GENERAL PROVISIONS. (Hansard, 3 July 1879)

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, in page 65, line 4, after " may," to insert " subject to the provisions of this Act." The clause would thus read— Her Majesty may, subject to the provisions of this Act, by any Warrant or Warrants under Her Sign Manual, in such form as Her Majesty may from time to time direct.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
confessed that he did not hear the reasons given for the insertion of the words.

§ MR. PARNELL
had not felt it necessary to give any reasons, because the Amendment was so obviously just. He thought it would at once have commended itself to the good sense of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; and, therefore, he did not wish to waste the time of the Committee by giving his reasons for the proposal he had made. The present clause was one which gave power to Her Majesty to issue Warrants under Her Sign Manual; and he wished 1295 to provide that no Warrants should be issued by Her Majesty except for offences which were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Amendment was a most reasonable one; and it would not be found to work badly in any way.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
expressed his approval of the Amendment.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
moved, in page 65, line 15, to leave out from " or in " to " captain." The hon. and gallant Gentleman, by his Amendment, proposed that a return should be made to the old system, according to which none but au officer of superior rank could convene a court martial by which a man could be sentenced to death. It was too great a power to give to every captain. Certainly, there were many captains quite competent, and of sufficient age, to convene courts martial; but there were also some very young captains, in whom it would be unwise to vest such power. His Amendment did not interfere with the power of captains to convene garrison courts martial, which had power to give two years' imprisonment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
did not see any particular objection to leaving out the words suggested, providing it could be shown that no serious inconvenience to the Service would result.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
moved, in page 65, line 18, after " captain," to insert " with not less than five years' service." The hon. and gallant Gentleman explained that this was a merely consequential Amendment upon the previous one.

§ MR. PARNELL
had another Amendment to propose on the same clause. In line 36, he proposed the omission of the words " may or." The 2nd subsection ran thus—" the same officer may or may not be appointed convening and confirming officer." The objections to having the same officer to convene a court martial and to confirm the sentence were very palpable; and, therefore, he thought it was very desirable that some provision should be inserted in the Bill, by which the one officer should not both convene and confirm a court martial. It was notorious that there were many cases in which injustice might arise from 1296 one officer having this double power in his own hands. It was well that in this matter the system of checks and balances, such as prevailed in the ordinary Courts of Criminal Law, should apply. The alteration would, no doubt, prevent some of the injustices which now arose.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
could not assent to the suggestion, and remarked that it was not likely that a person would be influenced by his having the double power. A provision such as this was contained in the old Mutiny Act.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the explanation of the Judge Advocate General did not throw very much light on the question. He told them it was merely proposed to proceed on the lines of the old law; but there were many points in the existing law which required amendment. It was a fair and reasonable thing to provide that the convening and confirming authorities should be distinct; and the only reason that could be alleged against his Amendment was that it would be impracticable, and that it would load to inconvenience. That could not be so, because it would simply necessitate the alteration of the Warrants and the appointment of different officers. It could not work inconveniently, because there were always sufficient officers of the required rank in the particular place where the inquiry was being held.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
trusted the Amendment would be withdrawn, because it would lead to great inconvenience. For instance, the officer commanding the district, to whom alone were intrusted the Warrants, could never be allowed to confirm the proceedings of the court martial. He could not understand how the Government could ever accept the Amendment.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, that in the case of a regimental court martial the commanding officer was both convening and confirming authority, and great inconvenience would result were the Amendment carried.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
advised the withdrawal of the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the practical objections pointed out by hon. and gallant Gentlemen were quite sufficient to condemn the Amendment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had pointed out those practical objections he should have at 1297 once withdrawn the Amendment. He was, apparently, unable to do so; and he (Mr. Parnell) was obliged to persist in asking the Committee to consider his Amendment until it was shown that it was impracticable. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
proposed an Amendment to sub-section 4 of the clause, under which it was proposed that— Warrants may be addressed to officers by name or by designation of their offices, or partly in one way and partly in the other. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General could explain the particular utility of retaining this form of expression? An officer was left the option of addressing another officer either by his name or his designation; but it seemed to be introducing an unnecessary element of confusion to say partly in one way and partly in another. He moved that the words "or partly in one way and partly in another" be omitted.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
explained, that in many cases it would be convenient to address an officer personally, reciting at the same time his designation in the character of officer commanding a certain district or place; and inasmuch as they could not secure a system by which the name and designation should remain the same, it was convenient that the Warrant should be addressed to the person named, or to his successor; it gave a safeguard that the document should not be addressed or received by other than the person specified.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, in page 67, line 19, to leave out " four-pence," and insert " twopence." He thought the payment of 2d. was quite sufficient to pay for a folio of 72 words. He found that in the Registry Office at Edinburgh the payment for engrossing 400 words was 1s., and those were per- 1298 manent records; therefore, 72 words for 2d. was a fair rate of payment to Government clerks, who already received Government pay. If private individuals could engross 80 words for a little over 2d., a Government Office might do so; and even then it would amount to a large sum to be paid by a man who was obliged to provide himself with a copy of the proceedings of a court martial.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
, seeing the Amendment on the Paper, had made inquiries. As the hon. and gallant Member would, perhaps, be aware, the staff' kept in the Office of the Judge Advocate General was not sufficient to provide that a copy of proceedings should be made rapidly for a person requiring it; therefore, it was necessary to call in the assistance of copyists. In no case was more charged than the copy actually cost; and if the price were reduced from 4d. to 2d., a copy of proceedings would become a charge upon the country, which did not seem to him to be a desirable result. Every facility was always given to those who desired to obtain a copy of proceedings whenever the application was made bonâ fide. Under the circumstances, he thought it was not desirable to reduce the charge, though his right hon. and gallant Friend was quite willing to add to the clause, so that it should provide the charge should be one "not exceeding" 4d., leaving it open to make a lower charge, if it was thought desirable.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, no reason had been given why the charge should be more than 2d. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say it could not be done for that. He could provide plenty of young men who, like those in the Registry Office at Edinburgh, would do the work for the money; and he could not see why they should give authority by law to charge double the amount.

§ MR. RYLANDS
was rather surprised that the Judge Advocate General should persist in objecting, as it was quite clear that the reasons given were insufficient to support the clause as it stood. If a person was entitled to a copy at all, he was entitled to have it at a reasonable charge, as the hon. and gallant Member had shown the rate he proposed was a reasonable charge, even though, from pressure of work at any 1299 time, the Office had to call in assistance. It would be better for the Government, without occupying more time, to accept the Amendment.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
asked, if it was obligatory to hoop a copy of a regimental court martial for three years, or if there would be opposition to an Amendment to that effect? Under the existing law, a copy of the proceedings of a regimental court martial need not be given to a prisoner. Of course, in the case of a general court martial, the proceedings were kept.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
confessed he could not answer with certainty; but as it was provided that a prisoner tried by court martial should be entitled to a copy of the proceedings within three years it was reasonable to suppose a copy existed.

