, either a Warrant directly from the Queen, or from a person authorized by order from Her. The district court martial has been altered as to the mode in which it is convened. The authority to convene a general court martial we now intend to carry with it, first, the authority to convene a district court martial; and, secondly, to delegate to another officer the power to convene a district court martial. The matter is a little complicated; but the result stands in this way. Practically, every court martial, except a general court martial, will derive authority from the Statute, although in the case of district courts martial the authority will be exercised by a person who has a derivative authority under Warrant of the Crown. There is some difficulty in explaining who are the confirming authorities; but, practically, we have thought it best to allow the law to remain the same under the Bill as it is at present. We have endeavoured, however, to clear up the language, and to make it perfectly intelligible as to who is the confirming authority under the various circumstances in which he has to exercise these functions. The confirming authority for a general court martial is appointed by Warrant; and in case of a district court martial, confirming power is given to the officer having power to convene the court martial. Before we come to the matter of procedure, there is one matter which does not come under courts martial, but so nearly trenches on their functions that I think it better to allude to it here, and point out the reasons which, so long ago as 1869, were urged in favour of the change. The Courts Martial Commission, in their Report, say— It is a question whether the frequency of regimental courts martial does not tend to diminish, in the mind of the soldier, that dread of them which ought to exist if they are to have their proper weight as preventives of indiscipline and crime, and it is submitted for our consideration whether the powers of commanding officers might not be advantageously-increased, so as to lessen the number of trials. Some of the evidence was in favour of abolishing regimental courts altogether. We are not prepared to recommend the latter course; but we concur in the view that the jurisdiction of the commanding officer may be safely extended, and we recommend that his power of imprisonment be extended from seven to twenty-one days. After very careful consideration, we have found it advisable to extend to commanding officers this further power of sentence, recommended by the Commission of 1869, and we have also given the commanding officer the power, as urged upon the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that, in the case of a non-commissioned officer, there should be some power given to the commanding officer to deal with offences in a less summary and strict way. At the present time, if a non-commissioned officer comes before the commanding officer charged with any crime there is practically no middle course between sending that officer before a court martial or letting him off, without punishment, altogether, or with merely a reprimand. Under the altered circumstances of the Army, and under the very strong wish we have to obtain good non-commissioned officers, and, when we have got them, to encourage them to remain in the performance of their very arduous duties, we have thought it right to give the commanding officer the power to reduce a non-commissioned officer, by one or more grades, as he shall think fit. I am quite aware there is much to be urged on both sides. Many eminent military authorities hold to the view that a non-commissioned officer who once commits himself has so lost caste that he would never be able to assume a position of authority, and that his reduction to the ranks must ensue. Practically, I am bound to say that the effect of that is that—I do not say in many cases, but not infrequently — a non-commissioned officer obliged to be reduced is, within a very few days, after re-instated. It might not be wise to punish a non-commissioned officer, not altogether, perhaps, for some fault of his own, by putting him down in all cases to the bottom of the list; and, therefore, we have given the commanding officer power to reduce a man one or more grades. But while we give this power to the commanding officer, with a view to diminishing the frequency of regimental courts martial, and so of giving them their proper weight in the maintenance of discipline, we have also given in these two cases the power of appealing from the sentence of the commanding officer to the court. We have not thought it right that the power of forfeiting pay, liberty, or rank should be left, without appeal, in the hands of any one person, however good that person may be. Passing on to the procedure, the first thing I have to mention is, that we have effected an alteration in the form of oath taken by members of a court martial. The Commission pointed out that the present form was very vague and unsatisfactory, and recommended that the oath should be that now used under the Naval Discipline Act. That is a very simple form, and it amounts to this—that the officers are sworn to try and determine the charge under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Another important alteration suggested by the Courts Martial Commission we have thought it advisable to carry out— that where there is a verdict of acquittal on all the charges, that acquittal shall be pronounced in open court. At the present time, until the finding of a court martial is approved the prisoner, even although there may be a verdict of acquittal, is detained in custody, some- times owing to inevitable circumstances, for a considerable period. We think that justice will be better done by the