§ (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
§ COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th May.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Redress of Wrongs.
§ Clause 42 (Mode of complaint by officer).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 2, to leave out from the word "thereon" to the end of the Clause.—(Major Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, at the last sitting of the Committee this Amendment was moderately discussed; but its consideration had not terminated when Progress was reported. Hon. Members would see that the clause was divided into two sections. The first was a paraphrase of the 12th Article of War. It gave the officer who thought himself wronged by his commanding officer the right of appeal to the Commander-in-Chief, and to that he made no objection whatever. But the second part of the clause, which punished an officer who knowingly made 841 any false statement affecting the character of any officer or soldier, was entirely new, and so was the sub-section in the next clause which punished any soldier for the same offence, except that the provision was complicated by further and still worse provisions. In every dispute between an officer and his commander there would certainly be something which would come under this head. To say anything about the temper of the commander, or his knowledge of his duties, or anything of that kind, would certainly be to make charges "affecting his character." What, he fancied, would happen under such circumstances, as the dispute would generally resolve iself into a contention regarding matters of fact, would be that the central authority would say—"The complainant stated one thing, and the commander another directly opposite to it. This must he on one side or the other a matter of wilful misstatement. As one side or the other must be making a false statement, we will decide who it is by trying the junior officer." If that were done, the officer would be placed in a very unpleasant position, and the effect would be very perceptibly to keep down complaints, for an officer would not at all care to be transformed from a complainant to a prisoner under arrest. Nine-tenths of the men would not like to be thus tried by court martial, and would prefer to put up with the injustice. He did not think this subsection was wanted, for there were plenty of other clauses in the Bill under which an officer could be tried if he made a false statement; and he especially thought it was undesirable to insert these words in that particular position, just following the words which gave an officer power to complain.
§ COLONEL STANLEYcould not see anything objectionable in guarding this power of complaint, which might otherwise be very considerably abused, by this Proviso. It did not punish an officer for making a statement not strictly accurate; but punished the officer who wilfully made a false statement, or knowingly or wilfully suppressed any material fact. Whether he had done so or not would be a matter for the court martial to determine; and he felt certain that no court martial sworn to do justice would lightly find an officer guilty of this serious charge. Certainly, if there were any bias in the minds of the court martial, 842 it would be to lean in favour of the officer, where there was any doubt at all in the case. He could not assent to the doctrine laid down, by implication, by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan), that an officer was to be held blameless if he knowingly made any false statement, or wilfully suppressed any material facts.
§ MR. RYLANDSthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) had missed the force of the objection to this clause. It was not for a moment maintained that an officer who made a false charge in this way was not to be punished; but there were one or two clauses in the Bill which, at present, were wide enough to punish this offence. What his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) objected to was not the punishment, but the placing of this punishment in juxtaposition to the clause giving the power of appeal. It seemed to say to the officer—"If you complain, and if in consequence of that complaint there is a court martial, then, if you have made any false statement in regard to your commanding officer, you shall be put on your trial for that also." The presence of those words would have a very deterrent effect on all complaints. They all knew from their own experience that two parties describing the same transaction would give very different accounts of it. Thus, it might very well happen that an officer, without any intention to deceive, might wilfully state that which afterwards turned out to be a falsehood. He also resisted the insertion of these words in the present place, because he was still more strongly opposed to their appearance in the next clause which dealt with the case of the soldier. It was most important that that sub-section should be resisted, and that a threat should not be held over a soldier in this way, preventing him from taking such steps as he might think right for the promotion of what he believed to be his interests. They ought certainly, if that clause was to be rejected, to put the officer and the soldier on the same basis.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) seemed to have abandoned the position taken up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He did not himself think that the general words in other clauses, and notably in Clause 27, were sufficiently explicit to 843 cover this clause; and, therefore, he did not think there was anything unreasonable in his desire that these words should remain.
§ MR. HOPWOODvery much regretted the decision of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, for he thought the position taken up by the Mover of the Amendment was a most reasonable one. They pretended by this clause to give the officer the power of appeal; but, at the same time, they accompanied that power by words which seemed to say—"We repent giving you this power of appeal, and, therefore, we will hold over you in terrorem the chance of this charge being made against you if you should resort to that power of appeal, which we affect to ask you to thank us for having granted to you." The mere fact that the one part of the clause was put in juxtaposition to the other was a matter of very serious signification. It was a warning held out to any officer not to appeal if he felt he was suffering from any serious wrong. They were all, of course, agreed that if an officer knowingly made any false statement he should be punished. That was not the question. The point he and his hon. Friends wished to urge was, that the placing of these words in their present position would raise a dread in the mind of a man having a fair right and ground of appeal that he might have some charge made against him. That might easily happen, resulting in the interchange of position between accused and accuser. Take, for instance, a case in which the whole question at issue might turn on the truth of one of two persons. The inferior officer might have very good ground of complaint; but he might have no evidence, except his own statement, and he would have against him the superior rank of his opponent, any services he might have rendered, a hundred things of that kind, which would weigh down, in a matter of this kind, even the truth. There would certainly be temper evolved in a matter of this kind; the charge might even be something in some degree disgraceful to the commander, and then, although there was good ground of appeal, the commander would be able to become the assailant, and to say—"You have knowingly made a false charge against me." The whole question would depend upon the sole word of the commander; and, again, 844 his rank, his services, his position, and a hundred other things, might prevail to secure the conviction. He did venture to say that in any Civil Court of Appeal there was no such provision as that punishment should follow the making of the appeal. If there was false swearing, let it be punished as false swearing, and let the matter be tried independently of whether any appeal had been made or not. There was already power to punish false swearing, which included the wilful suppression of any material fact. He really thought that they had a right to complain of the way in which these words were inserted in the clause, offensively staring in the face of everyone who wished to appeal.
§ MR. FORSYTHasked if hon. Members were contending that an officer or soldier who made a false statement was not to be punished? Surely, there was nothing more worthy of punishment than the offence of an officer or soldier who knowingly made a false statement accusing another. If made on oath, he would be liable to an indictment for perjury; but if not made on oath, still the false statement was a grave offence, and there certainly was nothing which was more deserving of punishment.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if there was any alteration made in the law which the Committee considered to be in favour of the soldier, it was the change made in this clause. Under the old practice, the soldier was sometimes punished for making statements which, though he himself believed them to be bonâ fide, yet broke down for want of evidence. It was that state of things which the Committee desired to obviate. The 13th Article of War, after allowing complaints to be made, enacted that if on appeal they should be pronounced groundless and vexatious, the soldier should be sentenced to such punishment as the court might direct. The words in the present clause were much more favourable to the soldier. Before, if a complaint were not proved, it was groundless, and from that it was a very short step to declare it also vexatious, and to punish it. But now the complaint was required to be one which the officer or soldier knew to be false, and which affected the character of some other officer or soldier. It was impossible to make a provision more entirely in favour of the officer. Their object was to give 845 the officer or soldier the widest latitude, and yet to take care that these complaints should not be made for libellous or improper purposes. The great object of this clause was to remove the impression which might have existed in the minds of the soldiers that if they appealed they were likely to be punished, and the words had been chosen with the greatest care with that object.
§ SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEcould not help thinking it would be as well to make this offence punishable under a clause by itself. Why could not they have a fresh clause, with another number, making it an offence to make any false statement affecting the character of any officer or soldier. There would be a slight advantage in separating a penal clause from a clause giving the power of appeal, and he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consent to make the alteration.
SIR HENRY HAVELOOKmarvelled that his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) should not have seen that this clause was expressly framed by the Committee, at the greatest pains and trouble, for the express purpose of providing that there should be no restriction whatever on the right of appeal, except it was shown that the appellant had wilfully and knowingly made a false statement, or suppressed important facts. What was the effect of the proposal as compared with the present state of the law? A soldier conceived himself aggrieved, and might make a statement which was perfectly bonâ fide, and which he yet failed in entirely proving. On that, and in connection with it, the court martial had the power to declare, upon the evidence given to establish the appeal, that it was vexatious and groundless, and thereupon to sentence the appellant to two years' imprisonment. Now the law was so altered that the soldier might make any statement, and bring any charge he liked, so long as he did not bring himself within the provisions of this sub-section. There could not be any comparison between the one law and the other. He must say, however, that he did not think any advantage was gained by doing away with the intermediate Court of Appeal. Formerly, there was first an appeal to a regimental Court of Inquiry, and that very often, by doing substantial justice be- 846 tween the two parties, prevented the appeal from going any further. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would alter his Amendment so as to leave out the last words of the clause, which he could not at all see the use of, and return to the old form of procedure, he should be very glad to support him.