§ MR. MUNTZ
regarded the Amendment as fair and moderate. It was only just that a man applying for a copy should have it at a price which would be no loss to the Department. A law copying clerk received 10s. a-day, and a man making these copies at the rate of 2d. for 72 words would make nearly 50 per cent more than 10s. a-day. Hem could not see why a man should have to pay an exorbitant price for a copy, and he should support the Amendment if a Division was called.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought that the proposal to add the words " not exceeding" showed that the Judge Advocate General had not quite understood the Amendment, nor had he listened to the arguments in its support, for the addition of the words " not exceeding " would leave the clause as it stood practically. He saw no reason why a prisoner should not have a free copy; but, certainly, it was not a transaction out of which Government should desire to make a profit.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
thought the Committee should know exactly what it cost to make a copy, for a man ought to have it for the mere cost —the legitimate price at which these documents could be copied. He had an impression that the stationers' price was 2d.; and, if so, all that the Judge Advocate General's Office had to do was to pay whatever was the extreme price to a law stationer. Perhaps the Judge Advocate General could tell the Committee this?

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, he had not investigated this; but he was only anxious the work should not become an extra charge on the Department.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
found the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem appalled at the sum likely to be cast on the Estimates. All that was desired was to insure that a copy should be made at cost price. He did not want to put a prohibitive price on a copy, nor, on the other hand, did he want to put the country to a loss. From what he had heard, he agreed that 4d. was rather too high for this country; but it it did not follow it was so elsewhere. The same price might not be too high in other parts of the world. However, it was not worth while fighting about, and he was ready to accept the Amendment, provided that if, on inquiry, it was found necessary, an alteration might be made in the wording. Meantime, ho would accept the Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
wished to postpone the Amendment, in order to enable the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to interpose an Amendment in line 14.

§ MR. PARNELL
wished to propose an Amendment to an earlier part of the clause, in line 14. It was a matter of some importance, and his object was to extend the period within which the records of courts martial could be obtained from the limited period at which it stood in the clause—three years—to seven years. He had no wish to burden commanding officers with the duty of keeping these records for seven years; but they could, with every facility for reference, be kept at the War Office. Some years ago he wanted to obtain an account of a court martial with reference to proceedings which took place in Ireland; but it could not be had, because the time for keeping it had expired. In this case it was important to obtain a copy; and there must be many like cases where it might be important to obtain a record even after the lapse of three years. After going to the expense of having the copy made there could be no difficulty in retaining it for a few years, more or less. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would assent to the Amendment, which was to leave out the word 1301 three" and substitute the word "seven.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
thought the hon. Member was confusing the records of a court martial with the proceedings of a court martial. Records could be seen at any time; and it was only the proceedings of district courts martial that were sent up to the Judge Advocate General's Office, in order that the legality of those proceedings might be determined, and there, he presumed, they were kept for three years.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, there ought to be a distinction made between general and district courts martial, on the one hand, and regimental courts martial on the other. A general court martial was very important indeed, and he saw no reason why a copy of its proceedings should not be obtainable within seven years; but if the Amendment was pressed the distinction ought to bed drawn.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
understood that the proceedings of a general court martial were kept indefinitely, for ever, he might say. The difficulty was really rather of convenience than anything else, and to carry about seven years' courts martial proceedings seemed rather absurd. But he would confer with his right hon. and learned Friend. He had no hesitation in saying that the proceedings of a general court martial should be obtained within seven years; but this could be better done by means of regulations.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought this was a very inconvenient method of dealing with the subject, by way of regulation. Clearly, as the Bill ran, the right of any person to obtain a copy of the proceedings must be exercised within three years; and so it would be understood that a copy could not be obtained after that time. He saw no difficulty in so wording the clause that the proceedings of general courts martial could be obtained within seven years.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
agreed with the suggestion.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
undertook to bring up words to amend the clause as suggested on Report.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, that as his attention had been drawn to the subject, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider a sugges- 1302 tion that each person tried before a court martial should, at the conclusion of the trial, be provided with a copy of the proceedings. That would dispose of the question finally, and there would be no necessity for keeping the records, on the ground that within seven years a copy might be applied for.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
saw objections to the working of this. Either an unnecessary cost would be thrown upon the country, or if, on the other hand, the public were not to pay, it would be throwing a charge upon the man tried.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved his Amendment pro formâ, in line 19, to leave out "four pence," and insert "two pence."

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
moved, at the end of the clause, to provide that— The proceedings of all courts martial, general, general field, district, and regimental shall be examined and revised in the office of the Judge Advocate General.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, whatever might be the opinion of the Committee on the Amendment itself, it surely could not come into the clause dealing with the right of a person to obtain a copy of the proceedings. The proposition to enlarge the powers of the Judge Advocate General was quite another question.

THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that the objection was valid.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
said, that he would move the clause at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 125 (Summoning and privilege of witnesses at courts martial) agreed to.
Clause 126 (Misconduct of civilian at court martial).

§ MR. HERSCHELL
moved, in page (67, line 33, after "oath," to insert "or make a solemn declaration."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
urged this was not wanted, for, practically, it was included in the declaration.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, in page 67, sub-section 2, line 37, after "him," to insert— Provided the production of such document as evidence could be legally required by a court of civil judicature. 1303 This was a clause with reference to the summoning of witnesses, who were not subject to the provisions of the Act in their capacity as civilians; they were not subject to military law. Under the Bill these persons could be summoned before a court martial, and required to produce documents. It was frequently found in Civil Courts that documents were required; but a witness was not bound to produce any which might incriminate himself. Hem imagined there would be many cases before a court martial where the same rule would apply, and before a Civil Court of Judicature the witness would not be obliged to produce certain documents. For instance, telegrams and other documents could not be required; but without going into details as to what these documents were, ho would move the Amendment that the court martial should follow the same rule as was followed in the Civil Court.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
thought the Amendment was hardly necessary. The proceedings in a court martial were the same as in ordinary courts; but it was perfectly clear that the proceedings of courts martial, with regard to the taking of evidence and other matters, would be entirely regulated by the procedure of ordinary criminal courts. Besides, the Amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman would not work any alteration in the present law.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
was certainly at an entire loss to understand how the members of a court martial could know what was legal evidence, and what was not. The constant complaint, during the whole of these proceedings, had been that members of courts martial were usually men who had had no legal training whatever, and were incapable of deciding what evidence should be accepted and what rejected. If they left out this Amendment the courts martial would have no guide whatever.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had supplied a most forcible argument in favour of his Amendment. He should like to see everything in this Dill made as clear as possible; and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would himself admit that it was desirable to avoid any ambiguity in Acts of Parliament. They must remember, too, that they were no1 here dealing with an Act which would 1304 be administered by gentlemen learned in the law, but by military men, who were very often ignorant even of the statute law of the land. He wished to show that the intention of Parliament was clear on this point, and that officers on courts martial were bound by the ordinary rules in the reception or rejection of evidence. This was only one of a series of Amendments which he would be obliged to move; and after what had been said he thought he was fairly entitled to ask that the Bill should be thus far made plain.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
thought there was a good deal of force in what the hon. Member for Meath had said; but he would suggest to hint whether it would not be better to take a more comprehensive course, and to move a new clause that courts martial generally should be regulated by the same rules as those which governed Civil Courts. This clause only dealt with part of the question. The Attorney General was probably right in saying that the insertion of the word " legal" did not affect the clause; but, still, the difficulty which had been suggested might very probably arise even with experienced officers, for there was nothing at present in the Dill which showed that the procedure in courts martial should be the same as in Civil Courts. Ho would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw this Amendment, which was only partial, and, instead of moving the subsequent Amendments which ho had spoken of, that he should bring up a new clause, comprehensively stating that the rules of evidence should be same in courts martial as in Civil Courts.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
thought that this substitution would meet the view of the hon. Member for Meath. He was himself under the impression, derived front a conversation with his right hon. and gallant Friend, that there was such a clause as this in the Bill; and he was bound to add that, having hurriedly glanced thorough it now, he had not yet been able to find it. If there were such a clause, of course, a now one would be unnecessary; while if there were not they could easily introduce it. With regard to what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), whatever clauses were 1305 inserted in the Dill would not help those who were not trained in the law to say what was legal evidence and what was not.