discharge of the prisoner at once, where the acquittal extends to all the charges. Of course, in cases where there is only a partial acquittal, the detention will still continue. We have also taken power to the courts—as in the Naval Discipline Act—to find a prisoner guilty of a less grave offence than that with which he is charged. For instance, a prisoner charged with stealing may be found guilty of embezzlement or fraudulent misapplication, according to the circumstances. With regard to penal servitude, we have, I am sorry to say, been obliged to recognize the absolute necessity which exists in the Army, as at present constituted, for some punishment more severe than mere imprisonment. Although the subject has received our very careful consideration, we have not found ourselves at liberty to remove from the Bill the punishment of penal servitude in certain cases. But we have laid down that it is only to be carried out in the same manner as sanctioned in the United Kingdom; and, in the majority of instances, that will really amount to penal servitude being carried out in this country. With regard to imprisonment, we have also taken into consideration that which, I venture to say, was, no doubt, I will not say an abuse, but a wrong use of a former system, and we have endeavoured to provide that punishment shall not be cumulative beyond a certain extent. I confess this is a subject on which I have, perhaps, more doubt than any other portion of the Bill. We know that soldiers are not always to be dealt with by kind treatment alone; and though I believe, in the majority of cases, that is the way to deal with them, yet there are a certain number of men who must be in fear of a sufficient punishment in order to keep them within proper and reasonable control. We thought it right to limit the period of imprisonment to the maximum of two years. We have also given power to the courts martial, who do not appear hitherto to have possessed it, in certain cases where offences have been committed from insanity to find a special verdict that the prisoner is insane, and he will then be ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. I have now spoken of the chief measures of procedure, and I propose to pass to another subject of considerable importance — that of enlistment. The Bill, as now drawn, makes certain changes, slight though they may be in form, in the Reserve Act, and these I think it necessary to bring to the notice of the House. When the Reserve Act was brought in, there are those who will remember the discussion which took place, and how, rather as a matter of compromise than otherwise, the limitation of service was introduced in the Bill, and it was prescribed that a soldier should serve not less than so many years with the Colours previous to his subsequent service in the Reserve. We have now taken greater powers of elasticity in many ways. We have taken power to enlist men for a less period than 12 years, although not wholly for Army service; and we also take power to the Secretary of State to allow a man to enter the Reserve, though he had not served in the Army for three years. It was thought at that time that three years were necessary as a minimum, and that a man could not be trained as an efficient soldier in less. But it was altogether left out of sight that in these days, when men enlisted early, they must be passed through all their stages of service before they had reached years of decrepitude. There might be circumstances under which you may wish to bring back into the Army, to pass him into the Reserve, some man who has served with credit in the Army before. The cases were not infrequent during last spring, when men, thoroughly trained soldiers, would produce their discharge, and being still within the ages for enlistment, would offer themselves for service in the Army. We had to take them as soldiers without the power we should otherwise have exercised of passing them through the ranks and into the Reserve. That power we propose to take, and I hope it will be of advantage to the Service. We have also taken corresponding power with the view of clearing up a point as to which there was some doubt. At present there is some doubt whether a Reserve man can volunteer for service. We should be, on all occasions, anxious to employ a Reserve man, to have the Army assume its largest dimensions; and there are other occasions when, if men are anxious to come forward for actual service, there may be strong reasons for employing them. Even with the proceedings of last week in remembrance, there are many occasions on which we should be glad to have them back. What was intended was, no doubt, a good object—to keep the Reserve locked up for national emergency. But we hope that these great emergencies, which justify calling out the Reserves, will only occur occasionally; whereas there may be many occasions when strong drafts are wanted, and then it may be desirable to employ men who come forward with their own consent. We have thought it worth while sacrificing something of the Reserve in order to use these men. We make also an important change in the enlistment. It is a difficult subject for those who are not familiar with it; but I trust I shall make it clear, as far as I can. Prom time immemorial enlistment has been held to consist in the passage of a coin, usually a shilling, given by the recruiter to the recruit. Men, too, often were enlisted in a state when they were ignorant of what they had done; and having regard also to the circumstance that a man might engage for the greater portion of his lifetime to serve the Crown, the law thought it right to interpose a delay of not less than 24 hours, or more than 96, before the man could go before a magistrate and complete the forms