Pay and Pension. (Hansard, 5 July 1879)

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had asked him to move to amend the clause, which he would do formally, by moving to leave out from the end the words " or by any Royal Warrant for the time being." These Royal Warrants had created considerable inconvenience; and he thought it was very reasonable indeed, and very desirable that, as far as possible, all public affairs should be regulated by Act of Parliament.

§ MR. PARNELL
was sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did not intend to be discourteous, and that it was owing 1607 to an accident that this Amendment had been dismissed as unworthy even of a remark from him.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
observed, that if these words had been left out the whole machinery of the Army would be disorganized. There were many details, such as stoppages for mess, and bands, and so on, which must be regulated by some authority, and yet could hardly be regulated entirely by that means. There was certainly one deduction which the men always grumbled at—that was for barrack damages.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
explained, that he did not understand that the hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar) had finished his observations. He quite agreed that it was impossible to put into an Act of Parliament all the deductions which should be made.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
asked, whether the clause applied to all parts of the world? In India, there was a practice of making local Acts override Imperial Acts, and of stopping pay from officers under these local Acts wholly irrespective of the Imperial Acts.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, it was entirely new to him that a local Act could override an Imperial Act; and if the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) could refer him more accurately to what he was referring he would endeavour to clear the matter up.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
explained that there was a list under the Articles of War of what deductions were to be made. The Indian Government, a few years ago, passed an Act that an officer in that country, before he was allowed to perform his duty, should take out a licence. That had occurred in his (Sir Alexander Gordon's) own case. He had been sent out by the Horse Guards to serve as a military officer, and he had got his commission in his pocket entitling him to serve, and to exercise his profession; but he had to pay a very large sum, as much as the Governor General himself, before he could exercise his duty.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
observed, that there was no doubt officers were subject to deductions from their pay in a most unjustifiable way. For instance, eight days' pay was deducted for the support of the band from all officers of the rank of captain; but it was not de- 1608 ducted from the pay of subalterns, which he thought very unfair. He was also charged with the expense of his promotion certificate, and other certificates, which was most unfair. An officer who rose from the ranks found these deductions very unjust.

§ MR. ONSLOW
explained, that the licence referred to was a quasi-income tax put upon all individuals in India. He should like to know what the Natives would have thought if they had been liable to this licence tax, while a European, who drew far higher pay in India than officers of the same rank serving anywhere else, had been free from the tax. It would be thought a real and very gross injustice. He was in India at the time the tax was proposed, and undoubtedly there was great complaint at its imposition; but all saw the necessity that every subject of Her Majesty should be taxed equally.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
observed, that this licence tax did not come under the clause at all; but was, as had already been said, in the nature of an income tax, which was also stopped from an officer's pay in England.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he wished to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State for War what was, to a certain extent, a question of drafting; but was, at the same time, an extremely important matter. As he understood the clause, if a man was absent without leave there was an imperative stoppage of his pay. As the clause now stood, he understood that if a soldier was absent for a day his pay must be stopped. That was a radical and important change in the present discipline of the Army, for, under the old Acts, a commanding officer had a discretion in the matter. The first consequence of the change was, that as the word " soldier " included non - commissioned officers, they were now going to punish non-commissoned officers, if they were absent for a day without leave, which was a totally new feature in the Bill. Absence without leave was a very serious offence, on the one hand; but it was also, under some 1609 circumstances, the most trivial offence a man could commit. Then, was part of a day the same as a whole day? It very often happened that a soldier was absent without leave from 10 o'clock at night till 1, and that would imply a stoppage of two days' pay. If that stoppage was to be imperative on the commanding officer, of course, heavy punishment would be inflicted. In some cases, it was not even certain that the man intended to commit an offence. He was asked why he was absent, and his reply might be that he went up to town and missed his train. If that explanation was believed, the excuse was accepted. But, of course, a man could not go on for ever missing trains. But the amount of two days' pay was not the most serious part of the punishment. One of the consequences was to put back a man's good conduct stripe for two years. That meant a loss of a penny a-day for two years, or £3; while if the man had already got a good conduct stripe he lost it for a year, which was a loss of 30s. There were also other consequences which followed from the loss of this stripe which he had not estimated. He wanted the Committee to leave the law as it now stood at present, and to give the commanding officer a discretion. He would, therefore, move, in page 71, line 6, to insert the word " may" instead of the word "shall."