§ MR. PARNELL
was willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), because he thought it was a very good one. At present, there was an entire absence of any provision of the kind he suggested in the Bill; and, as a consequence, it was very vague and uncertain, and, apparently, left a great deal to the discretion of the military authorities. He would, therefore, propose to withdraw the Amendment, in order to bring up a new clause subsequently.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had another Amendment, on page 68, line 2, after " thereupon," to insert— Inquire into such alleged offence, and after examination any witnesses that may be produced against or for the person so accused, and after hearing any statement that may be offered by counsel in defence. This clause contained very peculiar provisions, for it proposed to give a court power to punish offences without evidence, merely on the certificate of the president of a court martial. These offenders could not be punished by the court martial against whom the offence was committed. They were not subject to military law; and this clause provided that the offence should be certified by the president of the court martial to any court of law in that part of Her Majesty's Dominions where the offence was committed, which had power to punish offences of that kind and the court might thereupon punish the witness in like manner, as if he had committed such offence in the court itself. He thought such a punishment should not be inflicted without some proof. Ordinarily, of course, proof was not required; because, if the court considered that the witness had committed contempt, whoever presided had power to punish him upon the spot by imprisonment; and, in such a case, they would see the facts, and would be in the position of both judge and jury. In the case of an offence committed before a court martial, the court was required, merely on the statement of the president, to punish, and that was an entirely different mat- 1306 ter. His Amendment provided that the offence should be investigated in the ordinary way before a court; and if it was found that the witness had committed the offence, and not till then, the court was to have power to punish.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
was bound to say that he did not see any objection to the Amendment, for there was no reason why the evidence should not be proved before the court, before the person was punished.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
also thought that the Amendment was necessary. He would suggest, however, that some amendment of the words suggested was desirable—as, for instance, to leave out the words " by counsel," making them read instead, " statement may be read in defence or otherwise."

§ MR. PARNELL
had no objection to the suggested Amendment.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
said, there was one point which had to be considered, and that was whether, after the word " wilfully," they should not also add the word " knowingly." The emendation had been made several times before in the Bill, and it was as well to have it one way or the other throughout.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
thought it was undesirable to use two words when one would do, although it did not much matter one way or the other. He could not conceive a man giving false evidence without knowing it was so.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
observed, that the alteration had been made several times before.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
thought " wilfully " might stand as the better word. They said that if a man gave false evidence wilfully he must do it knowingly.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he wished to move an Amendment in the clause in the following form:—To leave out from the end of sub-section C to the end of the clause, and to insert the words— He shall be liable, on indictment or information, to be tried for such offence before any court of law, in the part of Her Majesty's Dominions where the alleged offence is committed, which has power to punish for contempt; and, if he be convicted, that court may punish such person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of that court. 1307 This offence was put by itself, and was much more severely punished than other offences under previous clauses. Therefore, he thought the person accused ought to be entitled to the benefit of a trial for the offence in question, in order that it might be really and fairly ascertained whether he had been guilty of it or not. Judges were always very ready to commit for contempt of court; and ho was, therefore, very anxious to limit the power in the case of courts martial, at any rate, and that there should be every precaution taken that the person so offending should not be wrongfully punished.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
observed, that what was desirable was to subject those persons to the same proceedings as they would be subject to if they were guilty of the same offence in an ordinary court; and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Meath that his object would be perfectly well attained if, in the clause, ho would insert the same words as those inserted previously. He did not understand why, in the case of contempt, they should resort to the very tedious proceedings by indictment. For the purpose, a man would have to bed taken be-ford magistrates, or, at any rate, they would have to get a bill preferred. It would have to be found, and then the man would have to be tried by a petty jury as for any ordinary felony. Therefore, there would be no summary remedy at all; while in a court, if a man had been guilty of contempt, the man would have been summarily punished by that Court. The old Articles of War were much more stringent. The courts martial, themselves, were enabled to deal with the matter.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
remarked, that the Amendment would defeat the very object of the hon. Member for Meath, because it would be very hard upon an offender if this were made an indictable offence, and he should have to wait for months to be tried. Besides, the Amendment gave power to try in every court which had power to punish for contempt, so that a man could be taken before a County Court Judge, and punished. Something, of course, was necessary to remedy that objection. The clause, as it stood, was an entirely new provision, which did not exist in the Mutiny Act, nor in the Articles of War, for it was 1308 really trial by certificate. The hon. Member had clone good service by calling attention to the matter; and on the Report it certainly ought to be dealt with.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
promised that the matter should be considered on the Report.

§ MR. RYLANDS
felt the difficulty, and he quite agreed that the words proposed would not do. At the same time, the clause, as it stood, would not do either. This power of committal for contempt was one of the most dubious which the Judges and magistrates possessed. It I was also a very indefinite power; sometimes it was exercised in a very foolish way, tending to degrade the administration of justice. He need not mention a case in which the Judge used his powers in punishing for contempt in such a I manner as to create something very like a public scandal. If, then, gentlemen learned in the law acted under a feeling of temper in this way, how much more were they likely to have this taking place in a court martial? The Judge Advocate General evidently did not assent to that; but he could not suppose that courts martial would always exercise their powers with perfect discretion. It must be remembered, also, that the Government were asking for an entirely new power.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
quite agreed that the clause, as it stood, would not do, and that the offender could not be punished on the new certificate.

§ MR. PARNELL
saw the objections to his Amendment, of course, but did not wish to render it necessary that the person should be indicted, and he would willingly accept any other provision which should provide summary trial. At the same time, he must point out that the offences dealt with in the earlier part of the clause, such as not attending, or refusing to take oath, or refusing to produce a document, or refusing to answer a question, were questions easily to be decided. Whereas the question of contempt was a very different one; therefore, he thought that while they might very fairly give Courts power to decide the points suggested in the earlier part of the clause, an offence like contempt of court should be more guarded as respected its punishment. The president of a court martial might imagine that a very innocent answer 1309 was a contempt of court. He might also be out of temper, or he might not know the law, and so might certify that contempt had been committed when it had not. It could only be fair, in such circumstances, to allow the jury to judge the fact. He really thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might postpone the clause, in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing how the matter could be arranged.

§ MR. RYLANDS
suggested that they should leave out the last portion of the clause, with the view of having the matter looked into.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR JOHN HOLKER)
asked whether the hon. Member would not be satisfied if similar words were introduced here to those introduced in the earlier part? It did not seem to him that there was very much difference between the offences mentioned in the earlier part of the clause and that mentioned in this later part. They all came under the same category. He would, therefore, propose that the same words be used as in the earlier part.

§ MR. PARNELL
saw there was a difficulty in the matter; and if he could not have the clause postponed hem would accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished, however, to guard himself against being understood to accept this as a satisfactory conclusion. He hoped attention might be drawn to the matter on the Report by some Members better qualified to deal with this subject than he was.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, before this Amendment was withdrawn he should like to remark that the objection of the hon. Member was one which it was very desirable to carry out. The offence was really very much less than those comprised in the earlier part of the clause, yet it was liable to far greater punishment in a far more arbitrary way. Judges had the most exalted idea of their own importance, and they were impressed with the idea that the very smallest amount of what they considered interference with their prerogatives would entitle them to inflict this extreme punishment. For that reason, he was sorry his hon. Friend had not insisted on having a Proviso in this clause that a person charged with this offence should be tried by a jury. They had in Ireland recently had the most outrageous of punishments for the very slightest offence of this kind; and they 1310 had seen advocates sent to gaol for weeks, while the interests of their clients were entirely neglected. One man had been sent to prison for a month and fined £250, merely for criticizing the conduct of a Judge in the trial of a case. He very much regretted that the Amendment was to be withdrawn.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, he would move an Amendment similar to that suggested by the hon. Member, simply varying the words of the hon. Member. In page 68, line 19, he would move to omit " if it seems just," in order to insert these words— Inquire into such alleged offence, and, after hearing any witness that may be produced against or on behalf of the person accused, and to hear any statement that may be offered in defence, punish such person," &c.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
thought they ought to take the opportunity, in this clause, of effectually limiting the jurisdiction with regard to contempt possessed by Courts of Justice; and that, in fact, they should require that an offence of this vague and yet awful character, and which brought with it such severe consequences, should, like the generality of serious offences, be tried by jury. It was high time to put a stop to the powers of courts, which decided off-hand, without the intervention of a jury, upon an offence like that of contempt. For that purpose he had provided an Amendment, which, if insufficient, would certainly have the effect of leading to alterations of the law in other respects. He intended to have put this Amendment on the Paper yesterday; but the House, unfortunately, adjourned some minutes before 6, and he found himself shut out. This would be the same Amendment as that moved by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), except that he would leave out the words after the word " if," to the end of the clause, in order to insert these words— After the conviction of the accused by a. jury, may sentence such person to any term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. At present, the imprisonment for contempt might last any period, and until it pleased the court to believe that the offender had purged himself of his contempt. That was a piece of legislation which belonged to the time before civili- 1311 zation; and some limitation ought certainly to be imposed upon it. Six months would certainly give any person accused of contempt full opportunity of repentance, and of meditating upon the full consequences of his crime. They would, also, thus avoid that appearance of vindictiveness which attached to penalties for contempt, inflicted by the Judges without the intervention of a jury. He could not at all see why contempt should not be tried by a jury like everything else. If the Committee wished it, the punishment might be extended to a year, and he would not be obstinate in insisting on a point of that kind; but he did think the Committee ought to be obstinate in insisting on the trial of a man accused of contempt by a jury. There was not the slightest reason for taking this offence out of the category of other serious offences, and they ought to seize the present opportunity of insisting upon this reform.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving his Amendment until the Amendment then before the Committee had been disposed of. That Amendment proposed to leave out the words "if it seems just." If that were carried, it would then be his duty to propose the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton. If the hon. Member wished to insert other words, he would be able to oppose their insertion.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
pointed out that the proposal of the hon. Member had been already disposed of on another Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
replied, that the Amendment had only been withdrawn, not negatived, and under such circumstances the Committee could not refuse to entertain the Motion.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he would propose to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out all the words after the word " if," in order to insert these words— After the conviction of the accused by a jury, may sentence such person to any term of imprisonment not exceeding six months.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
, thinking it better that the members of courts martial should not be fettered and confused by the English law of evidence, moved the omission, in lines 25 and 26, of the words " other than the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
could not conceive any worse condition of things than would be occasioned by the striking out of these words. To say that courts martial should regulate their proceedings by the principle of common sense only, without applying to them any statute or law, was equivalent to saying that they should have the power of receiving or rejecting evidence as they thought fit. On such a principle, the members of the court would be allowed to create law, and call upon persons accused to answer questions.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
expressed his distinct belief that no law of evidence was better than the English law of evidence, and that the common sense of questioning the accused was right.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, at the end of the clause, to add— Provided always that no evidence shall he received by a court martial which would not be admissible in any suit, trial, or proceeding before a court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, and that the rules of evidence to be observed by a court martial shall be the same as those which are followed by courts of civil or criminal jurisdiction. Thinking that this Proviso would at once commend itself to the sense of the Committee, he did not propose to take up any time by making any observations thereupon.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
could not agree that courts martial should be allowed to receive or reject evidence as they thought proper; and it was, of course, desirable that they should be guided by some rules of evidence, which, in his opinion, should be the law of evidence followed by civil tribunals. Therefore, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath should be accepted, but embodied in the new clause which the Government had agreed to introduce when the discussion took place upon the previous clause.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
asked the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to allow the Amendment to be postponed. He perfectly agreed in the necessity for regulating the proceedings of courts martial in the matter of evidence; but thought that the Amendment, in its present shape, might lead to a great many difficulties.

§ MR RYLANDS
thought it would be better to withdraw the Amendment, and leave the matter in the hands of the Government. He would be glad to know whether the Secretary of State for 'War intended to provide some means by which there could be a review of the decisions of courts martial?

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that the Government would carry out the views with regard to this matter to which the Committee seemed inclined—namely, that they should include provisions as to the procedure with reference to the rules of evidence in the clause relating to the first part of Clause 127, which they had agreed to introduce.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought that when the Committee was dealing with courts martial it was not much out of Order to suggest that there should be some means of reviewing their proceedings. He merely wished, however, to urge upon the attention of the Government that the matter had been under the notice of the Committee, and to submit that it was very well worthy of the consideration of the Government.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
inquired, when the new clauses promised by the Secretary of State for 'War, particularly that which related to the provosts marshal, would be laid on the Table?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
replied, that the clause particularly referred to required much consideration; and he could only state with regard to it that no unnecessary delay should take place.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 128 (Provision in case of insane persons).

