§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the Bill [17th July] (on Consideration, as amended); and which Amendment was, in page 2, line 19, to insert, after the word "enemy," the words "in such manner as to show cowardice."—(Colonel Stanley.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. E. JENKINSstrongly objected to any addition to the offences liable to the death penalty. Those who objected to flogging would resist to the utmost any attempt to increase or to 761 widen any of the offences now liable to that punishment. He would like to know what motive the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had in proposing this vague Amendment?
§ COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that in military parlance misbehaving meant showing cowardice before the enemy; but, lest it should be taken in a more extensive sense, he proposed to limit it by inserting the explanatory words of the Amendment. Instead of extending the punishment of death, as the hon. Member supposed, it would go in the direction of further limiting its infliction.
§ MR. O'DONNELLobjected to the Amendment, and to the punishment of death being inflicted for an offence so vaguely described as "cowardice." He thought the Amendment should be amended, so as to show that cowardice would only be punished where it was demonstrated in some unmistakable manner. Imputations of individual cowardice were easy to be made when a scapegoat was wanted, and a mere act of inadvertence might be mistaken for cowardice. By the German Military Code, before a soldier could be convicted of the crime in question, he must have "shown cowardice bywords or signs to induce his comrades to take flight."
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he would remind the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that a soldier could not be convicted of cowardice until after full inquiry by a court martial, and it might fairly be left to that tribunal to determine whether the particular offence of cowardice was deserving of punishment by death or otherwise. The cowardice contemplated by the Amendment was evidently such as would be committed in the face of the enemy, and no one could doubt that it was the worst possible offence a soldier could commit.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. PARNELLrose to move the omission of sub-section 7 from the clause, making this offence punishable with death.
§ MR. SPEAKERthereupon pointed out to the hon. Member that he could not do so. They had already dealt with the portion of the section to which the hon. Member referred, so far as to authorize the insertion of the words, "in 762 such manner as to show cowardice." The sub-section must, therefore, stand, and could not be left out.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would have moved to omit several of the sub-sections; but after the adoption of the Resolution last night, he could only now, by the Rules of the House, attempt to modify them. He objected to making soldiers brave by the lash; and, for his own part, he believed that if a soldier preferred flogging to death, it would be that he might have the opportunity of shooting the officer who ordered it. He would move an Amendment to the clause to limit still further its operation, by the addition of the words, "by words or signs inducing his comrades to take flight," to the sub-section. He considered it was very desirable that some such words should be inserted, for he protested against the folly of shooting a young soldier who happened to show nervousness in his first battle, and who would soon get over it. He recollected that when he first addressed the House he felt very considerable nervousness. People's nerves were not always the same; but they were the most uncontrollable portions of physiology, and punishment ought not to be inflicted for what, after all, might be a matter of physical and nervous infirmity, as to which it was not in the power of a man to control his action. In submitting the Amendment, he was only following the analogy of the German Military Code. The hon. Member concluded his remarks without moving the Amendment to which he had referred, whereupon,
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no Question now before the House. The hon. Member for Meath had said that he intended to conclude with an Amendment, but had sat down without doing so. By taking that course, he (Mr. Speaker) considered the hon. Member had shown great disrespect to the House.
§ MR. PARNELL (coming up to the Chair with his Amendment)I beg to say, Sir, that when I rose I read out my Amendment, "bywords or signs inducing his comrades to take flight." I supposed that, in doing so, I had done all that was necessary in moving it; but, of course, if I am wrong—for I am not much experienced in the proceedings of this House on Report of Committees—I shall, in future, comply with the 763 Form, and endeavour not to make a similar mistake again. I can only say that I had no intention of showing any disrespect whatever.
§ [The hon. Member then handed his Amendment to Mr. Speaker, saying that, if in Order, he now formally moved it.]
§ Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "by words or signs inducing his comrades to take flight."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL STANLEY, in opposing the Amendment, said, that all matters connected with the offence contemplated by the sub-section would have to be proved upon evidence before a court martial, and it might safely be left to the discretion of that tribunal to deal with them properly.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 20, to insert, after the word "death," the following words:—
Provided, That in the case of persons charged under sections two, six, and seven, serious loss to Her Majesty's forces has been proved to have been the consequence of this act.His object was to limit the number of offences involving the penalty of death, which, under the clause, appeared to him to be of too general application. In moving the Amendment, he was only asking the House to follow the provisions of the German Military Code. In his opinion, leaving out of view altogether the powers it gave for flogging, the Military Code of England was the most bloody and barbarous in Europe; and he was, therefore, obliged to be very determined in his opposition to it, especially as some persons had attributed inhumanity to him and those with whom lie had the honour to act. For himself, however, he must say that he denied in toto the imputation that he was less humane than any other hon. Member. He would conclude by moving the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 20, after the word "death," to insert the words "Provided, That in the case of persons charged under sections two, six, and
764
seven, serious loss to Her Majesty's forces has been proved to have been the consequence of this act."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he could not accept the Amendment, which laid down the principle that the heinous-ness of the offence should be measured by its consequences—a principle which was entirely foreign to the discipline of the English Army.
CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEalso opposed the Amendment, and remarked that the idea of proposing it could only have originated in a general ignorance on the part of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) of military matters and the exigencies of discipline. He (Captain Milne-Home) considered the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War conclusive upon the point.
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIR, in supporting the Amendment, said, that within the last day or two he had had an opportunity of speaking to a distinguished German officer, the Military Attaché at the German Embassy, who was in charge of a corps d'armée of 36,000 men during the whole of the Franco-German War, and who informed him that not a single German soldier in that corps had been shot for any offence whatever. He also stated that other Generals who held similar positions had had the same experience; so that in several corps d'armée, numbering between 100,000 and 200,000 men, it had not been found necessary to inflict death in a single instance. The same circumstance existed in connection with the French Armies; and he should, therefore, like to know why the same motives which guided and restrained Frenchmen, Germans, and Americans, should not control Englishmen in the Army? To say they would not was an aspersion upon our nation and Army. Why not, he asked, inflict flogging upon officers as well as men?
§ MR. SPEAKERdesired the hon. Baronet to confine himself directly to the Amendment. The question of flogging was not before the House.
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, he had conceived that flogging was so mixed up with the death penalty that it might refer to it.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to Order, and said, that if the hon. Baronet was going to dispute Mr. Speaker's ruling, he apprehended Mr. Speaker would desire to submit the matter to the House.
§ MR. PARNELLdenied that the hon. Baronet had contested Mr. Speaker's ruling.
§ MR. SPEAKERI invited the hon. Member to apply himself to the Amendment before the House, and if he will do so there will be no interposition on my part.
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRwillingly bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and though he had intended to address several observations to the House on the subject of flogging he would refrain from doing so. He supported the Amendment.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasserted that though soldiers in Germany and France were not ordered by courts martial to suffer corporal punishment, they were often thoroughly well flogged and licked on active service.
§ MR. RYLANDSthought that if they were ever to get through the Session they must refrain from re-opening the discussion upon flogging. Indeed, after the decision last evening, no other course was open to them. He could not support the Amendment, because it limited to a great extent the action of Commanders in time of war.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, when in Committee, he withdrew his Amendments limiting the cases in which flogging could be inflicted, on the distinct assurance that he would be able to discuss them when the Report was under consideration to-day. If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was satisfied with the victory of the Liberal Party last night, all he (Mr. Parnell) could say was, he sympathized with him.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONcould not regard the Amendment in any other light than as being opposed to equity and justice.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Offences in relation to the enemy not punishable with death).
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, to omit sub-section 5, under which, he said, it would be possible for a court 766 martial to sentence a newspaper correspondent to penal servitude for anything he wrote home to his newspaper. He could not imagine how any newspaper correspondent could, while this subsection was maintained, perform his duty properly. He would be entirely at the beck and nod of any Commander, who might summon him before a court martial for anything that he wrote, and he might be sent to penal servitude.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out sub-section 5 of Clause 5.—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That sub-section 5 stand part of the Bill."
§ COLONEL STANLEYmade no reply.
§ MR. BIGGARasked why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was silent as to the views of the Government upon the question? For himself, he could see no reason for not accepting the Amendment.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsuggested that the word "wilfully" should be introduced after the word "writing," in order that a man might not be punished for writing in innocence and without any wilful intent.
MR. SULLIVANthought some words should be inserted, in order that protection should be afforded to newspaper correspondents against the irascibility of commanders whose conduct they might have criticized. Under the clause, the correspondent of The Daily News in South Africa might be brought under the action of a court martial. Newspaper correspondence was beneficial to the public, and he objected entirely to the action of this clause. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would state the views of the Government on the Amendment.
§ MR. RYLANDShoped the clause would be modified, so as not to include newspaper correspondents. Occasionally, they could not help "spreading reports calculated to occasion alarm and despondency," and for that they might be subjected to severe punishment.