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that he would agree to the insertion of the word " may " instead of " shall." If the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) would look at Clause 135, he would find that he was under a misapprehension. He (Colonel Stanley) had endeavoured to explain that the effect of these two clauses was simply to make it permissive whether a man forfeited his pay or not. Formerly, a man might be absent and yet not forfeit his pay. They wished now to provide that the presumption should be that where a man was absent, he should not receive his pay for the days during which he had been absent It was perfectly possible for a commanding officer, under Clause 135, to say that a man should receive back his pay upon making a proper explanation of his absence. The intention of the Government was to leave the law exactly as it was, and simply to alter the presumption as to the loss of pay. Where a man had been guilty of absence without leave, he 1610 would forfeit his pay for the period of his absence, unless his commanding officer should order him not to do so; it was not intended to make it compulsory upon the commanding officer to stop a man's pay; but the commanding officer would act as he did at the present time, entirely at his own discretion. He wished it to be clearly understood that the law was left exactly the same as at present, and that full power was given to a commanding officer to remit the whole or any portion of the forfeited pay.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
did not agree with the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the practice would remain as heretofore. The question which a commanding officer would now have to decide was not whether he would take away two or three days' pay from a man; but he would have to give his decision as to whether a man was to receive back the pay which he had forfeited by being absent. It seemed to him that this was not a good alteration, and that it would give rise to great confusion. It would be necessary for a man to say now to his commanding officer—" Give me back my pay." As the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had observed, if a man was sentenced to forfeit his pay, it would involve a regimental entry. There was no doubt that, under the new system, a great many more men than heretofore would lose their pay.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
wished to draw attention to the operation of the provision in certain cases for deduction of pay. Sometimes the Volunteers were placed by the Bill under martial law, and in all respects put upon the same footing as the Regular soldiers, and an allowance was given them for going into camp. He wanted to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he did not think it would be unfair for a deduction to be made from the allowance to Volunteers? The allowance was given for the benefit of the whole corps, but it was practically taken by the commanding officer and used as a fund. It was entirely different from pay, and, in his opinion, ought not to be taken away under this provision of the Bill.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that, of course, it would be a matter for the discretion of the commanding officer as to whether he would take away a man's 1611 pay. He imagined that, technically, the allowance could be claimed by each man, unless the rules of the corps said otherwise. By an arrangement made between the men and the commanding officer, the allowance was placed in a fund; but he imagined the men had a right to the money. Of course, where the rules of the corps otherwise prescribed, then a man was precluded by his contract from claiming it.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
remarked that this allowance to Volunteers in camp was in the same position as the capitation grant. Both were given to the men individually; but, practically, formed a fund. It would be impossible for a Volunteer to claim from his commanding officer any sum which might be given him in respect of the capitation grant, or allowance for going into camp. His point was, that if a man were fined under the Bill, and his allowance was taken away from him, then they would be taking away something which was really given for the good of the whole corps. His contention was, that this clause should not apply to Volunteers when under martial law.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
believed that the capitation grant was the property of the men who earned it, unless the rules of the corps otherwise provided. Technically, the capitation grant was the property of each man, and he could sue his commanding officer for not giving it to him, unless the rules of the corps said otherwise. At all events, it was a point for the Civil Law to decide. As regarded the stoppage of any allowance to a man, if it were the property of the corps, then, no doubt, a man would be bound to make it good; or, of course, it was within the discretion of the commanding officer to say whether or not it should be taken away.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
said, that the allowance was given for the benefit of the corps. It was true, no doubt, that the commanding officer of the camp might be the commanding officer of the Volunteers; but it was quite as likely that a Regular officer might be put in command of the camp, and it would be in his power to take away this allowance from the corps. It was not true that the rules of all corps obliged men to give up their right to the capitation grant and vested it in the commanding officer. The contrary was the case with 1612 the corps which he had the honour to command; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were right, he would be liable to be called upon, by every man in the corps, to repay the capitation grant. He did not think that that was the correct view of the matter.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that he had not offered any conclusive opinion upon this matter. This provision, however, applied to the deduction from a soldier's ordinary pay in the Regular Forces, and was not likely to arise in the case of Volunteers.