§ MAJOR NOLANreplied, that that Amendment properly belonged to Clause 43, and he should be happy to accept it, when they came to that. With reference to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Sir William Cuninghame), that this punishment should be put in a clause by itself further on, he wanted to point out that this matter had been amply dealt with in Clause 27. It declared that—
Every person subject to military law who … being an officer or soldier makes a false accusation against any other officer or soldier, knowing such accusation to be false," &c.That seemed to him to cover every possible case, and it did not connect the right of complaint with the punishment, as was at present done by this clause. Anyone who committed this offence could also be tried under Clause 25, which provided that any officer who made any false statement, or made any fraudulent omission in any official document, should be subject to punishment. He believed it had also been the custom, where any officer brought a false charge against any other officer, to try him, under Clause 16, for character unbecoming the conduct of an officer and a gentleman. Again, he might be tried, under Clause 40, for conduct contrary to good order and discipline, though he admitted that these two last clauses did not deal so specifically with the offence as the first he mentioned. But Clause 27 did give the fullest power of punishment that it was possible for anyone to want; and he could only suppose that this sub-section was put in as a sort of sub-section to frighten officers from making complaints, which it would be certain to do very effectually. He should also wish to restore the old Court of Inquiry; for, under the old law, a soldier could not be punished for the first appeal, whereas now he could be so punished.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESthought that Clause 25 would not cover this offence, for the words there were— 847
In any report, return, muster roll, pay list, certificate, book, route, or other document made or signed by him, or of the contents of which it is his duty to ascertain the accuracy—(a.) knowingly makes or is privy to the making of any false or fradulent statement; or (b.) knowingly makes or is privy to the making of any omission with intent to defraud;while the words in the remaining subsection, "furnishing any false declaration," were clearly ejusdem generis. Clause 27 only covered the case of a false accusation, and did not deal with the case of a false statement, which was not an accusation; while, in Clause 42, the case of the wilful suppression of any material fact was provided for, which was not met by Clause 27.
§ MR. HOPWOODwould like to know the construction his hon. and learned Friend put upon the words "or knowingly and wilfully suppresses any material facts." There wore no guarding words following, as in the previous case, "affecting the character of any officer or soldier." Any man might have his own opinion, and it must, after all, be always matter of opinion what wore "material facts;" so that a man who did not mention a fact which he considered immaterial might be tried if that fact was considered by a higher authority to be material. It was a fair specimen of the way in which military offences were created in an Act like this.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESreplied, that his hon. and learned Friend would know the legal maxim, that suppressio veri might be the same thing as suggestio falsi. If this suppression did not amount to that, it would be no offence.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that it amounted to this—that in making a false statement would be included knowingly omitting anything which ought to have been stated. Without making a legal struggle about the matter, he wrould crave, in aid, therefore, the legal maxim which his hon. and learned Friend had quoted.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought a fair instance would be, if a soldier said he saw the sergeant knock another soldier down, and suppressed the fact that he was at the time setting the barracks on fire. That was what he should call the suppression of a material fact, because, under those circumstances, the sergeant would be perfectly justified against using force, which otherwise would be wrong.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhad no doubt that the Committee had been struck by the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that the Select Committee carefully considered the wording of this paragraph. Under the circumstances, hon. Members would, no doubt, be surprised to hear that neither this paragraph, nor anything at all like it, was ever before the Committee. If hon. Members would turn to page 147 of the Report, they would see that Clause 44 contained only the first paragraph, and that no reference was made to the second paragraph now before the Committee.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTbegged to explain. What he said was that the Committee recommended the introduction of some such words.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwas quite prepared for that explanation, and if hon. Members would turn to page 6 of the Report, they would be able to see what was the recommendation of the Committee. The words were—
Care should be taken that complaints should not be visited with punishment under the general clause against conduct in breach of good order and military discipline.That was the thing against which the Committee recommended that provision should be made. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) would consent to a change in the clause which would make a material difference, and, instead of the words "knowingly makes any false statement," would substitute the words "makes any statement knowing the same to be false." There was an important difference between these two forms of words, although it might not appear so. Complaints to Commanders-in-Chief were always the result of a long course of injustice, often springing from no overt act. An officer might be generally tyrannical; or he might take an objection to some one of his subordinates for some trifling thing, such as not taking his hat off to his wife, and this conduct might have gone on until the officer had to appeal for justice. It then became very difficult to say what was the truth, and what was not. An officer might knowingly make a false statement, believing it to be true; but if it was proved to be incorrect, then, under this clause, he might be tried for making the statement. The 849 alteration he suggested would meet the case, although, at the same time, he Mould far rather see the whole clause struck out.
§ MR. PARNELLthought it would be very important if they could induce the Government to separate the threat of punishment from the clause giving the power of appeal. At present, it looked very much as if the Government were giving with one hand what they took away with the other. The evidence before the Select Committee went in the direction of showing how very necessary it was to guard this right of making-complaints from punishment. The Committee had evidence to show that soldiers wore undergoing imprisonment of 363 days, simply for making a complaint; and the recommendation of the Committee was not that care should be taken that a soldier should be punished for making a false statement, but it was, on the contrary, that care should be taken that a soldier should not be punished merely for making a complaint. This second clause had been introduced by the Government since the Bill was before the Select Committee, and never was before them at all. In fact, any part of their Report which dealt with the matter went directly against the introduction of the clause, for their intention was to guard the soldier against the fear of punishment in making appeals. It was absurd to say that an officer or soldier could not be punished under other clauses for making false statements, for there were many other clauses which provided for this offence. For instance, there was Clause 40, which provided that—
Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences, that is to say, is guilty of any act, conduct, disorder, or neglect, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, though not in this Act otherwise specified.Certainly, an officer making a false statement affecting the character of any other officer or soldier could be tried under that clause if no other provision were made for the punishment of the offence. Besides, by inserting these words in the next clause, they did that which was very dangerous—they made it all important that the officers composing the court martial—though he believed they might have every desire to be fair—should believe the word of the officer against 850 that of the soldier. This provision was a most dangerous one; it was never contemplated by the Select Committee; it was the scheme of the War Office, inserted since the Bill was discussed by the Select Committee, and he hoped the words would not be inserted now.
§ MR. MEREWETHERthought that they were wasting time in discussing this matter. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) did not give them very much of his assistance on the Committee, and it was hardly fair to say that this matter was not before them. It was precisely dealt with as explained by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The question was discussed at great length, not with evidence, but with the assistance of all the military Members of the Committee. They heard the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir Alexander Gordon), especially, a good many times on the subject; and it was finally agreed that the stringency of the words ought to be reduced, so that the soldier should no longer be able to think he was convicted for making a complaint when, really, he was convicted for making a false statement. The danger to be guarded against was that in making a statement the officer or soldier might take the opportunity of making false statements about other persons. After much discussion that conclusion was accepted, and, as he believed, the draftsman followed the very words suggested by the Chairman. Therefore, it was hardly fair, after several hours had been spent on this discussion, to say that these words were entirely new, and that they were put into the Bill by the War Office, when, in fact, they were put in as the result of the deliberations of the Committee.
§ MAJOR NOLANpointed out that hon. Members generally could not be expected to know of that private discussion. They could only judge of what took place by what appeared in the Report of the Committee, and the evidence attached.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwas very sorry to trouble the Committee again; but he could not allow the erroneous views of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Merewether) to go unchallenged. Before the Select Committee, it was pointed out by Sir Henry Thring that the right of the 851 soldier to appeal under Article 13 was different to the right of the officer under Article 12. The soldier only had the right of appeal to the Commander-in-Chief in matters affecting his pay and clothing; while the officer had the right of appeal upon every subject under heaven. They were urged to put the soldier upon the same footing as the officer; and if hon. Members would look at the Report, they would see that was so. The Report said—["Oh, oh!"]—If hon. Members did not like to pay attention, they had better go out into the Lobby. The Report said, page 6—
The matters dealt with by the 12th and 13th Articles of War under the head of 'Redress of Wrongs' appear to your Committee to require amendment. The 13th Article of War, which applies to non-commissioned officers and soldiers, is restricted to matters affecting their pay and clothing. Your Committee are of opinion that the opportunity to make complaints for the redress of wrongs should he afforded in as full a manner to non-commissioned officers and soldiers as to officers, and that whilst the act of preferring wilfully false charges should be constituted a specific, care should be taken that complaints should not be visited with punishment under the general clause against conduct in breach of good order and military discipline.That showed the Committee merely wished the soldier to have as free liberty for making complaints as the officer had; but the Committee never thought of putting in the rider they were now considering, and it was the addition of some person after the Bill left the Committee.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEsimply rose to corroborate this statement, and to contradict the assertion that this matter received careful consideration. They only took the evidence of the Judge Advocate General, which was to the effect that he had only found one case in which wrong was done, and he examined 800 courts martial in a year.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKdoubted if the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) quite saw the effect of what he proposed? His objection to the introduction of this sub-section was that many other clauses would punish this offence, and they were referred to the 40th clause; but they heard a great deal about that clause when it was under discussion, and the objection to it was that it was so exceedingly vague in its nature that any offence might be tried under it. The result would be that, 852 instead of trying the officer for making a false statement, knowing it to be false, as provided by this clause, they would, if these words were omitted, try the officer for making the false statement, without requiring the allegation that it was wilfully false. In fact, the charge could be as loose and vague as possible. Surely it would be better for the officer to be tried under this clause than under Clause 40, which put him at much greater disadvantage. It had been objected, again, that under this clause the court martial would unite two conflicting functions, and would settle at once the appeal and the punishment. That was the very thing the Committee desired to avoid. The case, cited to them by Mr. O'Dowd, of a soldier who, because he misconceived the functions of the court martial before which he was tried, and appealed, was sentenced for making a groundless and vexatious appeal, did seem very startling, and the Committee desired to avoid such a thing for the future. Yet some hon. Gentlemen were apparently so enamoured of the old law that they desired to retain it, although the Committee recommended the change.