§ MR. CALLAN, on the other hand, hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. He had no sympathy with sensational war correspondence. With all due respect for the great services rendered by Dr. Russell and other equally celebrated correspondents during 767 late wars, lie thought there were far superior considerations to the conventional respect paid to the newspaper correspondents at the seat of war. Commanders should have power to deter correspondents from writing sensational reports to increase the circulation of the papers rather than give true information. He wished, further, to point out that great injury had been done to the French cause during the Franco-German War in consequence of correspondents spreading reports calculated to cause unnecessary alarm.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it would not be right to strike out the sub-section; neither did he think these words were unduly harsh in an Article of War which had existed for a long time. Nothing could have been more unfavourable than reports sent home, at various times, from persons with the Army on foreign service; and the authorities had not exhibited any desire to take action, unless the effect of the reports was to produce alarm or despondency among the troops. If a man went about among them, saying—"We have got no supplies; they are thinking nothing about us at home; why don't you desert?"—there could hardly be a question but that he should be liable to severe punishment. Why was he to be exempted from the consequences merely because he put it in writing? The law had always been read and acted upon in the light of common sense. A man would be liable to punishment only on conviction by a court martial composed of officers who were gentlemen, and were sworn to try the facts. However strong the words might be, he did not believe that any practical application of them would be found to be unduly harsh.
§ MR. E. JENKINSurged that newspaper correspondents were now for the first time brought under military law, and pointed out that the old Mutiny Act had not referred to newspaper correspondents, and that the spreading of alarming reports which was made punishable under the old Act meant the spreading of these reports in the Army itself. Nothing should be done to restrain free and honest criticism of the operations of an Army and the conduct of its Generals in letters sent to journals at home. There was all the difference between the conduct described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of 768 State for War and the writing of such letters as Dr. Russell sent from the Crimea. Although those letters did undoubtedly create alarm and despondency at the time, yet he would remind the House that they ultimately led to great and much-needed reforms. The words, he thought, should be—" create alarm and despondency in the Army."
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seemed only to be afraid of the despondency which might be created amongst the soldiers, he would propose that the words, "amongst the troops in the field," be inserted in the section.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that his proposal to omit the sub-section was, perhaps, too sweeping, and, in order to allow the Amendment just suggested to be moved, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERruled that ho could not do so, as he had already addressed the House.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 42: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRmoved, as an Amendment, to add to the sub-section the following rider, after the word "or"—"insubordination: Provided such reports are wilfully spread among the troops in the field."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 37, to insert, after the word "or," the words "insubordination: Provided such reports are wilfully spread among troops in the field."—(Sir Tollemache Sinclair.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the words proposed were not free from objection. This section had existed for a considerable time in the old Act, and it had never been found to operate prejudicially. Its wording showed that it could not apply to newspaper correspondents.
§ MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the fact that this provision had existed for some time could hardly be, because, on refer- 769 ring to the old Act, he found that the words "in the vicinity or rear of the Army" were in the clause, and this continued certainly as late as 1871. Correspondents did not publish their letters in the vicinity or rear of the Army.
§ MR. E. JENKINSthought the Government might agree to put in these words, which formerly were in the old Act. The creation of alarm and despondency at home was never intended to be punished by the Mutiny Act. Newspaper articles from South Africa might have great effect in this country, but could have none on the Army there.
§ MR. ANDERSONobserved, that this clause, as it stood, seemed intended to catch newspaper correspondents. He should like to know, if that provision had been in existence, what would have happened to the correspondent of The Standard with General Roberts in the Khost Valley? Instead of sending him to the rear, they would have tried him by court martial and given him penal servitude. All that that correspondent was doing was informing the people of this country of the barbarous and cruel manner in which that officer was destroying peaceful villages in the country which the British troops had invaded, and through which they were carrying fire and sword, and behaving altogether in a manner opposed to the principles of civilized warfare. This newspaper correspondent did no more than tell the people of this country of the manner in which the war was going on. But in the future the British public must expect no impartial accounts, nothing but what a commanding officer might allow.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 218: Majority 147.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
MR. SULLIVAN, in moving the insertion, in line 37, of a Proviso limiting the operation of the sub-section to cases in which the offence consisted in spreading reports calculated to create despondency, alarm, or "desertion in the vicinity or in the rear of the Army" said, the words were taken from the Article of War upon which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War declared the sub-section to have been based. Without the addition of 770 the words which he desired to see inserted, the clause would enable an officer to interfere when interference was not required with a member of the Press in the legitimate exercise of his duties.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 37, to insert, after the word "or," the words "desertion: Provided, That the offence consists in spreading' such reports in the vicinity or rear of the Army."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsupported the Amendment. He hoped the Government would give way, seeing that the Amendment merely maintained the present law and practice.
§ MR. O'DONNELLhoped the House would stand firm and resist to the last the ill-concealed object of the Government to terrorize over the Press.