which we recognize under the term attestation. He is asked certain questions as to his age, married or single, whether he has served before, and so on. He is bound, under penalty, to reply to these accurately, and he is then attested in the presence of the magistrate for the Service. But in these days, when recruits are pretty well awake to what they are doing, we do not see any reason why we should not alter this, do away with the enlistment shilling, and make the attestation before the magistrate the real enlistment. What will happen, therefore, will be this. The recruit engages himself to the recruiter to appear before the magistrate. When taken there he, presumably, must be in a fit state to enter into a contract, and then and there without further delay before the magistrate he will enter into a regular contract of service. This will have the advantage of preventing that disagreeable beginning of a soldier's service which is not really the fault of the men but the system. We say a man shall not be attested for 24 hours, but we do not give him the privileges of a soldier; we do not give him a billet, or any place in barracks; but we keep him hanging about, often in very discreditable localities, until the following morning, when he comes up before the magistrate. We think, on the whole, that it would be better to balance the thing fairly. We think that the recruit is wide awake enough to see that the attestation before the magistrate is what he is bound to. At present, if he wishes to be off his bargain between the time he receives the shilling and the attestation, he pays smart money of about £1. We intend to alter that. If a recruit, between the time when he first meets the recruiter and the time he is to present himself for attestation, chooses to disappear, that is a matter to be settled between him and the recruiter who enlisted him. The real contract will begin from the attestation, and from that time he will become, to all intents and purposes, a soldier, and subject to the privilege of being at once brought into barracks, and removed from the evil communications I have mentioned. Then, after attestation, a soldier can at present only obtain his discharge as an indulgence, and he pays, in most cases, a sum amounting to about £20. I think there is no injustice in giving a man the power to claim his discharge at any time within three months of his enlistment, not as a favour but of right, on repayment of what we fairly estimate the cost he has put the country, amounting to about £10. He will claim that not as an indulgence but as a right, and no doubt many men who have changed their minds and find the Service different to what they expected, and who can do better in civil life, will avail themselves of this right we propose to give them. Well, then, I come to another portion of the Bill which, simple though it may look, is of very great importance. We feel at this moment that there are many men in prison whose lives are passing away discreditably to themselves and uselessly to their country. If, by any means in our power, we can render these men useful soldiers, it is our duty to do so; and I, therefore, propose to ask for power to transfer men under sentence for certain crimes for general service. We shall not do it lightly, or where the punishment is such as a light sentence from courts martial; but we do feel that there are many cases of desertion, and other crimes, which have really arisen from young men being led away into bad company; and we think, in the present days of short service, there is little injustice in calling upon a man to fulfil part of his term in an engagement, not in this country but in some one of her Dependencies. Many men get into temptation in this country who, in many cases, I believe, will own themselves unable to keep out of it, who will, nevertheless, in the Colonies or in India turn out good soldiers. We have also taken power, under certain circumstances, to allow a man to be moved from his regiment as a prisoner. When regiments are sent abroad drafts have to be obtained, and some men, whether by carelessness or in some eases perhaps with intent, manage to get into trouble just before their draft or regiment leaves, and instead of going with it, and performing their duty, they have to be left behind in prison. We propose that, under certain circumstances, men may be removed as prisoners with their regiment, giving power to liberate them on the voyage, or subsequently, so enabling them to wipe away their disgrace and return to the colours. We think this is fair to the men all round. It throws the work upon those who would wish to shirk their duty, and relieves the good soldier from the duty otherwise unfairly thrust upon him. At present, a soldier forfeits his service for the time when he is passing under imprisonment, or detained for trial, or is a prisoner of war. Well, we propose to remove these forfeitures; but we provide that the soldier guilty of desertion or of fraudulent enlistment, or of becoming a prisoner of war without due cause, shall forfeit all prior service. It sounds severe; but desertion is so formidable that, feeling the responsibility of what I do, I am bound to ask the House to give us sufficient power to deal with it; but otherwise we do not intend to forfeit service for any kind of imprisonment, or for not performing duty. The fact is, curiously enough, under present circumstances, the man who is constantly losing service for being in prison is really very often approaching the end of his sentence almost in a retrograde manner. The soldier who has enlisted for six years, and has spent one in prison, has seven years, under present circumstances, to serve before he can get his die-charge, or be removed from the Army. We think