§ MR. A. H. BROWNbegged to call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to an omission in the wording of the clause, which certainly required rectification. Under the clause, there were two offences provided for. The first was "knowingly making any false statement;" and then followed the governing words, "affecting the character of any officer or soldier." Then came the second offence—"or knowingly and wilfully suppresses any material facts." After those words, there surely ought to be inserted the same words as followed the enunciation of the first offence—"affecting the character of any officer or soldier," because, otherwise, the offence would not be limited, as the governing words at present only limited the first offence.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Merewether) had commented on the absence from the meetings of the Select Committee of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), because he remembered at the time that hon. Member was appointed that he urged he was already upon another important Committee, and could devote very little time and atten- 853 tion to this one. He was himself very anxious to see a full and thorough inquiry into the condition of their military law; but he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the Select Committee by no means carried out the clear intention of the House in appointing it. He fully admitted the great ability displayed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) as Chairman of that Committee; but the very Report showed that they were hurried for time, and did not make the inquiry so full as it should have been. It was much to be regretted, also, that no changes were made in the Bill. It was no use bringing forward Amendments, for they were all rejected; and he was not quite sure that the discussion had not degenerated into a Party fight, which was much to be regretted for the sake of the Army. The Bill was by no means a good one, and it required great improvement. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might grumble; but he should speak frankly, and he did say that he viewed with dissatisfaction and alarm the state of the Army. He did not blame the present Government alone for that; others must take their share of it. The two things which were essential in an Army were—first, that all officers and men should be convinced of the necessity for obedience; and, next, that they should all feel that their grievances would be listened to. He had never known any harm come of listening to the complaints of officers or soldiers, and, so far from preventing them, it would be a wise and prudent thing if a Court of Inquiry were ordered to meet once a month in every regiment to receive complaints. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; and, perhaps, at first they might have a great many complaints; but they would soon disappear, and then the officers and men would certainly be a great deal more contented. Had there not been cases in which officers had been told that their complaints were unfounded, and yet they had maintained their complaints in the face of the highest authorities? The House of Commons had almost unanimously resolved that the complaints of those officers were well founded. Yet, for five years, they had been trying to make themselves heard, while the authorities had been trying to put them down. If the authorities 854 had had the power, would not some of those officers have been sent before a court martial, and was not one of them actually put upon half-pay? He was, of course, quite willing to punish the making of false statements; but that might be done by adding a few words to Clause 27, and then the Government would have got all they could possibly want.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Havelock) thought him very illogical for wanting this Proviso omitted; but he wished to point out to him that if that were done, the officer or soldier was not any more liable to the punishment. The intention of the Committee was to prevent the soldier from suffering any consequences from making a complaint, unless he knew it to be false; and it was perfectly useless to quote them in support of the additions which were never before them, and had been tacked on since. He did hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would re-consider his decision.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, as they were fighting about a thing of no importance, would venture to suggest that the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman could be met consistently with the objects of the Bill. The second paragraphs of Clauses 42 and 43 might be omitted, subject to making provision a of Clause 27 apply, by the addition of a few words. If hon. Gentlemen really wished to have the clauses separated, he did not see why it should not be done, and he thought his suggestion would obviate their objections.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, if the words—
Knowingly makes any false statement affecting the character of any officer or soldier, or knowingly or "wilfully suppresses any material facts,were inserted in the first paragraph of Clause 27, after the words "knowing such accusation to be false," all that was desired would be obtained, because, of course, everybody wished false statements or wilful omissions of material facts to be punished.
§ COLONEL STANLEYthought anything coming from his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) was worthy of his attention, especially as he was Chairman of the Committee, and he would accept the suggestion, although 855 he could not, technically, do at that moment what was advised. The matter could, however, be considered between that time and the Report, and be dealt with on the Report. The main point to be borne in mind was that the power of complaint was to be freely used, but not abused.
§ COLONEL MUREinquired what was the use of giving concessions with one hand, and taking them away with the other? He was sure some protection was required from unwarrantable complaints, and suggested the insertion of a Proviso which he thought would meet the case.
§ MAJOR NOLANdid not wish to divide the Committee unnecessarily, and was willing to agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He did not wish to have connected the making of a false statement and the making of a complaint.
§ MR. HOPWOODthought the Secretary of State for War had made a real concession, which obviated the necessity of any further delay.
§ COLONEL STANLEY, said he was perfectly willing to assent to what the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had proposed, provided the words in question were transferred to another place in the Bill.
§ MAJOR NOLANwas quite willing that everything should be transferred, except the word "complain," in Clause 27; but he did not want to connect the making of a complaint and punishment. He was quite willing that the making of a false complaint should come within the general principles of the Bill.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked, that if the words in question were left out the Committee could get on.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 43 (Mode of complaint by soldier).
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper; but he did not intend to move it, in consequence of what the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had stated; but he would move that the last paragraph be omitted.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member would be in Order in making that statement when his Amendment was reached; but there were others before it.
§ MR. J. BROWNsaid, he did not intend to move his Amendment, on the understanding that the last portion of the clause was to be omitted. His Amendment related to frivolous complaints regarding the necessaries and provisions supplied to the soldier. That was a very common complaint in the Army, and was referred to in the Queen's Regulations, and he wished to call to it the attention of those who were in charge of the Bill.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment, in line 9, after "officer," to insert the words "or non-commissioned officer."
§ COLONEL STANLEYthought the hon. Member for Meath was not present during the earlier discussions, in which the same point arose, as to whether, in the Definition Clause, the word soldier included, for certain purposes, noncommissioned officer; and it was thought convenient to postpone the question until they came to the Definition Clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MAJOR NOLANcalled attention to the words "every officer shall cause such complaint to be inquired into," and observed that the old Articles of War provided that there should be a Court of Inquiry, which he thought much bettor. An officer might inquire into the matter in many ways that would not be satisfactory to the soldier; and if the Secretary of State for War would restore in some way the old Courts of Inquiry, it would be a great advantage. He was quite content to move that the last paragraph be struck out.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Paragraph struck out accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Punishments.
§ Clause 44 (Scale of punishments by court martial).
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment, in page 18, to leave out line 35. He had a very strong opinion 857 that penal servitude was not a punishment that should be awardable by court martial. The nature of the court martial process was so summary, the number of offences against discipline was comparatively so limited, that he did not see any just or sufficient reason why the power of awarding penal servitude should be given to courts martial. He regretted that during the earlier stages of the Bill he was unable to be in his place. Otherwise, he should have raised the question at a time when he thought it would have been more properly raised—namely, upon any of the Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 17, where the power was given to courts martial to award penal servitude for certain offences; and he did not know how far the fact of the Committee having already given courts martial that power would prevent him from insisting upon the Amendment—from taking the opinion of the Committee upon the subject on the present occasion. In the clauses he had referred to, the power to award penal servitude was given for a variety of offences against discipline, and also for offences of a criminal character, such as embezzlement, and so forth. Again, in Clause 12, he found the power to award penal servitude as a punishment for desertion. He thought this was in excess of the old Army Regulations, and when formerly penal servitude could not be awarded for desertion. Then they found, in another clause, that penal servitude might be awarded for striking a superior officer; and there were a variety of offences and breaches of discipline, of a more or less serious character, for which the court martial was entitled to award penal servitude. He might mention that he had placed an Amendment on the Paper diminishing the term of penal servitude to be awarded from five to three years; but he found that he could not move that Amendment, because it would be contrary to some other Acts which regulated the power of all courts. He thought that, as a punishment for breaches of discipline, penal servitude ought really never to be insisted upon. He was of opinion that in every case a term of imprisonment for two years would be amply sufficient, and considered that all ordinary criminal offences were triable by ordinary courts, and not by courts martial. They had, by a preceding clause, excepted certain 858 offences, such as high treason, murder, and manslaughter—altogether, five offences had been excepted by Clause 41 from the jurisdiction of courts martial—and he thought it would have been very much better if a soldier had been left, in a case of any other offence against the criminal law of the land, to the ordinary courts, where it was possible to bring him to trial before such courts. He would be in favour of giving courts martial the right of trying those offences in times of war; but he saw no sufficient reason why, in times of peace, soldiers should not in any case be brought before the ordinary court for such offences as theft, embezzlement of public money, and so forth; but, by the clause they had passed, these offences could be tried by courts martial. He was afraid it was rather late to raise the question then; but, in the view of raising it, he begged to move to omit line 35, which gave the courts martial power to award penal servitude. He did so on two grounds—firstly, that all offences against discipline might be sufficiently punished by sentence of imprisonment for two years; and, secondly, that offences against the ordinary law of the land should be tried by the ordinary courts, and not by courts martial.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman summarized his objections to this part of the clause under two heads—first, he thought that those crimes would be sufficiently punished by two years' imprisonment; and, secondly, he thought that all ordinary crimes should be taken to the Civil Courts. Well, if the hon. Gentleman would look at the last sub-section of Clause 41, he would see that a person subject to military law, when in Her Majesty's Dominions, could be tried by any competent Civil Court for any offence for which he was not liable to military law; and in the majority of cases of theft, and so forth, the prisoners were tried by Civil Courts. "With regard to the latter proposal of the hon. Gentleman, he (Colonel Stanley) was afraid that he must join issue with him. The fact was this—if it had been possible to deal sufficiently with crimes by sentences of imprisonment only, there would have been no man more willing to have made that proposal than himself; but after careful examination, and the best information he could procure, and after consultation 859 with his Colleagues, who helped him in framing this Bill, he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to leave out the sentence of penal servitude, and that, in certain cases and under certain circumstances, sentences of imprisonment would not suffice. He believed that was undoubtedly the case in India some years ago. Imprisonment seemed to produce no effect whatever in checking the gross cases—of insubordination, striking officers, and so forth; but when it was directed by General Napier that penal servitude should be more often enforced, that produced an almost entire cessation of these crimes. The Committee had considered this matter in connection with other things; and though they regretted to see penal servitude inflicted, in his opinion it was necessary to retain it in the clause.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcould confirm what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said as to what took place in India, and he earnestly urged the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) not to press his Amendment. There were many parts of the Bill to which he objected; but now they had got upon a clause in which he was very happy to say that he agreed with the Secretary of State for War. In his own regiment, two years ago, an officer was sentenced to penal servitude, and the same thing had occurred in many instances with regard to soldiers. Even the punishment of death had been resorted to in extreme cases.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDobjected to this clause on a different ground. Even assuming it was right to give to courts martial power to sentence to penal servitude in such cases, there was no sufficient reason for limiting the minimum term to five years. There might have been reasons for fixing that minimum at the time it was done, because he believed that at that time the cost of the prisons fell upon the counties, and the expense of keeping the men in penal servitude fell upon the Consolidated Fund; and the Government, in order to limit the amount payable out of the general taxes of the country, fixed that limit. But now that all prisons were supported by the State the reason failed.
THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. and learned Member to Order, stating that his observations related to a later Amendment.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) expressed a doubt as to whether, under the Mutiny Act, a soldier who deserted, or attempted to desert, could be sentenced to penal servitude. He would rather refer him to the 15th clause of the Mutiny Act, which provided that any person who should desert, or attempt to desert, should suffer death, penal servitude, or not exceeding two years' imprisonment, as by court martial awarded. The general rule had been that when a soldier had been tried three or four times by a garrison court martial he was then tried by a general court martial, with the view of punishing with penal servitude; and he had seen a soldier sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment under the old Transportation Act for a case of desertion.
§ MR. PARNELLdid not wish to take a Division, because he was sensible that the principle of the Amendment would not be favourably entertained at this stage of the Bill. He was sorry he was not able to raise the question at an earlier stage, when it would have been more properly raised. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was not quite sure whether there could really be introduced into the Bill a provision limiting penal servitude to three years instead of five. The law governing the duration of sentence of penal servitude was very explicit upon this point; but he had heard that it was possible for an Act of Parliament to do anything, and it was quite possible that they might change the present law by means of the alteration which was suggested by his Amendment. He would be very glad if one of the hon. and learned Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench could have been present on this occasion to give them the assistance which they had been so kind as to give all along in this matter, because he thought this was a question for the lawyer. If they could really do it, he should like to move an Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 18, line 35, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "three."
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) would not press that Amendment, for this 861 reason—they heard last night that the Penal Servitude Commissioners were going to report very shortly. It was one of the special things that he was always anxious that the Commissioners should ascertain as to the difference between the effect of penal servitude and the effect of imprisonment; and he had never been able to see why a court should not have the power to pass a sentence of penal servitude for loss than five years. That had always been a great mystery to him. Of course he said nothing, although he might know a great deal, as to the wishes or the feelings of the Penal Servitude Commissioners; but the offer he made to the hon. Member for Meath was this—if the Penal Servitude Commissioners reported in favour of the reduction of the term of penal servitude from five years to three years, he would immediately adopt it, and he thought he could undertake that the military and naval authorities would do the same. That being so, and the Bill being a very long one, he would suggest that they need not waste any time in discussing the point then.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it occurred to him, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that they might leave out all reference to the term of penal servitude from this clause, because, manifestly, that term would be governed by the general Acts regulating the sentence which might be imposed. For instance, as the Acts at present stood, the courts martial could not award a less sentence than five years; therefore, it appeared to him to be entirely unnecessary to introduce the term into this Bill. Even supposing the Government decided to alter the term of penal servitude to three years, a general Act would have to be passed for the purpose.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that what he stated was this—that if the Commissioners reported that the minimum term of penal servitude should be less than five years, he would undertake, on behalf of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, that it should be put into the Bill before it became law.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDwas very glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He did not, however, see any 862 objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath—namely, to leave out the limit from this clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELL, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 18, line 36, to leave out "with or," explained that its object was to limit the term of imprisonment with hard labour to one year; and he hoped the Committee would agree with in thinking that a sentence of two years' hard labour was really too much for a man to undergo, unless he happened to be exceptionally strong. Hard labour in the military prisons was very different from that in the convict establishments, and was performed in the following manner:—A man stood in the middle of the house where the labour was done, turning a crank or winding up a weight; he was stripped, except as to his trousers; there was water running down the walls of the room in order to keep it cool, the labour being so intense; and this might go on for ten hours at a time. It would be seen that this was lab our of no ordinary character, and of a kind that no man ought to be called upon to perform for any considerable time; for, oven if he should happen to live through his sentence, he would be utterly broken down for life. He thought that, in view of the large amount of imprisonment which unfortunately appeared to be necessary in the Army, care should be taken to see that the constitutions of our soldiers wore not injured by sentences of imprisonment thoughtlessly inflicted by courts martial who did not fully understand the consequences of their acts, and that they should draw a distinction between the criminal classes and the soldiers of the Army. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the description of the hard labour in the prisons, as given by the hon. Member, was hardly correct. There was no doubt whatever that two years' imprisonment with hard labour was a very hard sentence; but, at the same time, it was one that was very seldom given. The amount of hard labour performed in military prisons became less and less, until the offender reached the highest class; and the Committee must not think that people were kept working at the crank for a period of two years. He 863 hoped the Committee would allow the words to stand in the Bill.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was not aware how the limitations and precautions referred to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department as having been made against the severity of hard labour could be brought to bear in the case of India. Many parts of the Act appeared at variance with the Indian system, and he was afraid that the new clause might have the effect of punishing soldiers in a hot climate more severely than they were punished in a cold one.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSagreed with the hon. and gallant Member that there should be some security against this; and as the clause in that respect did not seem to be sufficiently clear, he would have the matter looked into.
§ MR. PARNELLpointed out to the Committee that the general labour in military prisons was very much harder than in the convict establishments, and that the diet was not nearly so good. He wished to bring to the notice of the Committee the fact that the scale of diet had been very considerably reduced since the Home Secretary came into Office. The scales of diet recommended by the Committee were considerably lower than those in force in many of the prisons throughout the country. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would know that the scales in force throughout the country were not entirely uniform in their character, and that they varied very much according to locality in England, Ireland, and Scotland; at the same time, the scales recommended by the Committee appointed to consider this subject were very much lower than those adopted in other prisons. He had visited one of the prisons recently, and found that they had adopted a higher dietary scale than the one sanctioned by the right hon. Gentleman, which they evidently considered too low. He was not prepared at that moment to go into the scales, and, therefore, only mentioned the matter incidentally as one which might be open to correction; but his strong opinion was that the scales in question were very inferior to those in force in convict establishments. Under such circumstances, therefore, it was impossible that a man should undergo a period of two years' imprisonment with hard labour without suffering in health 864 and being incapacitated from doing useful work when he came out of prison. Our soldiers should not be submitted to treatment of that kind; and if it was desired to get any good out of a man, he should not be subjected to punishment which would make him useless afterwards. Although he did not think himself justified in taking a Division, he should record a very strong protest against the system of giving soldiers in the Army long terms of hard labour, more especially for offences against discipline. There was evidence that soldiers had been sentenced to cumulative sentences amounting to five years; but that had been done away with. Still, practically, a soldier might be sentenced to cumulative sentences under this Act up to five years, and there was little doubt that courts martial would adopt that practice in future.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for War, whether it was the intention of the military authorities to assimilate the diet and punishment in military prisons to those which existed in convict and other prisons throughout the country? He had heard it over and over again stated that a soldier going out from a term of hard labour was utterly unfitted to perform regimental duties for a length of time. It was well known that the dietary scale was very much lower in the military prisons than that in use in ordinary prisons, and the fact had been brought before the House several times during the last few years. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had, three years ago, brought a case under the notice of the House which had excited a great deal of attention and horror.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, when the Bill passed, it was the intention to take this very point into consideration; that was one reason why he had asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to put his name on the back of the Bill.
§ COLONEL MUREsaid, the new scale of diet had proved to be all that could be desired, and that the standard of health continued to be highly satisfactory in the military prisons. He did not think that the power to sentence to hard labour should be withdrawn.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYdesired to know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken wished the 865 Committee to understand that the dietary in military prisons was equal to that in ordinary convict establishments, or that the hard labour imposed in them was the same as in the latter? because it was well known that such was not the case.
§ COLONEL STANLEYwished to point out that the present discussion should relate to the future and not to the past. As far as circumstances would admit, it was the intention to assimilate both the diet and hard labour in military and other prisons.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, a matter had been pressed upon his attention by a military correspondent, about which he desired to ask the question, whether, in future, military delinquents would be kept separate from the civil criminal class?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was absolutely impossible to allot a separate part of a prison to military prisoners; but, as far as possible, they would be kept distinct from ordinary prisoners.
§ MR. J. HOLMSsuggested that the Bill might, perhaps, remain as it was, inasmuch as the clause spoke of imprisonment "with or without hard labour." He wished to point out that if the power of giving sentences of two years, with or without hard labour, was taken away, the courts martial might be found to incline to the infliction of terms of penal servitude. Everything, however, would depend upon the formation of the court martial, which, in his opinion, ought to be radically changed.
§ GENERAL SHUTEassured the Committee that officers of the Army were not predisposed to give long terms of imprisonment; quite the reverse. There was a strong objection to losing the services of soldiers from their regiments, which, in their absence, would have to be performed by other men. Long sentences were avoided, whenever it was possible, especially in Cavalry and Artillery, in which services the imprisonment of the bad entailed so much extra duty on the good soldiers, and it was most unusual to give more than one year's imprisonment. He wished that hon. Members opposite would not constantly imply that the officers of the Army were a set of military tyrants. The officers of the Army took the greatest interest in the welfare of the soldiers, and far more so in the English Service than in any Army in Europe.
§ MR. RYLANDSassured the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) that he had the highest opinion of the officers of the Army generally, and believed many of them to be of high character, certainly not men disposed to act in an unjust or cruel manner; but he was bound to tell the hon. and gallant Member that that tribute was not universally paid to the consideration and kindness of military officers. Unfortunately, cases could be referred to of officers exercising their powers in a manner detrimental to the Service and unjust to individual soldiers. The Paper which he held in his hand, for instance, stated that a man had received 336 days' imprisonment in an Indian military prison, simply for making a complaint against his commanding officer to the Commander-in-Chief in a respectfully-worded letter. At the same time, he wished to say that he had not risen for the purpose of supporting the Amendment before the Committee; and, inasmuch as the Bill gave a discretionary power to courts martial, he thought the clause might be fairly allowed to remain in its present form. However, in granting great powers to officers, he thought that those powers should be surrounded by safeguards.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURdrew attention to the new punishment of imprisonment to be inflicted upon officers of the Army, to which he felt the strongest objection, inasmuch as he did not think it at all fitted to an officer who had misdemeaned himself. Imprisonment, he found, was a substitute for corporal punishment in the case of soldiers, and he, therefore, strongly objected to this application of it to the military offences of officers. If hon. Members would refer to the Defining Clause of the Bill, they would find that corporal punishment might be awarded to soldiers in lieu of imprisonment. He therefore appealed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, with the hope that some modification might be introduced throughout the Bill to do away with the imprisonment of officers. He quite admitted that imprisonment must be awarded for many acts done by officers in India.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HOPWOODhoped that the Committee would accept him as the 867 representative of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), on whose behalf he begged to express regret that he should be absent from the House and the performance of his duty, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out from line 5, page 19, the words "or corporal punishment, subject as in this Act mentioned." In doing this, he was aware that he would be repeating to the Committee an old story and an old complaint. But the complaint and the defence were equally old, and had begun many years ago. In moving the omission of the words "corporal punishment," he thought he might almost as well have asked to substitute the word "torture." A few years ago, an old punishment for almost every act was death, and in those days hon. Members, no doubt, held up to scorn any endeavour to alter that bloody and ferocious system; and it was thought, no doubt honestly and conscientiously, that to take away that violent sanction would be to upset the framework of society. But some of their Predecessors had seen the necessity of repealing and altering that state of things; they were persistent and successful, and he (Mr. Hopwood), and other hon. Members who entertained the same opinions upon this subject, hoped to be as persistent and as successful in the work of repealing the law which authorized the infliction of corporal punishment upon the soldiers in the Army. In 1811 the number of lashes which might be inflicted was unlimited, and it was sometimes measured by the extent to which the unhappy offender could hold out; but, at that time, some merciful person, in spite of terrible warnings as to the mischief that might ensue, proposed that it should not exceed 300. Shortly after this the number was limited to 200 lashes. Lastly, the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) succeeded in inducing the House of Commons to carry the abolition of this punishment. But the Government of the day, and it happened to be the Representatives of the same Party now in power, clung to the old notion. It was not till the year 1868 that the clause was adopted as it now stood in the annual Mutiny Bill, and which was mainly incorporated in the Bill now before the House. Such was the history of the strenuous endeavours by which, in spite of the strongest official 868 opposition, in spite of great prejudice, in spite of alarming appeals and endeavours to terrify nervous people, the salutary law was enacted by which at the present moment it was unlawful, in time of peace and on land, to inflict upon any soldier the punishment of the lash. But there was a modification of that law, and the punishment might still be inflicted in time of peace on active service and on board ships not commissioned by Her Majesty; and there was unfortunate evidence that the exceptions in the Act were being made use of most readily by some people wedded to the old state of things. The House had just learned that three troopers of Her Majesty's First Dragoon Guards on the way to the Cape had been subjected to this most severe punishment, which might, unhappily, be still inflicted on board ships not commissioned by Her Majesty; and the opportunity of time and place seemed to have suggested themselves to the officer in command, who accordingly had these men triced up and lashed. As the men were on board ship, they could not possibly desert. What on earth, then, could be the necessity for resorting to this abominable and degrading punishment? He understood that they were guilty of gross insubordination—and gross insubordination they might be guilty of on land, but they could not be flogged for it; therefore, he said that those who had chosen that punishment merely from the accident that gallant men were being carried from this country to serve Her Majesty in another place had made a gross mistake, which they would have done better to avoid. Hon. Members ought to endeavour to remove this blot and stigma from the British Army and Navy. He now turned to the evidence of some of the military men who spoke on the occasion of the debate, after which the House of Commons abolished for ever this punishment in time of peace and on land. Captain Vivian supplied an illustration in support of the hon. Member who moved the abolition of the punishment by saying that—
Corporal punishment was not inflicted in the Household Cavalry regiments, but that was owing to the fact that it was considered the greatest disgrace that could happen to a man to be turned out of his regiment. They should, therefore, endeavour to teach the whole Army that it was a glory to belong to the Profession, and a disgrace to be driven from it.869 Glory!—to belong to a profession in which every man might, under some circumstances, be subjected to this disgraceful punishment! It was made a crime to flog an ancient Roman, and he could not see why the Committee should not make a similar protection for the backs of Englishmen, and not allow them to be whipped as one would whip a dog. The other military testimony went to show that corporal punishment deterred persons from entering the Army who would otherwise have enlisted, and that it was clear that flogging could be done away with; because, in 1811, when the number of lashes was first restricted, the men were worse in point of character than at the present time. Again, it had been shown that its retention was not necessary to enforce the authority of the non-commissioned officers, who, in the case of one battalion, on being asked whether they thought that flogging was necessary to maintain their authority, had one and all replied that they "should be sorry to maintain it at that price." It would have been well if one of the infernal implements used for the infliction of this punishment could have been brought into the House for the inspection of all hon. Members, some of whom, he feared, through seeing them used, had to a certain extent come to look upon them as necessary. He wondered the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not produce one—to show how soft it was, and speak of it as not conveying torture. He (Mr. Hopwood) doubted whether this implement had been properly described in legislative enactments. As far as he had learned, however, with one stroke it produced nine cuts; and, besides, its nine lashes were furnished with a number of knots, for the sake of producing the largest amount of human suffering that could be inflicted for the purposes of this Act of Parliament. The labours of some ingenious artist had clearly been expended in the production of this fearful instrument, the use of which, if they still claimed to be men of tenderness and generous feeling towards their fellow-creatures, should be at once abolished. He was not aware that medical men could estimate suffering better than others; but they could give better expression to it, and this was the description given by medical authority— 870As to the strokes, we can only describe them to be combined—bruising, cutting, and tearing of the most horrible description; and, familiar as we are with surgical operations before the days of chloroform, we are obliged to conclude that not the most serious and protracted operations, including amputation, tooth-drawing, or all put together, were ever so painful as flogging.Again, the testimony of Mr. Abernethy was that—One of the severest operations of surgery is for stone, which, when skilfully performed, is not upon the average of more than a few minutes duration. In flogging every lash is, perhaps, equal to the incision through the skin in the operation for stone; and, further, no surgeon could answer for the ultimate or immediate consequences of this species of corporal punishment.He had now proved, upon the highest authority, that he was correct in describing this punishment as torture. Supposing it was proposed to put into the Act the words, "or torture by raising the skin by pincers, or by raising weals or blisters by hot irons," would anyone fail to recoil from the proposal as one to be avoided with horror? Yet such was represented, in gentlemanly words, to be "corporal punishment." The punishment of the lash produced infinite and horrible torture; one skin might bear its effect, and one constitution endure it, but not another; the extremest pain must be felt by the sensitive patient; and yet the House was about to pass the enactment that corporal punishment was to be renewed, in the shape of torture by the lash, by tearing the skin, and by producing suffering-equal to that endured under the most terrible surgical operations before the use of anæsthetics. He contended that, under no circumstances, should the House be a party to such a thing, and he equally resisted the application of this punishment to all those cases and situations described in the present Act. Apologizing for the length at which he had spoken, but for which his own arguments and the desire to represent his absent Friend would be his excuse, he moved that the words, "or corporal punishment," down to the end of line 5, be omitted from the clause.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 19, line 5, to leave out from the word "years," to the word "mentioned," in line 6, inclusive.—(Mr. Hopwood.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
871§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the Committee had under its consideration one of the most serious punishments that could be inflicted under the Act; and he hoped that the Committee would endeavour, as far as possible, to clear away from their minds all matters except those strictly relevant to the Bill. What the Committee had to consider was whether, in the circumstances of the present day, this punishment should be retained. Had he, upon any evidence or otherwise, been able to conclude that the time had arrived when this punishment could be omitted, he should at once have thought it his duty to have framed the Bill accordingly, and to have submitted it in that form to Parliament. But having regard to the circumstances under which the Service had to be carried on, and to the nature of the crimes occasionally arising under the discipline of the Service, he had not found himself enabled to eliminate corporal punishment from the Bill. He trusted the Committee would, therefore, pause before adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He could not question the feeling with which that hon. and learned Member had just addressed the Committee. No doubt, he entertained very strong opinions upon the subject; but when he spoke of the "careful contrivance of an instrument for producing the largest amount of personal suffering," he (Colonel Stanley) was bound to say that he differed entirely from the hon. and learned Member's conclusions. With regard to the medical opinions cited, he would like to have the date of those opinions, and to know whether they were expressed at a time when corporal punishment could be extended to 800 or 1,000 lashes? So far as he had heard, officers were always reluctant to inflict this punishment, except in the gravest instances, or when it was absolutely necessary to make an example and to save further crime. But, fenced about as it was with limitations which Parliament had imposed, he did not think that the discipline of the Army could be maintained by its removal, without leaving an hiatus in the punishment to be inflicted, which would oblige the authorities to resort to even more severe measures than corporal punishment. It would be observed that corporal punishment was now limited to 872 circumstances under which it was difficult or impossible to inflict imprisonment. As to the infliction of corporal punishment on board ships, the Committee would understand that the limitation, in Sub-section 7, of ships not in commission by Her Majesty, was merely put in to cover the case of ships in the merchant service, for the reason that on board ships bearing the pennant the provision of the Mutiny Act was temporarily suspended, and discipline carried on under the Naval Discipline Act. He desired to add that his hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman who had considered this Bill had also carefully considered the subject of corporal punishment; and they had not considered it their duty to Parliament to recommend that it should be eliminated from the measure, because they felt that if this had been done, resort would be had, in many cases, especially on active service, to a more severe penalty, and because they felt that, wherever imprisonment could not be given, some punishment that could be promptly inflicted was absolutely necessary. They had endeavoured to fence round the punishment with every possible safeguard. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had hoped that some hon. Member connected with the Military Profession, of whom he saw several in the House, would have risen at once to say that he believed the British soldier worthy of being placed on the same footing, as regarded punishment, with the soldiers of every other State in Europe, and that he should be freed from the disgrace and torture of the lash. Looking round him, he saw many officers who held, or who had held, high positions in the Army; and he would ask them whether they did not think that, as in the Armies of Prance, Germany, and Italy, discipline was admirably maintained without having recourse to flogging, it might not also be maintained in the Army of this country without so brutal and degrading a punishment? He was not sure whether he was libelling the Russian Army, when he said that he believed Russia only shared with England the use of the knout for the purpose of preserving discipline among her troops. For his own part, he begged to protest in the strongest 873 terms against the continuance of flogging, and he did so the more especially, because his own countrymen contributed a large quota to the Army. To those who contended that the infliction of physical pain and torture was necessary to keep the men in order, he would reply that, if that was really the case, some more decent system of physical punishment than the lash ought to be adopted. The thumb-screw would be found quite as efficient for the purpose. Why, he would ask, was not it used, instead of the cat-o'-nine-tails? "Why should the Scavenger's Daughter be allowed to remain idle in the Tower of London, if hon. Members were so enamoured of a system of physical torture? Was it not a source of shame and indignation to them that it should be proclaimed to the world that England stood in need of the infamous lash to keep her soldiers out of trouble? The flag of France had been planted by the Armies of France on the ramparts of almost every city in Europe. It had been carried in triumph to Leipsic, and to Moscow, and to Berlin. [Laughter.] Hon. and gallant Gentlemen in that House might laugh at the record, and England, it must be admitted, had done great things in Ashantee and Abyssinia; but she had not, as France had, borne her arms victorious over the Continent of Europe, and that without inflicting the disgrace of the lash upon her soldiers. The British Army was composed, no one could deny it, of brave men. The personal courage of the British soldier had never been impugned. It had been proved upon many fields. Why, then, should the Committee hesitate to raise the British soldier to an equality with the soldiers of France? Let them give up this emblem of a barbaric age, when the soldier was scourged, not unfrequently, until lie reached the battle-field. In the name of the British soldier, in the name of common humanity, in the name of the country which was proud of its civilization, he begged of hon. and gallant Gentlemen, some of whom might to-morrow or the next day have to lead their men to the cannon's mouth, to wipe away the stain which the use of a brutal instrument of torture cast upon our Military Code.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had seen the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) get up on many occasions in that House, 874 and had heard him denounce its Members in the same unmeasured language in which he had thought fit to indulge on the present occasion. He would, however, venture to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the desirability of taking a little more pains to know something of the business he was talking about than he seemed to have done with regard to the question of flogging in the Army. It was clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew nothing about the subject, and he ought to be aware that there was not a Member of the House who was not just as anxious that the punishment of flogging in the Army should be done away with, if that could possibly be done without injury to the Service. There was no man in that House who would desire to see a single soldier flogged; but it was necessary to look a great deal further than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman would make it appear that a soldier might absolutely be flogged in this country. He had drawn no distinction, and had not discriminated in any way as to the real state of the case. He ought, however, to have been aware, and must have been aware, of the fact that soldiers were not flogged in this country; and if he knew it, he ought not to have spoken as he had done. Sentimental speeches, such as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just delivered, scarcely did him any credit, he thought. He should not, however, have risen to reply to that speech, but that he did not like to remain silent when he heard the character of the officers of our Army being taken away in that sort of manner. No one, he was sure, felt more kindly disposed towards our soldiers than the officers by whom they were commanded; and it was only in cases of absolute necessity, on board ship, or in the field, that the lash was resorted to. He felt certain, he might add, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), would not rise in his place and tell the Committee that there were, in his opinion, no occasions when flogging was necessary for the maintenance of discipline.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had no doubt that when that House provided the means by which the Army might be made a more attractive profession to a higher class of men, and the condition of the soldier improved, 875 flogging might be dispensed with without detriment to the Service. Even under the present system, he must admit that there were occasions when the lash was improperly applied, and he had seen the men in nearly three regiments disqualified for service in consequence. There were, however, some cases in which, he regretted to think, it was necessary to have recourse to corporal punishment; although, as he said, he believed it might be done away with under an improved system. He need not say that he would have great pleasure in supporting any measure which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might bring forward calculated to have that object.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEexpressed his strong objection to the brutal manner in which the punishment of flogging was sometimes inflicted on board ship. He had himself witnessed cases, he might add, of flogging for petty theft, and half the number of lashes awarded had to be remitted, because the men could not endure the full number. He would support the Amendment, believing that the use of the lash might be dispensed with in the English, as it was in the French and German, and other Continental Armies.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he congratulated himself on having performed a miracle, for he had succeeded in making the dumb speak. It was very evident, from what had occurred in the course of the present discussion, that someone's withers were wrung, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had not found himself able to preserve silence any longer; and he (Mr. Sullivan) was glad that he had spoken, in order that the country might know what the opinions of military men were about the practice of the knout. The hon. and gallant Baronet, who, he believed, was a post colonel, was good enough to say that he (Mr. Sullivan) had denounced hon. Members of that House; but what he denounced was propositions made in that House, and hon. Members who hesitated to say what they thought on a subject upon which, in his opinion, they were called upon to speak, for he could not help regarding it as discreditable to the military Members of the House that they should allow the Vote to pass in silence. He (Mr. Sullivan) was as free to to speak as the hon. and gallant Baronet, 876 and he would tell him that he was not a bit afraid to get up in his place and to give expression to that opinion. With no wish in the world to press the matter to greater length than fair argument would admit, he would venture to tell the hon. and gallant Member that the question which was raised by the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend beside him (Mr. Hopwood) was a more serious one than they seemed to suppose. There were some hon. Members, at all events, who felt most keenly and deeply upon the question of the preservation of the punishment of the knout. Why, he would ask, should a law be kept upon the Statute Book, by which it was proclaimed that the British soldier ceased to be a Briton because he did not happen to be staying within the limits of these Islands? Let the advocates of the lash come forward and answer the arguments which had been urged against it. He had succeeded in bringing one of them out, and he hoped a few more of them would favour the Committee with their views on the subject. Let there be no silent voting on their part. He ventured to say he knew more about the matter than the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seemed to suppose. He also felt more about it than the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to do. He had, he might say, almost seen the horrors of the lash. It was barely a few years ago that reporters who had been in his own establishment in the City of Dublin returned with their faces spattered with the blood and flesh of those unfortunate soldiers who were the victims of this degrading punishment. ["Oh, oh!"] He rejoiced to find that the House of Commons shuddered at the fact, and that they were ashamed of it. That it was a fact there could be no doubt, because it was borne testimony to by the Press of Dublin at the time; and to the horror of it no greater tribute could be paid than the ebullition of feeling to which the mention of it had just given rise. If any hon. Member thought he exaggerated the story, let the Government, in whose presence he had stated that disgraceful fact, get up and contradict him. If his statement were true, as it most undoubtedly was, could the Committee wonder that he should feel deeply and keenly on the subject? He had no seat in the House when the 877 circumstance occurred; but he had then made a vow that if ever he did succeed in obtaining a seat in it, he would tell the military men in it how disgraceful it was that they should seek to perpetuate this dreadful indignity inflicted on the British soldier.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that whatever might be the opinions which hon. Members entertained on the subject of flogging in the Army, he did not think those who advocated the abolition of corporal punishment would serve the cause which they professed to have at heart by the course which they had taken on the present occasion. For his own part, he hoped and believed he was as much influenced by feelings of humanity as any hon. Member who desired to have flogging done away with; but he also hoped that he had sense enough to see that, irrespective of the question of the expediency of maintaining it in the Army, the subject was not at all to be approached by the same arguments as it was years ago, when the brutal punishment of the lash was the normal punishment of our Criminal Code. He had never been able to go with his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in his desire to abolish flogging in the case of such offenders as wife-beaters and garotters. It was, in his opinion, nonsense, and nothing but nonsense, for hon. Members to indulge in such talk as he had heard about the effect of the cat-o'-nine-tails, in the infliction of some 25 or 50 lashes, which were every week inflicted in our prisons in all parts of England, in the same way as they were inflicted upon the soldier, and which were constantly witnessed and described by the reporters of the newspapers, who never stated that they had been spattered by the blood or flesh of any of the victims. Very brutal scenes had, no doubt, been enacted in past times; but his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) seemed to be carried away by his feelings far beyond the extent which the real state of the case would justify, and to forget that the horrors of which he complained had long since been done away with. The truth of the matter was that the punishment of flogging in the Army had been abolished for years, except when a soldier was being conveyed on board a ship not belonging to the Fleet, and where there were no means of preserving discipline 878 such as existed on board a man-of-war, or when troops were in the field. In those cases, an offender might be subjected to a limited number of lashes with a cat-o'-nine-tails. What hon. Member, he would ask, was not aware that some years ago it was actually unsafe to walk in the streets of London? Who did not recollect the case of an hon. and respected Gentleman who sat on his own side of the House, and who was seized by a garotter as he was walking through Pall Mall and very nearly strangled? It was in consequence of that offence that the punishment of flogging with a cat-o'-nine-tails to the extent of 25 or 50 lashes was adopted in regard to the perpetrators of such outrages, with the result that the streets of London shortly became safe to walk in again. He had never felt a greater sense of shame at the conduct of his fellow-countrymen than during the time of which he was speaking, when many persons thought it was necessary to carry arms in the streets for the purpose of protecting oneself against those assaults. He recollected very well a conversation which took place among hon. Members as to the best mode of protection, and that one very shrewd old gentleman had provided himself with a weapon in the shape of two knives, admirably adapted to the purpose of freeing himself from the grasp of a garotter, if he should happen to be attacked by one. The law was not then strong enough to protect peaceful citizens, and, as he had said, it was only by having recourse to flogging that garotting was put down. ["No, no!"] He at once admitted that any hon. Member had a right to form his own opinion as to the causes which had led to the disappearance of that offence; but his own belief was that it had been extinguished by the specific infliction of a particular form of punishment—and that was the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails. Everybody, he might add, was aware that in Russia the knout was the normal mode of punishing criminals, and he believed that even in the German Army the use of the cane was not unknown. There was, it was perfectly true, no flogging in France; but then there were other punishments inflicted there, which produced physical torture quite as much open to objection as that which was caused by the lash. In America, it had been seriously proposed to employ electricity as a means of producing physical 879 torture; but if electricity were introduced for the purpose into this country, we should all start back with horror. He was opposed to the infliction of flogging under almost all circumstances; but he could not, in his conscience, believe that it was wrong to give to commanding officers the power of inflicting 50 lashes in the circumstances provided for in the Bill—namely, when the Army was in the field, or troops were being conveyed on board ship; and he could not, therefore, vote for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stated so ably and so clearly the views which he himself entertained on the question under discussion, that he should not have thought it necessary to rise to address the Committee on the present occasion, were it not for the insinuation which had been thrown out in the course of the discussion, that the military Members of the House shrank from expressing their opinion as to the expediency of maintaining the punishment of flogging in the Army. Now, that was an insinuation which he, for one, begged entirely to repudiate. He advocated the retention of corporal punishment in the case of our soldiers to the limited extent to which it now existed, and he did so because he valued the life of the British soldier. If flogging were done away with when troops were in the field, it would be necessary to have recourse to shooting the men, because, in marching across an enemy's country and among a peaceful population, they would, in many instances, be guilty of offences which no fear of imprisonment would prevent them from committing. Shooting was the mode of punishment adopted in the French Army, and the punishment was frequently inflicted in time of peace; but he had no wish to see the lives of our soldiers sacrificed in that way; but he was satisfied that corporal punishment was necessary when troops were in the field, for it was when marching through an enemy's country that they were most liable to commit all sorts of crime.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had just executed one of the most extraordinary flank marches he had ever witnessed in the whole course of his expe- 880 rience. It was only last year, when the Mutiny Bill was being discussed, that the hon. Gentleman, when inviting himself and some other hon. Members to desist from their opposition to the clause which imposed the punishment of flogging, said that if the Bill which the Government promised to introduce this year, based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat upon the subject, did not provide for the abolition of that punishment, he would support them in dividing against every lash of the 50 lashes. That was the statement which was made by the hon. Gentleman, with a horror which was quite natural to him at the idea of any approach to cruelty. The hon. Gentleman had absolutely invited him, 12 months ago, to abstain from a course of obstruction, and that he would on a future occasion have his most strenuous support; and yet the hon. Member was now in favour of the continuance of what he admitted to be a most brutal and degrading punishment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had asked what was the date at which the medical opinions which had been quoted by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had been expressed, and seemed to have forgotten that the pain of flogging ceased after the first 40 or 50 lashes, when the nerves affected were destroyed by the punishment, and, therefore, the calculation was not really affected by any question as to the number of lashes. The severe effects which flogging produced on the constitutions of those who had, unfortunately, been subjected to it, were perfectly well known. The hon. Member for Galway, he might add, was, in his opinion, somewhat unhappy in the comparison which he kept drawing throughout his speech between the soldiers of the British Army and wife-beaters and garotters. The hon. Member, too, seemed to forget that at the time to which he had alluded, when he was compelled to walk about the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, the people of Ireland were obliged to suffer under the operation of the Peace Preservation Act. He was quite prepared to admit that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not like to see the punishment of flogging inflicted on a soldier, except under very exceptional circumstances; but many commanding 881 officers were not so reluctant to avail themselves of the power which the Bill would give them, and it was absurd to contend that it was in any way necessary for the maintenance of discipline. Soldiers did not go into the Army to be flogged; they went into it to be shot; and he was sure that if the option were given them they would, at least in many instances, prefer to die a soldier's death rather than undergo the brutal torture and undignity of the lash.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought those hon. Gentlemen who had made such impassioned appeals to the Committee against the punishment of flogging were bound to supply an answer to the question—what they would do with a soldier who had committed offences under circumstances such as those for which the clause was meant to provide? He certainly felt that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), as well as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, ought to give the Committee some information on that point. It might be quite true, as the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) said, that there was no man worthy to be in the British Army who would not prefer to be shot to being flogged. Men went into the Army, he told the Committee, to be shot, and to be consistent with himself he ought to propose that that punishment should be substituted for flogging in the Bill. Shooting was, no doubt, a very simple and a very drastic mode of dealing with the difficulty, and it was the mode, he believed, which was adopted in several foreign Armies. He could not, however, subscribe to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Meath to its full extent, for although a soldier might enter ready and willing to be shot in the cause of his country, it did not follow that he would like to have the operation performed on him by his own officers and friends. He was still anxious to hear what form of punishment it was seriously proposed by the hon. Member and those who supported his view to substitute for flogging in case of outrageous offences committed in the field or on board ship.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped the Committee would give him their indulgence for a few moments, while he made a brief reply to the observations which 882 had just fallen from the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). His memory was, he thought, as good as that of the hon. Gentleman, while he hoped hon. Members would be as little likely to impugn his character for veracity. He would, then, positively assure the Committee that no such conversation as that which his hon. Friend had mentioned had ever taken place between them. He had never at any time expressed an opinion against such a clause as that under discussion. It was impossible, indeed, that he could have done so, because, as he had already informed the Committee, he had always felt himself unable to vote with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), believing that there were offences, such as garotting and wife-beating, for which flogging was the proper punishment. As to his having promised, then, the hon. Member for Meath that if he would desist from pursuing a certain course he would support him at a future time in his endeavour to do away with the lash altogether, it was a matter with regard to which his hon. Friend had drawn entirely on his own imagination. He felt bound to add that he did, last year, tell the hon. Gentleman that he was not, in his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion, justified by the Rules of the House, or by what he might call the rules of honour, in continuing his opposition to the Mutiny Bill, after the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War had promised that it should be referred to a Select Committee. That promise was given on the distinct understanding that there should not be a persistent opposition to the passing of the Bill, which was necessary for the discipline of the Army; and he, therefore, did not feel that the extreme opposition to it which was being carried on was altogether justified. But to hope to induce his hon. Friend to desist from any course upon which he had once decided to enter was a thing which never entered into his mind, for it never occurred to him to imagine that any advice with that object which he might give would produce upon his line of action the slightest effect. He certainly had never held out to his hon. Friend any such inducement to abstain from opposition to the passing of the Mutiny Bill last year, as that he would divide against every lash out of the 50 mentioned in the flogging clause 883 of the Bill. The true facts of the case were, he believed, understood by everyone who took any pains to consider the subject; and he must protest against the allegation being made with regard to hon. Members, who were as humane as his hon. Friend himself, that if they were in the Army they would take every opportunity of inflicting the punishment of flogging on the soldiers—as the hon. Gentleman had kindly insinuated some hon. and gallant Officers sitting on both sides of the House did or would be prepared to do. He should be very glad to see corporal punishment abolished altogether; but that was a millenium which would not, he was afraid, be speedily brought, notwithstanding the arguments of his hon. Friend.
§ MR. HOPWOODcongratulated the Government on having the support of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), who had assumed a great responsibility for the Bill throughout the discussions upon it. But with all the regard which he entertained for his hon. and learned Friend, he felt obliged, from no want of good feeling towards him, to decline to act upon his advice. His hon. and learned Friend asked what punishment those who supported the Amendment would substitute for flogging; but he denied that they were in any way called upon to supply an answer to that question. It was not for them to furnish information to the military authorities as to how discipline might be best maintained among the troops who wore under their rule. His Amendment was directed against a particular mode of punishment which met a man face to face when he entered the Army, and which had a most blighting effect. There was not an Army in Europe, he believed, in which the system of flogging was now adopted—not even the Russian. Let English officers ponder on that fact, and say whether they could sit still and hear this punishment cracked up as necessary, and actually supported on the ground that, as it was useful in the case of the garotter and the wife-beater, so it was useful for the English soldier—a man who was charged with the defence of his country, whose courage and endurance were so constantly the theme of praise in that House. But, whatever might be the decision of the Committee on the present occasion, he 884 felt sure that the time would come when, for very shame, so degrading a punishment would be given up in the English Army. It was said that in foreign Armies men were shot for such offences as those against which the clause was intended to provide. Who was the authority for that statement? Who was prepared to give the Committee chapter and verse for it, impugning, as it did, the honour of foreign nations? Something had been said about caning being resorted to in the German Army. The Germans would, he could not help thinking, be astonished when they learnt that such a statement had been made in the House of Commons in connection with their great and fine Army. He implored our military authorities to give up a punishment which was as useless as it was degrading, and to adopt some other means of maintaining discipline.
§ MR. PARNELLwas sorry to be obliged to impugn the accuracy of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); but he wished to remind him, in justice to himself, that it was not in conversation with him that the hon. Gentleman had made the statement to which he had referred, but in a speech which he had publicly delivered in that House some 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman then told him that if he desisted from opposing the passing of the Mutiny Bill, he would be prepared, when the question again came before the House, to divide with him against every lash.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he never regretted until now that there was not a verbatim report of everything which was said in that House. He would only add that he was not one who changed his opinions easily, or who was in the habit of expressing opinions diametrically opposed to one another. He, as a matter of fact, never had entertained the opinion which his hon. Friend attributed to him; nor did he entertain it at the present moment. His hon. Friend must, he could not help thinking, have misunderstood what he said, or he must have expressed himself so unfortunately as not to have made his views clear to him.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided,:—Ayes 239; Noes 56: Majority 183.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
885§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would move that Progress be reported, on the sufficient ground that he had an important Amendment to move upon the next Order on the Paper—namely, the Report of Supply. It was altogether out of the question to take the Report of Supply at the very end of a Morning Sitting. There were a number of Amendments to the clause of the Bill under discussion, and there was no chance of getting through them all at that time. It could not, therefore, interfere with the Business on hand, if the Government agreed to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONfound it would be impossible to take the Report of Supply, if any discussion was to be raised as indicated by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands).
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would give a promise that the Report should be taken at a convenient hour in the evening, he should be willing to withdraw his Motion.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should propose to take the Report of Supply on Thursday.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that the punishment of reduction to the ranks of a non-commissioned officer was omitted from the clause; but that in Clause 173 it was mentioned as a punishment to be given by the commanding officer. It was his opinion that this power was likely to be greatly abused, and he was at a loss to understand from what source the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War obtained the information which induced him to omit this punishment from its proper place in the Bill, where it was subject to court martial. It certainly did not come from the Select Committee, who generally had to bear the burden of all the changes which had been made in the measure. He would move, after line 7, the insertion of the words, "reduction to the rank of private soldier."
§ COLONEL STANLEYcould not see any advantage in the insertion of the words proposed at that stage of the 886 Bill. If the words were added, he thought objections of the same kind would have to be taken to various other clauses of the Bill, where the punishments referred to under this section were included. He suggested that the point should be dealt with when they came to Clause 173; of course, with the understanding, if necessary, that these matters should be brought into closer harmony on Report.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKthought that the proper place for the introduction of the words of the Amendment was in the present clause, and it appeared to him that if they were not inserted at that point, the opportunity of doing so would be lost. He thought that the reference to the punishment of reduction to the ranks by order of the commanding officer had been made in Clause 173 under a total misapprehension of certain views urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He entirely concurred in the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) to introduce at this place a recognition of the principle that a non-commissioned officer should not be reduced to the ranks, except by court martial.
§ COLONEL STANLEYdid not object to the insertion of the words in principle; but was not certain as to whether they must be considered in reference to other parts of the Bill.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONcould not understand why the great power given to the commanding officer to reduce non-commissioned officers to the ranks had been placed among the definitions in Clause 173. He should certainly divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
§ MR. RYLANDShoped the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) would persist in his Amendment. He considered Clause 173 a most objectionable one; and when it was reached, he hoped the Committee would look to the particular point in question, and oppose the clause as strongly as possible.
§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ And, it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.