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the question of insanity ought not to be decided by 1314 court martial. During the progress of this Bill, the opinion had been more than once expressed by Government that, wherever it was possible, an offence committed against the law of the land would be better tried by a court of ordinary criminal judicature; and he (Mr. Parnell) thought that insanity was not a question which should be tried by court martial. Indeed, he had very great doubt as to whether the question of insanity should be triable by an ordinary court, inasmuch as it appeared to him that it could only be competently tried by a jury of medical men. Of course, that could not be provided for in the present Bill; but the Committee could at least insure that a person charged with being insane should have some facilities for defending himself—for it was a question of defence—and, consequently, an opportunity of getting as fair a trial in the Army as he would have in ordinary civil life. A court martial was, obviously, not the proper tribunal for dealing with the special question of insanity; and, therefore, he begged to move, in page 68, line 28, to leave out from " the," to "and," in line 29, and insert—" He shall be tried before any competent court of criminal jurisdiction, and if found to be insane."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
thought the hon. Member for Meath had a little misapprehended the effect of the clause when he spoke of trying a person for insanity. It was admitted to be a great blot on the present law that no power was given to courts martial to acquit or discharge a person who had committed an offence by reason of insanity. The object of the clause was to remove this blot, and to provide for the trial of insane persons or their acquittal. He could not see what object would be served by bringing the matter before a court of criminal jurisdiction; it might cause hardship and inconvenience; and if such court were to find the accused insane it could only act in the same way as a court martial would act.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, the clause was really for the protection of the prisoner, and placed him in the position of a civilian with regard to an offence committed during a period of insanity. And unless it was inserted, no one would be able to make the excuse for him that he was insane at the time the offence was committed. On the 1315 other hand, when a man was manifestly insane and unable to plead, the court would not then punish him for the offence; but he would be removed and placed where his health would be attended to, and where he would be under the Inspectors of Lunacy, who visited both military and civil asylums, and upon whose report he would regain his liberty as soon as he was restored to reason.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
could not help thinking that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had increased the blot which had been very properly pointed out by the Secretary of State for War. There was all the difference in the world between giving a court martial power to take cognizance of the fact of insanity, and giving a court martial, composed of three or four rather inexperienced officers, power to decide that a prisoner was insane. The inquiry into insanity was one of the most delicate investigations known to the law; and hon. Members were quite justified in asking the Secretary of State for War to take cognizance of that fact. Of course, it was absurd that, under the existing military law, a court martial should be unable to take note of the fact that a man was insane, and, therefore, unaccountable for his actions; and it spoke strongly for the intense conservatism of the military authorities that such a thing should exist at the present day. But, in his zeal to remove this blot, the Secretary of State for War had jumped too far. At present, the court martial could not take any cognizance of the fact of insanity; but that was no reason wily it should have the great power given to it to declare that a man was insane. A question of that kind should be inquired into before a jury, to whom skilled evidence should be presented; it was altogether beyond the competence of a military tribunal composed of three or four officers, who, although experienced in military affairs, would possess no aptitude to inquire into cases of insanity. A man might commit an offence under temporary excitement —under the influence of sunstroke—and to the intelligence of three or four officers he might appear mad. But he might not be mad after all. And yet the stigma of insanity would, by the operation of this clause, be put upon 1316 him, and he might be handed over to undergo a term of imprisonment vastly longer than that which might have been incurred by the commission of the offence with which he was charged. Therefore, he could not but think that opposition should be given to the amendment of the law as it stood in this clause, which went altogether too far in the direction of reform, and that something short of it should be insisted upon.

MR. HERSCELL
thought the Amendment would not carry out the object of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell); because, if the court of criminal jurisdiction should find the person not to be insane, he would be shut up until the next Assizes, and then be tried for, perhaps, a trifling offence. At the same time, he did not think the clause, as it stood, carried out the intention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, which he (Mr. Herschell) thought was that the court should acquit the accused person on the ground of insanity. For " where," as the section said— it appears on the trial by court martial of a person charged with an offence that such person is insane, the insanity of the person would render him an unfit person to try. He, therefore, submitted that some alteration of the clause was necessary.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that undoubtedly some words would have to be used to make the matter clearer than it appeared to be, and lie would take a note of the point. It might be necessary to say— Where it appears on the trial by courts: martial of a person charged with an offence that such person is insane, or who at the time he committed such offence was insane.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the clause was, no doubt, defective, and would have to be very carefully considered with a view to its amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
reminded the Committee that although it might be extremely inconvenient that courts martial should deal with civil offences, the great majority of offences for which a soldier was likely to be tried were of a military character. He pointed out the difficulty of relegating a man to a civil court to be tried for a military offence, and trusted that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would withdraw 1317 his Amendment, upon the Government undertaking to bring up a new clause on Report.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, it would save time if an amended clause were brought up on Report. He had no objection to the postponement of the clause, if the Committee agreed to that course.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought it better to postpone the clause, inasmuch as his view did not correspond with that expressed oil the Front Opposition Bench. His Amendment might have been badly drawn; but it was certainly not his intention to have a military offence tried by a civil tribunal; he merely wished that the ordinary court should deal with the question of insanity; because a court martial of three or four officers was manifestly incompetent to decide whether or not a person was insane. Take the case of a man accused of getting drunk, for which offence he might be imprisoned for 40 days. It appeared to the regimental court martial that he was insane, and the court at once went through forms which, practically, had the effect of allowing him to be imprisoned during Her Majesty's pleasure. The clause, he admitted, was an improvement upon the existing law; but it was not as perfect as the Committee ought to try to make it. It would be better to say— Provided that where a person appears to be insane he shall be examined by a competent medical board. He should be adverse from leaving it to regimental officers to decide the very important medical question of insanity, which was really neither for a court martial nor a jury. He was willing to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that an amended clause should be brought up on Report.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member, whose experience in cases of insanity was not, he thought, as great as his own. He considered the present system of Home Office inspection would be better than the proposed jury of experts to decide in cases of insanity. The clause was a protection to the prisoner, and enabled him to plead before a court that he was insane, when, if the court came to the conclusion that he was insane, they could acquit him of the offence and send him to an asylum.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
thought., after trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the most evident point of his speech was that his own experience had led him to believe in the worthlessness of medical evidence; or, at any rate, that medical men were not reliable authorities on the subject of insanity. Insanity was a disease of the brain; and as the hon. Member had said that medical men could not be considered reliable authorities, certainly those who were not even medical men could not be very good judges in questions of insanity. Therefore, he could not but think that one portion of the objection raised by the hon. Member for Galway against the Amendment told against himself. Again, the hon. Member had spoken in a decided manner against the opinion of the hon. Member for Meath in cases of insanity. Now, while the hon. Member for Meath was not prepared to say that his opinion in this respect was worth much, it must be obvious to the Committee that his opinion would be equally as trustworthy as that of any ordinary member of a court martial. He could not but think that the hon. Member for Galway, and all those who supported the clause, had entirely failed in giving any reason why the ordinary procedure in the case of supposed insanity should be dispensed with. That was the point of contention; but as he understood that the clause was to be postponed, it would be unnecessary to discuss the matter at greater length on that occasion.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved the addition, at the end of the clause, of the words— Provided, That where a prisoner has been sentenced in India or in a colony to a term of imprisonment with hard labour exceeding twelve months, or to a term of penal servitude, he shall be transferred as soon as practicable to a prison or convict establishment within the United Kingdom, there to undergo his sentence. The system of keeping persons in prison in India and the Colonies for long periods was a very objectionable one. 1319 He had known cases where men had been thoroughly broken down in health in consequence of their having been imprisoned under such circumstances, and who were then sent home and discharged from the Service. There could be no reason why men should be condemned to these lengthy terms of imprisonment under conditions that ruined their health; and he therefore commended the Proviso to the consideration of the Committee, and to the feelings of humanity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
confessed that a good deal was to be said in support of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). He (Colonel Arbuthnot) thought it undesirable that soldiers should be subjected, in different parts of the world, to the various rules and regulations in force there. Not only had his own observation and experience led him to this opinion, but the matter had also been brought to this attention by officers in high position, who would, he was quite sure, be gratified at anything being done which bare in the direction indicated. He was sorry that the Home Secretary was not in his place; but he might, perhaps, be allowed, while upon this clause, to appeal to the Secretary of State for War to put all the pressure he possibly could upon the Home Secretary, with a view to the separation, as far as practicable, of the military prisoners from the other occupants of the gaols to which they were committed. It was known that the military prisons were not large enough, and that military prisoners were, in consequence, sent throughout the country.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
rose to Order. He thought that the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot) would be more properly raised on the next clause.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the Question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath with reference to the removal of prisoners from India and the Colonies to the United Kingdom. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford would be more pertinent to the subsequent clause of the Bill.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
had no wish to travel beyond the Question before the Committee; but he could not help thinking that the question which he had raised 1320 was peculiarly applicable to the present clause of the Bill. He asked that when soldiers were sentenced for military crimes which could not be committed by civilians, and sent into civil prisons, they should not associate with the dregs of society. He contended that this was undesirable; and, therefore, asked the Secretary of State for War to appeal to the Home Secretary to make every regulation, consistent with prison discipline, for the separation of military from civil prisoners. If military prisoners committed offences for which they were convicted and sentenced by civil law, he did not say that there should be any special distinction made in their case; but it was very undesirable that soldiers should mix with the dregs of society.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
wished to make an appeal to the Government in the direction of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. He had found very great inconvenience in India by keeping prisoners there who had been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. He had also experienced the difficulty alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot) with regard to keeping together military and civil prisoners, although it was not altogether for the reason suggested by him — that military prisoners were herded with the dregs of the civil population. On the contrary, he had found, from his experience of the working of a large gaol in India, which was under his control, that the military prisoners, who were, for the most part, desperate characters, altogether corrupted the civil element, and rendered the maintenance of discipline extremely difficult. He trusted that the matter would be settled in a manner that would insure that all soldiers sentenced by court martial to long terms of imprisonment in India and in tropical Colonies should not be kept there, but sent back to the United Kingdom. The Government of India at one time thought it desirable to bring together a large number of military and civil prisoners in a large gaol, constructed at great expense, and on the highest principles of sanitation; but the results, both in respect of the health and discipline of the prisoners, were very bad. It was found that the health of the soldiers was very much affected, and that they suffered in ninny other ways; the maintenance of discipline being also 1321 found impossible, the Government determined to do away with the gaol as a military prison. These reasons appeared to him to be strongly in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath, which he trusted would be carried into effect.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
suggested that the words, "to any sanitarium in any of the stations in India," should be added to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath. The suffering endured by soldiers imprisoned in India amounted to positive cruelty. But if the plan of sending them to the Hill Stations, some of which were 6,000 feet above the level of the sea, were adopted, they could undergo their sentences without suffering any greater inconvenience than they would in England. By this means the country would be saved expense, while the objects aimed at by those who desired that prisoners should be sent from India to England would be gained.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, the plan suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had also been tried in India, but with unfortunate results; the peculiarities of the water, and other circumstances, having been found to be most injurious to the health of the prisoners. His practical experience was that the difficulty could not be got over in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the Committee were nearly all agreed upon the principal matter—namely, that there were two points of consideration. First, that imprisonment in India should not be treated as analogous to imprisonment in this country; and, secondly, that there was no desire to cause men to be imprisoned to any extent which would cause their health to suffer. With regard to sending prisoners home to England, the Committee, he hoped, would bear in mind that the transit of prisoners to and from India was conducted by means of a service of singularly fine troop ships, which only passed through the Red Sea at a certain time of the year. Now, if it was said that every prisoner was to be brought home, certain difficulties would result. For instance, in the case of a man sentenced to a short term of imprisonment, he might actually be embarked, and his time might have expired before he arrived in this country. 1322 Again, another man would have to be sent out to take his place, and considerable expense would thereby be cast upon the country. Further, he did not think it would work with advantage to the discipline of the Army to say that every man must necessarily be sent home. He wished, also, to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that courts martial, in sentencing prisoners, had very considerable regard for the circumstances under which a man might be confined. He did not think it wise to assent to the Amendment, inasmuch as its object, if carried out in cases of imprisonment, would not be conducive to the maintenance of discipline; and, as regarded penal servitude, the remedy which it suggested was already, to a great extent, provided by the earlier clauses of the Bill. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Meath would see that the subject had received very considerable attention, and that he would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
was sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not see his way to assent to the proposed Amendment. After the explanation given, he should be willing to adhere to the original Amendment, so far as the sending back of prisoners sentenced to 12 months was concerned. That, he believed, would meet the objection made to his Amendment by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and would leave ample time for sending a man back; while the saving clause, "as far as practicable," would guard him still further against the possible inconvenience which he had pointed out. The prisoners in this country were really guarded very carefully in the matter of their rules and regulations. But this clause proposed to give power to imprison soldiers in prisons which were in no way under our control, and which were not subject to our laws. If there was one thing rendered more evident than another during the discussion which took place upon the Prisons Act of 1877, it was that the question of management of prisons, and of the discipline of the prisoners confined in them, required the closest attention of Parliament. Since the prisons had been handed over to the Home Office, with all the safeguards introduced, and with all the provisions made for the safety and good treatment of the prisoners, with the 1323 powers of Visiting Justices, whose duty it was to look into these places, there had been repeated cases in which, notwithstanding the desire of the Home Secretary to do that which was right, our prison system had broken down. If such cases occurred in this country, how necessary was it that the attention of Parliament should be directed to matters in prisons not under the supervision of the Home Secretary, or the control of Parliament? As regarded penal servitude, he did not agree, as was suggested by the Secretary of State for War, that his object was met by the previous clauses of the Bill, inasmuch as prisoners could be sent to Bermuda, which was a hot and unhealthy climate.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
observed, that sentences for more than 12 months were very rare; for when a soldier was convicted of an offence for which he ought to receive a punishment of over 12 months imprisonment, then he ought to have a sentence of penal servitude, and be quite got rid of. Objections had been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to the injurious effects of the climate of India upon prisoners confined in gaol. In his opinion, a man might be imprisoned for 12 months without suffering much from the effects of the climate; but his health would be much affected if he were confined in India, or any hot climate, for longer than that period.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
said, that if the hon. Member for Meath would agree to alter his Amendment to 15 months he would support him. No doubt, it was an improper thing to keep Europeans in confinement in India for a long period, and they ought, as much as possible, to avoid doing so. But it sometimes happened that a soldier wanted to be sent home to this country, and, for that purpose, would commit an offence for which he would be punished and sent home to England. He thought if the period of imprisonment which would bring a man home was put at 15 months, the sentence would be sufficiently severe to deter men from committing offences in order to be sent home. The hon. Member for Meath was, however, perfectly right in desiring that sentences over a certain length of time should not be carried out in India. The 1324 objections raised to serving punishments in India applied very strongly to over two years' imprisonment. There would be no harm in making the minimum fur which a man was to be sent home 15 months; because, where a sentence exceeded 12 months, 18 months was generally given. It was perfectly right that sentences for 18 mouths should be served out at home; but there was a difficulty, if a mere sentence of 12 months' imprisonment should necessarily give a man a right to return to this country. He thought, under the circumstances of the case, that it would be a reasonable proposal to ask the hon. Member to insert 15 months in his Amendment; for he did not think that a soldier would wish to commit an offence, for which ho would get so severe a punishment as 15 months, simply in order to be sent home.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that this proposal struck him very much in the same manner as the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Havelock). There might, no doubt, sometimes be an inducement to soldiers who wished to return home, to commit some small offence, in order that they might be sentenced to a short term of imprisonment and sent home. Of course, that was a practice which they could not possibly encourage. In the main, however, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Meath; awl he knew nothing more objectionable, than that persons subject to long terms of imprisonment should be made to serve out those sentences in hot climates, where the prisoners were confined in gaols over which this House had no control. He quite agreed that, under those circumstances, it was right that they should be brought home. Ho thought that the proper thing would be to substitute 18 months for 12; and he would, therefore, agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath, if lie would accept the clause in that manner. He hoped that the hon. Member would appreciate the reasons which led him to do this. In the first place, everyone must wish that prisoners should be sent to serve out their sentences in climates where it was not hot. But, on the other hand, they would entail a danger of encouraging soldiers to commit offences in order to be sent home, if they gave them the right to be sent home when punished with a small term of imprisonment.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
had never known any instance of men deserting in India. It was his experience that men liked to go to India, and were never absent when ordered to that country. He did not think that there was any probability of their committing these offences for the purpose of being transported from India. He did not approve of the proposal to alter the term of imprisonment for which a soldier should be sent home from 12 months to 15, nor to 18, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Hem trusted that the hon. Member for Meath would not give way on the point.

MR. SULLIVAN
was glad to see that the Government recognized the force of the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath. The Government had recognized, to the full, the considerations he had urged; and he thought that it was hardly worthy of the Committee to enter into discussion as to whether the term should be 12 months, or 15 months, or 18 months. He felt very strongly that, whether it was a matter of three months' imprisonment or of six months' imprisonment, yet that they must draw the line somewhere; and was it not a reasonable proposal that, for sentences of 12 months, the prisoners should be brought within the control of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself? When a prisoner was a soldier serving in the ranks, it was right that he should be kept in a prison under proper Parliamentary and Constitutional control—which he would not be if allowed to serve out his imprisonment abroad. With respect to the argument that soldiers would commit crimes for the purpose of being sent home, he did not think that it had any weight. He had some real information upon the point, and that information was certainly not in accordance with the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Soldiers preferred remaining in India to being sent home, for in India they had servants to wait upon them, and do things for them, which at home they did for themselves. He would like to know whether it was really the fact that soldiers would be likely to commit crimes, which would entail 12 or 15 months' imprisonment, for the purpose of becoming liable to be sent home? He would appeal to the Government not to meet this Amend- 1326 ment in an obstinate spirit; for he was convinced a little reflection would show them how undesirable it was that, having admitted the whole case urged by the hon. Member for Meath, they should insist in making the term of imprisonment 18 months instead of 12. It seemed to him that it was like haggling over an article in a shop, instead of acting as a deliberative Assembly. He was convinced that if his hon. Friend would stand by his Amendment public opinion out-of-doors would justify him in the course he had taken.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
desired to raise the whole question as to the desirability, or the undesirability, of imprisoning soldiers in civil gaols. For he did not think it right that soldiers should be sent to civil gaols where they were crowded with convicts of all grades. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had stated the injurious effects that imprisonment in India produced upon Europeans; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) to re-consider this question. Ho thought that any such practical inconvenience from leaving the Amendment as it stood would be met by courts martial not sentencing men to imprisonment for more than 12 months when it was undesirable for them to be sent home. In that way it would be quite possible to meet the case of crimes which had been committed for the purpose of being sent home. He was quite of the opinion that if a man committed an offence worthy to be punished by 12 months' imprisonment then that man had better be sent to penal servitude and got rid of altogether.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
did not desire to refer to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), nor was he going into the question of the advantages or disadvantages of soldiers being placed in civil gaols. What he wished to do was to point out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath was a humanitarian Amendment, and one which would in no way diminish the efficacy or efficiency of punishment. Speaking in that point of view, he might say that he was perfectly convinced that punishment in Indian gaols was quite too horrible to contemplate. Imprisonment in Indian gaols at present was very much the same as imprisonment in the 1327 worst kept gaols in this country in the old times—before there was any reform in the system—with the hot climate super-added. He had not had time, during that Session, to carry out an engagement which he had entered into to bring the condition of the Indian civil gaols before the notice of that House. He might say that all the leading English newspapers in India, and all the most respectable journals of that country, had been latterly drawing attention to the frightful mortality which took place in Indian gaols. In some cases the mortality had been ten times as great as the mortality out-of-doors in the same place. Nothing that they knew of in their present life at home could give a fair analogy by which they could judge of the horrors of prison life in India. In fact, he confessed that his only objection to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath was this—that if they took European soldiers out of Indian prisons, and if they removed their liability to serve out their time in Indian gaols, then the Indian gaols, already fearful, would become absolute pande-moniums. Now, the presence of European convicts had a slight effect in improving the condition of Indian gaols. To show the callousness with which Indian convicts were treated, he could not do better than refer to a statement of a most respectable authority—a man who, on all ordinary occasions, was a most humane man. But that gentleman actually maintained that if the frightful mortality in Indian gaols was diminished, that would diminish the deterrent effect of the punishment to such a degree that it would be dangerous. How an ordinarily well-disposed man could take such views as this was astonishing; but it was unnecessary to say that his mind had become warped by officialism, and he did not see the evil tendencies of the doctrine which he affirmed. He did not think that any European soldiers should be exposed to punishment in Indian gaols, unless in cases of absolute necessity; there was no case of absolute necessity which required their imprisonment for 18 months. Twelve months was quite enough; and he believed that the punishment of 12 months' imprisonment in an Indian gaol to a European soldier would injure his health as much as 10 years' imprisonment in a gaol in this country.

§ MR. BIGGAR
did not think that the Government understood the nature of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment was that if a man was sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment then he was to be sent home. The Government seemed to think that prisoners ought to be kept for 18 months in Indian gaols for any offence with which they were charged, and that seemed to him to be a most unreasonable contention. If a man were sent to prison, one of two things would happen. Either he would die—which was very likely to happen—or his health would be permanently injured. That must be the practical result of imprisoning Europeans in exceedingly hot climates. He had taken an opportunity of meeting a military prisoner who had suffered confinement during a hot Irish summer. And this gentleman was very seriously injured, by being kept closed up in a private house; yet how much better was that than an ordinary gaol; and if a man's health was so much injured by his confinement in a private house for a few weeks, what would be the effect of confinement for over a year in a Native gaol in India? Hem did not think that the Government should hold out, and should persist in injuring the health of men, and perhaps causing their death, simply for the purpose of carrying clause after clause without permitting them to be amended in accordance with common sense. The contention of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) was that the limit of imprisonment should be 15 months. The difference between 12 months and 15 months was very slight, and for this reason—that if a court considered itself bound to give a larger sentence than 12 months it would hardly stop at 15 months, but would give 18 months at once.

§ MR. PARNELL
could not see what reason the Government could have for holding out against the Amendment. The first reason which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given was one which he did not think could be raised to the Amendment. He was not, at first, very certain whether six months ought not to be the limit for which prisoners should be confined in Indian gaols; but in agreeing to the term of 12 months, he did so because he thought there might be seine practical 1329 difficulty in providing that they should be sent home when sentenced to a shorter term. Not that he did not consider the term of 12 months was too long, for 12 months hard labour in an Indian prison, in a climate where every white man was unable to go about during the day time, and was obliged to be assisted by a number of Native servants, who did for him what he did for himself in our climate, was too much. He did not think that there was any objection to 12 months being put as the limit for imprisonment. It had been suggested, by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), that the limit should be fixed at 15 months, because a man might commit an offence in order to get 12 months' imprisonment. He must confess that he did not understand that contention. It seemed to him so utterly impossible that he could not understand it. Did the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, think that men would commit offences which would entail their being sent home in the hold of an English troop-ship to a prison in England, and then sent back to India, on the expiration of their sentence, to rejoin their regiment? He could not understand that any man would do that. If prisoners were discharged from the Service at the expiration of their term of imprisonment, then he could have understood the contention. But it was absolutely impossible to suppose that a man would accept a considerable amount of punishment, being sent home in irons in the hold of a troop-ship, and then being made to do exceedingly hard labour in the prison in England, with the liability of being sent out to India again, and all for the purpose of leaving India. It struck him that 12 months' imprisonment in an English gaol would produce results which a man would carry with him all the rest of his life. It had been said, over and over again, by English Judges, that two years' imprisonment with hard labour was as much as any man could bear. Why, then, should they suppose that men would commit offences entailing all these consequences upon them, simply in order to avoid service in India? Then as to the Indian prisons, they knew absolutely nothing of their discipline and regulations; and it was not right that an 1330 English prisoner should be kept in them for any length of time. No doubt the Governor General could make rules for these prisons; but that House did not know what laws he could make, and he was not amenable to English public opinion, or to the control of that House. He was not in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, during the discussion of the Prisons Bill, was so very much enlightened upon the question that he agreed to material alterations in regulations, as to which he knew nothing until they were brought to his notice, and the rules and regulations in English prisons were laid before Parliament. But the Governor General knew nothing about their proceedings, and was not capable of being influenced by any argument, or Notices of Motion that might be given in that House; but by the clause under discussion they were asked to allow the Governor General to make rules and regulations as to which the House would know absolutely nothing. Perhaps they would be laid upon the Table of the House; but that form was of such small moment that it would go for nothing. They had not the Governor General there—he was not responsible to Parliament in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He would suggest that the Government might agree to the very reasonable Amendment which he had brought forward in a temperate and proper spirit. The objections which the Government had raised to it were absurd and ridiculous, and were, in the highest degree, improbable. Their argument was, that one or two men in India might commit a serious offence in order to be sent home to endure two or three years' imprisonment in England. And because there were one or two hardened criminals in the Service, was it in reason that numbers of other men should be subjected to a term of imprisonment, such as no white man was able to endure? He would ask the Government to re-consider this matter in a spirit of conciliation and concession. This question of prison punishment was one upon which Irish Members felt acutely; the House of Commons, and the people of England, wondered why they took such an interest in it. From the circumstances of the history of their country they had been brought in connection with prison matters. They had 1331 perhaps fortunately been forced up on their attention in the way in which they had not been forced upon the attention of the Home Secretary. Whenever questions of this kind arose Irish Members were bound to be very energetic in watching the actions of the Government. He trusted that the Amendment he had proposed would be assented to by the Government.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that the statement, that the Government had raised objections to this Amendment, was not quite accurate. The objection to the Amendment had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), who had said that if a man in India wanted to be sent home a short term of imprisonment would tempt him to take that means of doing so. He must say that he thought that was very likely to be the case, and that there was really some danger, if they made the term of imprisonment too short. The question really was, whether there was this danger of soldiers in India who wished to be sent home committing offences in order to be so? If that danger existed, he desired to prevent it; and if hon. Members would agree to what lie believed to be a very fair compromise, lie would accept the term proposed of 12 months. He should propose to add to the Amendment the words—"Unless in the case of imprisonment, the court shall, for special reasons, otherwise order." That would operate to prevent men taking advantage of these means of getting home, for it would enable the court to stop them. He fully recognized the necessity of sending prisoners home who were sentenced to longer terms of imprisonment, and his sole object was to prevent that provision being abused. If hon. Members would consent to the addition he had proposed, he would agree to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was very reasonable, and he should be happy to agree to it. Perhaps a Proviso might be added that when the court otherwise directed it should be for some special reason.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he did not object to that.

§ MR. BIGGAR
was very sorry that the hon. Member for Meath had agreed to the alteration of his Amendment, and for this reason—that he believed that, in practice, in India, and in all hot climates, imprisonment for over 12 months simply meant death to a European. Of course, they knew, at all events, they suspected, that the object of the Government was to get rid of all those soldiers who were considered troublesome. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was this—that some warm climates were not so severe as others; and that there would be no great injustice in keeping a man imprisoned there for more than 12 months. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that in a good climate a prisoner would not wish to get home. In a good climate, like that of Australia, a prisoner would be well satisfied to remain in the Colony instead of being sent to sea. Some climates were very much worse than India; but he had been informed that in these hot climates such a thing as imprisonment for more than 12 months did not exist at all; so that the contention of the right hon. Gentleman would have made no practical difference, and he might have agreed at once to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. The Government seemed inclined to do all they could to make the punishment as severe as possible, and ho must say that he thought it bad policy on their part. They should remember how unpopular the British Army was at present, and how unpopular it deserved to be. It was only recently they had heard how an Irish regiment at the Cape had been sent back, instead of being allowed to go to the front, and were thus made practically useless. The Government was bent upon making the position of a soldier as unpleasant as possible, instead of making it as popular and favourable as they could.