that is treating it in the wrong way, because it causes us to keep a bad man when we would rather replace him by a good one. We intend, then, that prison service shall no longer be barred, but shall run on exactly as if he were in the ranks. That enables us to prevent the ranks from becoming clogged with men we want to get rid of. I am happy to say, also, that the state of the recruiting market is such as to enable us to pick our men, and to get good men to replace the bad. We have made re-engagement a matter of indulgence. We find, practically, that very often re-engagement leads to loss, and we intend to allow it only as a matter of indulgence, and we do not intend to give it as a matter of right. With regard to old soldiers left at the depot when the regiment goes abroad, we propose to take power when a man is within two years of his time, or when he is unfit for foreign service, not merely to transfer him to the home battalion, but, if we think fit, to transfer him prematurely to the Reserve. With regard to the laws of billeting, we have not introduced any very considerable change: but we have assimilated the English and Irish laws, which formerly differed to a very great extent. I do not think it necessary to keep up in Ireland what does not exist in England; and I propose that billeting in private houses there shall be given up. In respect to taking carriages on an emergency, and when necessary for the public use, we have endeavoured to bring the law more into harmony with the times in which we live; but, at the same time, we do not feel ourselves altogether free to part with the power of billeting, or of taking carriages. We have also settled the mode in which the route is to be issued: and we have endeavoured to define the position of that person who has been alluded to in Acts of Parliament for 100 years, but has never before existed in real life—the billet master, or civil authority of billets. We now come to the application of the Act. There is one point upon which there has always been a difference of opinion, and it is a subject of considerable difficulty; but I have not thought it my duty to shrink from endeavouring to interpret the law in respect to it. There has always been a question whether half-pay officers were tinder the Act or not. The words of the Act are "commission or on pay." As they receive pay, no doubt they do come under the terms of the Act. It has always been held to be vague, and the application has never been carried into effect within recent times, although I am advised that it is applicable. But the House will bear in mind that there is a new class of half-pay officers growing up, or rather a class who are very much in the position of half-pay officers—namely, persons who, by their own choice, have chosen to retire with a pension, that pension carrying with it a liability to a call for service under certain limits of age. We do not think it right that an officer, who served yesterday and may serve tomorrow, should be able entirely to throw aside his military status. If he chooses the position at his free option, we think it not too much to ask that the man who wears the uniform of the country and receives its pay should be so far subject to military law that it can deal with him in cases of grave misconduct. It is a subject which must always be one of some doubt, and I approach it myself, I confess, with diffidence. But I feel strengthened in the view I take by feeling that there are many officers who are placed in a similar position, and to whom I will refer a little later on in connection with the Auxiliary Forces. We define generally the Regular Forces as officers and men who are continuously serving. It will be borne in mind that Viscount Cardwell's Act of 1871 place the Auxiliary Forces, of whatever nature, when training and exercising with the Militia or Regular Forces, under the Mutiny Act. We provide under this Bill, also, that whenever the Militia and the Volunteers are brigaded with the Regulars, that in relation to military law they shall be placed in precisely the same position. Viscount Cardwell's Act recognizes the Auxiliary Forces as coming in direct relation to the Army, as it was then understood. They form part of the general Land Forces, and, when together, should be brought under the same discipline. We think it right to be consistent, and we think where Forces are so much intermingled it is advisable to recognize the fact, and to place the Militia and the Volunteers upon precisely the same footing as officers and men of the Regular Army, when they are attached to them. A Volunteer, then, while serving with the Regular Forces—which is entirely at his own choice—shall become liable to this Act, exactly as if he were the soldier whoso duty he is anxious to undertake. We propose, also, subject to due inquiry and satisfactory assurances that they will discharge their duty with ability and discretion, as we enable Regular officers to serve upon courts martial upon Volunteers and Militia, to enable, at the discretion of the general officer, Militia and Volunteer officers to be members of courts martial for the trial of officers and men of the Regular Service. It is difficult to define, and many people will doubt the wisdom of this course; but it is accepted by the highest military authority, and those who are most conversant with the discipline of the Army have not hesitated to give to this principle an unqualified adhesion. My noble Friend associated with me at the War Office, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary, state that, so far as they can ascertain, the Volunteer Forces are quite as willing as the Militia were to see themselves placed on this footing of liability, and that they would accept the liability and the