§ COLONEL STANLEYasked the House to reject the Amendment, which was exactly similar to the one which had just been negatived by the House. It should be observed that the Article of War upon which the clause was based did not require that the reports should be spread upon active service, whereas the clause before the House related only to cases occurring on such service.
§ MR. E. JENKINSapproved the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, would disadvantageously affect the position of newspaper correspondents. Those gentlemen had often done good service by exposing the rottenness of the Army, and they ought not to be brought within the operations of the clause.
§ MAJOR NOLANregarded the clause as directed against newspaper correspondents.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESdeprecated the discussion, as going again over ground which had already been discussed in Committee. The clause would put newspaper correspondents in no worse position than they would be placed in by the Articles of War. They were formerly under the arbitrary power of the Commander of the Forces in the field. This Bill protected them by its definite provisions; and it was, therefore, necessary there should be some equivalent provision against their abusing their position, and doing harm to the Army.
§ MR. RYLANDSthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had failed to show 771 any reasonable ground for altering the old Articles of War in regard to newspaper correspondents. Without some proviso, such as the one under notice, their position would be seriously affected.
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) seemed to forget that some of these newspaper correspondents were officers serving in the Army.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 231: Majority 172.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Offences punishable more severely on active service than at other times).
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 3, line 2, to leave out sub-section 1, by which the punishment of death was incurred by any soldier who, in search of plunder, left his commanding officer. In the German Army, the punishment for that offence was three years' imprisonment, and yet the German Military Code was the severest in Europe. He did not mean to say that he would divide the House, for he did not want to waste time—[Laughter]—but he was prepared to challenge, by way of protest, every case in which this Bill proposed a severer punishment than was contained in the German Code for the same offence.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, to leave out sub-section 1 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That sub-section 1 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BIGGAR, in seconding the Amendment, asked how it was to be proved that a man left his commanding officer in search of plunder? The proposition of the Government was utterly unreasonable, and, therefore, he supported the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 4, to leave out sub-section 2, by which a soldier was liable to the punishment of death if, without the orders of his superior officer, he left his guard, picket, patrol, or post. In the German Code these offences were 772 punished with various kinds of arrest, or, at the outside, with two years imprisonment, unless where some distinct damage to the Army was the result.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, to leave out sub-section 2 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That sub-section 2 stand part of the Bill."
MR. SULLIVANsupported the Amendment. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had said that he was indisposed to take up the time of the House in dividing upon these matters. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] If that was the way in which the announcement of the hon. Member was to be received—the announcement that he would endeavour to facilitate the Business of the House, by not taking Divisions, but by recording his protest against the death sentence—he himself would challenge the proposition of the Government in a matter so perfectly reasonable, so that, at any rate, there might be a record of the names.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 17: Majority 228.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 3, line 8, the omission of sub-section 5, imposing the death or lesser penalty for impeding or refusing to assist the provost marshal or any officer in the execution of his duty. He remarked that under the sub-section a man might be shot for refusing to flog a comrade who might be his own brother.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, to leave out sub-section 5 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ Question put, "That sub-section 5 stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 16: Majority217.—(Div. List, No. 178.)
§ MR. O'DONNELL,in moving, in page 3, line 12, to omit sub-section 6, making it an offence to do violence to a person bringing supplies, or injury to the property or person of a resident in the country, said he did so to show that those with whom he was acting did not prefer the bullet to the lash, as had 773 been asserted. When these death clauses had been disposed of, he would make no further objection to the progress of the Bill, except on Clause 44. These offences were not in the German Code; and though, undoubtedly, it contained many offences deserving death, the phraseology of the sub-section was so large and so vague that all degrees of offences might be included in it, and the effect might be that persons guilty of the minor degrees might not be actually shot, but under the terms of the section could be shot, and, of course, could be flogged. He would prove that the majority was a shooting majority as well as a flogging majority, and he would confine his protests to offences visited with the death penalty.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out sub-section 6 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnel.)
§ Question proposed, "That sub-section 6 stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. PARNELLtaunted the Government with having a majority as favourable to the bullet as the lash.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 12: Majority 217.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved the omission, in page 3, line 16, of sub-section 6, of the words "breaks into any house or other place in search of plunder." He did so because it was very wide in its terms and would easily expose a man to be flogged, if not to be shot. He contended that the Government should more clearly define what were the offences intended to be included under the sub-section. The punishment for this offence, unaggravated by any other circumstances, was imprisonment under the German Code.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, to leave out subsection 7 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ Question put, "That sub-section 7 stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 10: Majority 201.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
§ And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till this day.
774§ It being five minutes to Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
§ House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.