FURTHER PROCEEDING ON CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED. [18th July.]

HC Deb 18 July 1879 vol 248 cc774-815

Bill, as amended, further considered.

Clause 6 (Offences punishable more severely on active service than at other times).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved an Amendment, in page 3, line 39, at end of clause, rendering an officer convicted by court martial liable to be cashiered, and a soldier to imprisonment, for committing any of the following offences:— Discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatever, negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, or elsewhere; or (2) makes known the parole or watchword to any person not entitled to receive it; or, without good and sufficient cause, gives a parole or watchword different from what he received. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman explained that he proposed the Amendment in pursuance of an undertaking given by him in Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 39, at the end of Clause 6, to insert the words "Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences (that is to say):—

1. (1.) By discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making Signals, using words, or by any means whatever, negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, or elsewhere; or
2. (2.) Makes known the parole or watchword to any person not entitled to receive it; or, without good or sufficient cause, gives a parole or watchword different from what he received,

shall on conviction by court martial be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, on such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."—(Colonel Stanley.)

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

MR. PARNELL

, believing that it was not fair to inflict imprisonment with hard labour for the offence of negligence simply, moved to amend the proposed Amendment by adding the words "without hard labour."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "imprisonment," the words without hard labour."—(Mr. Parnell.)

COLONEL STANLEY

thought they might safely trust to the discretion of the court martial, whether the punishment should or should not be accompanied with hard labour. He was sure they would not inflict the punishment unless necessity called for it,

Question, "That the words 'without hard labour' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed, to.

Clause 9 (Disobedience to superior officer).

On the Motion of Colonel STANLEY, Amendment in page 4, line 42, after the word "officer," by inserting the words "in such a manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 (Drunkenness).

MAJOR NOLAN

moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the words "whether on duty or not," with the object of separating the punishment for drunkenness off duty from that for drunkenness on duty. As regarded the latter, he proposed to leave the Bill untouched; and with respect to the former, he desired to make the degree of punishment less severe than it was at present. A soldier would, under the Act, be liable to imprisonment for the first time he was found drunk off duty, though, practically, he was only admonished for the first two or three times. It was left quite uncertain when he would be punished, and that uncertainty itself was an evil which should be remedied. He regretted that several hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who had promised to support the Amendment, were not, owing to the matter coming on suddenly, in their places.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the words "whether on duty or not."—(Major Nolan.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

thought it would be unadvisable to accept the Amendment. The matter had been carefully looked at; and it had been considered necessary to put the offence of drunkenness in the form—he admitted the somewhat complicated form—in which it appeared in the present Bill; because, as the law at present stood, the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War were not at one on the point. The Commander-in- Chief was, in all these cases, the Court of First Instance, and it was within his discretion to decide whether or not each particular offence of this character was grave enough to be sent for trial. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment; and he believed that the proposals he had placed on the Paper would, practically, meet the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The amount of difference between them was extremely small; and he trusted, after his explanation, the Amendment would be withdrawn.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 25: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 181.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42 (Offences punishable by ordinary law).

MR. PARNELL

moved, as an Amendment, at the end of clause, to add the following Proviso:— That, where practicable, every person subject to military law who commits any of the offences mentioned in Schedule of this Bill shall be proceeded against before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, and, oh conviction, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Statute or Statutes dealing with such offence.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 42, to insert the words "Provided, That, where practicable, every person subject to military law who commits any of the offences mentioned in Schedule of this Bill shall be proceeded against before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, and, on conviction, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the statute or statutes dealing with such offence."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

pointed out that this was already provided for in the last section of the clause—"when in Her Majesty's Dominions;" and he did not think it was advisable for them to go any further than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

moved to insert an Amendment, the object of which, he said, was to render sub-section b more intelligible. Sub-section b provided that a person subject to military law when in Her Majesty's Dominions might be tried by any competent civil court for any offence for which he would be triable if he were not subject to military law. He proposed, in page 17, line 31, to strike out the word "may" in this sub-section, and to substitute for it the words "shall when practicable."

Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 31, to leave out the word "may," and insert the words "shall when practicable."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

opposed the Amendment, because, instead of improving the clause, it would only introduce into it fresh uncertainty and difficulty.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45 (Scale of punishments by courts martial).

MR. SULLIVAN

moved an Amendment, with the view of abolishing distinction of punishment between officers and private soldiers.

Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 20, to leave out the words" in the case of officers."—(Mr. Sullivan.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

said, as a general rule, officers and men were on the same footing with regard to civil crimes; but with regard to military offences it was different, and he should oppose the Amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

moved an Amendment in page 19, line 24, in order to except Cyprus in time of peace from the possibility of being considered as a "foreign country in our military occupation," in which the punishments of death or flogging could be inflicted for certain military offences.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, line 24, to insert, after the word "service," the words "except in Cyprus in time of peace."—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that no corporal punishment was inflicted except on active service; and that, therefore, troops serving in Cyprus in time of peace would not be liable to it. He saw no difficulty in construing the paragraph. Active service meant the presence of a soldier— With a force engaged in operations in a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy —a condition certainly not fulfilled in the case of service in Cyprus. There could be no necessity for the Amendment, as our occupation of Cyprus was not of a hostile character.

SIR HENRY JAMES

could not altogether concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. In his opinion, we were in military occupation of the Island. Further than that, the Bill was to be interpreted by soldiers and not by lawyers; and it should, therefore, be most explicit in its terms.

COLONEL STANLEY

observed, that the highest legal authorities had held that the words of the Bill were consistent with the interpretation placed on them by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and he (Colonel Stanley) fully agreed with his hon. and learned Friend's opinion that the Amendment was unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

moved to add at the end of the clause a Proviso to the effect that no corporal punishment should be inflicted on soldiers whilst in friendly occupation of foreign countries.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, line 34, to insert, after the word "days," the words "Provided, That no corporal punishment shall be inflicted on soldiers while in friendly occupation of a foreign country."—(Mr. H Samuelson.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he could not accept the Amendment, because the words were not required, as corporal punishment could not be inflicted, except on active service, and soldiers in friendly occupation were not on active service.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (for Mr. E. JENKINS)

moved the addition of the following Proviso— That in time of peace within the United Kingdom no officer or soldier shall be kept in arrest and without trial for a longer period than eight days, without the written order of the Commander in Chief expressing the grounds on which the continuation of the arrest and delay of trial are ordered.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 16, to insert, after the word "custody," the words "Provided, That in time of peace within the United Kingdom no officer or soldier shall he kept in arrest and without trial for a longer period than eight days, without the written order of the Commander in Chief expressing the grounds on which the continuation of the arrest and delay of trial are ordered."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

said, the Amendment was wholly unnecessary, as its substance was contained in Clause 6.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

moved the insertion, at end of Clause 45, after sub-section 8, of words providing that a Volunteer should not be liable under any circumstances to be sentenced by court martial to penal servitude, imprisonment, or corporal punishment. The hon. Member said, that by Clause 164 Volunteers were made subject to the same law on active service as the Regular Forces, and he thought they ought not to be subject to any but the civil law.