MR. RIDLEY
wished to point out that in the Definition Clause it would be found that the expression " soldier " did not include a non-commissioned officer. It was perfectly true that he was subject to military law as a soldier; but it was expressly provided that the expression soldier should not include a non-commissioned officer. The clause said— The expression soldier' includes any person belonging to Her Majesty's Regular, Reserve, or Auxiliary Forces, and who is, for the time being, subject to military law, and not an officer or non-commissioned officer, as above defined.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that there had been a long contest as to this definition last year. It was ultimately settled that, for the present, the word " soldier " should include non-commissioned officer. What he wished to know was, whether this particular clause was meant to apply to non-commissioned officers as well as to soldiers?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
apprehended that the clause would apply to noncommissioned officers.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought that the point should be more definitely settled; it was not right that there should be any possibility of mistake about the matter. It did not appear to him that Clause 135 was satisfactory. The effect of taking a man's pay away was to cause a regimental entry to be made, and that had a very serious effect upon a man.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that, as regarded regimental entries, it was intended to follow the existing practice. No doubt, when a man's pay was stopped, a regimental entry would follow, as at present; but it was not intended to follow the practice any further than it existed at the present time. All that they wished to do was to reverse the presumption that a man. who had been 1613 absent was not to lose his pay. They wished now to make a man lose his pay unless his commanding officer remitted the deduction to him; of course, then, a regimental entry would not be made.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that if the deduction were to be remitted the commanding officer would have to make an explanation of the circumstances. He would have to write a letter, or to give some explanation to the superior authorities. Primâ facie, a man, when absent without leave for a day or part of a day, had committed an offence, and was subject to a regimental entry. To prevent that happening, a commanding officer would now have to remit the deduction, and to make an explanation of the circumstances which had led him to do it. The pay would have to be remitted by some formal entry, and the commanding officer would be liable to be called upon to account for having so remitted it. There would be a primâ facie case against the commanding officer for having remitted the deduction. Perhaps this would not affect a strong commanding officer; but it would tend to prevent many weak ones from using their discretion.

THE CHAIRMAN
desired to point out that the subject which the hon. and gallant Member was discussing did not arise under the clause.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
observed, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had pointed out that Clauses 134 and 135 ought to be taken together in dealing with this matter. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had, however, consented to put in the word " may," instead of " shall," he would leave the matter as it stood at that time.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
moved, as an Amendment, in page 71, line 8, before the word " day," to insert " whole." The effect of the Amendment would be that deductions from the ordinary pay of soldiers could only be made for every whole day of absence. He thought that if the law was to be altered it would be better to put it beyond doubt that a man was not to have his pay stopped unnecessarily for an absence of a few hours. It was a serious offence for a man to be 24 hours absent; but half-an-hour, or a few hours, might be a very trivial matter.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that there was no intention to make any change in the law by this clause, but only to alter the presumption as to the deduction of pay. The simple object of the clause was to provide that a man's pay should be presumed to be forfeited by his absence, unless his commanding officer should otherwise order.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought that it ought to be made clear that absence for a few hours did not involve forfeiture of pay. He had seen two or three days stopped from a man's pay for a few hours absence, and he did not think that that ought to be allowed.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
asked why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had changed the 176th Article of War, by which a soldier was made liable to forfeit his pay for any day or days, not exceeding five, for which he should have been absent without leave. Under that Article, commanding officers were enabled, if they thought it right, to make a soldier forfeit his pay. The effect of the alteration would be that a soldier would have to apply not to have his pay stopped. A soldier, when before his commanding officer, might say nothing, and his pay would then be taken from him as a matter of course. In his opinion, it would be better that the presumption should be that the man should not forfeit his pay.

