ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [Bill 88.]

HC Deb 15 May 1879 vol 246 cc407-75

(Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th May.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 30 (Offences in relation to billeting).

COLONEL MURE moved, in page 12, line 27, sub-section 4, after "non-commissioned officer," to insert "or soldier."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. HOLMS moved that the Chairman do report Progress. He did so in order to make a few observations which he thought might, perhaps, save the time of the Committee. It appeared to him that if the Committee were to consider the precise position in which they were in relation to this Bill, they might come to the conclusion that at the point at which he had arrived they ought to delay going on with the Bill at the present time. They had already had two nights' discussion in Committee upon the Bill; and he thought that discussion, to anyone who had observed it with any care, must have shown very clearly that the Bill was not exactly that which the House was entitled to believe it would receive from the Committee which investigated the question upstairs. He should have been particularly glad to have addressed his observations to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, he thought, would have taken a very judicial view of the position in which they were placed; but he wished particularly to draw the attention of the Government and of the Committee generally to the subject, because he would at once disclaim any Party feeling in the matter. The question was far too important for that. The subject was of such a nature that both sides of the House were equally interested in seeing a sound measure carried; and if the Committee were at all fully acquainted with the history of the Bill, he did not believe that even the Government would be inclined to venture any further in discussing the matter. It must be in the recollection of many hon. Members that last year the Mutiny Bill was very thoroughly discussed, and in that discussion it was made perfectly clear that the penalties in the Bill, and the very severe punishments it imposed, needed to be dealt with with very great care. Moreover, it was made clear that the crimes which arose out of desertion were very numerous, and that the number of prisoners who were imprisoned for crimes which were of no great importance was very excessive. Now, ail these crimes were referred to by the Secretary of State for War, who used precisely the language which was used in the House just now—namely, that this was a Mutiny Bill, and that, therefore, it was a question of time, and must be pressed on at all hazards. In that discussion, many promises were made by the Secretary of State for War, with the clear understanding that if the Committee then would allow the Bill to pass quietly, he would take care that all the questions which had been raised should be investigated with great care by the Commit- tee. In order to make perfectly clear what those promises of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were, he must ask the attention of the Committee, and especially of the present Secretary of State for War, to those promises which were made by his Predecessor. In relation, first, to the number of desertions, and the excessive number of men in prison, the right hon. Gentleman used these words last year— With regard to the question of deserters, that was one which must he carefully considered, and the Committee would he able to investigate the different forms which desertion took. He thought that the number of men who were at present imprisoned for offences which were not of a disgraceful character was excessive."—[3 Hansard, cexxxviii. 1978.] Nothing could be clearer than that. In relation to punishments, he would not now trouble the Committee with quotations, because he wished to put his case as simply and shortly as possible. The question of flogging was met by several Amendments. There was one by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and another by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and the hon. Member for Mayo wished to resist the principle that corporal punishment should be inflicted under any circumstances whatever. Well, the Secretary of State for War then promised that if the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, the subject should be investigated with great care. One hon. Member after another rose and begged the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment, but to trust to this investigation by the Committee; and upon that assurance the hon. Member for Mayo withdrew his Amendment. Now, he would proceed a little further. On the question of the 22nd clause—the flogging clause—when the hon. Member for Mayo had given up his Amendment, the Secretary of State for War stated to the Committee that if they would pass the Bill in its present shape it would be with a view that there might be a thorough investigation thereafter upon the whole subject. Further on in the discussion in Committee, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would make another appeal to the Committee to get through the Bill as quickly as possible, and he would promise there should be a complete inquiry into its operation, and upon that assurance his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) appealed to the Mover of the Amendment not to press it. For his own part, he joined very heartily in seeking that the Amendment should not be pressed, and that they should proceed to go on with the Bill. He heartily rejoiced that the Secretary of State for War had gone so far as to make that concession, and that they had, upon the word of a Secretary of State, the certainty of investigation into all these questions. That was the clear understanding; and it was because that had not been carried out that he felt it his duty to rise now and protest, and he should continue to protest against the passing of this Bill. Now, either it was necessary, or it was not necessary, for a Committee to investigate these various subjects. If it was necessary, then the Secretary of State for War was justified in saying he would take care that the investigation should take place. If it was not necessary, upon what ground did the Secretary of State for War, on a measure of such importance, lead the House and the country to believe that he was going to have a thorough and complete investigation? Now, he had to recount what the Select Committee did. He was a Member of that Committee, and they proceeded to work. The Committee was very ably presided over by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); but he thought the Committee was not in the least acquainted with what that Select Committee did. What did it do? They met on the 17th of May. On the 23rd of May they had the first witness; and after they had had a sitting or two, he deemed it to be his duty to enter a protest against their not taking evidence upon those questions which they were sent up to consider. He was so full of the subject—as he was now—that he was anxious that they should have competent witnesses—not official witnesses—who would give them sound information on points referred to. It appeared to him that it was not a question of re-arranging a whole lot of clauses as to punishment that was wanted. They wanted something to precede that—namely, that they should do the best they could to examine into the great sources of crime in the Army—what were the causes of crime, and how it was possible to get rid of them. He visited a military prison, and conversed with the chaplain; and he came to the conclusion that if the Committee had wished, plenty of evidence could have been obtained. It would have been shown that many who were still in gaol might be free men, and it would be all the better if they were. But the Committee took no such evidence; they made no attempt to get evidence. What did they do? They had handed to them a draft Bill of 117 clauses, which the Chairman took, but very wisely did not acknowledge any responsibility; he ignored any responsibility in relation to that Bill. The Committee accepted it, and proceeded to work. To do what? To see how far, in effect, that Bill of 117 clauses, which was handed to them, was a boiling-down, so to speak, of about 190 Articles of War, and some 110 clauses of the Mutiny Bill; and so they proceeded to work. But they had not proceeded very far before they came to the flogging clause in that particular Bill, and he deemed it his duty to enter his protest. He entered his protest in this manner. He moved on the 21st of June— That, having regard to the discussion which took place in the House in the month of March last on the corporal punishment inflicted under the authority of the Mutiny Act, it is expedient that this Committee should take evidence in respect of punishments for crimes committed while on active service in the field. Although that was a very reasonable proposition, it received no support, except from the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne). Well, they proceeded with the Bill, and the Bill came down to the House. It did not come down, however, with 180 clauses, but with only 117. It had, of course, been altered, and no one could complain of that; but he ventured to say that a more imperfect Bill it would be difficult to draw. Why, oven the hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General got up to enlighten the House upon it the other night, and could not. He dealt with the 10th clause and the 4th section; but even he could not make it clear, although he belonged to the Department in whose care the Bill was placed. Why, they had a clause—the 173rd—contradicted by another clause—the 1 80th; but he (Mr. J. Holms) cared very little about that part of the question. He cared little whether the Bill was good, bad, or in- different, in those respects. What he did care about, and what he protested against, was this—that they should go up to a Committee Boom, appointed by the House, to undertake one of the most important questions of the day, and to take evidence in relation to subjects which had been discussed fully, freely, and decidedly in the House, and that they should come downstairs without having made one single stop in regard to taking that evidence. This Bill was to be—what? Was it to be a temporary Bill? It was a Bill that was to be for the permanent government of the Army; and he, therefore, protested against their proceeding further with the measure. In his opinion, it was essentially necessary that the Committee, at this particular juncture, should consider what they were to do with the Bill. As he had said, the Committee upstairs took no evidence in relation to those matters to which he had referred. It was well that this Committee and the country should know that; because there were many outside this House who were waiting-for the Bill to become law, and to whom it was a serious matter. What was the evidence which the Committee took? A greater sham never existed in the world than that most strange Committee. He did not speak disrespectfully of the Committee itself. He spoke of the work they did, and of the work which was given them to do. They had six witnesses in the main; one witness, and that was Sir Henry Thring, who drafted the Bill. They had His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief; they had Mr. Clode, from the War Office; and they had Major-General Carey, Colonel Roche, and Mr. O'Dowd. Well, of course, they were very good witnesses for the purposes of codifying and simplifying the Bill, and they gave very good evidence; but that was not in the least the question which the Committee were sent to investigate. In comparison, it was a very small and trumpery matter. In fact, if the Committee had gone into their room without any Bill, it would have been very much better. They should have gone up there as business men, thoroughly determined that that 200-year-old Bill was hardly worth looking at, and that it was their business to deal with 1878, and not 1678. But, in place of that, they took to boiling down the old Bill, and here they were to-night in a state which was not creditable to the House. It was not creditable to them to pursue a course of this kind, seeing that they had had promises that evidence should be taken in relation to the points to which lie had referred, in order that they might legislate in the spirit of their own day. He wished the Committee now to consider what effect this Bill would have upon the Army. It would, he thought, deal a very serious blow to recruiting, because soldiers and the class from which they were drawn knew perfectly well what was being done. He had letters on the subject, and was disposed to read some extracts from them, because it was well that the Committee should know what was the opinion outside upon the subject. In civil life in this country, happily, there was even-handed justice for all classes; but in the Army they knew that was not so. [Colonel STANLEY dissented.] He saw the Secretary of State for War shako his head at that observation; but he wished, with all due respect, to press the point, because he was anxious the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee should know what was thought of the Bill. It was well for the lawgivers to know what those outside considered in relation to questions of this kind. Now, one soldier wrote to him as follows:— In civil life, if an employer or overseer strikes, cheats, or oppresses a labourer under his charge, and if a labourer strikes, cheats, or annoys his employer or overseer, they are liable to exactly the same punishment, and those penalties act, however noble the employer or overseer may be, and however mean the labourer. But in the Army, if a private strikes, robs, or annoys his officer, his punishment would be immeasurably greater than would be awarded to any officer who struck, cheated, or annoyed a private. In the one case, death would be the punishment possibly; a simple reprimand possibly in the other. If an officer commits any crime he is tried by his peers; if a soldier, he is tried also by officers, and they are the judge and jury. In reading this to the Committee, he only wished to show what was the feeling of those who had to submit to this law. He did not blame the officers, far otherwise. They had only to carry out that which was put into their hands; but he wished that the Committee would take care to put into their hands something of a wiser character, and better than had yet been the case. He wished now to say a word on a point of great importance which had not been introduced—namely, as to the relative position of a soldier and a non-commissioned officer, for throughout this Bill they were treated alike. That he regarded as being one of the great defects of our military system. It was high time that they should raise the status, especially of the higher class of non-commissioned officers. They should lift them from their present position, and not leave them the risk of being reduced to the ranks at the mere whim, or desire, or private sentiment, of their commanding officers. He had received a letter on that subject which seemed so wise and reasonable that he would trouble the Committee with an extract. It was in relation to the reduction of non-commissioned officers to the ranks. The man said— This saps the foundation of the non-commissioned officer, for no matter however well paid and clothed and lodged he may be, whilst his position depends on the breath and mere will of his commanding officer, his position is so unstable as to be worth very little, and causes him to carry with him a constant uncertainty. There is no misfortune more deeply felt than that of a sergeant who has been reduced to the ranks. After years of toil, he loses the result of all his labours; his wife and children are put out of quarters, and into inferior positions; his small world is as much changed as is that of a prosperous tradesman when he becomes a bankrupt. Now, that seemed to him to convey a great deal of sound common sense; and he believed that if they were to get good non-commissioned officers in the Army—and the short-service system demanded that they should got first-rate non-commissioned officers—they must consider that question. Then, if that were so, would it not be better that they should come to the conclusion that the investigation should still be proceeded with, as promised and intended last year. It would be better that they should now have such a Committee appointed. They were now just at the same period of the year as that in which the Committee of last year began its operations. Why should they not have a Committee appointed now, and begin, in real earnest, to take evidence in relation to these most serious questions, which had raised so much discussion? And when they had investigated the subject—he did not think it could be done this year, and even part of it would probably take this year and next; but he thought they should devote their time to advance the progress of a careful and thorough investigation of the whole question, and then proceed afterwards to have a new Bill. That was perfectly possible; and he believed the House would willingly grant to the Government a continuance of the old Mutiny Bill for a sufficient period. He suggested that the Temporary Continuance Bill should be allowed to go on for this year, and then let them proceed with the investigation indicated. he had ventured to offer these remarks in no spirit of hostility to the Government, but only with a sincere desire of doing some good. He sincerely trusted the Government would re-consider the position, and remember that last year they made promises one after another so strong that it was impossible for any Government to get out of them. It was impossible for this House, with any sense of its own dignity, to accept a Bill of this kind as the Bill which it had a right to expect after the promises given and the full investigation which had been made. There might be some who would say—"Why did you not raise this question on the second reading of the Bill? Why did you wait until we had had two sittings in Committee?" His answer to that was very simple. It was the duty of every Member to do that which he thought best to obtain his ends, so long as he took a fair and honourable way of going to work. In his opinion, had he raised this question on the second reading, it would have been very unwise indeed. It was very much better, in his judgment, to wait until the House had had a taste of the Bill, and see how imperfect it was, even as it stood, apart from the investigation, because he believed he would then be more likely to get support from the House and the country. He did hope the Secretary of State for War would yet consider this question with his Colleagues; because, for his own part, whether or not he opposed it in its course through Committee, this he should do—he should oppose it as much as he could do on the third reading, because he believed it to be a measure fraught with great danger to the Army and mischief to the country.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Holms.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the course his hon. Friend had taken was certainly a very unusual one, and if it were frequently taken it would be absolutely incompatible with the conduct of any Business in the House. He must say that the idea to which his hon. Friend referred in the last sentences of his speech crossed his own mind during the whole course of that speech—namely, why in the world his hon. Friend did not take the course upon the introduction of the Bill or upon the second reading? His hon. Friend's objection was that there had not been such an investigation of the matter as would justify any Bill at all. Well, if his hon. Friend was right, he had allowed the House to waste a great deal of valuable time which might have been saved; and he justified it on the ground that he thought it was the most effectual way of punishing the House for the course which had been taken. All he could say was that if every hon. Member took that view the House would transact no Business at all. He had hoped that the course which his hon. Friend took arose from a more obvious cause, that it had not been convenient for him to be present at the first or second reading. But now there was another course which his hon. Friend might take. So far as he recollected the proceedings of the Select Committee, the only question which his hon. Friend there raised was the one to which he had now referred in his speech, when he said the Committee ought not only to have investigated the punishments of crime, but also the causes by which crime was produced. Well, that was a very large question indeed. The hon. Member said it would take one year, and two years; but if they wore to investigate the causes from which crimes arose, he did not think 20 years would suffice, because the causes that led to crime were not only multitudinous, but almost universal. Now, they were going to have a Bill for the codification of the Criminal Law of this country. Would his hon. Friend contend that they were not to codify the Criminal Law until they had investigated, cither by a Committee or in this House, all the causes which led to the commission of crime? It seemed to him that was a proposition -which was incapable of being sustained; and that was why he opposed it in the Select Committee, and the great majority of the Committee opposed it. The House could pass no Criminal Law upon any subject whatever, if it were insisted upon as a condition to precede it that they should examine into all the causes of the offences with which they proposed to deal. For instance, what were the causes that led to murder? The causes that led to murder were love, jealousy, hate—every passion which animated the human breast; and if they were to pass no Statute for the punishment of murder until they had investigated the causes and the operation of all those passions, they would never pass any Bill at all. Therefore, when his hon. Friend proposed that they should not proceed to legislate until they had investigated the causes of crime, he, for one, thought that was not a subject which could be investigated or dealt with by that House. Then his hon. Friend had said various things that led to the belief that there was not even-handed justice between different classes. Now, he agreed with his hon. Friend that that would be the greatest of all evils, and the Committee certainly considered that question—whether they did so efficiently or not, was another thing. This much he could say—that they were constantly altering the Bill in that direction, and he believed it would be found that the measure bore traces throughout of that spirit. Many clauses wore altered for the purpose of putting officers on the same footing as men, and he did not remember that his hon. Friend proposed any clause bearing on the point. He was sorry that his hon. Friend had not attempted to amend the Bill by putting down some Amendments on the Paper; because the Committee upstairs and the present Committee would certainly consider most carefully and favourably any Amendments from the hon. Member. But to attack the Bill and the Committee in the way the hon. Member had done, he could not agree with or think to be well founded.

MR. J. HOLMS

begged pardon for interrupting. He never attacked the Committee in the slightest degree. He only ventured to say that they came to the conclusion that they had not time to take evidence, and so proceeded at once to the work of codification.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

could not quite agree in. the accuracy of that statement. No doubt, codification was the main line of the Bill; but still, especially on the very point to which he had referred, the Committee did not merely codify but made considerable alterations. If his hon. Friend could have given them the advantage more often of his assistance, the Bill, no doubt, might have been made more effectual in that direction; but the Committee would also be very glad if he would put down any Amendments now which would tend to remove from the Bill any trace of want of even-handed justice. It had escaped his own examination if there was that want of even-handed justice. His hon. Friend had suggested one or two other matters to which he would not refer in detail, because they were matters with which the present Committee were perfectly well able to deal. His hon. Friend had only to put down Amendments to them, and his knowledge and ability, especially in relation to all matters connected with the Army, which everyone must recognize, would certainly secure for them a very favourable acceptance. But to propose that the consideration of the Bill should be deferred until the House had investigated the causes of crime, was a proposition which they could not accept, and one which, practically, could never be carried out. No doubt, the Committee was not what was called an evidence Committee. The task it undertook really was to examine the Bill submitted by the Government. He never regarded its duty as anything else; and he certainly would not have become a Member of that Committee, still less would he have accepted the Chairmanship, if the task set before them had been to investigate the principles of Military Law, and the causes of the crimes with which it dealt. Their real task was to investigate the Mutiny Act, and to see what Amendments could be made in it; and he could not see that evidence would have assisted them much in that task. His hon. Friend, had not even indicated the character of the evidence which he had proposed to have called with reference to the causes of crime. He spoke of chaplains of gaols; but that was the only indication he gave of the sort of evidence he wanted to take. For his own part, he was convinced that that was an inquiry which the Committee could not have carried out. In examining the Bill itself, on the other hand, the Members of the Committee were quite as capable of judging whether its clauses did or did not secure even-banded justice as any witnesses that could have been called before them. Therefore, for his part, he hoped the Committee would continue the discussion of this important Bill, making such alterations as they might deem necessary.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

was extremely surprised at the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms). He would ask him and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), who bad been cheering him, how on earth the Business of the House was to go on if, in the middle of a Committee of this kind, after a Bill had passed the first reading and the second reading, and had been partly through Committee, they were to have such Motions as this brought forward? He always listened to the hon. Member with pleasure, especially on all questions connected with the Army; but his speech was one which should have been made on the second reading. What would the Irish Members have said if an Irish Bill were in Committee, and it was proposed to stop its further progress in this way? Would they not say that it was an attempt, on the part of the Conservative Members, to prevent justice from being done to Ireland? This was a most important Bill; and no one knew better than the hon. and gallant Member for Galway that it was essential it should be passed that Session. Therefore, he hoped that they would delay no further; but that the Motion would be withdrawn, the Committee proceeded with, and any Amendments which the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) might wish to make could then be discussed.

MAJOR NOLAN

pointed out that the argument as to Irish measures was not at all applicable, for Irish measures never were allowed to get into Committee. He had been assailed for giving a single cheer, and he therefore would explain why he gave it. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) had, on various occasions, put forward exceedingly clear and straightforward views on military administration. As he understood these views, his hon. Friend wished to make our Army more like the Continental Armies, and to give the country a powerful Army instead of a weak one. He supported those views, because he believed they were in the right direction. The present Bill tried to stop wholesale desertion and re-enlistment by severe punishments; while his hon. Friend wished to do away with those crimes, as he understood, by enlisting a superior class of men in the Army. They would only get those men to join by offering them advantages superior to those at present offered. He cheered, because he thought his hon. Friend, generally right on military matters, was especially right on the present occasion.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms). The Committee was, more or less, a sham. That was his opinion of it. Its time was so limited that it could not discuss very-many most important questions. That assertion the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) could not deny, for the statement was quoted from the opening paragraph of the Report of the Committee. He brought the question of Courts of Appeal at the very outset of the proceedings before the Committee, and the Chairman then said that they could not go into the matter, as important evidence would otherwise have to be taken as to whether or no there should be Courts of Appeal in the Army. He should have thought it a most important question to decide; but the Chairman decided against discussing it. He did not agree with the necessity of passing the Bill this year. It would, make no difference to the Army whether it would be discussed this year or next. He thought it very desirable that a Committee should sit again, and go thoroughly into this Bill. Another point never discussed was the subject of flogging. He was quite opposed to it, for it did not exist in any foreign Army; and why it should exist in ours he was at a loss to understand. The whole proceedings of the Committee were too hurried, for they were bound to have their Report ready by the 15th of July, and everything was pressed on to suit that date. He might remind the Committee also that the present Bill contained the same perplexing and involved legal phraseology as the old Act, although one of the objects of this consolidating measure was to simplify and amend the language of the Mutiny Acts. Surely, at the present time, when men were only enlisted for short periods of service, they should make their military Acts as simple and concise as possible. He should heartily support the Motion.

COLONEL STANLEY

thought he need add little to what had been already said by the hon. and gallant Baronet behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt). He could not help regretting, however—though he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Holms) would understand he did it with no personal feeling whatever—that the hon. Gentleman should have brought forward this Motion without observing the ordinary courtesy of informing either the House or the Member in charge of the Bill of his intention to do so. Had the hon. Member given Notice of his intention to make a statement of a general character, he might have provided himself, better than he was armed at the present time, with arguments which might have removed his objections. In many respects the hon. Member would find that the Bill did not deserve the character which he had attributed to it. In the clause punishing desertion material differences had been made. Although desertion was still visited by severe punishments, yet, nevertheless, many amendments had been made in the law in order to mitigate its severity, and to give men who got into trouble the opportunity of redeeming their character. In regard to non-commissioned officers, the hon. Gentleman had either mistaken the matter or had not taken ordinary pains to acquaint himself with the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member read some extracts from a letter, in which the position of a non-commissioned officer was said to depend upon the mere breath of his commander. Although that might have been the case heretofore, the hon. Member had overlooked the fact that in the Bill was a clause which distinctly, and for the first time, gave the non-commissioned officer the right to appeal to a court martial from any decision by his colonel. Again, it was by no means the case that punishments had been made more severe. The powers of courts martial had been enlarged, the power of giving cumulative sentences had been very much restricted; and throughout the Bill an endeavour had been made, while keeping the punishments sufficiently clear for the purpose they were intended to serve, to make them less severe than they had been in former Acts. With regard to the suggestion that only one part of the Bill had been dealt with by the Select Committee, he had already more than once explained to the House the position in which he found himself on his accession to Office. A promise had been given that the old Mutiny Act should not be again presented to the House. A Committee was appointed; but it was not possible, in the time at command, to bring all the provisions relative to enlistment, &c. before the Committee. Part of the matter, therefore, was submitted to them; and he stated to the House, on the earliest opportunity afforded him, that, on full consideration, he thought he would be better carrying out the wish of the House and of Parliament by laying the remainder of the Bill before them, and by taking the discussion in Committee of the House. That course enabled the House to proceed at once with the amendment of the Bill, instead of having to defer it for another year. If there had been any refusal of discussion in Committee, or if there had been any attempt in any way to force the Bill upon the House without amendment, or if any disposition had been shown, either on one side of the House or on the other, to close the discussion, he could have understood the reasonableness of the course which the hon. Member had taken. On the contrary, however, during the two days on which the Committee had been employed on the Bill, they had proceeded in a most business-like spirit, and with a feeling of conciliation on both sides of the House, with the result that they were now making what he hoped would be a good law. The Bill was in no sense one of a Party character, and he did trust that the Government would be supported in its desire to proceed with it.

MR. E. JENKINS

, though he agreed with the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms), could not quite feel that this was the proper time for making them. But his hon. Friend troubled the House very seldom; and, as they all knew, ho was actuated in all that he did by a very strong sense of duty. He hoped that this discussion, after all, might be of some use, and might facilitate the passing of this Bill, by securing from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the offer of substantial concessions on several points. There could be no doubt that the remark of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) had great weight. The minds of persons desirous to enter the Army must be affected by the character of the discipline to which they would be subjected; and if it should, unfortunately, get abroad, first permeating the Army itself, and then disseminated from it amongst the people, that the rules and regulations were at all unfair, or at all tended towards injustice, the effect would be very disastrous upon those who might otherwise wish to join. He was only anxious that there should be a thorough discussion. Up to that time the discussion had certainly been conducted in a business-like manner, and he would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider whether he could not accept some of the suggestions as to courts martial, and so enable the Committee very quickly to dispose of a number of clauses. The proceedings of courts martial should be subjected to a certain amount of legal oversight and revision, and they ought to have a proper, efficient, and able Judge Advocate General, with a competent staff. He hoped before long to hear some assurance from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he would do something to insure that in all courts martial there should be every chance of doing every possible justice.

COLONEL MURE

must say there was a good deal in the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Holms). He must regret that it was not consistent with the work of that Committee—of which he was a Member—to make a thorough investigation of the Military Law, especially when they remembered the very ancient character of the Mutiny Act. He wished he could think that the rules and regulations of the Army had any influence on enlistment. All, however, who were conversant with it knew that that was not so. The men who at present joined the Army usually enlisted through starvation, and they were not, unfortunately, of a class whose decisions were formed by any consideration as to the character of the Mutiny Act. Being men of this character, it was necessary to have very strict discipline; and although he was entirely opposed to excessive punishments, he did not think that the existing scale, in view of the present character of the Army, could be very much relaxed. One other thing he did wish to point out. In the Committee upstairs it was understood that their work was to be mainly consolidation; but it was also clearly understood that when the Bill got into Committee of the House, a thorough investigation and revision was to be made. He must complain of the fact that this arrangement had not been carried out. Whenever Amendments were suggested, the answer was that the proposal was an alteration of the old Act, or the old Articles. That was not the temper which he had expected from this Committee. There was not that earnest desire for improvement which he had expected from the front Bench of the Opposition—the progressive Liberal Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had shown no desire to help forward Amendments; but had constantly said, with Shylock, that it was not in the bond. They were now making a law for all time; and he was bound to say he did not congratulate himself on the progress they were making. He did not, at the same time, entirely agree with the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms), who, apparently, was not thoroughly acquainted with the Army. Would he, for instance, as he rather indicated by the passages he quoted, make no difference between the case of a private striking an officer and an officer striking a private? Again, he complained of the reduction of non-commissioned officers for ill-conduct. But if the hon. Member had a foreman who behaved himself ill, would he refrain from dismissing him because the dismissal might be his social ruin? A non-commissioned officer was in a bettor position than the foreman, indeed, because he had a right of appeal. He hoped his hon. Friend would not divide, especially as he could gain nothing by it.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

also hoped that course would be taken, although if anything could make him support his hon. Friend, it was the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had hitherto failed to lay on the Table the alteration by which he proposed to bring this Act within the lines of the Constitution. Before going into Committee he pointed out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Bill at present violated the principles of the Constitution in regard to the relations between the Crown, the Army, and Parliament. On finding that it was so, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman promised to alter the clause, and on that understanding he withdrew his Amendment. As yet, however, that alteration had not been laid on the Table; and he did think it was trifling with the House to defer its production any longer.

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that what he undertook to do was to strike out Clause 178 when they arrived at it, and to deal with the matter by the insertion of the old clause, as it at present stood, in the Act. He regretted that clause had not yet appeared on the Paper; but as he would have other verbal Amendments to move, he deferred putting it down until they were ready also.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) had been a good deal abused for doing what he conceived to be his duty. In his opinion, however, the hon. Member had very fairly justified his own position; and he had certainly stood up for it like a man and a Member of Parliament—a combination much to be admired. He was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had left the Committee; because he wished to tell him that he did not altogether approve of one of their own side administering reproofs in the manner that he had done. He was not even content with administering advice and reproof, but he went further, and suggested that his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) wanted a Committee to inquire into all the causes of crime, and proceeded to enumerate, for the sake of ridicule, many indirect causes, such as love, hate, self-interest, &c. That was by no means correct. His hon. Friend wished for an inquiry into the causes of military crime—of those offences which, in the eyes of civilians, were not crimes at all, though they might be military offences. Did they not all know that great good would be done by such an inquiry? His hon. Friend, and other business men like him, might have inquired how far petty oppressions and the ignorance of the non-commissioned officers were responsible for the enormous number of military crimes, and the inquiry would have been a very proper one. The Committee upstairs did not go into these subjects, because they had not time; and that of itself, now that they had the Bill under discussion, should make them uncommonly tender and careful how they decided, upon the Amendments now before them, and should also protect his hon. Friend from a lecture for doing what he conceived it to be his duty to do.

GENERAL SHUTE

was not much enamoured of the Pill, for it neither simplified, so far as officers and soldiers were concerned, nor abbreviated the present law. But he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) felt a little hurt at the remarks which had been made, for, as a Member of the Committee, he could testify that it was impossible that any Chairman could have shown greater tact in dealing with the Bill in the Select Committee, or greater knowledge on the subject for one who was not a military man. In the short time allowed them more, certainly, could not have been done than was accomplished. He did not altogether agree with the last speaker. The Mutiny Act was intended to ensure more exemplary and speedy punishments for breaches of discipline than could be obtained by the Civil Law; and though its enactments might appear to be severe to civilians, they were forced to be severe. The court martial system, in his opinion, had been seriously injured by the tinkering of indifferent lawyers, many of whom were utterly ignorant of the requirements of discipline, and not particularly well up even in their own profession. The Army wanted discipline, while lawyers thought only of the punishment for, and the repression of, such offences as would in Criminal Law be considered crimes. Courts martial, then, should be real Courts of Justice, unfettered by the minor quibbles of the law, which might render the conviction of unquestionably guilty offenders less certain. When he first knew the Army an innocent man would always prefer trial by a court martial, while the guilty cue liked to be sent to a Civil Court. He did hope, therefore, that in considering this Bill the Committee would look rather to the requirements of discipline, than merely to the repression of crime in the civil sense of that term.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

knew that the gallant General (General Shute) was always inclined to take a very harsh and severe view of questions of this kind; and he never remembered an occasion when, either by chance or accident, he said anything in favour of relaxing Military Law. Once, on the trial of a political prisoner in Ireland, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had regretted that he had no power to order the prisoner a whipping at the cart's tail. He did trust, therefore, that the Committee would look with very great suspicion upon his evidence. Both the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had entirely evaded the main justification for this Motion, which was that the Government, after a pledge of the most distinct and emphatic character that the Select Committee should thoroughly revise and reform the Military Law, had not kept their pledge. Why was that? Had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman no apologies to offer to the House for the broken promises of his Predecessors? If no explanation were offered, the Committee would be perfectly justified in a refusal to proceed with the Bill; for his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) had given chapter and verso for his statements, and had shown that on many occasions Amendments were withdrawn because of those pledges. Now, it was found that the Committee which set out to improve the law had simply occupied themselves in its codification, with the result that they had actually perpetuated and stereotyped the very things against which these Amendments were protests. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) asked whether the Criminal Code Bill was to be set aside until they had ascertained the causes of crime? His reply was, that they had already repeatedly inquired into the causes of civil crime, but that they had not taken the same pains with military crimes; and for that reason had not been able to enact laws calculated to improve the condition and character of the Army. The prevention of crime ought to be as much the object of the Mutiny Act as its punishment. It ought, also, to enact the law in clear, plain, and simple language. An appeal had been made to the Government to see that this was done in the present Bill, and a promise was given. In what respect had that promise been carried out? In none whatever. In the Select Committee hon. Members who wished to go into the matter were told that the Bill was simply intended to codify the different clauses of the old Mutiny Acts. So far from being business-like, the conduct of the Committee had been, up to the present, the very reverse; for it had simply stereotyped things against which many of them had vainly protested time after time before. They ought to inquire into the circumstances which led to the commission of offences in the Army before they proceeded to draw up a Code to punish them; and they ought to take care that the matter was fully and amply investigated, not merely by calling military testimony, but by taking impartial evidence, especially with regard to the punishments inflicted. Nothing of this sort had yet been done. His hon. Friend, he thought, had shown great discretion in affording the Committee an opportunity of examining the Bill in detail before asking them to reject it; and the protest made against his proceeding by some hon. Members, who seemed to think their only duty was to help the Government to back out of its pledges, was entirely without reason.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he earnestly hoped that the time of the House would cease to be misapplied in discussing so badly prepared a legislative measure as this Army Discipline Bill was. There were other far more important questions connected with the Army needing the urgent and do-voted attention of the Secretary of State. No one acquainted with the state of the Army could help being anxious about its condition at the present time. Any military man, who saw the five regiments which recently embarked for the Cape, must be struck by the necessity for some change in their system. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) had certainly exercised a wise discretion in not bringing forward his Motion until the Committee had had an opportunity of judging whether it was likely to pass this Bill with any satisfactory results. They had now been two days at work, yet they had made very little progress with this Bill; and he must also point out that they had not got the simplification and the clearness they had been promised in a new Mutiny Act. Why, then, should not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take back his Bill and amend it for next year's re-considera- tion, asking, at the same time, for an extension of the present continuing Act for a few months? When the Militia Bill was brought in, it was accompanied by an explanatory Memorandum of the changes made; but this Bill, though far more important, had been thrown, chucked, before the Committee without any such explanation. They knew, also, not merely by rumour, that the Horse Guards were very much dissatisfied with the measure; and they surely should have a full opportunity of considering its details and submitting their views on the measure. He was perfectly certain that no soldier who knew what a Mutiny Bill should be would allow this Code to pass in its present form. Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) look at Clause 173, as an instance of the way in which the noncommissioned officers were treated. At the present time, with their short-service system, it was of the utmost importance that they should have the very best non-commissioned officers; but so long as they lowered the rank of the non-commissioned officer, by allowing him to be degraded at the mere hasty words of the commanding officer, so long would they fail to get the class of men they wanted. There was plenty of time to pass a thoroughly satisfactory measure; but, for his own part, he would far rather have the old Mutiny Act than the present measure. In that opinion he knew many officers would concur.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

would only trouble the House for a minute or two in reference to the particular part of this Bill in which he took special interest—punishment of soldiers by flogging. Some of his hon. Friends from Ireland—especially the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power)—when this Mutiny Act was before the House last year, were in favour of offering a very determined resistance to these clauses, word by word and line by line. They wanted to move the reduction of the lashes from 40 to 39, and from 39 to 38, and so on. He ventured, however, to advise them not to take that course, as he did not think it was the best way to meet the evil. He reminded them that the Government were pledged to give the Act a thorough overhauling in all respects, and to introduce a new Bill; and he told them that after that had been done he did not believe the flogging clauses would be again offered to them. His hon. Friends accepted his advice, and withdrew their Amendments. Now, he asked whether it was fair of the Government to Parliament, or to the Irish Members, or fair even to himself, to allow that to be done when they had no intention of going into these matters in the Committee, and, as a matter of fact, never did go into them at all. For when he asked some of his Friends on the Committee, taking great interest in the matter, what was being done about the flogging clauses, he was told that they were not to be discussed at all. He certainly was justified in believing that the Government were pledged to go into the matter; for he found, on turning back to Hansard, that these were the words of Mr. Secretary Hardy, now Lord Cranbrook— He had asked the House to pass the Bill in its present shape under the following state of things:—It was going to be referred to a Committee. … He certainly asked the Committee, as far as they possibly could, to pass the Bill in its present shape, with the view that there might be a thorough investigation hereafter into the whole subject."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxix. 46.] Whether the Committee that was struck gave satisfaction to anyone but themselves be did not know; but it was certainly the fact that many Gentlemen were very dissatisfied with the result of the labours of that Committee. It had simply given them a codification of the Mutiny Act and of the Articles of War. There was no reason for all this haste. They had gone on with this very confused and stupid old Mutiny Act for a great many years, and they could very well go on with it for one, two, or even three years more. But what they did want to do was not merely to pass an indifferent Bill, but to make the law as perfect as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) asked what was the good of taking evidence? He replied, that there was ground for asking for evidence as to flogging. When England was the only civilized State in Europe which tortured its soldiers with the lash, evidence would surely have helped them to form an opinion whether it was still necessary to disgrace our Military Code with this punishment. It had been said that it was very inconvenient to bring this matter forward now; but the answer to that was perfect. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) was bound to come forward at the time when he thought his object of stopping the Bill was most likely to be attained. He apparently thought the Bill was a mass of confusion, and a conglomeration of impossibilities; and he probably waited till the House was convinced of its imperfections. If his hon. Friend went to a division, he should certainly support him.

MR. J. HOLMS

only wished to say a very few words in reply. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had suggested that he was a rare attendant at the meetings of the Select Committee. The Report showed, however—as the hon. and learned Member would have seen had he taken the trouble to turn to it—that he was present at 10 meetings out of 12, when the evidence was given. He wished, again, to remind the Committee that no answer whatever had been made to the very plain issue he laid before it. That was, that the pledges given by the Government last year, that full investigation should be made into various subjects, had not been kept. No evidence was taken before the Select Committee, except of an official character; although in the Report that Committee themselves said, for instance, that they were of opinion that the power of commanding officers should be defined in the Statute, but that they had not before them sufficient evidence to enable them to decide whether such powers should be exempted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) said that the rules and regulations had no effect on enlistment, because the class from which their recruits at present wore drawn was a class on the verge of starvation. That was precisely his contention; and until the Military Law was changed and improved, they would continue only to get men to enlist when they were driven to do so from starvation. He was invited to put down Amendments; but though he would not absolutely say that the Bill could not be made a good Bill without taking evidence and going into all these different questions, he certainly should decline the invitation, and would reserve to himself the right to take the sense of the House on this matter when the Bill came up for the third reading. He begged to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

asked if it would not be better to leave out the words in line 27, "being an officer or non-commissioned officer?" The words at the beginning of the clause "every person subject to military law" would include everything; while at the end of the clause the punishments were defined, "if an officer, to be cashiered … if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment." The words were mere surplusage; and as his right hon. and gallant Friend had objected, in every other case, to the insertion of the words "non-commissioned officer," because in the Definition Clause it was intended to make that included in the word "soldier," it would be bettor to leave them out.

Amendment moved, in page 12, line 27, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the line down to before the word "wilfully."

COLONEL STANLEY

agreed that the Amendment would make the clause more in accordance with the general arrangement of the Bill.

MAJOR NOLAN

would again ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Committee would be permitted to discuss the prices paid for billeting? He had asked the question several times before; he could not get an answer, and he could not set up a preliminary Committee, as it required an Order from the Privy Council.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

remarked, that they were now about to discuss the offence and the punishment without having settled the law in regard to billeting. The rule hitherto had been to make the law first, and to decide the punishment afterwards.

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped that he had already given a satisfactory answer on the subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire was to discuss the prices of billets, and before the Committee came to the clauses on that subject the matter should be explained. He had been, and still was, in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject; and before they came to the clauses he would state what course ho thought the most advisable. Originally, he thought of placing in the Bill words giving authority to the Secretary of State for War to adjust prices from time to time; but that was thought inadvisable. Then it was suggested that the prices should be inserted in the Schedule of the annual Act, and so afford opportunity for revision. The matter was still under consideration, and he could not give any fuller answer at present.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, this seemed to Mm to be the only clause on which he could raise this question. He did not want to discuss the prices, but only to know whether, when they were reached, the Committee would be at liberty to discuss them? Surely on that point the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make up their minds. If the Committee could not discuss these prices and divide on them, it was very little use to talk about them; and, therefore, he simply wanted to know whether, when they got to the second Schedule, they were to find their mouths shut?

Amendment agreed to.

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

suggested the addition of the words, inline 35, of "or other civil officer." It was possible billets might be required for other persons besides the constable. The words were in the old Act, and it was very desirable that they should be in the Bill also.

Amendment moved, in page 12, line 35, after "constable," to insert "or other civil officer."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Offences in relation to Impressment of Carriages.

Clause 31 (Offences in relation to the impressment of carriages, and their attendants).

MR. E. JENKINS moved, in order to put himself in Order, to leave out the 1st sub-section. This clause, at the very least, required some explanation from either the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Judge Advocate General, for it did not occur either in the Mutiny Act or in the Articles of War. He wished to point out, also, how very general the sub-section was. It said whoever wilfully demanded any carriage, &c, "not actually required for the purposes authorized by this Act." It did not say required by proper authority, or under proper authority. The purposes authorized later on also seemed to be very general indeed.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he had never, either directly or indirectly, contended that nothing new was to be introduced during the process of codification. Ho had proposed these words because they seemed to him necessary for the protection of the public. He could not conceive a graver offence than wilfully taking animals, vessels, &c, which were not actually required. Of course, the court which tried the case would decide whether the things were actually required. They must deal with the general case; they could not legislate for the particular.

MR. BULWER

considered the clause capable of amendment, in that something ought to be said of the intent with which these things were taken. As the clause at present stood, if a man took 21 horses when only 20 were required, he would have committed an offence within the meaning of the Act.

COLONEL STANLEY

thought all those points might safely be left to the court martial which tried the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to call attention to the words used a little further on in the clause— Constrains any carriage … to travel against the will of the person in charge thereof beyond the proper distance. Those words were very vague. In the original Act the words were "the distance specified by the justices' warrant." It would be, of course, proper to word the clause in its present way; but ho thought it might be amended, so that it might read, "beyond the distance specified," or "authorized under this Act."

COLONEL STANLEY

had some doubts whether it would be wise to limit the Act in that way, or to make reference to any rules which might be created in pursuance of the Act. It was rather a small matter to put into an Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, he quite agreed with the principle the hon. Member was upholding; and he would either consider the matter and deal with it on the Report, or insert the words now, reserving power to himself to alter them on the Report.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

remarked, that former Acts of Parliament limited the distance to 25 miles. It would surely be wise to insert that provision again.

MR. E. JENKINS

only wished to call attention to the vagueness of the words. He would be quite satisfied if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would deal with the matter on the Report.

COLONEL STANLEY

replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), that he would not like to commit himself to an undertaking that no vessel should be taken more than 25 miles.

MR. A. H. BROWN

pointed out that the clause provided that the road was to be between such places as were specified in the Act, and the distance between such places was carefully guarded by another part of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

observed, that the clause provided for the punishment of officers and soldiers, but not non-commissioned officers. The last words wore— And if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such loss punishment as is in this Act mentioned. Had they yet come to a clear understanding as to whether non-commissioned officer was included under the word "soldier?" The Definition Clause 173 did declare soldier to cover noncommissioned officer; but Clause 180 distinctly defined soldier to exclude both officer and non-commissioned officer.

COLONEL STANLEY

would venture to repeat, what he had more than once said before, that when they came to the Definition Clause he would bring up words which should make this point clearer. He was not quite sure whether, as a matter of convenience in drafting, it was better to put in the words "non-commissioned officer" wherever wanted, or to include it under the term "soldier." When they came to the Definition Clause he would bring up words to settle the matter. At present, the term "soldier" included non-commissioned officer, except when otherwise stated.

Clause agreed to.

Offences in relation to Enlistment.

Clause 32 (Enlistment of soldier or sailor discharged with ignominy or disgrace).

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

thought the clause was carried too far. If a man were dismissed as objectionable from the Navy, they would suppose that would unfit him to serve in the Land Forces. But, some time ago, a man deserted from the Marines, and enlisted in the 32nd. He rose to the rank of non-commissioned officer by exemplary good conduct, and afterwards, on his trial for desertion, it came out that he deserted because he found his life unbearable from seasickness. Therefore, if a man were turned out of the Navy because he was "objectionable"—which, however, might really mean that he was a sufferer from sea-sickness—that was no reason why he should be tried and punished very severely for enlisting in another regiment. The Admiralty ought to have power to transfer a man from the Marines to the Land Forces. He moved, in page 14, line 20, to leave out "or as objectionable."

MR. W. H. SMITH

explained, that the word "objectionable" was perfectly well understood in the Navy. It did not apply at all to those who were, unfortunately, unable to live comfortably at sea. A man was tried, for instance, for drunkenness, time after time, and at last he would be dismissed from the Navy as objectionable. Of course, it would be very undesirable to enlist such a person in the Army.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

considered that the word "disgrace" alone would be sufficient. He was impressed with the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne), that a man should not be punished for enlisting, although he had been dismissed from the Navy "as objectionable," because this term did not necessarily imply anything disgraceful.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

inquired of the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the word "objectionable" was used in the discharges of the men dismissed from the Navy? He regarded the word as being too vague.

COLONEL MURE

said, a man could not be dismissed from the Navy unless there were very strong objections to his conduct; he could not, therefore, believe that the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) would like persons of that character to enter the Army. The clause contemplated cases of a very different kind to those in which the Royal Prerogative was exercised, in the dismissal of officers for infirmity of temper and other disqualifications.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

contended that if the clause was intended to relate to persons who, by the Naval Discipline Act, might be dismissed either "with disgrace" or "as objectionable persons," the words "as objectionable" should remain in the clause.

MR. E. JENKINS

found that there were words in the Mutiny Act which might be taken to include this offence; but the clause was, in his opinion, an exceptionally severe one. It would be seen that the words—"Or from any portion of the Auxiliary Forces, when subject to Military Law," would apply to Volunteers, who he did not think should be prevented from entering the Army. His objection was to the principle and spirit of the clause; because, as the Mutiny Act provided that a record should be kept of every discharge from Her Majesty's Service, the officers at head-quarters ought to be in a position to detect cases of re-enlistment. They had already passed a clause which rendered a man liable to imprisonment for making a false statement at the time of enlistment; and it would seem to be very harsh that a court martial should try him for the offence of enlisting again, no considered the clause unnecessary, and thought that, before the Report, the matter should receive the attention of the Secretary of State for War.

COLONEL STANLEY

regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms), who, taking the strong view which he did with regard to desertion from the Army, would certainly have supported this clause, even if he objected to other parts of the Bill. He (Colonel Stanley) could not but admit that the clause was more stringent in its effect than the law hitherto existing; but its object was to prevent the re-enlistment of men who could not be tried and punished under the Fraudulent Enlistment Act; men who were discharged from the Army under circumstances which rendered them no longer fit for service. With regard to the record of enlistments referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), he granted that such a register might be kept of soldiers who did not enlist abroad; but there was no possibility of doing so in the case of men who enlisted out of the country, which would render such an arrangement inoperative. The clause under consideration only applied to men who were thoroughly bad—who had been discharged with ignominy from the Regular Army or Auxiliary Forces, or from the depôt, or other analogous Services, or who had been dismissed from the Navy. Such men, who re-enlisted by deceit, came back into the Army only to swell the record of crimes in different regiments. He trusted that the Committee would allow the clause to pass.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

complained that he had not received an answer to his question as to whether Marines were ever dismissed from the Service because they suffered from sea sickness?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, in his reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had distinctly stated that such was not the case.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

considered that they should very carefully consider the effect of the clause, which struck him as being too severe. Everyone agreed that it was desirable to prevent the enlistment of bad men in the Army; but he could conceive that the term "objectionable" might be applied to conduct that required no punishment at all. It must be borne in mind that there were points to be considered. A man might, under the Naval Discipline Act, be legally convicted and dismissed from the Service with disgrace. In another case, he might be dismissed as "objectionable." Now, it was not exactly known what this word meant; and it would, therefore, be a serious thing to add it to a penal Statute. He could conceive the case of a troublesome, refractory boy, of not more than 12 or 14 years of age, who perhaps seven years after he had been dismissed from the Navy as objectionable might enlist in the Army. This boy might have entirely changed and become a very well-conducted man; but, all of a sudden, he would find himself liable to penal servitude. He did not think that this provision should be introduced into the Bill; and considered that the best way to meet the case would be to take from every man a declaration that he had not I before served in the Army or Navy, and punish him if he made a false declaration, which would be a definite offence. For the reasons stated, he suggested that the clause should be postponed and re-considered.

COLONEL NORTH

suggested that the best way to deal with the case of desertions from the Army was by a return to the system of marking, which in former days was the terror of deserters. There was no cruelty whatever in the act of marking a man; but the system had been done away with not by order of the House of Commons, but by the Act of Lord Card well, then Secretary of State for War, acting on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, which sat to consider the subject. The object of marking was the protection of the country from a system of fraud practised by men who enlisted first in the Army, then in the Militia, and so on, going from one regiment to the other; and to this effect was the answer given by Mr. Cardwell, when Secretary of State for War, who, when his opinion was asked as to whether marking ought to be regarded as a system of punishment, replied that— He did not think it ought. It was not for the purpose of punishment, but for the prevention of fraud. So that the second infliction of it was wrong, and ho felt no doubt that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief would be of the same opinion. He (Colonel Mure) entirely agreed that there was no necessity for the second marking. Again, the Royal Commission which sat to consider the subject had said that the Use of the term 'branding' had led to the erroneous impression that the marking was done in a cruel manner. And the Report went on to say that— The real object of the marking is not the punishment of the offender, but the protection of the public, who are frequently defrauded of bounty on the re-enlistment of discharged men who have brought discredit on the regiment to which they belonged, and are no longer likely to be useful to the Public Service. They also stated in their Report— It is the system of tempting recruits by bounties, without any previous inquiry into their character, which is the chief cause of fraudulent enlistment; and if, as we have reason to hope, measures can be taken to reform this system, all motive for continuing a practice, which nothing but necessity can justify, will cease to exist. He considered that at no previous period was more trouble taken than at the present moment to inquire into the previous character of recruits for the Army, notwithstanding desertion was on the increase, and he quoted the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for January, 1878, to show that unless there was some efficient safeguard of the public purse, the evil of desertion was likely to continue, to the great detriment of the Service. It would be seen, from the Return annexed to the Report, that the number of desertions had increased this year to 2,621, as compared with 2,337 in the year previous. He would remind the Committee that in the year 1871, when marking was abolished, the desertions increased to 1,382, and that since then they had risen to 2,690 for 1872, 2,531 for the year 1873, while for the year 1878 there were no less than 2,560 desertions. In short, in 1870, when marking was the rule, the number of deserters was 3,171; in 1878, 5,416. Then there was the crime of making away with the kits, and the number of these offences had risen from 1,135 in 1871 to 2,772 in 1878. The men who committed this fraud upon the public were described by Sir Henry Thring before the Committee as— A set of loafing vagabonds in the Army, the most troublesome, I believe, of all military offenders, men constantly going from one regiment to another. They desert from one regiment and enlist in another without giving notice that they belong to the Army, and they thereupon got a free kit and a number of advantages; and so they go on leading a sort of vagabond life. He wished, also, to point out that besides the cost of the kits of which the public were defrauded—the Secretary of State for War had referred to a case in which a man had enlisted in 13 different regiments, and had, consequently, received 13 new kits—the country had to pay for the enormous expense of taking and punishing the men who were guilty of this crime. His object in suggesting a return to the system of marking was no other than the protection of the ratepayers of the country. He, therefore, hoped that either that system, or some efficient method, would be adopted in future; for, besides the enormous ex- pense of recapturing deserters, until this was done our endeavours to get respectable men to join the Army would be fruitless.

COLONEL STANLEY

, desiring to save trouble to the Committee, was willing to leave out the words objected to; but in order to render the clause more clear, he would ask the Committee to assent to the insertion, in line 21, after the word "forces," of the words "without declaring the circumstances of his discharge."

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, there could be no doubt that desertion and re-enlistment was one of the greatest evils existing in the Army, and that the means hitherto devised had been insufficient for the purpose of checking it.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

rose to Order. The word "desertion" was not mentioned in the clause under consideration.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that a more suitable opportunity of raising this question would occur when Clause 34 was reached. He would point out to the Committee that the clause now before them was directed against improper persons entering the Army, who were referred to as persons previously discharged from the Army. He could scarcely, therefore, see the immediate relevancy of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), which, as he had already said, would be more suitably applied to Clause 34.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

thought that the Committee would see that his remarks were properly made at that stage of the Bill, when they were dealing with the offence of entering the Army again after discharge, with a view to its prevention. This matter which had, to a great extent, already occupied the attention of the Committee, was one of such serious importance that he ventured to draw the attention of the Committee to the evidence given by the Commander-in-Chief before the Royal Commission. The questions were put by himself (Sir Henry Havelock); but, before referring to them, he wished to point out that from the circumstance that the punishment of the crime of desertion in the face of the enemy was in our Service death, there had grown up a popular feeling in favour of the de-sorter. But that crime was not included in the present use of the word "deser- tion," which simply implied a fraudulent breach of contract entered into with the Service; an act, in itself, essentially and notoriously disgraceful. He was, therefore, sure that when this was clearly understood by the public there would not remain a shadow of sympathy for a man who had committed this crime, who would thenceforward be regarded as a thoroughly disgraceful and fraudulent person. Proceeding to another part of the question—the system of branding—it was supposed by many persons who knew nothing about the matter that officers were in the habit of binding a man hand-and-foot, throwing him upon his face, and branding him with a hot iron. But the truth was, the marking was done by the much more simple and painless process of tattooing, generally on the left breasts—the pain in that case being no more than would be felt on pricking a finger with a pin. When the House deprived itself of that means of checking fraudulent enlistment, the public purse by that act suffered to the extent of £320,000 a-year, and would continue to do so until a remedy was discovered. But to return to the opinion of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who was asked the Question— Without in any degree assenting to a return to the system of marking which is now obsolete, is it your opinion that such marking was effective? His Royal Highness replied— I think it would he a very good plan; I see no reason why it should not he adopted. And, again, he said, in reply to another Question— I do not think there would he any hardship in this; it would draw the attention of the medical officer to the fact. Now, the remedy for the evil in question was that it should be understood that the House was in favour of a system of marking by vaccination, which would for the future indicate that a man, presenting himself with such mark upon him, had been a soldier, and draw attention to the circumstances in which he was discharged. This would have the effect of saving the country the large sum of £320,000 a-year. But the advantage was not to be measured entirely by its pecuniary result; for anything which tended to check desertion, and re-enlistment in the Army would be entirely in favour of the good soldier—the man who endeavoured to do his duty, and who was now the greatest sufferer by the fact that this fraudulent re-enlistment escaped notice. He thought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) for having drawn attention to the subject, and trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would devise some efficient means of checking the evil.

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

thought it well, as the discussion had turned upon the means by which the offence of fraudulent desertion and enlistment in the Army could be prevented, to point out that those who were instrumental in bringing in the soldiers guilty of that offence, might, in his opinion, be very properly called upon to exercise greater circumspection in the men whom they selected. He had no doubt that in many cases the recruiting sergeants were very well aware that the men enlisted by them had been soldiers before; and he (Colonel Arbuthnot) had himself, on more than one occasion, refused to enlist men who had been brought up by the sergeant for enlistment, because it was evident to anyone that the men knew something of military drill. One good step, he thought, in the right direction would be that a little care should be exercised in the granting of sums of money for enlistments. He quite held with the granting of money to those who discovered deserters; but considered it undesirable that pecuniary rewards should be given to anybody in connection with the enlistment of a soldier, until that soldier had been for some time under examination; and he had himself known of cases in which money so granted had been taken back again.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was departing from the subject before the Committee in referring to the question of bounties.

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

was simply showing how these improper enlistments could best be prevented. But he would pass to another point. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had read from a Report in which it was said that by the system of bounties, without due inquiry as to the ante- cedents of soldiers, desertion was very much encouraged. He (Colonel Arbuthnot) did not see why a man, on offering himself for enlistment, should not be obliged to bring a character of some sort, or furnish a reference, in exactly the same way as demanded from servants engaged by private individuals. There would be a great advantage in this; because, if reference was given to persons who had known the recruit from his early youth, a stop would be put to the practice of children enlisting as men. It would, by this means, be very easy to discover whether the person presenting himself was of the age which he professed to be, or whether, as was often the case, he was three or four years younger. He ventured to think that the civil magistrates might do a great deal in the way of assisting to stop this practice; but he was aware that the various benches of magistrates took very different views concerning the gravity of the crime, and, in some cases, were inclined to act in an unduly lenient manner, from an unaccountable feeling of opposition to the military authorities. He remembered a case in which, finding that a man taken before them had not received his proper punishment, he had written, pointing out the gravity of the offence, and suggesting that he should have received a proper punishment. A rather sharp letter was received in reply, telling him, in effect, that he, as a civil magistrate, understood the case best. He (Colonel Arbuthnot) wrote an apologetic reply, as magistrate of Quarter Sessions in another county, in answer to which he received a very different letter, and the next two men whom he sent up received considerably more punishment than had been formerly awarded. With regard to the making away with kits, he was not quite sure whether the Bill dealt with the point so far as concerned the receivers, who were as much to blame as those who sold the articles. If that was not the case, he thought some provision should be introduced to meet the case of receivers.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

conceived that it would be departing from the proper subject before the Committee to continue the discussion upon fraudulent re-enlistment, concerning which a great deal would have to be said. The clause appeared to him to be misplaced. It dealt with an offence in relation to enlistment; but it was enlistment from civil life, and quite distinct from fraudulent enlistment. It appeared to him that the clause, which related to the offence of enlisting a recruit by means of false declarations, ought to be a clause under the general heading of fraudulent enlistments, and that the offence provided for by Clause 34, which dealt with enlistment in the active sense of engaging a man in the Service, might be brought under the head of miscellaneous offences elsewhere in the Bill. Unless this was done, he foresaw that considerable confusion would arise with regard to these parts of the Bill. They were dealing with the case of men who enlisted after being discharged from various branches of the Service with ignominy; and ho submitted that the question of the re-enlistment of deserters was not before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that to raise the question of re-enlistment by a man still on the Books of the Army at that part of the Bill would be foreign to the clause before the Committee. There was no doubt that the tendency of the discussion had been to exceed the limits of the clause, and he again pointed that out to the Committee.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, there could be no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Henry Havelock) was technically right in setting this discussion on foot; because it was essential that at some point in the Bill the Committee should discuss this very serious question relating to desertion and the sale of kits. That practice had increased, especially of late years; no less than 2,800 kits having been sold, and 5,416 having deserted during last year. Even hon. Members opposed to the marking of soldiers had suggested that something should be done; and it was to that point he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The Bill did not in any way provide for the recognition of deserters, who would, therefore, escape detection, unless something happened to turn up to show that they had been in some other regiment. Something, therefore, was required by which a deserter could be recognized and prevented from passing himself off as not having been in the Army at all. It mattered very little how they were marked; but they must be marked in some way. He, therefore, trusted the Secretary of State for War would seriously consider the question, which was one of deep importance not only to the Army itself but to the general public.

COLONEL MURE

thought the discussion then going on was not absolutely regular. It appeared to him that the Committee, not only upstairs but in the House, had been paralyzed in its examination of Military Law. The Committee upstairs were told that they were to receive evidence upon the subject of desertion, but were not to discuss the question. The Committee of the House had passed a Desertion Clause, and yet hon. Members were agreed in desiring that the discussion which had been raised should continue, even though it were irregular. He (Colonel Mure) could not understand how hon. Members could thus proceed, while the great evil of desertion was corroding and eating into the Army. He asked, what it was thought would be the feeling in the Army if it were known that the House was discussing a new Code of Military Law, and that it had passed a clause dealing with desertion without saying one word upon it? It would be felt very deeply; because it was a well-known fact that the best soldiers in the Army complained of the disgrace brought upon them by desertions. The fact was, that the question of desertion had never been seriously taken up by the military authorities. The only thing that had been done seriously was to withdraw from the Army the only protection it had—namely, the marking of deserters, a change which rendered their detection thenceforward almost an impossibility. He believed that a very considerable number of hon. Members would hesitate in going back to a system of marking; there was something about the branding a man in early life repugnant to the feelings, especially in the case of very young men. He (Colonel Mure) would in no way submit to the marking of young men with the letter D, even admitting that they were guilty of the crime of desertion.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, the question before the Committee being one which had reference to the enlistment of men discharged from the Service with ignominy, he could not see the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Mure), who appeared to be raising a wholly different question.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it did not appear to him that that was the most convenient place for the observations of the hon. and gallant Member to be made, as they did not strictly relate to the subject-matter of the clause.

COLONEL MURE

observed, that the subject was most important; and although, according to the ruling of the Chair, it could not then be brought forward, he hoped that it would be fully discussed on Report.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

suggested that not only every soldier, but that every officer entering into a regiment should receive a mark. Every second lieutenant on joining, as well as every private, should be marked with the name of his regiment. A great misconception had arisen from the use of the word "branding;" but it was quite unnecessary to use that term. They had heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) that it was absolutely necessary, on the first conviction for desertion, to mark with the letter D; but the court had power to abstain from so doing, if they thought there was sufficient reason. He would not at that point enter into the question of the advisability of using the letter D; but would only say that it was quite distinct from the use of a regimental mark. To the use of the letter D he did not think the House would ever again consent; but he did think it very necessary that every soldier should be marked with the name of his regiment.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

urged the Secretary of State for War to take into consideration the suggestions that had been so admirably urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). It would be well for a careful inquiry to be made into these matters.

MR. E. JENKINS

was sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was not at that moment in the House; but he was glad to see the Judge Advocate General in his place, as he would be able to reply to the observations which he had to make with regard to this clause. The more he considered this clause the less he liked it; and he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) ought by that time to have had some weight, because the hon. and learned Member agreed in supporting this Bill, and was the Chairman of the Committee upon whose recommendations this Bill had been drawn. He wanted to point out to the Committee that this clause affected not every person subject to the Military Law, as the 13th did, but every person having become subject to Military Law. The object was that the military authorities might follow into civil life a man who had been discharged with ignominy; upon his release and entrance into civil life it was sought still to bring him under the provisions of the Act, and to subject him to a military court martial. Surely, the Bill was harsh enough as it stood, without the introduction of such extra punishment as the subjecting a man who had re-entered civil life to a court martial and a sentence of penal servitude. It seemed to him that this clause was perfectly gratuitous; for it provided severe and unnecessary punishment in the case of fraudulent enlistment, which offence was already provided for by another clause. He would take the sense of the Committee with regard to the maintenance of this clause; for the more he considered it the more he thought it was unnecessary, and unduly severe. It was merely an attempt, by imposing penal servitude, to endeavour to dissuade persons from committing crime. Because the organization of the Army was imperfect, and because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as he had admitted, found difficulties in registering the name of every person who had been dismissed the Service with ignominy, undue penalties of this sort were to be imposed. It was simply an attempt to prevent, by highly penal legislation, an offence which arose from the want of organization of the Army. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must see that the clause was too severe; it was a clause against the general policy of legislation, and, indeed, it was admitted to be so. There was nothing in the present Mutiny Act or the Articles of War even remotely akin to it; and he would ask whether, in order to meet the difficulty of persons re-enlisting who had been discharged with ignominy, it was right to introduce a clause of such severity as this into an Act of Parlia- ment? He could not think that this was justifiable; and he should deem it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon the maintenance of this

Lord ELCHO

agreed that the questions of desertion and enlistment were very important, and, in his opinion, should not be debated casually, but should be brought forward, as it was proposed to do, on Report. But whether right or wrong, as it at present existed, the enlistment question was most important, for it was at the root of the whole military system. For that reason ho trusted that it would have a full and careful discussion. Judging from the reports from the different regiments, there was an absolute necessity that the Government should bring forward some proposition on this subject. With regard to the question of desertion, ho should not have thought it necessary to make any remarks, but for some absurd statements which had been made. No doubt, the present prevalence of desertion in the Army was a scandal and a disgrace. In his opinion, there must be something very wrong in our military system which produced that state of desertion. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was at the head of a body not unlike the Army—he meant the body of the police, he heard no question raised as to desertion from the police, or as to the necessity of branding the police; and ho could not but think that if they tried, by some means or other, they could get men into the Army of the character that there were in the police, and then there would be no question about branding. He was entirely opposed to any branding, and had voted against it on previous occasions. There was something to him absolutely repulsive in having to bolster up their military system by branding men like a herd of cattle; and, although they had been told by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him that they should not look upon branding as a disgrace, but that it should be turned into an element of honour by a Crown being affixed on some part of the person—he did not say back or front—of every man that enlisted, whether officer or private, yet that did not, in his opinion, shake his abhorrence of the system. He had no intention of enlisting as a private, nor was it ever likely that ho should ever have a commission as a second lieutenant.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

observed, that he had only suggested that the number of the regiment should be marked on each man.

LORD ELCHO

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal was that every man should have a number as a sort of convict badge. Now, although ho was not likely to go into the Army, he might possibly have a son who would be a second lieutenant; and he should object not only to branding deserters, but still more so should he object, if their system was so bad that they had to brand both officers and privates. He objected to branding with the Crown, or anything else, for the purpose of catching deserters, men who could not be at present apprehended because of the faults of the system; and, à fortiori, he should object to any son of his being branded because he entered the Army. To say that to be thus marked with a Crown was an honour! A strange kind of honour founded in dishonour. For his part, he should raise his voice most emphatically against such a system. The matter ought to be dealt with in a very different way; and the subject was a larger one than could be discussed at that time, when the Bill ought to be proceeded with with all reasonable speed. When the subject was brought on he trusted that it would be discussed in a full House. If the question were dealt with in the way it had been suggested—namely, as a question of vaccination—he thought that some hon. Members would certainly raise very great objections to that.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

understood the Secretary of State for War to have said that he would withdraw this clause.

COLONEL STANLEY

observed, that he had not stated that, but had only said that ho had no objection to leave out the words to which the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) objected, and to put in certain other words. He might observe that the proposal for branding did not emanate from him; but the provisions of the clause were necessary to meet the case of confirmed bad characters, and enable the authorities to deal with them.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

noticed that Clause 32 was headed "Offences in relation to enlistment," and another clause on page 51 was headed "Offences as to enlistment." He could see no difference between these two; and it seemed to him unnecessary to deal with the offences in two places. With regard to the suggestions that had been made, by more than one hon. Member, with regard to branding—and it was nothing else—for officers and soldiers, he was glad to hear his right hon. and gallant Friend state that the proposal did not come from him; but he must ask the Committee to remember that that proposal had come from the Predecessor of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. When he proposed such a system, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) took the liberty of suggesting that he had better drop the question, inasmuch as it was a proposal that would not be acceptable to the House or to the country, and that, in effect, it was to put a mark on every man in the Army because he could not be trusted. The only reason for the proposal was that they could not trust their soldiers; and he hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be induced to change his present determination.

MR. MUNTZ

did not remember its being proposed to brand every officer and soldier in the Army. There was some discussion as to branding deserters, and some hon. Member on that side of the House wisely suggested tattooing instead. He thought, however, that if they were to brand or tattoo every officer and soldier in the Army, they would do away with all self-respect, and he certainly could not agree to such a proposal. With respect to the provisions of this clause, everyone guilty of the offence of re-enlistment was to suffer penal servitude. That seemed to him a far more severe punishment than ought to be inflicted for any such offence; imprisonment with hard labour was the worst punishment that he considered should be inflicted. In the ease of felony, and other serious crimes, penal servitude was properly inflicted; but it was too severe a punishment to award to every man enlisting again who had been discharged with ignominy.

COLONEL STANLEY

explained that the punishment was to meet the case of men who had been discharged as utterly incorrigible, and who had, in all probability, passed the best part of their lives in prison, and who were in every way a nuisance to the regiment in which they had enlisted. Those were the men whose case was intended to be met by this clause—if he might use so strong a word, the case of the men who were the curse of the Army. He trusted the Committee would agree with him as to the necessity for this provision, and that they would consent to leave the words "penal servitude" in the clause. He did not, by any means, say that the punishment should always be inflicted; but it was necessary to have a stronger deterrent upon men who had passed five or six years in prison and enlisted over and over again, and who brought discredit on every regiment into which they came. He did not think that these men were too hardly dealt with if they suffered somewhat severely under this clause. The clause only applied, as the Committee would see, to men who had been discharged with ignominy, and as incorrigible and worthless.

MR. E. JENKINS

observed, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to forget that the clause applied not only to the Regular Forces, but to the Auxiliary Forces. Perhaps he would inform the Committee how it was possible for a man to be discharged with ignominy from the Volunteers? He stated that the clause was intended to apply to persons who had been dismissed as incorrigible; but the clause also applied to Volunteers. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would state whether that was correct or not? The clause seemed to him to be wider than was supposed.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) forgot that the Auxiliary Forces included the Militia. He did not say that this clause applied to the Militia generally, yet the men who continually committed this offence, when they found that their game was blown in the Line, after about 14 or 15 offences of fraudulent re-enlistment in the Regulars, turned their attention to the Militia. The clause was, doubtless, intended to meet their case. He did not think that the punishment of penal servitude was at all too great for such men. In a case that had occurred some years ago, a man, who had formerly held the rank of corporal, was dismissed, and he re-enlisted no less than 10 times in successive regiments. Such a case as that, in his opinion, showed the necessity of the clause,

MR. WHITWELL

said, that the hon. and gallant Member was mistaken in thinking that tins clause applied to the Militia as now constituted. It would only apply to them when embodied for a long period.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

observed, that if the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) referred to Hansard, he would see that a statement was made by the Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Army Estimates into that House in 1876, to the effect he had stated. The noble Lord who then occupied the position of Secretary of State for War suggested marking, with the view of checking desertion; but, at the time, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) expressed a doubt of the propriety of the suggestion. No doubt, the noble Lord thought better of the point, for nothing more was heard about it.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

remarked that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire was not quite correct in his facts. Some hon. Member had suggested universal marking, and Lord Cranbrook had replied that, as Minister for War, he should not object to being marked himself.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that desertion had often to be punished at the present time. According to the Report of Colonel Du Cane, the War Office authorities were not in the habit of giving penal servitude for this crime. Nineteen hundred men were tried for desertion last year, and very few of them were punished with penal servitude; in over 1,000 cases the maximum penalty that was given was imprisonment for periods under 12 months; in many cases 60 and 20 days only were given. From these facts, he argued that there was a very great jumble in this clause, and that the punishment of penal servitude ought to be omitted from it. It seemed to him to be a heavy penalty to give a man penal servitude for this offence. He thought the whole question turned upon the policy of retaining the present system of discharging with ignominy. His own opinion was against that system. It was within his knowledge that a great number of the men who were discharged with ignominy schemed to be so. They were encouraged to be reckless, because the inducement was held out to them that they could be discharged from the Service in no other way than by incurring the punishment of discharge with ignominy; whereas a man who had committed no crime was not able to leave the Service, and was thus in a worse position than the man who earned his discharge with ignominy. He must say he very much doubted whether, excepting in very rare cases, it was wise to discharge men with ignominy. No doubt, the system got rid of men of very bad character; but the example that was created by their discharge encouraged men who desired to leave the Service to get discharged from the regiment in the same way, as, under the present system, they could not leave in any other way. The remedy seemed to him to be not to retain this proposition of giving penal servitude, but, as he had always contended in that House, to effect a change in the entire system of the Army. He thought it a great mistake to keep men in the Service against their will. He believed that the proper remedy for this offence was not to punish with undue severity, but to allow men who desired it to have their discharge, and go into the Reserve in a much larger proportion than was now permitted. The system might be altered, so as to allow them to rejoin when the regiment was going on active service; but the Army could not be put into a proper state until men were allowed, much more frequently than at present, to enter the Reserves. No doubt, the answer to his proposition would be that only recruits would be left in the ranks; but that could readily be met by increasing the inducements to soldiers to remain in the Army. He thought that if the pay of soldiers was increased more men would remain in the ranks, and the number of the recruits would be better. If these matters were attended to, not only would a sufficient number of recruits be obtained, but they would be drawn from a better class of men; and as desertion would not exist, there would not be the same reason as now to fix the identity of the men. At the present moment, and for some time, men had been enlisted without any character whatever, and that was one reason why desertions were so frequent, for they thus continually recruited a vast number of bad characters. Sergeants, who were accustomed to the matter, would frequently be able to tell at once that men had been in the Army before. For all these matters he believed the proper remedy would be to pick the men, which could be done if the inducements of the Service were increased. But instead of seeking for a remedy for the present system by improving the position of the soldier, and by offering him increased inducements to remain in the Service, the tendency, on the other hand, was to award severe punishments. He did not believe that that was a right policy. If a man were discharged with ignominy, and was unable to gain his living in an honest way, his only resource was to endeavour to enlist; and so long as men were taken without a character, or any sort of reference, that would continue to be the case. If some sort of reference were required, a great deal of fraudulent enlistment would be stopped; but if it could not be stopped by this means, he thought it was a mistake to impose the penalty of penal servitude for the offence. In very few cases up to the present time had penal servitude been awarded; and the Secretary of State for War had admitted that men who committed the offence of fraudulent enlistment could be tried by another law. A recruit was bound to swear, under the present Mutiny Act, that he had never served Her Majesty before, either in Her Land or Sea Forces; and a man falsely taking that oath could be prosecuted for perjury. Both from the public Returns and from his own experience, he knew that it had not been the custom to give penal servitude for this offence, and he did not think there was any object gained in increasing the penalty. If penal servitude were awarded for this particular offence, there would be a great deal of public opinion aroused out-of-doors, and he did not think that that was desirable. He would suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he should consent to have the word "imprisonment" substituted for penal servitude in the clause, and two years' imprisonment as the maximum amount that could be given. It seemed to him that that was fully an adequate punishment. What a man really did by this offence was to cheat the country out of about £26 worth of money. No doubt, that was a great inconvenience to the country when multiplied by a large number. The prevalence of the offence was, however, due, in his opinion, to the very faulty system of selecting recruits, and a man was punished partly for his own offence and partly for the defects of the system. Although the penalty was partly for a man's own crime, yet, in a great measure, it was to make up for the bad administration of the Army. He should be happy to support any hon. Member who would move to leave out from the clause the words "punishment of penal servitude."

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

thought that penal servitude ought to be retained, not only because it was necessary, by means of it, to deter men from fraudulently enlisting, but because their offence cost the country an enormous sum of money. The country was put to an enormous expense every year for the purpose of catching deserters; and it was sometimes said that one half of the Army was employed in trying to catch the other which had run away. Each deserter cost the country £35 for the expense of catching him, bringing him back to his regiment, and trying him by court martial.

COLONEL COLTHURST

observed, that his own experience of these men was that no punishment was too severe for them.

Amendment (Major O'Beirne) agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD moved to leave out "penal servitude" from the clause. He did not wish to make many observations, and would content himself with saying that there was no notion which was shown by experience to be so unfounded as that by severe punishment any sort of crime could be repressed. His great objection was to putting large powers in the hands of any court which might be used to an excessive extent, unless such powers were limited, and in some way proportioned to the offence which they were intended to prevent. For these reasons, he begged to move the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, line 22, to leave out the words "penal servitude," in order to insert the words "imprisonment only."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'penal servitude' stand part of the Clause."

COLONEL NORTH

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that men had usually undergone every other punishment before they were sentenced to penal servitude.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, there was one case very well known, for it got into all the papers. A man—the case belonged to the Artillery—carried off some article from a shop. In fact, he wanted to be discharged; but the magistrate refused to convict him, as his object was extremely clear. He took the article in the sight of several persons. That was only one case out of many. Under this clause, a man might have a very good character, and yet be sent to penal servitude. He really did not see why they should impose so excessive a penalty as this, if they did not moan to enforce it. Ho did not think they would deter men from re-enlisting by this penalty.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, the Committee was under a misapprehension as to the purport of this clause. It was supposed that this clause was to meet cases of repeated acts of desertion. It had nothing to do with that. It simply referred to the case of a man discharged from the Navy enlisting in the Army. It only met that case; and there was no law by which they could transport a man if he committed that offence. He believed three months' imprisonment was the most he could got. The House now proposed to increase that to penal servitude, and he should propose to insert imprisonment instead of penal servitude. He believed the discussion had been conducted under a wholly erroneous impression. It was not a case of repeated desertions that they were dealing with.

MR. MUNTZ

said, five years' penal servitude was a severe punishment, and ought to be given only under exceptional circumstances; and if it was proposed to leave out the words "penal servitude," and substitute "two years' imprisonment with hard labour," he should have pleasure in voting for it.

MR. BULWER

hoped the Committee would be careful what it was about in regard to this Amendment, which he trusted would not be carried. At the same time, he would point out that two years' imprisonment with hard labour was a punishment the severity of which was not sufficiently realized.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he would rather limit the punishment to imprisonment only, and he had moved an Amend- ment to that effect. Imprisonment must be confined to two years; whereas penal servitude might be given for life.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, they had discussed this subject for a long time, but there was no sign of any concession from the front Bench. He wished to point out that this was an attempt to make the law more severe. That was clear. Suppose they were to adopt the Amendment, if his hon. and learned Friend looked to the next clause, he would find that any person making a false statement was liable to a very severe punishment. He wanted to know what was the object of bringing in this clause at all? It was said that it was to prevent persons discharged with ignominy re-enlisting in Her Majesty's Service. He could conceive the case of persons re-enlisting who might really become serviceable soldiers, and ho could not see why this exceptional punishment should he introduced aimed at these persons. There was a want of organization in the Army itself, because a record was not kept, not only of those enlisted, but of those discharged with ignominy. It was said there was a difficulty, because in the Colonies and on foreign service these discharges occurred, and no record could be kept at home. That was no answer. A record could be kept, and ought to be sent home and registered; and he maintained that this was entirely an unnecessary clause. It seemed to him that it was an attempt to introduce a drastic remedy.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 35: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 94.)

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he must repeat that he felt it his duty to protest against this clause. He was very sorry to say it; but it seemed to him that the front Bench on that (the Liberal) side appeared to have entered into the Lobby with the Ministers for the purpose of enforcing this clause. He said the front Bench; but he should rather say the remnants—the relics—of the front Bench had joined Ministers to force on the Committee this monstrous clause. It was an infamous clause, and he protested against it. He asked the Committee to consider what this clause really was. He referred them to Clause 13, Clause 95, and Clause 33; and he asked what could be the necessity of accumulating penalties? It seemed that the object was to subject a man to penal servitude, because, having been discharged with ignominy from the Service, he had once more enlisted; but the truth was, the object of this clause was to make up for the deficiency of the organization and administration of the Army; and he certainly should divide the Committee once more against the clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Member had denounced everybody who differed from him in that House. As to what was said about the front Bench, his reply was this—that as the front Bench did not expect the hon. Member to follow them, the hon. Member should not expect the front Bench to follow him on this or other occasions. These things should be reciprocral, and he did not see how the hon. Member was entitled to expect the front Bench on this occasion to obey his behests. The hon. Member spoke of this clause as "infamous," after it had received the sanction of a considerable majority. This showed a temper which the hon. Member was too apt to display, though ready to disclaim on all occasions.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that, of course, any appeal made by the hon. and learned Member would receive weight; but it was his duty to observe that they had been debating a great many matters not referred to or included in the clause at all. During the absence of the hon. and learned Member, the Chairman had to interfere on more than one occasion in order to restrict the latitude which hon. Members had given themselves in discussing matters which had no reference to the clause. Now, they had just arrived at the discussion of the clause; and if ho had sufficient authority, or perhaps audacity, he would venture to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman, and tell him that they had not been debating it three hours and a-half. It was only quite recently they had taken the matter up in earnest; the Committee had refused to limit the words "penal servitude;" and it appeared to him that if the words were not limited—if the word "imprisonment" were not inserted—they ought to limit the term of penal servitude which it was within the power of the courts martial to inflict. He therefore moved as an Amendment, to insert, after "penal servitude," "not exceeding five years."

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled the Amendment out of Order.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, 2,000 were discharged with ignominy every year for misconduct, and very possibly 100 of these might re-enlist; and if this clause was enforced they would give a great number of men a very heavy punishment. Of the 2,000, only 375 were discharged for "good conduct"—that was, discharged free. He believed they were entirely on the wrong road on this question. There was something rotten in the whole system; it was bad administration. It was not the fault of the present Secretary of State for War. What he had done was in the right direction; but there was bad administration.

COLONEL STANLEY

neither denied nor accepted the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, they were from the public Returns.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, it did not follow that the word "misconduct" would include misconduct with ignominy. It was sought to draw a contrast between the discharges which took place for disgraceful conduct and other discharges; but it would be found, when the Committee came to proceed farther on in their labours, that there was a clause allowing men to go to the Reserve, affording facilities for leaving the Service.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, before the hon. and learned Member for Oxford left the Committee he must say a word or two with reference to the remarks he had thrown out. He certainly felt it to be his duty to refer to the fact that the front Bench on most important occasions was a vast hiatus. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there must be reciprocity, and that if he was expected to lead others must at least follow.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I beg pardon. I said the opposite.

MR. E. JENKINS

That if we expected him to lead, at least there must be some reciprocity, and we must follow those who lead. That would be true, if there was anything or anybody to lead.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Member must have misunderstood me. I did not expect anything.

MR. E. JENKINS

Exactly. The hon. and learned Member is right. He ought not to expect anything, because there is no attempt at Leadership in any manner or form. And I did not venture to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to lead. That has not been his position heretofore, and the time is far distant, I suppose, when he will be in the position of Leader. The hon. and learned Gentleman——

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

I rise to Order, Mr. Raikes. I want to know whether the observations of the hon. Gentleman are in connection with the Business before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

No, they are not. The hon. Member's remarks have no reference to the matter before the Committee. At the same time, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to some latitude in replying to some remarks which have been made.

MR. E. JENKINS

I was only going to point out, as the question has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that if we are to follow we must have someone to lead us. I think we ought to have Leaders occasionally present to show us what our duties are on the question of the day. The hon. and learned Member is a curled darling of the salons. He strolls down from Olympus with his hands in his pockets. A question comes up. He rises— Like some tall cliff that rears its awful form, Smiles from the vale, and midway leaves the storm! He— Assumes the God, Affects to nod, And seems to shake the spheres! We thirsty souls below the Gangway listen with reverence. He shakes his ambrosial curls and scatters on us a few drops of Olympian dew. We fancy he is Jove; but, in truth, we find he is only Ganymede; and yet he blames us if we do not happen to agree with him. I protest against this. I do not propose to be deterred from doing my duty by any remarks coming from the hon. and learned Member. Coming back to the question before us, I say that this is a drastic clause, and I feel it is a monstrous thing that such a clause as this should be allowed to remain in the Bill; but it seems that the Bill has been arranged or "squared" by the two front Benches, and that it is utterly useless for anyone else to say anything. I will not now divide the Committee, because I know it would not be of the slightest use; but I felt it my duty to make these few remarks. I must, however, point out that the clause makes the law more stringent than it is in the old Mutiny Act, Section 48. There a person must be charged with having wilfully made a false statement in answer to any question directed to be put to him by the proper authorities. This clause, which simply says "to have made a false statement," gave too wide a latitude, and it ought to be restricted within the words of the old Act. I will propose to insert the word "wilfully."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, then they ought to follow the line of the Act, and insert the words "district or garrison."

Amendment moved, in page 14, line 32, after "by," to insert "district or garrison."—(Mr. E. Jenkins.)

COLONEL STANLEY

did not see the necessity of inserting these words, as the words court martial would include them all.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

observed, that it would be inappropriate to adopt them, because that would be the old classification accorded to punishment. They put the words "district or garrison" in the old Act, in order to show the magnitude of the punishment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 (False answers or declarations on enlistment) agreed to.

Clause 34 (General offences in relation to enlistment).

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

asked why different punishments were inflicted on the officer or non-commissioned officer who knowingly enlisted a man dismissed with disgrace from the Army, and that to which they subjected the man himself? The man was punished with penal servitude, while the others escaped with simple imprisonment. Yet, surely, the offence was greater in the officer or non-commissioned officer, and they ought to be punished at least as heavily as the man, who, perhaps, was induced to commit the offence by starvation, or, on the other hand, might be influenced by a genuine desire to reform his character. They had heard a good deal about one law for the rich and another for the poor; but it did appear to him that this was an instance in which the poor man was severely punished, while the rich man got off easily.

COLONEL STANLEY

explained that penal servitude was inserted to meet the case of men of persistent bad character, for whom imprisonment had no terror.

MAJOR NOLAN

hoped the Government would withdraw the clause. He thought they did wrong in proposing such a clause as Clause 32, and even now he hoped they would withdraw that also on the Report. It was much better to be right and a little inconsistent than to be wrong merely for the sake of consistency and of making the Bill a symmetrical Bill. He was afraid that desire for symmetry had gone too far.

MR. GOLDNEY

added that a man might not exercise his reasoning powers enough in answering, and even this might subject him to this punishment.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little in error, for Clause 32 was not framed to meet the case of desertion. It would apply to the single case of a man who had been dismissed from the Army. He offered himself to the sergeant, who know he had been dismissed. He washable to penal servitude, while the non-commissioned officer would only suffer imprisonment. He should like to move to leave out the words; but as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not accept them it was of no use.

MR. E. JENKINS

asked if there was any objection to leave out the words "has reasonable cause to believe?" Supposing a man were brought before the court, how would it be proved that he "had reasonable cause to believe?"

THE CHAIRMAN

That cannot now be done. An Amendment has been made later in the clause, and it is not competent for the hon. Member to go back.

MR. PARNELL

said, to make the clause tally with the Amendment of the previous clause, the words "or as objectionable" must be omitted.

Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "disgrace," to leave out "or as objectionable."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Miscellaneous Military Offences.

Clause 35 (Traitorous words) agreed to.

Clause 36 (Injurious disclosures).

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

called attention to an important change which had been made in the clause, consisting of an addition which seemed to him to be a most dangerous one. A military person, according to the clause, in the course of a most harmless conversation on ordinary military questions which usually occupied the thoughts of officers and men in a campaign, as to the state and condition of the Army in regard to men and stores, might be accused of having produced, "or incurred the risk of producing," effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service Frankly, that seemed to him a terrible opening for many a courts martial. He had served in a country where treachery was common, and where the contents of the magazines was most important, and naturally subject-matters for common talk at messes or private parties, yet he had never known it necessary to put in force the first part of the clause. But, certainly, it was a new thing that officers, for merely speaking to one another about the contents of the magazines or stores, should be charged with "incurring the risk of producing" injurious effects. This creation of new offences was very objectionable, and he would move the omission of the words.

Amendment moved, in page 15, line 25, after "produced," to omit "or incurred the risk of producing."—(General Sir George Balfour.)

COLONEL STANLEY

, unless the Committee generally wished the words to be omitted, would prefer to retain them, because it seemed to him that the offence lay in the indiscretion, or in the wilful intention, rather than in the actual act. From a moral point of view, the offences were much the same. It was quite true that under the former Act greater latitude was given to a court martial; but, still, he should hesitate to withdraw the words.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that the words in the old Act were "either verbally or in writing," leaving out the hypothetical case altogether. He remembered that very Article of War was discussed while he was at the Staff College, that an officer's letters and correspondence would come under it, except that it would be very difficult before a court martial to prove any injury. But if this clause were adopted as it stood, every single officer's letter written homo, containing merely a statement where he was stationed or whore his regiment was ordered to, would render him liable to a court martial. That was a rule which no country in the world had as yet introduced into its military law. It was, in fact, punishing a man for an hypothetical case. It would be very hard on officers, and might be twisted into a regular means of keeping the war correspondents in the power of the General. He did not suppose a newspaper correspondent, as a civilian, would come under the operation of this clause; or, if he did, that he would be in much danger, for the common sense of the country at home would protect him; and, still, a hasty General might use this power. It was a very serious proposal to introduce.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

could not agree that an offence of this kind should be actually committed before it was punished. That was the very thing they wanted to do. Their aim was that all persons with an Army in the field should feel the imperative necessity which lay upon them of, under no circumstances, making disclosures which might be injurious. Hon. Members forgot also that the court martial had discretion, and certainly would not allow the clause to be strained. The danger suggested was quite chimerical; and, for his part, he thought the caution and reticence imposed on every person by the clause was very wise and necessary.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the clause dealt with the case where a disclosure was made which would incur the risk of producing injurious effects. An ordinary letter could not come under that clause.

MR. HOPWOOD

objected that the clause was new; and therefore a stronger case was required to justify the addition of it to the Bill than if it were a part of the old Act. Experience had shown that the clause, as taken from the old Act, was sufficient; and why, then, should these words be imported into it, which were so little susceptible of any definite legal meaning? But the objection was important on other grounds. They knew already that certain commanding officers objected to newspaper correspondents, and that, in some instances, they had appointed members of their own staff for the purpose. It must be true that that was so, or they could hardly have received the intelligence which had been published in some of the newspapers, from places where no civilian correspondent was allowed. But such an officer might inadvertently put something in his letter which might "incur the risk of producing injurious effects," although it by no means came within the positive words of the old clause. Again, there was nothing to designate wilful conduct in the clause, and a man, quite inadvertently, might do something which rendered him liable to this penalty. He did not think a case was made out for the alteration. The Army had done without it for a number of years, and he trusted it would not be pressed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

admitted that the presumption was against the clause. But suppose a man did reveal a movement of the Forces which, if it reached its destination, would produce most injurious and destructive effects, and would ruin and destroy the whole of the Army, and his communication was intercepted before it reached its destination—should not that man be punished? Apparently not, according to the present law. It seemed to him that these words ought to be put in to meet that case. They could not protect themselves sufficiently by enacting that the man should be punished when the actual mischief was done.

MR. HOPWOOD

was quite ready to admit the force of the illustration of his hon. and learned Friend; but, at the same time, he must point out that these words were so vague that they would include an entirely innocent act, which, though it had not, in fact, produced any mischief, might be prosecuted as having incurred the risk of doing so. He submitted that if the changes were to be made some more distinct words should be inserted.

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that these words were really directed against newspaper correspondents. Under Clause 167, sub-section 8— All persons not otherwise subject to military law, who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops, or any portion thereof, when employed on active service beyond the Bead, were made subject to military law, and were, therefore, subject to this clause. [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: Hear, hear.] He was glad to hear the chronic cheer of the hon. and gallant Admiral; but he must remind him that this clause affected newspaper correspondents also. If it was not the intention of the Government that it should do so, it was the fault of the draftsman of the Bill, who certainly almost deserved hanging, for every single alteration in the Bill was made with the object of increasing the punishment. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no.] He ought, of course, to withdraw that remark, if that was the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford. Still, he must point out that this clause differed from the clause in the Articles of War. The matter was left in the discretion of the court, but not in such a manner as to allow them to deal with the actual effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service alone. It was left to the military authorities, whose powers were really enlarged by other words which, extending the operation of this penal clause, he strongly objected to. The words were "or incurred the risk of producing," and might include a letter written by a man to his wife, and which she might foolishly publish in the newspapers. If the object of these words was to render the clause more severe than the Article of War, some good reason should be given for it. MAJOR NOLAN thought the case proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was provided for by the 5th clause of the Bill. If the Committee wished to go any further into that subject, he was prepared to move the insertion of the words "or intentionally calculated," which would meet the case of a man who meant to give information; but it rested with the Government to say why they meant to punish a man whether he intended to do so or not, and to give a very strong reason for the proposed alteration. He (Major Nolan) believed that the clause was directed against special correspondents; and if that were so, it would, in his opinion, be much better for the Government to state the fact. The Committee was aware that there were certain arguments in favour of a control being exercised over newspaper correspondents; but he thought that either fresh words should be inserted, or that the words "or incurred the risk of producing" should be left out.

MR. A. H. BROWN

pointed out that this clause, although it included military correspondents in the words "every person subject to military law," and laid down the punishment to be awarded to officers and soldiers, did not provide, in any way, for punishment of a civilian, who, by writing to a newspaper, for instance, might produce an effect injurious to Her Majesty's Service. The clause, therefore, so far as newspaper correspondents were concerned, who were not subject to military law, was practically inoperative. He was certainly of opinion that, under this clause, no civilian who happened to be with the Army in the field could be punished for making any disclosure which would be injurious to Her Majesty's Service.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

referred the hon. Member (Mr. A. H. Brown) to Clause 167, which included, as subject to military law, "all persons who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops," &c.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

pointed out that if it was the intention to try newspaper correspondents by court martial, the Act did not make that provision. It was clearly a defect in the Bill to create an offence, as had very truly been pointed out, and then to omit all mention of the means of punishing those persons who committed it.

MR. MELDON

thought the Committee ought not to be satisfied until they were clearly informed whether the clause was intended to meet the case of newspaper correspondents, or of officers' wives who might publish a letter from their husbands in the newspapers. This clause being penal, and creating a new offence heretofore unknown to the law, it lay upon the Government, clearly, to show some necessity, and produce evidence that the law, as hitherto existing, had not worked well. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had seemed to him at first sight to have a good deal of force in it. The case had been assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman of a person writing a letter knowing that it would have a mischievous effect; and it was asked, why should that person not be punished? The answer was, this was not the intention of the clause. The offence intended to be met was that of a person who never had any intention to write what would result mischievously towards Her Majesty's Forces. Therefore, there was no analogy between the cases of a person who committed a criminal act, and who should be punished under a clause for "giving information intentionally," and the case which was contemplated by the clause of a person unintentionally disclosing information which might produce effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service. It had not been shown that the existing law worked badly; and he did not think that it would be sufficiently safe for the Committee to proceed to the creation of a new offence upon mere surmise.

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped the Committee would not assent to the doctrine that wrong-doing was not wrong-doing unless ill come of it. In this case, the court martial was called upon oath to decide that an offence had been committed in regard, to the Disclosure of the numbers or position of any Forces, or any magazines or stores thereof, or any preparations for, or orders relating to, operations or movements of any Forces, at such time and in such manner as in the opinion of the Court to have produced, or incurred, the risk of producing effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service. He could see no other way than this by which the Service could be safeguarded. He would point out to the Committee that the whole circumstances of war had been so changed by the telegraph at the present day that information was forwarded from one point of the world to another with such rapidity that a person might very well produce effects injurious to the Service without intending to do so altogether. He hoped the Committee would not lose sight of the whole scope of the clause, which involved the honour and safety of the country in time of war. He did not think they were doing too much in demanding that persons should weigh well their words, and consider, before they published them, whether they would be likely injuriously to affect the Public Service.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the argument used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not apply to the present ease; because, if a man placed an obstruction upon a railway, he did so with intent; but the object of the present clause was to get at persons who did not intend to produce the consequences desired to be guarded against. He was prepared to admit that cases of the kind contemplated should be provided against; but the manner of doing so required very careful consideration. The object should be to strike at those who intentionally offended, not at those who, though they offended, did so without intent. During the present Session attention had been called to the case of a correspondent who sent home a report of the proceedings of one of the Generals engaged in the Afghan War, and hon. Members all knew what was alleged to be the consequences of that report. Unless the clause was modified, when the Bill became law, hon. Members would find on taking up the newspapers that no reliance could be placed on the reports of correspondents, because it would be felt that they were awed by the commanding officer from giving any description of tactics, or, indeed, anything of real interest relating to the Army in time of war. This was an extraordinary position in which to place the country at home. But the better way was to say nothing about the necessity of providing against the case at all; for it was well known that everyone admitted to the camp was, of course, more or less under military discipline. He did not go the length of saying that because a man was a newspaper correspondent he should have the right of doing and saying whatever he pleased, quite independently of the Military Code. He could not suppose that any General, having regard to the success of the Forces under his command, would admit correspondents into his camp without placing them under some regulations and some restrictions; but he said that the way in which it was intended to deal with offences of the kind referred to would be injurious to the interests of the country, and would deprive people at home of any reliable or authentic information of what was going on.

MR. BULWER

thought, on reading the clause, that it would not meet the views of hon. Members opposite; but he did not think, even if the wording was altered, that the clause should be restricted in any way, so as to fall short of the intention of Gentlemen on his side of the House. He would suggest that the substitution of the following words would meet the view of the Committee:— And thereby, in the opinion of the court, produces, or attempts to produce, effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service. No one would desire that a person should be punished for having produced injurious effects, perhaps, with the most innocent intention possible.

MR. PARNELL

did not think the clause, oven if altered, would be satisfactory, so far as regarded newspaper correspondents. It must not be forgotten that the clause was an adaptation of an old Article of War, which had been altered and made more stringent; and at last it had been made to include in its provisions men for whom it was originally in no way intended. He thought that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really wished to deal with the case of newspaper correspondents, he should introduce a seperate clause for that purpose. Whatever clause it might be necessary to pass with regard to the control of newspaper correspondents, and preventing them making important disclosures, they should be treated as a special class, and be controlled by a special clause; for by subjecting them to the same operation of the same clauses as those which applied to soldiers, they placed them in a position in which no newspaper correspondent ought to be placed. By all means, exact sufficient guarantees that military operations should not be injuriously affected by the articles of newspaper correspondents; but not by the application of the present clause.

MR. E. JENKINS

thought that the clause could not have received sufficient consideration from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The question appeared to him to be whether, by the passing of this clause, the object in view, which was to prevent newspaper correspondents from satisfying prurient curiosity, would be attained. He thought not; for it would be remembered that during the Russo-Turkish War, the Czar ordered that no newspaper correspondents should go to the front, with this result—that even he found that it was absolutely necessary to yield to public opinion, and let them accompany the Army. In that case, it was perfectly certain that information came from the Turkish Army which was read in the Russian Army, and vice versâ. He thought the best regulation for correspondents of the Press was to put them on their honour. But if the clause, as at present, remained in the Bill, he put it to the Committee whether such men as Archibald Forbes would enter a camp, and whether he would not telegraph home all the information he wanted to send without placing himself under the operation of the Act? The points raised seemed to him to be of such importance that, in view of the discussion which was coming later on, he would move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)

COLONEL STANLEY

said, the issue was a comparatively small one, and he trusted that the Committee would come to a decision upon the words—whether they were to stand part of the Bill or not.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

pointed out that the Duke of Wellington was placed in the same difficulties with regard to correspondence from Spain—not only subordinate officers, but officers of very high rank were known to have expressed their opinions about the Army and its stores in a manner far from satisfactory either to the Duke or to the nation; but instead of trying to punish the writers he appealed to their good sense, and pointed to the fact that much of the information obtained by Napoleon was got from letters sent home from the Army. The disordered state of the Crimean Army and its dangerous condition were all pointed out in private letters, and thereby saved from the impending destruction. As it was now 11 o'clock, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to report Progress, according to the arrangement made earlier in the evening.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I said I would report Progress; but, of course, I could not fix the time to a few minutes; that would depend upon the progress made. We do not propose to go beyond this clause, which, I understand, has been under discussion for a considerable time; but I think it is only fair and reasonable that the present clause should be finished.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

submitted that the arguments put forward against this important clause had not been answered. He supported the Motion to report Progress.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

suggested the insertion of the word "wilfully," before "discloses."

SIR HENRY JAMES

thought, as the point raised was obviously a difficult as well as a delicate one, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to re-consider the clause and bring it up on Report.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 146: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 95.)

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the clause had attracted much attention during the Division, and several hon. Members, who had just entered the House, had expressed their wish to state their opinions upon the subject. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to keep his engagement with the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), would support the Motion which he then made that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, there was really some difficulty with regard to the wording of the clause; and as at about that hour it had been agreed that another measure of considerable importance should be introduced, he did not think the Government would gain much by going on with the clause. If some time were spent in considering how the Government could amend or deal with the clause the time would not be wasted.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, if the clause were agreed to he would assent to the omission of the words in question, on the understanding that words of a similar meaning should be introduced on Report.

MR. HOPWOOD

could not assent to such a bargain as that.

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that in that case he could not agree to the omission of the words,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I think hon. Members opposite must have seen that there is every desire, on the part of the Government, to afford them facilities for expressing their views upon this Bill; and, therefore, I think the proposal of my right hon. and gallant Friend is very fair and reasonable. It was understood, at the beginning of the evening, that we should endeavour to report Progress about this time, in order to allow the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to bring forward his measure, and it was right that such understanding should be acted upon. I hope we shall be allowed to finish this clause; but the difficulty raised is one which appears to render further consideration desirable; and what my right hon. and gallant Friend proposes is that the words objected to should be omitted for the present, and that he should consider the Amendment to be brought up on Report.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

confessed himself ashamed to enter into any such bargain. He was, however, willing to withdraw his Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that why he had objected to the proposal as it was at first made was because, if the Committee assented to its terms, it must be taken to agree to the clause in substance, in which case all the arguments of the evening would have been wasted. He had deemed it right to state that he, for one, could not be bound in that manner.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not in any way fulfilled his promise to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don); but with regard to the main subject he also desired to say a few words. He begged leave to point out that it must be all the same to an Army whether it was cut to pieces in consequence of news published to the world by guilty hands, or whether it was destroyed through information derived from innocent parties. Therefore, he maintained that both those people who were really culpable, and those who might not seem to be culpable, should receive precisely the same punishment; and that all information as to proceedings of the Army in the field, which might be made use of by the enemy, should be utterly repressed by law issuing from the House of Commons.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.