Amendment proposed. In page 20, at the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "A volunteer shall not be liable to be sentenced by a court martial under any circumstances to the punishment of penal servitude, imprisonment with hard labour, or corporal punishment."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

did not think that these words were necessary, because it would be borne in mind that words had been inserted in the Bill to the effect that a Volunteer when on active service should not come under severer punishment without having fully understood, before he incurred that liability, that he did so incur it. It was not desirable to make distinctions between different branches of the Service as suggested by the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

supported the Amendment, so far as regarded corporal punishment, and hoped the Government would protect a Volunteer soldier from liability to the very degrading punishment of the lash. It was really quite unnecessary, for they had not to deal with desperate, unwilling soldiers in the Volunteers; and, on the other hand, this liability might deter many from giving their aid as Volunteer soldiers.

MR. A. H. BROWN

regarded the Amendment as unnecessary.

MR. SULLIVAN

moved to amend the Amendment so that the Volunteers could only be exempted from corporal punishment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "the punishment of penal servitude, imprisonment with, hard labour, or."—(Mr. Suilwan.)

MR. PARNELL

expressed his willingness to alter his Amendment so as only to exempt Volunteers from being sentenced to corporal punishment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

MR. MONK

supported the Amendment with that limitation.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

also supported the exemption of corporal punishment only.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he bad always heard the Volunteers say that if they were ever called upon to serve in the field they would like to be placed on exactly the same footing as the Regular Army. He was quite sure they would never be subjected to corporal punishment, for he believed they would never put themselves in the position to require its infliction.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

strongly demurred to the opinion of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell). He doubted whether men of education in the Volunteer Force would be content to be placed on the same level as what had been called gaol-birds.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was sure that if the Volunteers never committed the offence for which the punish- ment could be inflicted they would never receive it; but if they did commit such an offence, then they deserved it.

MR. SULLIVAN

characterized this as a piece of sophistry. ["Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman had denied there was any force in it, when others wished to make officers liable to the same punishments as soldiers.

SIR HENRY JAMES

supported the Amendment, saying there had been no reason for exempting officers from the liability to corporal punishment which did not apply equally to the case of Volunteers.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

urged that the Amendment was worthy of the favourable consideration of the Government. It had been an argument used by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, in support of the lash, that it was a necessity in consequence of the bad class of men that got into the Army; but that with a better class of men it might be done away with. Now, they could not hope to get a better class of men in their Army than the Volunteers; and, therefore, if the Amendment were rejected, the Government would be declaring that, no matter how good a class of men the Army might contain, the lash should not be abolished. He also charged the Government with inconsistency in resisting the Amendment. On the previous evening, they stated there would be no necessity for flogging if the material of our Army was of the same class as that of Germany, while they now proposed to flog the Volunteers, who were soldiers of an éate class.

MR. BIRLEY

reminded the lion, and learned Member who had last spoken (Sir William Harcourt) of the inconvenience of having in the field an Army subject to two different systems. There would be some force in the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman if all our Forces were of the same class as the Volunteers; but while an Army was composed of different classes it was necessary they should be all under the same law. It was to be hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR. RYLANDS

said, it was useless to remind the Government of their inconsistency. The fact was that flogging had become the great Conservative Party cry. The Government stuck to flogging, simply because they had nailed their colours to the mast, and were determined to abide by it.

MR. W. E. DENISON

was a Volunteer officer of 20 years' standing, and he knew that the feeling of Volunteers was that there should be no distinction between the treatment of Volunteers on active service and ordinary soldiers.

MR. WHITWELL

would oppose the clause, as he disapproved altogether of flogging, and more especially for Volunteers.

COLONEL BOUSFIELD

considered that the same punishment in the field should apply to all branches of the Service. He held that if a Volunteer, when brigaded with the Regulars, committed an offence to which military law attached flogging, he ought to be flogged, if he deserved it.

Question put, That the words 'a volunteer shall not be liable to be sentenced by a court martial under any circumstances to corporal punishment' be there inserted.

The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 143: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 182.)

MR. PARNELL

moved the insertion, at end of Clause 45, of the sub-section— A female camp-follower shall not be liable to be sentenced by court martial to corporal punishment.

Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly.

MR. PARNELL

, in the hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would agree to some limitation of the number of times a soldier should be liable to corporal punishment, moved the addition of the following sub-section at the end of Clause 45:—" A soldier shall not be sentenced to corporal punishment more than once in six months."

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "A soldier shall not be sentenced to corporal punishment more than once in six months."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it appeared to reverse the principle of the ordinary criminal law of the country.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he had expressed his opinion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) only a few days ago, and should, therefore, not occupy the time of the House with any remarks. It was impossible to insure that a man would not commit a crime twice within a period of six months, and, therefore, he could not assent to the proposed Amendment.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

MR. PARNELL

said, that there had been evidence presented to the Committee, during the discussion upon the Bill, that no uniformity existed with regard to the cats used throughout the Army and the Navy. His opinion was, therefore, that one pattern should be adopted, and that it should be without knots. It would be remembered that, although it had been stated that there were no knots in the Admiralty cats, it had turned out that most of them had knots. He trusted the Government would show their sense of the evidence which had been adduced with reference to this point, by agreeing to his Motion to add the following sub-section at the end of Clause 45:— The instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be a cat-o'-nine-tails according to the sealed pattern approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, D.A.G., but without knots.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "The instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be a cat-o'-nine-tails according to the sealed pattern approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, D.A.G., but without knots."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not think the Amendment appropriate to the Act; but considered that it would be satisfactory to have some assurance that the character of the punishment should not differ as between the Army and the Navy. As he understood the matter, a certain cat was used in the Navy without knots, and that in the Army, and for the Marines when they were on shore, a knotted cat was in use. He could see no reason why the punishment in the Army should be more severe than it was in the Navy. Why should a Marine when onboard ship be punished with one instrument, and when on land with another? There was obviously no reason for this difference, and he thought it would be well that equality of punishment should be assured.

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that he had previously promised that a pattern should be sealed, in order that there might be uniformity with regard to the instruments of punishment. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that it would not be well to insert these matters in an Act of Parliament. With respect to uniformity of punishment between the two Services, he could not, of course, speak off-hand as to what might be done by the Admiralty, but would confer with his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the question. There was, he thought, a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, although he could not give a positive promise at that moment in the direction indicated.

MR. MACDONALD

said, there had been much confusion in the minds of the Members of the Government as to the "cats" used in the Navy. That was strange, seeing that they had two hon. and gallant Admirals at hand to inform them on the subject, one being the fog-horn of the Government—the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone)—and the other the amiable figure-head of the Treasury Bench—the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Portsmouth. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I am not an Admiral.] Those hon. and gallant Members could, at least, have given a clear explanation upon this point to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who would thereby have been freed from the miserable plight he was put in at the moment. The punishment should be equally gentle for both soldiers and sailors, and the most gentle "cat" he (Mr. Macdonald) knew was the Army cat. He denied, however, that the cat produced was the cat used in the Navy at the present time. He had, himself, when on the Pacific Coast, only about three years ago, been assured by an officer in Her Majesty's Fleet that the cat used on board the ships on the station had nine tails, and nine knots upon each tail, whereas the Admiralty cat produced had no knots. If there were to be knots at all, they should be used equally for the soldier and for the sailor. He trusted that the hon. Mem- ber for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would press his Amendment to a Division.

MR. CALLAN

reminded the House that an assurance had been given, in the course of the preceding discussions, that the cat in use in the Army had no knots in it; but that it had turned out that the cat in use in the Army and the Royal Marines on shore was knotted. The only sealed cat in the Service was the "Marine cat," and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished that cat to be used in the Army, but without knots. He trusted his hon. Friend would persist in dividing the House, until he had ascertained who were in favour of knots and who were against them.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

moved the omission from the proposed Amendment of the words— A cat-o'-nine-tails according to the sealed pattern approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, D.A.G., but

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out all the words after the words "shall be," in line 1, to the word "but," in line 5, inclusive.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

SIR HENRY HAYELOCK

said, the Amendment went in the direction which he himself had indicated as desirable, not with the object of diminishing the punishment, but to prevent its being left in the hands of individuals to be made more severe in one case than in another. It was, in his opinion, perfectly sensible and perfectly practicable. He could not see, if corporal punishment was going to be maintained, why the Act should not regulate the character of the instrument by which it would be inflicted. He felt it was right to insist, as the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had insisted, that, during the short time that in his opinion this punishment would endure, it should be regulated both on sea and on land in a manner which would prevent its being varied at the caprice of individuals.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

felt himself bound to vote for the Amendment. He thought the House was entitled to have an assurance from the Government that the instrument of punishment used in the Army would not be more severe than that used in the Navy.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, everybody had admitted that the "Marine cat" was the most severe of all the instruments exhibited to hon. Members of the House. It was not pretended that the Army required a more severe instrument than the Navy, and the instrument for the Navy had been submitted to, and approved by, the First Lord of the Admiralty. What possible reason, therefore, could there be that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should not tell the House that he was prepared to accept that instrument?

MR. BIGGAR

said, that notwithstanding the extent of the humanity claimed by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, they always seemed to hold out for the extreme amount of torture that could by any possibility be inflicted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had assured hon. Members, when the Bill was in Committee, that he would make the punishment as moderate as possible; but he (Mr. Biggar) thought it might be assumed that it was intended to make the instrument of torture quite as severe as that used heretofore in the Army. Thanks to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), the House had gained an insight into the way affairs of this kind were manipulated, and one result of the hon. Member's inquiry had been that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had been constrained to come forward and apologize for having misled the Committee as to the facts relating to the cats. If some stipulation were not now made, when the Mutiny Bill of next Session was brought forward, another debate would certainly take place upon the subject. He would suggest that the Government should adopt for use in the Army the cat without knots, with the object of making the punishment as moderate as possible.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was ready to accept the modification of the Amendment as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but, in doing so, wished to point out the mistake which had been made in postponing the consideration of these matters until the Report. The Government, now feeling that they could pass the Bill through the House by a majority, refused the slightest conces- sion; whereas, had this Amendment been proposed in Committee, he (Mr. Parnell) felt sure that it would have been accepted. The question was this. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated that the Army cat had no knots. It had since appeared that the Army cat had knots. All that was asked by the Amendment was, that he should adopt the cat without knots, and make the pattern uniform throughout the Army. If this was not agreed to, it would go forth to the country that the Secretary of State for War insisted upon retaining, as the instrument of torture, a cat that had knots, and which might be of any pattern that the commanding officer might think proper.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Main Question, as amended, proposed, That the instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be without knots.

MR. SULLIVAN

reminded the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he had warned him not to give way to the blandishments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and yield the advantage they had in Committee. However, they could renew the struggle next spring, when the Continuance Bill came up. He had no doubt that the Government were influenced to maintain the lash by a feeling of pride; but could not help thinking that they would next year generously abandon it. It seemed to him better that the Amendment should be withdrawn entirely, and that a statutory definition of the instrument should be given in the Schedule. It was surely anomalous to deal with the subject of punishment without attempting to define the instrument by which it was to be inflicted. He suggested that the lashes should not exceed 12 inches in length, and that the handle should not exceed eight inches in length and four ounces in weight.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 137: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 183.)

MR. PARNELL

moved as an Amendment that, at the end of Clause 45, the following sub-section be inserted—

(Manner of infliction.)

Sentences of corporal punishment shall be inflicted in manner directed by rules, to be issued by a Secretary of State, and care shall be taken that the infliction of such punishment shall not be continued after the skin is broken, or blood drawn, and that no flogging in front is permitted, and that if the infliction of a sentence of corporal punishment is stopped for any cause, before completion, it shall not be afterwards completed. Daring the course of these debates, it had been stated by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for the County of Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) that he had never seen the skin broken in flogging, although he had seen many instances of flogging. There was also the testimony of other hon. and gallant Officers who stated that they had not only frequently seen the skin broken, but blood drawn, and particles of flesh flying about. If the Government desired to follow the noble and gallant Lord the Member for the County of Waterford, who was a Naval officer of considerable distinction, in his testimony as to how flogging was to be restricted, he would ask them to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) now proposed, and to provide that if the infliction of a sentence of corporal punishment was stopped for any cause whatever before its completion it should not afterwards be completed. Sentences had been frequently stopped, because a man had not been able to bear the punishment, and it was not right that he should be afterwards brought out to suffer the rest of his penalty. Such a proceeding was calculated to inflict grievous torture which no man should be called upon to endure. With regard to flogging in front, he did not apprehend that it would be permitted under ordinary circumstances; but he knew that it had taken place under somewhat extraordinary circumstances. It had taken place where martial law had been proclaimed, and he would not be surprised if Zulus who happened to be caught were flogged in that way. He thought it was exceedingly desirable that they should provide in that Act of Parliament that flogging was to be used as little as possible as a torture, and, therefore, he begged to move the sub-section which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "Sentences of corporal punishment shall be inflicted in manner directed by rules to be issued by a Secretary of State, and care shall be taken that the infliction of such punishment shall not be continued after the skin is broken or blood drawn, and that no flogging in front is permitted, and that if the infliction of a sentence of corporal punishment is stopped for any cause before completion, it shall not be afterwards completed."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

wished the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to understand that it did not at all follow that because the Government objected to the insertion of this sub-section in the Bill they would sanction the practice against which the Amendment was directed. Undoubtedly, they would not; but the objection to the insertion of the sub-section in the Bill was owing to reasons which he had already explained. He would repeat that he could not accept the Amendment, because it would be impossible to describe all the circumstances under which punishment could be inflicted; and it would be impossible to provide that no punishment should be continued after the skin had been broken or the blood drawn. He was bound to say that, so far as his experience went, he had never seen blood drawn. With regard to flogging in front, he would ask the hon. Member to state any case, within the last 50 years, in which that had been permitted; for his own part, he had never heard of the practice. He would not go as far as to say that it had not occurred; but he would only say that he had never heard of it except from the hon. Member. With regard to the part of the Amendment relating to the completion of sentences of corporal punishment which had once been stopped, he knew of no cause, nor did he think it possible that a case could occur, why a man should be taken to a hospital and then brought out to receive the remainder of his sentence. Such a thing would be contrary to the custom of the Service, and he believed it would be positively illegal.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

observed, that it appeared to him that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War objected to that part of the Amendment which stated that blood was not to be drawn. He thought that if they were to have their flesh it would be as well to have their blood also. Perhaps the objection might be met by leaving out all the words after the word "State," thus providing that sentences of corporal punish- ment were to be inflicted in the manner directed by rules to be issued by a Secretary of State. He begged to move that all the words be omitted after the word "State" in the Amendment.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

seconded the Amendment. He conceived that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) as amended in the manner proposed. He could not see any reason at all why, if this punishment were to be retained, it should not be regulated by all the means in their power. There did not seem to him to be any shadow of reason why it should not be provided that the punishment was only to be inflicted in accordance with rules laid down by the Secretary of State. It was a reasonable and a practical suggestion, and on those grounds he recommended it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The adoption of the proposal would not limit the punishment; it could only prevent it from being abused. He could see no reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not assent to so reasonable a proposition. It had been decided to retain corporal punishment for reasons with which he did not agree; but, that being so, he thought that it should be recognized that the manner of its infliction should be regulated as well as the punishment itself being authorized. There would be no difficulty at all for the Secretary of State for War to draw up rules regulating in detail the application of the punishment in the same manner as he was going to draw up rules regulating the procedure of Courts of Inquiry. They desired that while this punishment was retained as a matter of necessity, although for reasons with which many of them did not agree, that, at all events, the evil attendant on the punishment should be prevented, and they should preclude the punishment from being used capriciously.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "State," in line 2, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)

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

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

thought it would expedite Business if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War agreed to the clause of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), in the manner in which it was now proposed to be amended.

MR. MILBANK

wished to ask a question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, with reference to flogging with the left hand as well as with the right. Sentences of corporal punishment were, according to the Amendment, to be inflicted in the manner directed by rules drawn up by a Secretary of State. The practice now was that men were flogged beginning with the right hand, and when a man had received a certain number of cuts from the lash from a right-handed man, a left-handed man—usually a drummer in the Infantry, and a farrier in the Cavalry—was put on to give him the remaining quantity of lashes. The consequence of that practice was, what was known in the Army as "cross-cuts." He had observed that the noble and gallant Lord the Member for the County of Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford), in the Division which had just taken place had voted with the minority. He would like to know from him whether he was speaking correctly in what he said? His opinion was that when a man had received some 20 lashes from a cat with knots the skin was broken. It was another question whether blood flowed, for that would probably happen after three or four cuts; but he maintained that after the skin was broken a man ought to be cut down from the triangles, and let off the remainder of the punishment. If the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford was in his place, perhaps he would inform the House whether he was in favour of corporal punishment being inflicted under rules directed by the Secretary of State. For his part, he (Mr. Milbank) could assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he had seen the skin broken many times, and he knew many officers now serving in the Army who had also seen it.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that his right hon. and gallant Friend would have no objection to adopting the Amendment, if all the words after "Secretary of State" were struck out.

MR. PARNELL

said, that he would be very happy to agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson). He merely wished to suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that these rules should be laid before the House.

MR. MACDONALD

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was perfectly right in saying that flogging in front had been abandoned. He believed it had been abandoned for something like 40 years; but it did exist for a long time. He thought that the mode of flogging required regulation, for there were several practices—there was flogging half-length and flogging three-quarter-length, the latter of which was of a very much more severe character than the former. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to issue instructions upon the subject of flogging, he hoped he would insert, amongst the directions, that the officer who was present at every act of punishment should direct that flogging should only be half-length. In that case, the injury would not be so severe, and the danger to the sufferer was not so great as that incurred by three-quarter-length; and, above all, he should instruct that there should be right-handed and left-handed flogging.

MR. BIGGAR

was sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had agreed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson), for it was his conviction that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were disposed to inflict very cruel punishments. For his part, he expected that the rules that would be framed by the three right hon. Gentlemen who had charge of the different Departments of the Prisons, the Army, and the Navy, with reference to flogging, would permit all the cruelties that could be inflicted. He fully expected that the joint labours of those three right hon. Gentlemen would end in the infliction of every cruelty that was possible.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD

thought there had been some misunderstanding with regard to this matter. He had been asked why he voted against the Government just now? He did so, because he understood that the question was whether the cat to be used for flogging was to have knots. He really thought there must be some mistake with regard to this matter, for he did not believe that any hon. Gentlemen on those Benches would vote for a cat with knots. If there was any doubt upon the matter, it would be far better to put in a clause to the effect that there should be no knots in the cat.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

moved, to add, at end. of Clause 45,the following sub-section:— (Annual returns of sentences of flogging.) Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all sentences of flogging which have been inflicted in whole or in part, specifying the number of lashes and the nature of the offence.

Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, in Clause 46, page 20, line 20, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the line to the end of line 27.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 (Power of commanding officer).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, in page 21, line 36, after sub-section (c), to insert, as a further paragraph— Where the charge is against a soldier for drunkenness not on duty, the commanding officer shall deal with the case summarily, unless the soldier was guilty of drunkenness after being warned for duty, or unless he has been guilty of drunkenness on not less than four occasions in the preceding twelve months.

Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, in page 21, line 38, before the words "is in temporary command," to insert— Is in command of a detachment of troops consisting of, or equivalent in strength to, not less than four troops, or companies, or

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, in page 22, line 2, after "twenty-one days," to insert as a new paragraph— Provided, That where imprisonment is awarded for absence without leave, the commanding officer shall have regard to the number of days during which the offender has been absent, and in no case shall the terra of imprisonment awarded exceed the term of absence by more than four clear days.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that it had now been provided that a commanding officer was only to inflict such a term of imprisonment for absence without leave as should correspond with the period during which the man had been absent. The commanding officer was thus only a registry clerk, and there was no case in which necessity for this paragraph would arise. He apprehended that this Amendment was not required.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he was disposed to agree with the view taken of the Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and he did not think there would be any good in retaining the words.

Amendment agreed to; paragraph, inserted accordingly.

On the Motion of Major NOLAN, Amendment made, in page 22, line 2, after "days," by inserting— Provided that the number of days' imprisonment does not exceed the number of days' absence.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) was absent; but he (Mr. C. S. Parker) would move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, to insert the word "district" before the word "court martial" in page 22,line 16.

Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 49 (General and district courts martial).

MAJOR NOLAN

moved, as an Amendment, in page 23, line 33, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the words "not less than five." His object was to insure that a court martial should always consist of five officers. In the cases where they provided that three officers should be sufficient, they were the very cases in which, courts martial ought to be most stringently looked after. They ought, in his opinion, never to have less than five.

Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 32, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the words "not less than five."—(Major Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that this question was much discussed in Committee, and, while he agreed with the views of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) to some extent, experience had shown that, in certain circumstances of the Service, and especially in certain Colonies, it was practically impossible to obtain more than three officers. Considerable inconvenience would result from the limitation to five. On the West Coast of Africa, for instance, and other Colonies where there were not many officers serving, five would be very rarely obtainable, and the result would be to keep the prisoner detained for an unnecessary time. The balance of many years' experience had shown that the numbers proposed in the clause were the best; and he, therefore, thought it was better to adhere to what had been proved by practice.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would retain the number mentioned in line 32, because he proposed to alter the clause himself, lower down, so as to give three alternative courses, and to have seven at home, five where they were obtainable, and where five were not obtainable, then three. He believed that would meet the exigencies of the Service and the wishes of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) at the same time. He therefore proposed, in line 35, to move the insertion of certain words.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should be put first.

MAJOR NOLAN

withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 23, line 32, to leave out all the words from "consist of," in order to insert these words— Not less than seven officers: Provided, That if in any place not in the United Kingdom, India, Malta, or Gibralter, in the opinion of the officer who convenes the court (such opinion to be expressed in the order convening the court, and to be conclusive), seven officers are not, having due regard to the public service, available, the court shall consist of five officers, unless, in the opinion of the said officer (such opinion to be expressed in the order convening the court, and to be conclusive) five officers are not, having due regard to the public service, available, in which case the court martial may consist of three officers.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

asked, whether the acceptance of the Amendment excluded the one he had stated it was his intention to propose?

MR. SPEAKER

Yes.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 52 (Challenges by prisoner).

Amendments made.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 26, line 18, to leave out "two-thirds are required to concur," and insert "one third are expressed to be sufficient."

MAJOR NOLAN

asked, what was the meaning of the phrase that one-third should be expressed to be sufficient?

COLONEL STANLEY

explained, that these Amendments had to do with objections raised by a prisoner. They all hung together.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

complained that it was impossible to understand Amendments moved in this way without explanation. He was sure neither he, nor his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had the least idea what the effect of the clause would be when these Amendments were inserted.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

thought the alteration made was quite intelligible, and fell in quite easily with the previous changes. He thought, however, there must be some mistake in inserting the word "one-third."

MR. C. S. PARKER

also was of opinion that it was not business-like to insert Amendments which they did not understand. There must be some mistake, as his hon. Friend had pointed out. In many places in the Bill, a majority of two-thirds was received; but there was no place where the vote of one-third carried the decision.

Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 55 (Confirmation, revision, and approval of sentences).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 30, line 2, after "authority," to insert— And where a court martial is held in a Colony, and there is no such superior officer in that Colony, the Governor of that Colony shall have authority to confirm the finding and sentence of such court martial in like manner in all respects as if he were such superior officer as above mentioned.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had never heard of the principle contained in the Amendment, of allowing the Governor of a Colony to confirm the finding of courts martial. It would be extremely dangerous as a precedent when martial law was proclaimed; and it was, in his opinion, unfair to bring up such a clause on Report, the principle of which was totally unprecedented.

COLONEL STANLEY

explained, that the Amendment was intended to apply to very rare cases, which might happen, for instance, in such places as the West Coast of Africa, where, the decision of the court martial having to be sent home for confirmation, a man might be kept, in consequence, a considerable time in prison. The object of the Amendment was, therefore, to save the detention of the prisoner.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 63 (Execution of sentences of imprisonment).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "civil," in page 34, line 38.

Amendment agreed to; word struck out accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 (Clause B. Provost marshal).

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 40, line 35, after "authority," to insert— On any soldier, but in the case of persons who are employed by or are in the service of any of Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, it shall be lawful for such provost marshal to award and inflict punishment for minor offences, for dealing with which he may not consider it convenient to convene a court martial, subject always to regulations issued for his guidance by the general or other officer commanding; said, the Bill as it then stood contained a great anomaly, which the Amendment he was about to move was intended to remedy—namely, that all camp-followers, and those who were described in the Amendment as persons in the employ and Service of Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, must be tried by court martial for any sort of offence which they might commit. He was aware that provision was made in the Indian Military Code to meet this case. But this would certainly not meet the case of, for instance, the persons employed in South Africa as carriers by Sir Garnet Wolseley, all of whom would have to be tried by court martial for any offence they might commit. It was necessary that some organization should be provided by which, minor offences might be checked; and he, therefore, moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 40, line 35, after the word "authority," to insert the words, "On any soldier, but in the case of persons who are employed by or are in the service of any of Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, it shall be lawful for such provost marshal to award and inflict punishment for minor offences for dealing with which it may not be considered expedient to convene a court martial, subject always to regulations issued for his guidance by the general or other officer commanding."—(Colonel Arbuthnot.)

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

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the practical difficulty could be got over by convening a small standing court martial to deal with camp-followers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 75 (Change of conditions of service).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, the addition of the following words at the end of the clause— Or for any period of time not exceeding twelve years in the whole from the day on which he enlisted.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 (Mode of enlistment and attestation).

MAJOR NOLAN

said, it would be useful to insert a provision against the enlistment of men when under the influence of liquor, and he proposed to add words which would decide a doubtful magistrate to stop the enlistment of recruits in that condition. It had been objected that an Amendment which was proposed in Committee with this object would be looked upon as an insult to the magistrates; but the words that he desired to introduce could be acted upon by the magistrates without any loss of dignity; and he therefore moved, in page 42, line 34, to insert the words— And shall not proceed with the enlistment, if he considers the recruit under the influence of liquor.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

pointed out that many recruits at the time of their enlistment were, although not very drunk, just able to understand what was said to them when they were prompted.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 (Power of recruit to purchase discharge).

CAPTAIN MILNE-HOME

said, he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) was not in his place to bring the weight of his experience to bear upon the points which he (Captain Milne-Home) wished to urge in connection with the Amendments to the clause standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Mem- ber and himself. It was not his intention to take the extreme course of moving the rejection of the clause, which had been already discussed and disposed of in Committee; but he could not help feeling that its retention, at all events, in the form in which it then stood, would be detrimental to the Service, and a source of unfairness to many soldiers serving in the Army. He objected to the clause altogether, because it treated of a matter which he considered to be one of Departmental detail that ought to be dealt with by the military authorities. Without wishing to detain the House, he would only place the Amendments before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in the hope that he would turn round in his place to say that he agreed to them. He was, however, obliged to remind the House that the clause presented an entirely new principle, and he thought the House should be informed by whom that principle had been recommended; because, if he mistook not, no such recommendation was made by the Committee upstairs. The 21st Article of War provided that a soldier should not be dismissed from the Service without a discharge granted according to General Order, and the Warrant then in force stated that no soldier could demand his discharge as a matter of right. The present clause, however, allowed a soldier of under three months' service to claim his discharge upon the payment of £10. His (Captain Milne-Home's) first Amendment was to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "one," in line 32, page 43, of the Bill. He objected to the period of three months named in the clause upon the score of the expense to the country which it entailed. This was particularly apparent in the case of Cavalry regiments, in which the training of a recruit during a period of three months cost from £20 to £30. If, therefore, the soldier was discharged at the end of three months, the country would thereby be at a loss of £10 to £20; because, on his discharge, he had only to pay the sum of £10 for the use of Her Majesty. The man would leave the Service a much better article, so to speak—well conducted, set up, drilled, and, in short, a very much more marketable commodity in the labour market than he was before he joined it. It must also be recollected that if a man, after three months' service, was discharged, another man would have to be brought in to fill his place who had no service at all. With regard to his second Amendment, he thought that if the clause was to stand in its present form, the commanding officer ought to have something to say with reference to a recruit's leaving at the end of three months, because great inconvenience might result from this, especially if a large number of men claimed their discharge at one time. Under those circumstances, more work would be thrown on their comrades who remained in the regiment; and he, therefore, thought that the men ought not to be allowed to claim their discharge except with the approval of the commanding officer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 32, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "one."—(Captain Mine-Home.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped the House would not accept the Amendment. The subject had been discussed at considerable length in Committee, and the present regulations had met with the general approval of the House. His own convictions in the matter were strengthened by the recommendations of a Departmental Committee consisting of very experienced officers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 83 (Prolongation of service in certain cases).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 6, to leave out the word "active."

Amendment agreed to; word struck out accordingly.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 12, at the end, to insert, as a separate paragraph— If a soldier required under this section to be discharged or sent to the United Kingdom desires, while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign power, to continue in Her Majesty's service, and the competent military authority approve, he may agree to continue as a soldier of the regular forces in the same manner in all respects as if his term of service were still unexpired, except that he may claim his discharge at the end of such state of war, or, if it is so provided by such agreement, at the expiration of any period of three months after he has given notice to his commanding officer of his wish to be discharged.

Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 84 (In imminent national danger, Her Majesty may continue soldiers in, or require soldiers to re-enter, army service).

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 18, after "all," to insert "or any."

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 26, after the word "enlistment," to insert— And the period during which his service may be prolonged under the foregoing provisions of this Act.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 86 (Discharge or transfer to reserve).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

moved, as an Amendment, in page 48, line 4, after "Act," to insert "or the Acts relating to the reserved forces." The hon. Gentleman said, in explanation, that that and the following Amendment were for the purpose of enabling a soldier to be continued in the Reserve after having served his time in the Army. Under other Acts, a soldier could be kept in the Reserves when his period of Army service had expired, and the object of the Amendment was to make it clear that he could do so with his consent.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

moved, as an Amendment, in page 48, line 6, to add at the end "or, with his assent, transferred to the reserve forces,"

Amendment proposed, In page 48, line 6, after the word "discharged," to insert the words" or with his assent transferred to the reserve forces."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

thought that those words were useless. Under the Reserved Forces Act, anyone who pleased and was eligible might go into the Reserves. There was no power to transfer a man without his consent.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 90 (Justices of the peace for the purposes of enlistment).

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, that as the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Colonel Naghten) was not in his place, he (Mr. Samuelson) would move the Amendment which stood in his name. Militia officers were always subject to military law, and it would be quite impossible for them to act as justices of the peace as the clause stood. To remedy that he would move in page 50, line 42, after the word "Act," to insert "except officers of Militia while the regiments to which they belong are disembodied."

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 91 (Enlistment of foreigners and negroes).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

moved, as an Amendment, in page 51, line 7, to leave out the words "so enlisted." The object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear how far aliens were eligible for the position of commissioned officers in Her Majesty's Service. The clause under notice provided for the enlistment of aliens as soldiers in Her Majesty's Army, and proceeded to enact that aliens so enlisted should not be competent to hold higher rank than that of warrant officer or non-commissioned officer. It seemed hard that after having served a certain period as soldiers, aliens should be incapable of being made officers, unless it were also clear that they were incapable of being made officers if they had not entered the ranks at all. He proposed to omit the words "so enlisted," in order to make it quite clear that no alien should be capable of holding higher rank in Her Majesty's Service than that of warrant or non-commissioned officer. It would, of course, be open to an alien to be naturalized and then to hold a commission, whether he had served in the ranks or not.

Amendment proposed, in page 51, line 7, to leave out the words "so enlisted."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'so enlisted' stand part of the Bill."

MAJOR NOLAN

deprecated so strict a line as that proposed being drawn. The suggestion came at an important time; because, if the late Prince Imperial had had a more defined position, he would probably not have been allowed to have entered on the expedition which resulted in his death.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Another Amendment made.

Clause 101 (Liability to provide billets).

MR. O'SULLIVAN

moved, as an Amendment, in page 54, line 35, after the word "alehouses," to insert "bakers, butchers, and refreshment house keepers." He hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have no objection to the insertion of this Amendment. Under the present system of limiting billeting to alehouses and inns, there was often a great want of accommodation. He did not see why the butchers and bakers, and refreshment house keepers, should not be under the same liability to accommodate the troops as the inn-keepers. Many times he had seen great inconvenience result from the accommodation being limited, as it now was, to public-houses. He trusted it would be extended according to the terms of his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 54, line 35, to insert, after the word "alehouses," the words "bakers, butchers, and refreshment housekeepers."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

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

MR. CALLAN

hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secre- tary of State for War would not yield to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). The butchers and bakers only kept houses for their own accommodation; whereas, by the Acts under which public-houses were licensed in Ireland, they were compelled to provide accommodation for the public. He trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not inflict private soldiers upon the butchers and bakers, but would limit the accommodation, as at present, to licensed houses.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, that the question of billeting was of some importance. The Bill placed the Irish law of billeting upon the same footing as the English. Formerly, billeting in private houses took place in Ireland. It was not necessary for him to say more than that he could not accept the Amendment. He should be prepared, however, to make arrangements to prevent inconvenience to the troops, if it were brought to the notice of the authorities.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

considered that the convenience of troops on the march was a matter of great importance. At present, much inconvenience was suffered from the troops having to be billeted exclusively in taverns. If the butchers and bakers had the best houses in a town, then he thought that the troops ought to be billeted in them. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. ONSLOW

pointed out that, by the provisions of the Bill, all persons selling wine, brandy, spirits, strong waters, cider, or metheglin by retail were compellable to give accommodation to the troops. He thought it would be going too far to make the butchers and bakers also take the troops in.

MAJOR NOLAN

understood that a new Schedule was to be framed fixing the prices for billeting. It would be absurd to make the butchers and bakers liable to have troops billeted upon them, for their houses were as much private houses as the linen drapers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

Clause 103 (Accommodation and payment on billet).

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 56, line 13, after the word "billets," to insert "and the officer or non-commissioned officer autho- rised to demand such billets." The effect of the Amendment was to give an officer or non-commissioned officer a right to reject a billet he did not consider suitable. There were opportunities at present for some innkeepers to escape receiving troops by agreement with the constable, the excuse being given that all the beds in their hotels were engaged. In consequence of that, troops had frequently to be billeted two or three miles away from their place of parade. That had happened at Leicester, Reigate, and other places; and he had known it done, although the innkeepers had plenty of accommodation.

Amendment proposed, In page 56, line 13, after the word "billets," to insert the words "and the officer or noncommissioned officer authorized to demand such billets."—(Major O'Beirne.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

did not think it would be wise to insert these words in the Bill, as they would introduce an entirely new principle. Hitherto, billets had had to be demanded from the civil authorities entitled to issue them, and the matter was entirely in their hands. Moreover, he should not like to leave so large a discretionary power in the hands of the non-commissioned officers. It would be far better to leave the discretion in the hands of the civil officials.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 126 (Arrangements with Indian and colonial governments as to prisons).

MR. PARNELL

said, he had to move an Amendment in page 69, to add, at the end thereof— And in all cases where the court has so otherwise ordered, returns shall be annually laid before Parliament specifying such sentences, and stating the special reasons for such order in each case. This Amendment was one which he thought the Government would agree to. It referred to the limitation placed upon sentences of over twelve months' imprisonment inflicted abroad. It had been provided that unless the court otherwise directed the punishment should take place in England. He only wished for Returns to be laid before Parliament giving the special reasons why courts martial had decided that the imprisonment should take place abroad.

Amendment proposed, In line 69, to insert, at the end of Clause, the words "and in all cases where the court has so otherwise ordered, Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament specifying such sentences, and stating the special reasons for such order in each case."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he had no objection to the proposal in principle. He did not think, however, that it would be desirable to have Returns of all the cases laid before Parliament. If any particular case were required, then a Return in respect of it could be moved for. It would cause a great deal of useless labour and expense to have Returns made in all cases.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 127 (Duty of governor of prison to receive prisoners, deserters, and absentees without leave).

MR. PARNELL

moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of clause— And Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all proceedings and evidence taken at inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners.

Amendment proposed, In page 69, to insert, at the end of Clause, the words "and Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all proceedings and evidence taken at inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

observed, that the evidence and proceedings at inquests on prisoners would be too bulky to be conveniently laid before the House.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

did not see why the evidence in these cases should be laid before Parliament more than in other cases. No Returns were required in ordinary cases, and he could see no reason for their being required here. If the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished that Parliament should have cognizance of these matters, of course, everyone knew that they could take cognizance of them. Any particular case which might arise could be called attention to; but it would only lead to unnecessary labour and expense to have such Returns as the hon. Member wished.

MR. PARNELL

said, that if he were allowed to do so he would amend his Amendment, by striking from it the words, "proceedings and evidence taken at," and it would then read as follows:— And Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the Amendment could not be made, unless the House would first allow the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and he could then move the proposed amended Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 69, to insert, at the end of Clause, the words "and Returns shall lie annually laid before Parliament of all inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 116: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 184.),

Clause 128 (Establishment and regulation of military prisons).

MR. PARNELL

said, the next clause—128—was a most important one, which involved a question not settled till the Report, for two reasons; first of all, they awaited the decision of the House as regarded the question of corporal punishment; and, secondly, they were waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission which was charged to inquire into the question of prison discipline.

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member has no Amendment to move, I shall call upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to move his Amendments.

MR. PARNELL

replied, that he proposed to conclude with a Motion in order to put himself in Order. The Report of the Royal Commission had been placed on their Table. He himself objected to flogging in prisons more than to flogging in the Army, because flogging in prisons must be an entirely unnecessary punishment. A man was under complete control. It could not be said that they were then in the presence of the enemy, and that flogging was, therefore, necessary for the preservation of discipline. A man might be punished in a variety of ways, and they had at hand in a prison all kinds of mechanical appliances for the purpose. They could put a man in a dark and solitary cell for seven days, or they could half-starve him on bread and water, or do a number of other things which would reduce him to subjection. The Commission, however, he was sorry to say, had reported in favour of it, though they said it was very seldom used, and so on.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member for Meath that the question raised here is Clause 128.

