Arrest. (Hansard, 20 June 1879)

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
, in moving as an Amendment, in page 20, line 24, after "custody," to insert— Provided, That in every case where in time of peace any officer remains in such military custody for a longer period than eight days without a court martial for his trial being ordered to assemble, a special report of the necessity for further delay shall he made by his commanding officer—if at Home to the Commander in Chief, if in India to the Commander in Chief in India; if in a Colony to the General Officer commanding in such Colony; and a similar report shall be forwarded every eight days until a court martial is assembled or the officer is released from custody. In the case of soldiers a similar report shall be forwarded every eight days to the General Officer commanding the Division or Colony within the limits of which the soldier shall be serving: Provided also, That no officer holding a commission from the Sovereign shall, on account of alleged misconduct, be liable to be suspended, or arrested, from the performance of the duty entrusted to him by virtue of such commission, in any other manner than that which is specified in this Act. said, he understood from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he intended to accept the first portion of the Amendment, and, therefore, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) need only say a few words as to the matter in which they differed. The first portion of the Amendment sought to re-impose the condition that the officer should be brought to trial within eight days. Up till the year 1866 the Articles of War contained a provision that an officer could only be kept under arrest for eight days. In that year the clause was struck out, and the time for which he was to be kept under arrest was left indefinite. The privilege so given had since that time been greatly abused. Officers had been kept two, three, four, 313 and even six months, without being brought before a court martial, or allowed to know the offence for which they were under arrest. He proposed simply to re-enact the provisions respecting eight days, and to require, if an officer were not brought to trial within that time, that a certificate should be sent at the end of that time, and of every succeeding eight days, to explain the reason. But the part of his Amendment to which he specially wished to call attention was the last four lines, providing that no officer holding a commission from the Sovereign was, on account of alleged misconduct, to be liable to be suspended from the performance of any duties entrusted to him by virtue of such commission in any other manner than that specified in the Act. His object in this Proviso was to put a stop to a practice which had arisen since the present Commander-in-Chief took office, of suspending officers from their duty, instead of placing them under arrest. He knew it was maintained that the suspension of an officer was not recognized, and, that, therefore it need not be legislated for. It was precisely on that ground that he wished Parliament to legislate on the subject, and to express an opinion that this should not be done. He happened to have there an official Order for the suspension of an officer, and he would read it in order to show that this was a practical complaint, and that officers had been suspended from their duty when they really ought to have been put under arrest. The first Order ran as follows:— Lieutenant So-and-so will proceed immediately to Blank, in order to take over command of the detachment from So-and-so, who will at once return to head-quarters. The second Order was— Lieutenant So-and-so will immediately join head-quarters, his duties to he taken by Lieutenant So-and-so, pending a Court of Inquiry, which will assemble at 11 a.m. to-morrow. The third Order was— A Court of Inquiry, over which Major So-and-so is presiding, will assemble at 12 o'clock this day. These were official Orders published to the garrison, and known to all the people of the town where the regiment was stationed. The officer concerned had his character taken away; he was removed from his command; he was brought before a Court of Inquiry; 314 and then, on investigation, it might be found that there was no ground whatever for preferring any charges against him. A month or six weeks after, he was allowed simply to rejoin his regiment and to resume his duty, and there was no reason given for the public censure he had received or why he was allowed to return to duty. During the remainder of his term of service, however, he was liable to have this brought up against him, and when his turn for employment or promotion came, it might be said to him, "You came before a Court of Inquiry on a certain date, how did you get out of it? " That was often the cause of misconduct and crime. An officer, fretting under an imputation of that kind, felt that an act of injustice had been done him, and he had no redress in place of being brought before a court martial, and receiving a public acquittal in a legal way, which had been the custom up to the last 25 years. He could see no case where an injury was so likely to be done to an officer than under this system. If a man were invalided, or declared sick, or unfit for duty, it was different. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would yet be able to give way.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he was glad to accept the greater part of the Amendment. He had no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) would give his consent to alter it in the manner he (Colonel Stanley) would suggest. It was to leave out the words " in time of peace," and to insert, after " any officer," &c, the words " or soldier, not on active service." He would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to allow the Question to be put in this form. Then, as regarded the last paragraph, he was sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be going further than he intended in inserting the words " no person should be liable to be suspended," &c. He took, of course, the obvious case which occurred of an officer who was physically incapacitated, although he might not acknowledge that himself. He might be anxious to go on with his duties, even though he was not fit to perform them. Obviously, in such a case, the authorities ought to be able to suspend an officer; but he was informed that there was considerable doubt whether the words pro- 315 posed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if they were placed in an Act of Parliament, would not go further than he himself wished. Another case was where a paymaster, for instance, did not render his account to the Treasury; it would then, unquestionably, be the duty of the General Officer commanding to suspend him. He should be sorry, however, to refuse it; and if the right hon. Gentleman wished, he would accept the Amendment on the understanding that he reserved to himself the right to revise it before the Report.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he was glad that himself and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were so much in accord upon the subject; and he just wished to say that, as to the first case suggested, he had himself said he did not propose to extend the clause to an officer who was physically unable from illness to perform his duties, or was incapacitated from performing them, but expressly restricted the provision to alleged misconduct. And then, as to the paymaster, if the paymaster failed to deliver his accounts, that, he imagined, was misconduct; but still, he would not go into the question of the Civil Departments, which were under the War Office, and not under the military authorities.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
was very glad the Amendment had been accepted. Not only officers, but men, were very often kept too long under arrest; not from any intention to do injustice, but from mere procrastination. He was quite sure that the Amendment would answer the purpose required.

§ MR. OTWAY
asked, whether it would not be necessary to make a verbal alteration. The officer in command of the troops in India was the Commander-in-Chief, but Commander-in-Chief who was General Commander-in-Chief, which was by no means an unimportant difference.

§ MR. J. BROWN
said, the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice was merely to make more distinct and clear the nature of the powers given to an officer under the clause. These powers were nothing new, but they were something extraordinary, and, especially, the power given to a junior officer to put a senior officer under arrest. 316 He thought it was very important that they should clearly understand that an officer had that power, whether in uniform or in plain clothes; and, therefore, he begged to move the insertion, in page 20, line 28, after the words " an officer," of the words " whether in uniform or not."

§ MAJOR NOLAN
was not at all certain that the proposal would not complicate the question, instead of clearing it up. It was clearly laid down at present that an officer had just the same authority, whether in uniform or not; and if this matter were pressed too far, the question might arise as to whether an officer was in proper uniform. The effect of uniform merely was to be evidence that a man was an officer. If, however, these words were put in, a man might come out of a crowd and say he was an officer, and the man ordered into arrest would not be able to know whether the ease came under the Statute; and he did not think the insertion of the words would answer any purpose. The clause was very clear as it stood, and he did not think the addition was necessary.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
quite agreed with the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and thought that they would be trying too much if they inserted these words. After all, the question really was, whether the man knew that the person interfering was an officer or not, and that must always be a matter of proof to be decided on the court martial. It would be perfectly absurd, because an officer was not regimentally dressed—they all knew how particular a distinction might be made—to say that he was not to interpose.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
also quite agreed with the view taken. Suppose, after mess, the officers changed their uniform, and adjourned to a billiard-room, where a row ensued. They were not in uniform; but was that to deter the junior officer from being able to put his senior under arrest? That was a case which might very probably occur.

§ GENERAL SHUTE
remarked, that it was perfectly understood an officer was an officer even in his dressing-gown. In case of fire at night or such sudden emergency he might rush out of his barrack-room so attired, and it would be a very great mistake to add these words to the clause.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; for it was most important that, in a fray, an officer should not be liable to be punished for disputing the order of a person in plain clothes, whom he knew nothing about. The question of officers in a mess-room, dressing-gown or not, was not a case to legislate for. He himself bad an Amendment lower down, that an officer should be in uniform before he exercised the powers there given. He did not like the idea of dressing-gowns at all.

§ MR. J. BROWN
always understood that an officer had the power; but, with the permission of the Committee, be would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
would not wish the Amendment to be withdrawn under the idea that it was particularly understood that a junior officer in plain clothes was entitled to order his senior into arrest.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought it would be preposterous that a General in plain clothes, whom nobody knew anything about, should be at liberty to arrest an officer. He thought some badge of authority was necessary.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
, in moving as an Amendment, in page 20, line 31, after "an officer," to insert the words "if dressed in uniform," said, the rule requiring an officer to obey his junior in a fray was drafted years ago, when officers were always in uniform. So much was that the case, that in the Peninsular War there was not a point more insisted on by the Duke of Wellington than that officers were not only to be in uniform, but were always to wear their swords. He had stated publicly that he would take no part to protect any officer who got into trouble in plain clothes. He was not ashamed to act on these principles still, though he knew it was old-fashioned. It was now not thought fashionable for an officer to wear his uniform, and as they were legislating for the Army, he stipulated in this case that it should only have effect when the junior officer who gave an order to a senior was in uniform. Then the senior would know the responsibilities he incurred if he did not obey. When he joined the Army, officers wore their uniform at mess, and he did not understand the custom that now pre- 318 vailed of putting on shooting-jackets and dressing-gowns for dinner. He went down to visit a detachment once, and after the day's duties were over, the officer in command still wore his uniform. He thought that it was in compliment to himself, and he, therefore, told him not to keep it on, unless be wished. The officer thanked him, but replied that the fact was he had got no other coat there. That took place a long time ago, when officers were not ashamed to appear in uniform.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
was afraid he must make the same objection to this Amendment that he made to the other. They were putting into a clause that which ought to be matter of evidence before the court martial. The point was not whether the officer was in uniform or not, but whether the other person knew that he was an officer. That was not a matter to be dealt with by a clause, but a question for proof before the court martial. Take the case, for instance, of an officer going to play cricket, and, therefore, of course, not in regimental dress, seeing two of his men fighting. If he interfered, the men might tell him that they knew such conduct was against discipline, but they should not leave off, because he was not in regimental dress. He thought this seemed to be more a point for a court martial than for a Bill.

§ MR. BIGGAR
hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) would press the Amendment to a division. He thought officers ought to be proud of their uniform, and he did not understand why they were always so anxious to get out of it as soon as possible.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon). In his opinion, it would be very much better if officers did wear their uniforms, for the feeling against them arose apparently a good deal too much from what was called "shop," which was very inconsistent with the military spirit. He must point out, however, that the Amendment would really fail to accomplish the purpose in view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to put pressure upon officers to wear their uniform, whereas the effect of his Amendment would be to prevent the very interference which they desired by men not in uni- 319 form. The real remedy for what his hon. and gallant Friend desired was that there should be some more stringent orders to officers to be more constantly in uniform. The Amendment would not do what was desired, and they really should exercise some pressure in order to require the uniform to be constantly worn.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
pointed out that uniforms were expensive, and that it would be putting officers to a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience if they were always compelled to appear in them. Besides, no man liked to interfere; and, therefore, if only an officer who wore his uniform could interfere, officers would get into plain clothes to avoid the necessity. In his opinion, the present arrangement was by far the best, and he thought the best thing to do was to leave it as it stood.

COLONEL COLTHUEST
begged his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) to withdraw the Amendment. Things had worked well in the past, and they all hoped they would also do so in the future.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
was also of opinion that it would be no good, for the purposes at which they aimed, to pass this Amendment.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
added, that uniforms were so much more expensive than plain clothes, that if an officer had to wear them all the year round, the expense would be three times as great as it was at present.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
replied, that if officers objected to wearing their uniforms, the remedy was to make them cheap and comfortable. When he was in India, the uniform there was so comfortable that the officers wore it in preference to plain clothes. His object was to prevent the officer or soldier getting into trouble by disputing an order given by a man in plain clothes, and of whom he knew nothing. When he was formerly in command at the Curragh a quarrel occurred between two regiments. The Commander-in-Chief, who was on the ground in plain clothes, rode amongst them, and ordered them to stop; but, as he was in plain clothes, they did not know him, and it was very nearly being an unpleasant business. As, however, his right hon. and gallant Friend did not intend to accept this Amendment, be would not press it.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought there should be some distinction drawn between the powers of officers to order arrests when they were in uniform and when they were not. Suppose, for instance, two men were fighting. A plain clothes officer interfered, and one of the men struck him. By the Bill, that man would be liable to suffer death. [" No, no ! "] Well, Clause 8 said so. Of course, at the time he would be in the execution of his office. They constantly would have cases where the soldier did not know the officer who was interfering, where, in consequence, he would run great risk of being insulted, and where the soldier also would be subject to very severe penalties for misconduct. He had often himself known cases where officers had distinctly refused to interfere, lest they should subject the soldiers to severe penalties, owing to their not being able to judge quickly whether the person who interfered was an officer or not. Besides, the onus of proof in this case was thrown on the negative, which was not fair. A man was asked to prove that he did not know a man was an officer; or, in fact, they asked him to prove himself innocent of an offence of which he had not been shown to be guilty.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the Amendment, if adopted, would lead to a good deal of difficulty. In the first place, as only an officer dressed in uniform was to put a man under arrest, they would have the question at once arise—What was uniform? At present, an officer could order a man into arrest, whether he was dressed in uniform or whether he was not. Of course, if an officer ordered a man into arrest, and the man did not know he was an officer, and the circumstances of the case were that it was not reasonable that he should know it, that would be taken into consideration in the decision. The whole question would be a question of proof, and all the circumstances, no doubt, would be taken into consideration by the court martial.

§ MR. OTWAY
observed, that there was more in this matter than was supposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General. Had it not occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that uniform was essentially a part of the Military Profession? They never heard of military acts being performed, except in uniform. Therefore, when they had 321 the very extreme case of a junior officer ordering his superior officer into arrest, they ought to have some guarantee to the officer that the man who was about to treat him in that way had a right to do so. What occurred abroad in this matter was a good example. Whenever a fray took place in France or Belgium, the commissary of police always repaired at once to the place where it was said the crime had been committed; but he always first made himself and his authority respected by putting himself into a sort of uniform. No doubt, it was of a very simple character; but his position was thereby recognized, and an act sanctioned which otherwise would not have been tolerated. What surprised him in this respect was that officers in England were so very different from every other Army in the world. If they went to Austria, Italy, or Germany—and he specially mentioned those three countries—they found the officers invariably in uniform, and they never went even to a place of amusement, or a theatre, or travelled on a railway without wearing it. The fact was, they were proud of their uniform, because it was of a handsome and becoming description. At one time when he was in the Army our uniform was most uncomfortable; for the shoulders were loaded with ridiculous gold scales, with straps to their trousers, and, altogether, the dress was most disagreeable and unpleasant. Now, however, it was a very pleasant dress to wear, and he could not understand why officers did not show themselves more frequently in it than they did. He was not perfectly certain that the recommendation was one which should be altogether disregarded.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Otway) must know perfectly well that the usual occupations in which foreign officers employed their time were totally different from those in which it was the habit of officers of the English Army to engage. Foreign officers did not shoot, they did not hunt, or play cricket, or occupy themselves with any amusements of that kind. He ventured to think, he might add, that if the hon. Gentleman—the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he might call him, for he had been in the Army—were still in the Service, he would be one of the very first men to lay his uniform aside when off 322 duty, and when he went outside the barrack-gates. He quite concurred in the opinion that when an officer was on duty he should be properly dressed in uniform, and should, upon all occasions, wear his uniform; but it was entirely opposed to the pursuits of English officers that they should wear uniform when out of barracks. And was it seriously contended, he would ask, that if an officer, on his return to barracks without his uniform, were to find a fray going on, he was not to interfere, although he might be well known to every one of those engaged in it, whom he might deem it to be his duty to put under arrest? In his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) opinion, the Committee, in the discussion of the Bill, were entering into too many technical details; and he should like to know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), whether he had ever seen an officer doing anything which could be regarded as a grievance of ordering a man to be placed under arrest while out of uniform? If it could be shown that the fact of an officer not wearing uniform was in any way prejudicial to the interests of the Army, then a case might be made out for the adoption of the Amendment; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) challenged the hon. and gallant Gentleman to point out any such grievance as would justify the Committee in accepting it. Failing to do that, it would be better, he thought, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should leave things as they were, and that officers should continue to be allowed to wear plain clothes when off duty.

§ MR. RYLANDS
would not dispute with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the point whether it was desirable that officers should wear uniform when off duty or not. It would, he dared say, be difficult to find many cases in which inconvenience had arisen from the operation of the Articles of War, which it was proposed by the present clauses to retain; and he quite admitted the force of the objection to modify those Articles by the proposed Amendment. It was not often, in all probability, that an officer desired to put his superior in rank under arrest. It was a very unlikely thing for him to do so without sufficient cause; but the Amendment of the hon. 323 and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) was simply intended to meet such cases if they did arise, and he thought it was only right that when an officer did exercise his authority to put a man who happened to be engaged " in a quarrel, fray, or disorder," under arrest, he should bear with him the signs of the rank which he held.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he recollected having been present on a race-course close to Gibraltar when a fray had arisen in which the Governor of Gibraltar told the officers not to interfere. Now, under the provisions of the Bill, he would have no business to issue such an order; but if the Amendment were carried, the same thing might occur again, and an officer, because he happened not to be in uniform, would be deprived of all authority to put a stop to a disturbance. In the case which he had just mentioned, the Governor was not in uniform, nor were any of the other officers—for no English officer had a right to be in uniform there—but why, he would ask, should they on that account not be permitted to interfere to put a stop to the fray? The Amendment would seem to imply that when an officer was divested of his uniform he was divested of all authority; and he could not, therefore, support it, for if military control were once to be connected with the wearing of uniform the worst results might, in many instances, follow.

§ COLONEL MURE
said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), who moved the Amendment, must be aware that it was only in very rare and extreme cases, where there was some gross misconduct calling for his interposition, that an inferior interfered with a superior officer for the purpose of ordering him to be put under arrest. There were few Members of that House who could point to the occurrence of cases of that kind. It was, however, absolutely necessary that when there happened to be a great riot, for instance, an officer should be able to act as a man, and not only as an officer, and that he should be permitted to exercise the power of placing under arrest. It was now the custom for officers, generally speaking, to wear plain clothes; and he would like to ask the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) what he would say, if in 324 some case of great violence, where possibly a great deal of injury might be done, an officer was not allowed to interfere, because he was not in uniform? Would it not be disgraceful that the violence should be suffered to go on because of any such regulation? Would such a state of things be conducive to the honour of the Army? He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would consent to withdraw the Amendment, for he did not believe that he thought in his own heart it was one that would work.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
rose to Order, and asked the Chairman, whether it was competent for one hon. Member to say of another that he had moved an Amendment which he thought in his heart would not work?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) appeared to him to be somewhat out of Order.

§ COLONEL MURE
said, he would gladly withdraw it. He had no intention of imputing anything like insincerity to his hon. and gallant Friend; but he believed his intellect was becoming clouded since he had a seat in the House of Commons. His mind was evidently warped by his sitting on those Benches below the Gangway; and if he were at that moment in command of a regiment, a brigade, or a division, and not a Member of the House, he would be the first to deprecate such a proposal as that which he made, and to say that it would tend to weaken the natural authority which officers ought to possess, and to bring disgrace on the British Army.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
appealed to the Committee to allow progress to be made with the discussion, so that the Amendment might be disposed of as soon as possible. It was, he believed, well understood that no practical difficulty had ever arisen under such provisions as those contained in the clause; and if hon. Members deemed it to be their duty to discuss all the small points in the Bill, and to put forward, on every occasion, their own special views, it would be impossible to pass the present or any other measure through the House within anything approaching a reasonable time. He did not, of course, object to discussion; but, at the same time, he hoped the Committee would not lose sight of the comparative 325 proportions of the Bill, and that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to take a Division on his Amendment, they would allow it to be taken without further delay.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he had stated some time before that it was not his intention to press the Amendment to a Division. He should like to add, with reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), that, although he was aware that liberty of speech was sometimes carried to a great extent in that House, yet he scarcely remembered to have heard it carried so far as it had been by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the present occasion.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
rose to a point of Order, to which it was not too late, he hoped, to call the attention of the Chairman. He had listened, he must confess, with great surprise to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure). As he understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had expressed himself as being perfectly certain that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) knew, in his own heart, that the Amendment which he proposed would not work.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
wished to rise to Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) did not take exception to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) when they were uttered, nor did he dispute the ruling of the Chair. He should like, therefore, to know whether it was competent to raise the question of Order now?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had quite correctly stated what was the practice of the House. Any hon. Member who desired to raise a point of Order was bound to do so at the moment when the alleged violation of Order occurred; but two speeches had since been delivered, and, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland was not in Order in now raising the question. He had not, however, deemed it necessary to stop him from commenting on the observations of which he complained.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
said, he at once bowed to the decision of the Chairman. He was perfectly aware of the Rule of the House on the subject, and he rose at the moment to take exception to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure). The attention of the Chairman was, however, diverted at the time, and it was, of course, impossible for him to see every hon. Member who rose in his place, and another hon. Member happened to be more fortunate in catching his eye. He did not, however, wish to prolong the discussion. He sympathized very much with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) in his complaint of the manner in which his Amendment had been met. It was, of course, open to any hon. Member to question the usefulness of any Amendment which might be proposed; but it was scarcely competent to him to impugn the bona fides of the Member who moved it. If he had been in the place of his hon. and gallant Friend, he should, as he had done, have placed himself under the protection of the Chair.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that no hon. Member had given more assistance to the Committee in the discussion of the clauses of the Bill than the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and that he, for one, very strongly objected to the remarks which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), and to which exception had been already taken. He did not care very much what might be the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the intellect of those who sat below the Gangway; but he should like to know what law it was that governed the intellect of hon. Members according to the part of the House in which they happened to sit? Did their intellectual power range inversely with the distance, or the square of the distance, at which they sat from the front Opposition Bench. Judging from the tone of contempt which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire had used, it was evident that the nearer a man got to the front Opposition Bench the more power and authority he could assume.

§ COLONEL MURE
hoped the Committee would bear in mind that he had already 327 said, the moment his attention was called to the expression which was complained of, that he had no intention whatsoever of imputing anything like insincerity to the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) in proposing his Amendment. If he was not satisfied with that statement, he begged at once to offer him the most ample apology. Having done that, he hoped the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with the Business before it.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
rose to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon). It was, he thought, for many reasons, desirable that an officer should be in uniform, if he was to exercise the authority of putting a man under arrest. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for "West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said it was the custom of officers, when off duty, to wear plain clothes, and proceeded to draw a comparison between the British officer and the officers of foreign Armies. Foreign officers, he pointed out, did not play cricket, did not shoot or hunt, or indulge in several other amusements with which it was the habit of British officers to occupy themselves. But the question was, whether, taking into account what expensive articles British officers and soldiers were, Parliament should not try to induce them to pay more attention to their military duties and less to their society avocations? A foreign officer appeared almost always in uniform, because he was an officer above all things, and he would venture to say that his military character would not be improved if he were to imitate more closely the example of the British officer. In a scientific Army like that of Germany, for instance, the officer lived for his Profession chiefly; and he would point out that to permit British officers to appear, as they did, without uniform, served to furnish another illustration of the broad distinction which was drawn between officers and soldiers in the British Army. A soldier was made to remind one constantly that he was a soldier; while an officer had every facility given him for appearing as a civilian for by far the greater portion of his time.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 12, the words "the proper military authority," and to insert the words " by his commanding officer," instead.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he hoped he had shown, by his acceptance of a previous Amendment, that he was as desirous as the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire that a man should not remain untried for any charge which might be brought against him for too long a period. But he would point out that if the words "to his commanding officer" were substituted for " the proper military authority " in the present instance, great inconvenience might be the result of the operation of the clause. A commanding officer might be engaged on a court martial or some other important duty, and a man might have to be kept in confinement until the commanding officer was at liberty to deal with his case. It was desirable, therefore, to save unnecessary delay, that he should be able to direct the officer who was second in command, for instance, to investigate the case.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, that being perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he would not press the Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, as an Amendment, in page 21, to leave out lines 12, 13, and 14, and insert— His commanding officer, who shall dismiss the charge, and release the prisoner from custody, if he in his discretion thinks the charge ought not to be proceeded with; hut where he thinks it ought to he proceeded with, he shall take steps for bringing the offender to a court martial, or, in the case of a soldier, he may deal with the case summarily: Provided, That whenever a court of inquiry is assembled to investigate any matter affecting the conduct or character of an officer or soldier, such officer or soldier shall be entitled to receive a copy of any opinion which may be delivered by such court; and, if the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall prefer to instruct the court to receive evidence only and not to deliver an opinion, the officer or soldier whose conduct or character has been called in question shall be entitled to demand that the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall himself deliver an opinion upon the matter which has been the subject of investigation, and a copy of such opinion shall be delivered in writing to the officer or soldier concerned, 329 And further, any officer or soldier who, after such investigation, is not fully exonerated from blame or culpability by the opinion of a court of inquiry, or by the officer who convened the court, shall be entitled to demand that he shall be placed upon his trial before a court martial, in order that the matter which had been the subject of investigation by the court of inquiry may be inquired into by a court competent to receive evidence upon oath, and of which the members composing it are themselves bound by the sanctity of an oath. He looked upon the Amendment, he said, as being a very important one. The subject of Courts of Inquiry had already been very fully debated in the course of the discussions on the Bill; and it was, therefore, unnecessary to say very much more with respect to it. He must express a hope, however, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War would see the expediency of acceding to the substance of his Amendment, even if he found himself unable to agree to the exact words. It proposed a change which was very greatly demanded by officers, and he was very anxious that it should have been brought under the consideration of the Select Committee last year. The hon. and learned Chairman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), however, pointed out that it was outside the Instructions of the Committee, and they did not, therefore, go into it. Several officers, however, had spoken to him on the subject, and he had asked them to give evidence before the Committee with regard to it; but they begged to be excused, saying that the proposition which he now embodied in his Amendment was not one to which the authorities either at the War Office or the Horse Guards were favourable. The Commander-in-Chief had given evidence that Courts of Inquiry were useful in cases where proof was difficult. But those cases, he contended, in which, in the investigation before a Court of Inquiry, proof was found to be difficult, were the very cases which ought to be submitted to a court martial.

THE CHAIRMAN
wished to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there was nothing in the clause before the Committee relating to Courts of Inquiry. It was a clause which had reference simply to the custody of persons subject to military law when charged with offences. Although, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member might be in Order in moving the first part of 330 his Amendment, if he thought proper, the second part ought to be moved as a separate clause.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, it would, perhaps, save the time of the Committee if he were to state that he intended, in a subsequent clause, to propose an Amendment which would show that there was no very serious difference of opinion between the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) and himself with respect to some of the points involved in his Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he was quite satisfied to wait until the Committee came to the clause to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and would not press his Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
moved, as an Amendment, in page 21, at the end of Sub-section 4, to insert the following words:— And a copy of such 'account in writing' shall, at the same time, be given to the officer, soldier, or other person, so placed in military custody, if he desire to have it. As matters now stood, a man might be kept in custody for weeks and months, and that was a grievance which ought, he thought, to be redressed. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would agree to the Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he was afraid the Committee would be going too far if they were to agree to the introduction of the proposed words into the Bill, because it was proposed to deal with those matters of regulation. He should like to know whether, in the case in which a number of prisoners were in custody for any offence, the hon. and gallant Member meant that the depositions were to be taken down in writing, and that each prisoner was to be furnished with a copy, if he wished to ask for it? He quite admitted that in a very serious case that might be a right thing to do; but an " account in writing " merely corresponded to what was known as " the charge-sheet" in the police force, and it might, in some instances, mislead. He saw what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view, and he would see whether he could not deal with the matter on the Report.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he was satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
pointed out that under the operation of the clause, as it was drawn, an officer who might not himself be subject to military law, as provided by the 166th clause, would have the power of arresting a superior officer whom he found "engaged in a quarrel, fray, or disorder." Now, an officer should not, in his opinion, have that power, unless he himself was subject to military law.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, he would consider the point.