§ MR. BROWN
said, that he had an Amendment on the Paper in the Definition Clause (180) to which, if he might now allude, as the Secretary of State for War had already done so, he would like to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. It was in the same direction as the Amendment now before the Committee, only it made " a day" for the purpose of deducting pay to be not less than six hours, not " a whole day." He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member's observations to the effect that they ought not to allow pay to be taken away for a short absence; but thought the best way to meet the case was by his Amendment at the end of the Bill.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
thought that the best plan would be that he should undertake to consider this clause, and amend it, if necessary, upon the Report. The Government wished to leave the law as it was at present, except so far as it was altered by the Amendment of the 1615 hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown), which he thought very fair.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) was accepted he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
hoped that the Committee would pass the clause in its present form. He would promise to consult his Advisers in the matter, and to see whether or not this clause could be altered. He was desirous of making it perfectly clear that where a man was absent for a certain time his pay should not be taken away for longer than the period for which he was absent.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
did not see any necessity for postponing the consideration of this clause, as there was no alteration in the existing practice, except that " may " was substituted for shall."

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that the object of the Amendment which he had now to move—namely, in page 71, line 9, to leave out " without leave or as prisoner of war," and insert— As prisoner of war, or, if ordered by a court martial or by his commanding officer for every day of absence without leave; was to make it quite clear that pay was not to be stopped unless the commanding officer expressly desired it to be. At present, the commanding officer did not stop the pay unless he thought it was a bad case; but under the system introduced by the Bill, a commanding officer who remitted the deduction would have to send in an explanation. In the Artillery, junior officers would have to send in explanations to the satisfaction of two commanding officers; and it was quite possible that the lieutenant-colonel might allow it, but the full colonel would not allow it. He only gave that as an illustration; but the same thing would often happen in the Infantry and in the Cavalry. He thought the result of the change made in the matter would be that many more soldiers would have their pay stopped than at present. They were now taking away a man's pay by Act of Parliament, and altering the presumption against the soldier. It was really a very important point, for taking away a man's pay involved very serious consequences. If a man happened to 1616 bear a bad character, a commanding officer would give him a heavy punishment. But this Act would make a heavier punishment imperative, unless a commanding officer chose to remit it. He believed that, considering the circumstances under which troops were commanded, about one-half of the commanding officers would object to write letters accounting for their remission of deductions from pay, and many men would be deprived of good conduct pay for very trivial offences. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) removed a part of his objections by reducing it to a longer absence. He did not see that there was the slightest objection to the system as it existed at present.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
wished the Committee to consider the position in which the matter now stood. They had inserted the word " may " instead of " shall." He had been asked why he had reversed the presumption, and for that he had given his reasons. If it could be shown that he were wrong, ho was willing to revert to the original presumption. But it must be remembered that the words in this clause would have to be read in connection with other clauses, and it seemed to him that the whole matter was really one of form, and that the word " may," which they now had inserted in the clause, made it permissive on a commanding officer to make these deductions; and the matter was made still clearer by Clause 135, which gave power to remit any deduction.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he did not pretend to be an authority; but he would draw attention to the fact that Regulations could be issued by the Secretary of State for War, and would probably be issued, which would make these deductions imperative. The Secretary of State for War had power to order commanding officers to make these deductions of pay. Of course, if the Secretary of State for War promised that matters were to be left as they stood in the clause, there would be no question about reversing the presumption.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
remarked that he had already said once or twice that his intention was to leave the law as it existed at present.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that he had to move, as an Amendment, in page 71, line 9, to leave out from the clause the words "or as prisoner of war." The Amendment was one which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He (Mr. Parnell) did not see any provision in the Bill for taking away the pay of an officer who had been taken prisoner of war, and it was unfair, therefore, to take away the pay of a soldier.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, if the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would allow him, he would alter the clause by inserting words which would meet his views. He should propose to insert after " or as prisoner of war," the words, " without his absence is not satisfactorily explained."

§ MR. PARNELL
supposed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman meant that these deductions were to be made if a soldier were taken prisoner by reason of his own conduct.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
If he were taken prisoner, and failed to establish that he did not have it in his power to get away.