position offered to them in connection with the Regular Forces. The Regular Forces are those officers and soldiers who are on continuous military service; the Reserve Forces are the Forces raisable under the Army and Militia Reserve Acts; the Auxiliary Forces are the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers. These constitute the various branches of the Land Forces, or the Army generally; and the differences existing between them are defined by their conditions of service. The Regular Forces are engaged to devote the whole of their time to the service of Her Majesty; the Reserve Forces become, when called upon, a substantial part of the Regular Forces; the Militia engage to give a limited portion of their time, and they are not compellable to serve out of the United Kingdom; while the Volunteers and Yeomanry engage to give their services only in case of an invasion, or a dread of invasion, or for purposes of training and instruction. In the Repeal Bill, which it will be necessary to intro- duce as a matter of form, I propose, with the assent of the House, to eliminate that provision which places the Yeomanry in a rather invidious position —namely, their special liability to be called out in case of civil disturbance. We see no reason in these days why the Yeomanry should not serve for the purpose for which their supply was voted in the Estimates, and why they should not take their proper place, which is to serve as Light Cavalry, and to act as part of the Army of the country. We propose to place them upon the same footing as the Volunteers, and to relieve them from the very onerous and invidious position in which they are now placed by the existing Act. When any of these men come up on actual military service this Bill regards them as soldiers to all intents and purposes. We have only made more clear that which the House assented to under Viscount Card well's Act; but we put it on a footing which we hope will not be misunderstood by the country, and will be appreciated by those to whom it refers. I am anxious that this Bill should be brought in. It is a matter of too great length to explain in all its provisions; but I am sure the House will far better understand the Bill from having it before them, and I only wish that I had been able to place the matter more clearly. The amount of matter was, however, so great, and the Bill was of such an extent, that I felt the shorter and more explicit I could make my statement the better. One word I would like to say, and I trust it will not be in the slightest degree misconstrued as being anything whatever in the nature of putting undue pressure on the House. This Bill, though of some dimensions, with the exceptions which I have stated, is practically a revision and a codification of the existing law. The House, as distinctly as it could affirm anything without an actual vote, declared that it was unwilling again to pass the Mutiny Act in its present form. I do not suppose that even those who might oppose it most would wish that the Army should be left without any discipline, or without any regulation. I cannot but feel that it will be my duty, though I should be 10th to do it, if we cannot get well forward with this Bill, to propose a short Bill, continuing the existing Mutiny Act for a short space of time. Considering the very strong ob- jections taken to the existing Bill by hon. Gentlemen above and below the Gangway upon the opposite side of the House, and by many hon. Members behind me, I felt it was my duty, as early as possible, to lay this Bill upon the Table of the House. I do not wish to speak of myself, although I have spared no effort in this matter; but I am bound to say that not one single moment has been lost by the very able Parliamentary counsel, by my Colleagues, and by my advisers. Through the summer time and the winter to the present day they have been unremitting in their efforts; and I felt I must not shrink from endeavouring to place it as early as I could before the House. I have done my utmost to redeem the promise given by my Predecessor. I am anxious that the present Mutiny Act should not be passed again in its present form; but, on the other hand, I must lay the matter frankly before the House. Unless we can pass this Act in a reasonable time, it will be necessary to apply for a short Bill to continue the Mutiny Act. It is a course I should deprecate, because it is asking the House to stereotype, for a further period, a law they were at that moment condemning. Without putting any undue pressure on the House, I think it right to indicate the position in which we stand, and now I must leave the Bill to recommend itself. I have not attempted to recommend it by any extraneous support, or by any attempt at bringing highly-coloured illustrations of matters of sentiment into connection with it. It is a strict matter of business; and I have endeavoured, I hope not altogether without success, to place it before the House in a business-like manner. I have only to express the hope that the House will see that this is not a matter of Government or of Party, but of business, will deal with it in a business-like way, and in a manner becoming its own duty.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Discipline and Regulation of the Army."—(Mr. Secretary Stanley.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had no voice to support his right hon. and gallant Friend at any length; but he wished to say that he agreed fully with the observation that this was no question of Party. He was sure that his right hon. and gallant Friend would receive from both sides of the House all the assistance he desired in carrying so desirable a measure to its completion.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

asked what was to be done with respect to the Articles of War?

COLONEL MURE

said, there was one thing which he had not heard mentioned. It was one of the recommendations of the Committee that a cheek should be put on the power of revising officers to increase the sentences awarded by courts martial. He hoped that the point would be dealt with in the new Bill.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed that there was no concealing the fact that the Bill would greatly strengthen the hands of the Crown and of the War Office. The Bill could be divided into two parts— namely, the administrative and judicial portion. The administrative part, which dealt with re-enlistment and the re-engagement of the Reserves and soldiers going on foreign service, seemed to be excellent; but, as to the second part, which included the alterations proposed in judicial matters—such as altering the number of cases in which soldiers could be tried by the commanding officer, and in giving commanding officers greater powers, and in bringing fresh classes under the scope of the Act—they were all subjects which would require great consideration, and he was afraid they were contrary to existing usage. He might observe that, in his opinion, the appeal given to a soldier from the decision of his commanding officer to a court martial would be altogether illusory.

MR. PARNELL

thought the preferable course to adopt under the circumstances would be to allow the old Mutiny Acts to stand for another year rather than to run hastily through a Bill like the present. This was the more necessary, as the present Bill was not intended for one year only, but as an Act to be enforced by a sort of continuous Act from year to year. He would venture to point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he could hardly ask the House to pass a Bill of such a complicated character as this, involving such great changes, and such points of detail, in the limited number of Sittings at the disposal of the Government between that time and the 26th of April. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had hinted that if there was not sufficient time to pass the Bill he would propose to continue by a short Act the present Mutiny Act. In his opinion, that would be a course much open to objection, for there were great Constitutional reasons why the present Mutiny Bills should not be continued by a continuous Act. But still, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was really determined to carry out this Bill during the present Session, and to give the House full opportunities for discussion, he could see no reason why there should not be a general understanding that the Army and Marine Mutiny Acts of last year should not be passed without opposition. But unless some pledge were given by the Government, it would be a very questionable course, for it was not probable that there would be time to carry this Bill by the 26th of April. If, however, by a common understanding, the Government were allowed to pass the old Mutiny Acts without opposition, and afterwards, in pursuance of their pledge, to proceed to make the best Act possible out of the materials which had been furnished, every object would be attained.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

, having listened very attentively to the interesting and lucid statement of the Secretary of State for War, thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that the alterations proposed followed very closely the suggestions and representations made by the Committee over which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) so ably presided. He could not exactly enter into the objections of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), nor, he confessed, could he understand the course he proposed. It appeared to him that at the various Sittings of the Committee he had had an opportunity of raising all the questions, which, no doubt, the hon. Member would give them an opportunity of hearing again in that House. He thought that if this Bill were at once printed and circulated, the necessity of adjourning the matter for another year would not arise.

MR. PARNELL

said, that he did not propose any such course; all he meant to say was that they could do with the old Acts until this Act could be passed, and when passed it should at once supersede the old Acts.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

would repeat his suggestion that if the Bill were printed and circulated at once, then, between the present time and the 26th of April, hon. Members would have every opportunity of raising objections and making Amendments. He believed that long before that date the Bill could be worked into an effective Act. He wished to say, with regard to the proposed alterations now announced, that he could not express his entire concurrence with them, nor did he endorse every principle laid down. There was one point, in particular, with which he could not at all agree. He alluded to the changes in the position of half-pay officers; for he was not prepared to say whether the alterations suggested with regard to those officers would not make a grave and material alteration in their Constitutional position. But nearly all the alterations enumerated by the Secretary of State for War were in the direction of recognizing fraudulent re-enlistment as a breach of a commercial contract instead of an offence for which there should be a great punishment, and such alterations were decidedly in the right direction. More especially, he thought, that the power of giving soldiers, who might have been misled into desertion, an opportunity of retrieving their character by serving faithfully abroad was a step that would recommend itself to the House. He did not intend to take up the time of the House by dwelling on the various points; but would only say that, with the alterations now proposed, the old Acts might be converted into a good, wise, and humane law.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, that as a Member of the Committee he must state his opinion that the Report made by it was both incomplete and unsatisfactory. Various important suggestions were made by different Members of the Committee which were hardly listened to; and hon. Members making those suggestions were repeatedly told that, owing to pressure of time, there was no opportunity of taking proper evidence. Amongst the suggestions made was one raising the important question as to whether a Court of Inquiry should be placed under well-defined rules, and also whether there should be courts of appeal to refer the decisions of courts martial to. There were several other important questions, intimately connected with this Bill, which were not listened to. He might mention that as to whether the Commander-in-Chief should be placed under the five years' rule or not, the present Commander-in-Chief had been 20 years at the head of the Army; and it was a most important matter to decide whether or not he ought to be placed under the five years' rule. For his part, he did not see why any distinction should exist in his case. He thought the Committee should be re-appointed, to discuss these and other very important questions.

COLONEL STANLEY

I will endeavour to answer, to the best of my power, the various questions which have been addressed to me; but I must first thank the House for the very courteous manner in which they have received my statement. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon), I have to say this—we have preserved in the new Bill all the powers of the Crown contained in the former Mutiny Act. As a matter of fact, when we came to specify the different crimes, it was found of so little practical advantage to specify the Articles of War side by side with the statutory provisions, that we have only referred to them. I do not say that under no circumstances will a change be made; but I think, as a matter of fact, we should be content with keeping the power. I think that it is right, in a Bill of these dimensions, not to allow any matters to be unnecessarily introduced; but wherever any powers exist in any Article they will not be allowed to fall into desuetude. With respect to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), we have not given distinct instructions in the Bill as to courts martial; but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, some matters cannot properly find a place in the Statute, but will have to be dealt with by regulations. The regulations will be brought under the notice of the House, and will then admit of challenge. I am afraid of addressing the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in his absence, and cannot, therefore, perfectly reply to his question. I may say, however, that I hope he will find his fears as to the power of commanding officers, and as to bringing other classes under the power of the War Office, altogether fallacious, and that the change proposed will prove beneficial. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), I confess that I am placed in a position of some difficulty. It is clear that if the Army is not to be left without any Discipline Bill whatever, you must have either the existing Bill or some other. No man had more objections to the existing Act than the hon. Member for Meath; and I thought that he, above all men, would have been glad to welcome any change. But if we do not pass this Bill before the present Mutiny Act expires, it is obvious we must have some provision for carrying on the government of the Army. I expressly guarded myself from putting any undue pressure on the House; although I did express a hope that we might make such progress with the Bill as to render the continuance of the present Mutiny Bill unnecessary. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), I may say that it is perfectly impossible to explain all the different points of this Bill in a limited time—and I wish the Bill to explain itself as soon as possible. With respect to the question of half-pay officers, I admitted that though I have done my best to adopt what I believe to be a course consistent with the existing law, and in accordance with the altered circumstances under which officers now retire, yet I am in a position of some difficulty; and I have no doubt considerable good will result from a discussion being raised upon the question in this House. With regard to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), I must say that I do not see what good would be likely to result from the reappointment of a Committee for the purposes of the Bill. I do not think it came within the purview of that Committee to deal either with the tenure or the limit of Staff appointments. I think I have now answered the questions put to me; but I ought, perhaps, to have stated that this Bill technically—even when passed into law—will have no force except as representing a code of discipline for the Army. In that respect I hope it will be, more or less, permanent; but it will receive annual force, and be brought under the notice of Parliament, from year to year, by an annual Army Discipline and Regulation Act—a short Bill, reciting the number of men voted in the first Vote of the Estimates, and adopting this Bill and giving it effect until such time as the annual Act itself will expire. I trust I have answered the various questions put to me; and I hope there will be other opportunities granted on further progress of this Bill, when I shall be able to give fuller explanations.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to say one word on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). What he wished to convey was that if there was not sufficient time to pass this Bill before the 26th of April then that the present Mutiny Bill should be renewed, subject to a pledge by the Government to give sufficient time to push this Bill through during the remainder of the Session. Then, so soon as this Bill became law, the old Mutiny Act should be dropped, and the new one take its place. In that way there would be a Bill of some sort; and at the earliest possible moment an amended Act would become law.

COLONEL STANLEY

I think I quite understood the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Meath; but it is necessary we should bear in mind that there are other parties to be considered besides those sitting in this House—namely, the officers and men of the Service—and we must have this Bill in their hands by some definite date, so that they may know the law under which they are acting. We have two alternatives—the one to confirm the present Bill, and the other to pass a better Bill to supersede it. I confess I see little advantage in taking up the time, which might be well occupied in passing this Bill through Committee, in passing the present Mutiny Act. It would be far preferable to add a clause to the present Mutiny Act that it should exist only to the end of the Session. What we want is one Mutiny Act, and not three.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary STANLEY, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.