MR. PARNELL

replied, that Clause 128 was the clause he was speaking upon. He was sorry that he would not be able to move an Amendment on the question, because he had to leave for Ireland by the 7 o'clock train. However, he could inform hon. Gentlemen opposite that one of his hon. Friends would take charge of his Amendment. It was really of such an important character that he must ask the House to allow them to discuss this question fairly and fully, when due and proper consideration could be given to it. This was really a question of great importance, and he exceedingly regretted that the decision of the Royal Commission had been against him. He did not believe flogging in prisons to be at all necessary, for they had done without it in Ireland, and if they could do without it there, surely it was unnecessary here. He would not, however, pursue the question then; for at that hour—2.45—it was unfair to ask the House to do so. He would, therefore, request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to concur in the adjournment of the debate, in order that the matter might be fully, calmly, and coolly discussed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit he had not been unfair to the Government, and he had no desire to be unfair to them. He understood there must be a Saturday Sitting, and, therefore, they might surely be allowed to conclude the Bill then. He begged to move that further consideration be adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of going on. He was not at all disposed to complain of the conduct which the hon. Member for Meath had pursued in the discussion of this Bill upon Report; but he thought the feeling of the House was decidedly in favour of proceeding until it was finished. Then he hoped they would be allowed to read it a third time, so as finally to conclude their labours upon it. If the House were disposed to do that, it would not be necessary to have a Saturday Sitting. The Commencement Bill would have to be taken on Monday. He thought it would not be so very great an inconvenience to give another hour or two.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not press the Motion. He must feel it was impossible that the feeling of the House could be changed upon the question of flogging now, even by an adjournment of the debate till Saturday morning.

MR. BIGGAR

reminded the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that due opportunity would be given for the discussion of Amendments, and he would ask him whether there could be a proper discussion after the present hour? No Motion for adjournment had been made till after 2.30, and he did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to give them the trouble of going to the Division Lobby at such a time.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

would urge his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) not to proceed with his Motion. There could be no doubt that his hon. Friend had been animated by a sincere desire to improve this Bill. He must confess, however, that in the present temper of the House, and after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not expect to add to the very important victories he had already achieved. He, therefore, thought that no end could be gained by protracting this debate any longer. The hon. Member for Meath was going to Ireland to pursue his patriotic labours there, having achieved victories of which any man in the House might be proud. Whatever might be the representations of hon. Members, or the misconceptions of his conduct, these were victories on which he could look back with pride. They had discussed this question of flogging over and over again—they had debated it under almost every conceivable circumstance. Although he was far from saying it would be unreasonable to ask the House to adjourn, and to continue the discussion on another day, he thought they would be wise to be satisfied with the substantial victory achieved, and he would, therefore, appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. DILLWYN

also appealed to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to withdraw his Motion, as the consequence was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, it was now, if the Bill were finished that night, unnecessary to have a Morning Sitting next day. He would, therefore, suggest that the Motion should not be pressed to a Division.

MR. CALLAN

also appealed to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to withdraw his Motion. If he read the intention of line 21 of the 128th clause aright, he found that the corporal punishment of 2o lashes was an addition to the general power given in military prisons; and they were told, also, that it was necessary for commanders in the field to have this power. ["Order, Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

Is the hon. Member referring to Clause 128?

MR. CALLAN

replied, that this was a Motion for continuing the debate. He knew from whom these interruptions came, and he was conscious that the spirit which animated the flogging Gentlemen below the Gangway, who were in favour—

MR. SPEAKER

I must invite the hon. Member to address the Chair.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was addressing himself to the Chairman, in calling1 his attention to the spirit which animated a portion of the House, in interrupting him whilst he was making an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to facilitate the progress of Public Business. He would not condescend to appeal personally, directly or indirectly, to hon. Members who were in favour of flogging; but he would appeal directly to his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), with reference to this Motion, and would ask him not to press it.

MR. PARNELL

felt the force of what had been said, and did not think they could do much good in pressing this question any further. The House was really not in a position to discuss the question as it ought to be discussed; while, if they had a Morning Sitting, the House would feel rather injured at being called upon to discuss once more the question of flogging. He would have an opportunity of bringing this forward on the Army Estimates, and he thought he might fairly postpone it till then. He, therefore, should not propose to move any Amendment in Clause 128. He should, indeed, take no further part in this matter, but would renew his opposition to the prison cat on the Irish Estimates before the close of the Session, and deal with it more effectually in that way.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 164 (Persons subject to military law as soldiers).

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not object to it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman could hardly contemplate leaving the Bill in its present state, and he really thought he might consent to this Amendment without injuring his position.

Amendment proposed, In page 94, line 15, to insert, after the word "law," the words "and such persons shall, for purposes of military control and discipline, be subject to such regulations as may be issued from time to time by the general or other officer commanding, though not specified in this Act."—(Colonel Arbuthnot.)

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

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he was very sorry, but he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 177 (Interpretation of terms).

MR. H. SAMUELSON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 106, line 21, after "military," to insert "and hostile." He wished to impress upon the Government that something certainly must be done to meet the case of Cyprus. It was certainly not a hostile occupation. It was an occupation, there was no doubt, and it was a place of arms. They were also bound to give it up in case they did certain things which it was not at all likely they would do. At the same time, it was clear that Cyprus was not a Colony, nor part of the Dominions of Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, something ought to be done to bring Cyprus under the administration of the law.

Amendment proposed, In page 106, line 21, to insert, after the word "military," the words "and hostile."—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

supported the Amendment, observing that Cyprus was not a colony, and was not dealt with as such. If they would look at line 38, page 106, it would be seen that a foreign country meant any place not situate in the United Kingdom, the Colonies, or India. By putting in the words "or Cyprus," the clause would be made perfect.

MR. COURTNEY

said, by that proposition, no doubt, the case of Cyprus would be met. At present, the clause did not deal with cases where they might be in possession of a country, or part of a country, in which they were not carrying on active operations. They might, for instance, be in occupation of part of Belgium, Portugal, or Denmark, and these cases would not be dealt with at all under the present Bill. He thought the insertion of the words would meet the case very fairly.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, he had no objection to the words suggested; but it seemed to him that the phrase "military occupation" was perfectly well understood. It was an occupation by the military forces as distinct from the civil government, and where there was an occupation by the military forces they ought to have extraordinary powers.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was not a question whether it was a hostile occupation. For instance, supposing they were in occupation of Eastern Roumelia, in time of peace, would they allow a death-penalty to be enforced under such circumstances?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 92: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 185.)

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, he had already explained that he would, not move any of his Amendments, if the Government would accept one of them; and if he knew the Government were about to accept this one, he certainly would not have put the Committee to the trouble of division.

Other Amendments made.

Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House," put, and agreed to.

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped he might appeal to the House, for reasons of Public Business, to read the Bill a third time at once.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Colonel Stanley.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

would take that opportunity of hoping that his right hon. and gallant Friend would further consider an Amendment which they were not able to discuss fully—the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson). He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped in "another place" the difference between a military and a hostile occupation would be fully considered. He thought, if his right hon. and gallant Friend would carefully consider the matter, he would come to the same conclusion.

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

hoped, if time would allow, that the matter to which he had already called attention twice would also be borne in mind on another occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.