§ MR. CALLAN
That is, if he was taken prisoner by any want of due precaution.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
said, that he had to move an Amendment in page 71, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words "to have been caused by his own misconduct." The effect of the Amendment was to prevent the ordinary pay of a soldier being deducted when he was in hospital on account of sickness, certified to have been caused by his own misconduct. There were various objections to the practice of deducting the pay of men who were incapacitated from duty owing to the contraction of certain diseases. The practice of making these deductions was only introduced into the Army some few years ago, and was a complete innovation. It should be remembered that only about 4 per cent of the men were allowed to marry, and there was, therefore, great excuse for them in the matter. The officers of the Army were strongly opposed to this deduction being made, for they said that it induced men 1618 to desert. It was also a strong objection to the system that the pay of officers was not deducted while they were incapacitated from similar causes, although lie had known some officers incapacitated from these diseases for several months. It might also happen that men were situated in districts where the Government had not taken the precaution to protect them from the disease. The greatest objection to these deductions from the men's pay was that it led to the concealment of disease on the part of the men.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
could speak from his own experience as to the ill- effects of this system. Many medical officers had appealed to him during the last few years to do what he could to obtain a reversal of the system, because it was very detrimental to the Army. In his opinion, it led only to deception and to the concealment of disease; men were driven to quack doctors, and very often ruined their constitutions.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, he was of opinion that the practice of deducting the pay of men when they were incapacitated by diseases of this character was a total failure. It led, in many cases, to the concealment and ultimate aggravation of the disease. He had also been informed by a medical officer that he had known cases of men being punished twice over, on the supposition that they had contracted a fresh disease. This was really a question of class legislation, for officers were not subject to the same penalties, although they were equally liable to contract the disease.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
fully agreed with what had been said as to the evil effects of deducting men's pay for these reasons. He had never supported the theory that officers and soldiers should always be treated exactly the same; but he thought that, in this ease, it was the greatest unfairness to stop the pay of a soldier, while the pay of the officer was not stopped, for the same reason. He could see no good result from stopping the pay of a soldier—the State saved no money by so doing, and he could not but think that a great deal more harm than good was done by the practice. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
understood that the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had moved to leave 1619 out the words " to have been caused by his own misconduct or " He would point out that if this were done there would be nothing left to govern the rest of the clause.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
thought, from what had been said, it must be assumed that it was not considered wise to deduct pay on account of illness caused by misconduct of a particular kind. Whether it would be wise to strike out the whole of the sub-section he did not know. With regard to the merits of the Amendment, he might say that there was no doubt that the effect of the stoppages was to cause a great deal of concealment, and thus to aggravate the disease. He was placed in this difficulty about the matter—he understood that all the questions in connection with this subject were already under the investigation of a Committee of the House. At the same time, he had no objection to the words " by his own misconduct " being struck out of the sub-section. He was very strongly in favour of the Amendment; but, perhaps, it would be necessary to provide for the case of a man who wilfully injured himself, and, if necessary, he would bring in words on the Report to provide for that case. He would consent to the Amendment, on the understanding that he should be at liberty to insert words to govern the other cases of misconduct.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought there could be no objection to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taking the course he proposed, and inserting words to deal with other cases of misconduct, if he thought it necessary, on Report. He would, however, point out that self-mutilation was already made an offence under the Bill.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought there were ample guarantees against self-mutilation in the clause, which had already been passed.

§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOT
said, that, in his opinion, it would be best to omit sub-section 2 altogether.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had an Amendment to propose to sub-section 3 of this clause—namely, after the word " destruction," to insert the word " directly," thus making a soldier only liable to have deductions made from his 1620 pay to make good, amongst other things, destruction directly occasioned by the commission of any offence by him.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
considered it would be unadvisable to insert this word. It was surely sufficient evidence that the damage or destruction had occasioned by him, if he were convicted of the offence.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, a very important question arose between the nature of direct and indirect damage, as to which he might allude to the well-known example of the Alabama Claims. If they were to make a soldier responsible for every expense, loss, damage, or destruction, he could be made liable for a good deal more than he ought to be in common fairness. No doubt, this was a legal point, and a man ought not to be held responsible for indirect damage arising out of his act. He thought that the Amendment might fairly be accepted, for he could imagine many cases in which it would be unfair to the soldier to make him responsible for damage not directly occasioned by him. He did not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should have any hesitation in accepting the Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
was of opinion that the clause was perfectly clear as it stood, and he hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted.