§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Amendments of Army Act,1881.
§ Clause 4 (Amendment of s. 154 of 44 & 45 Viet. c. 58, as to apprehension of deserters).
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would move the Amendment standing in his name.
THE CHAIRMANI have looked at this Amendment, and at the clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr, Sexton), and I have come to the conclusion that they must be considered as new clauses, and taken at the end of the Bill.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that inasmuch as the clause he proposed was intended to amend a section of the Army Act of 1881 prior to the provisions of the present Bill, he thought its place should be where he moved it. If it were not inserted here it would read very awkwardly as an Amendment of the Army Act, 1881.
THE CHAIRMANI am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the statement he has made. I was of the same opinion myself at first; but, on consideration, it appeared to me that the Amendment would come in more properly as a new clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not 1740 stated in the Amendment itself when it will come in—neither the page nor the line.
§ MR. HEALYasked whether it was the intention of the Chairman to rule out every Amendment under similar circumstances?
§ MR. HEALYIs it your intention to rule that every Amendment to the Army Bill must be moved in the form of a new clause?
THE CHAIRMANNo; it will depend upon circumstances. I consider that these clauses to amend the Army Act of 1881 will come in more properly as new clauses at the end of the Bill, rather than, as it is now proposed, after Clause 4.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move the omission of the first five lines of the clause. He did not know what Member of the Government was in charge of the Bill; but, whoever it was, he hoped he should have his attention, as his desire was to assist in drafting the Bill, and not to obstruct Her Majesty's Government. If the hon. or right hon. Gentleman would look at Clause 4 and the next clause, he would see that they were drawn on two perfectly different principles, although they were both amendments of sections of the Army Act of 1881. Clause 4, it would be seen, commenced with an introductory paragraph, or preamble, showing the expediency of the provision, which paragraph, for all practical purposes, was merely surplusage. There was no occasion to go into the question of expediency at all; but if they did go into it and recited documents, it was essential that they should recite correctly. In other words, a correct representation should be given of the section of the previous Act, which Clause 4 professed to recite. The recital only mentioned the police officer, and did not refer at all to any "officer, soldier, or other person," as did the section of the Act of 1881. So much for the recital; but, more than this, Clause 5 seemed to be drawn up on au entirely different system, as it did not give the introductory paragraph. The clauses were differently drawn, and they could not, therefore, be both right. He would leave it to those in charge of the Bill to say which was right and which was wrong; and, in the meantime, would 1741 move the omission of the first paragraph in Clause 4.
§ Amendment proposed, "That all the words from the word 'whereas' to the word 'follows,' in line 17, be omitted."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the words referred to were put in the clause by way of recital, in order to show the reason for the amendment of the Act of 1881. The recital came first, and then followed the words which were really operative. It was a matter of perfect indifference what the preliminary words were, because, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) knew perfectly well, the object of the Amendment was simply to import, this year, a certain necessary Amendment into the Army Act, which Amendment would be incorporated into the Act quite independently of recital in question.
§ MR. WARTONagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the preliminary words were unnecessary; but, as they purported to recite the words of the Act of 1881, should they not recite correctly? Moreover, as he had pointed out, if Clause 4 was properly drawn, Clause 5 was not. Which form would the right hon. and learned Gentleman decide upon for both clauses; for, surely, the drafting should be on general, uniform lines?
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)The recital is only intended to show the Committee the meaning of the provision. I do not think any alteration is requisite.
§ MR. WARTONWhen you recite, why do you not do it correctly?
§ MR. TOMLINSONAre we discussing the Bill or the Amendment only?
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)Only additions proposed to be incorporated in the Act which is really permanent, although renewed annually.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), Roscommon 1742 (Dr. Commins), Cork City (Mr. Parnell), and Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who may not have understood what I stated just now, that the Amendments standing in their names should be moved as new clauses. They will come on in the order in which they stand on the Paper, precedence being only given to any Amendments which may be proposed by the Government.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would move the Amendment standing in his name—
That in section 32 of 'The Army Act, 1881,' the words 'penal servitude' be omitted, and the word 'imprisonment' be substituted.He wished to say, frankly, that in this Amendment he was not dealing with the wider question in the minds of many hon. Members—namely, the general question of the administration of the punishment of penal servitude by courts marshal, but was limiting himself in this particular instance to Section 32 of the Army Act. The sense of that section was this—it repressed a particular offence, which was described in this way—Every person … having been discharged with disgrace from any part of Her Majesty's Forces, or. … from the Navy has afterwards enlisted in the Regular Forces without declaring the circumstances of his discharge or dismissal shall, on conviction by court martial, be liable to suffer penal servitude, or such less imprisonment as is in this Act mentioned.Now, what he wished to call the attention of the Committee to was the fact that penal servitude was a very severe punishment and should only be applied to most serious crimes. The crime, however, to which he was drawing attention was hardly to be called a crime. It was a venial offence, a deceit, and hardly came within the wider range of offences which were called "crimes." A man having been in the Army, and having been dismissed, chose, for purposes of his own, to offer himself again for enlistment as a soldier. Such an act might be a disturbance of the arrangements of the Army, and might be displeasing to commanders of regiments—it might be anything but satisfactory for a commander to have black sheep come into his regiment; but, after all, the offence was one which could be very fairly met by the old punishment that used to be meted out in respect of it—namely giving the offender three months' imprisonment as a rogue and vagabond. This I new punishment of penal servitude was 1743 owing, no doubt, to the stern ideas of some people connected with the administration of the Army; but he could only say he had traced back the offence, and had found that in 1877 it was punishable with imprisonment as a rogue and vagabond on summary conviction before two magistrates, or before a district court martial—and he supposed that a district court martial under the Statute could hardly have given a longer period of imprisonment than the magistrates could have done. However that was, the offence could not be punished with anything more than imprisonment. As the Committee would remember, in 1878–9 there was an inquiry—a considerable inquiry—before a Select Committee, and the drawing up of a body of military laws known first as the Army Act of 1879 and now as the Army Act of 1881. In the model Act suggested by the Committee, the offence with which he was dealing was only made punishable with imprisonment; but, somehow or other, the provision to which he took exception was inserted in the Act which became law. He could not trace the change of opinion which took place; he did not know how it was determined upon; and he could not discover in the history of the matter that any hon. Member, in giving his sanction to the Act, and agreeing to the section in question, was informed that he was giving to courts martial the increased power which, it seemed, they now possessed. The fact was, however, that an offence which was a mere personation, a mere fraud—he did not wish to minimize it, but an offence which certainly, in the minds of those he was addressing, the Legislature was right in thinking three months' imprisonment amply atoned for—was actually now punished with five years' penal servitude. Nay, the punishment had gone beyond seven years in some instances. It had absolutely reached 10 years' penal servitude, and all for a simple he or false act on the part of a man presenting himself for enlistment—in fact, in the midst of his false pretences, coming forward to confer on his country the advantage of his services as a soldier. Would the Committee sanction the continuance of this preposterous punishment for such an offence? He did hope the Committee would take action in the matter, and say that such things should not be—that two years' 1744 imprisonment should satisfy the most craving hunger for punishment of any officer who ever sat on a court martial for an offence like this. He would tell the Committee what disclosures were made on this subject in the Return he had moved for, and which had been laid upon the Table of the House. In the year 1882 there were 92 men subjected to five years' penal servitude, five to seven years, and one to over seven years—the Return in the latter case did not specify the exact period. In 1883, 54 were subjected to five years' penal servitude, one to seven years, and one to over seven years; and the note in the Return in regard to the last was highly suggestive, and, he was sure, would strike the Committee as such, when they heard it. There was an asterisk against the case in the Return; and on referring to the corresponding sign at the bottom of the page it said of this man, who was subjected to over seven years' penal servitude—"Five years is remitted from 10 years' penal servitude," so that, in this case, someone had actually been barbarous enough to inflict on the man for this mere lie—for this more passing of himself off as a competent soldier, which, perhaps, in one sense, he was, though the authorities might not be desirous of seeing him in the Army—10 years' penal servitude. He thought the Committee would agree with him that it was time they should take away from the military authorities, who now exercised it, the power of inflicting such a punishment. Was it possible, he would ask, the offence on the part of the man endeavouring to enlist could ever be so exaggerated that two years' imprisonment would not be sufficient to punish it? Would that not be a sufficient punishment to repress the practice? He considered that, with regard to this, as in regard to other courts martial punishments, that the Memorial recently issued by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief must give a great many of them immense satisfaction, because of the chiding it gave the courts martial. He trusted that an additional remonstrance would be conveyed by the decision of the Committee that night, and that it would do something still further to repress an evil which was becoming a scandal; and that the Committee might part with its work with the satisfaction of knowing that it would for the future 1745 prevent such a monstrons punishment as this, and enable a remission of the punishment inflicted on 154 men, now confined in penal servitude for long periods, to be obtained in connection with an offence which might be described as a manufactured military offence, and the importance of which was greatly exaggerated. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§
New Clause:—
(Amendment of section thirty-two of "The Army Act, 1881.")
That in section thirty-two of 'The Army Act, 1881,' the words 'penal servitude' be omitted, and the word 'imprisonment' be substituted,"—(Mr. Hopwood,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that, as a rule, courts martial acted very fairly, and in the course of four years he had found their decisions very just; but there was a marked decrease in crime in the Army, and he was glad the hon. and learned Member had called attention to the Circular of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. Still, this was a most serious offence, for these men returned to the Army and corrupted the young soldiers, and so did great harm; but the offence was on the decrease, and the number of sentences of penal servitude had greatly diminished. Upon the whole, he was authorized to state that the Government would accept the Amendment.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was very glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, for he thought two years a sufficient term.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about to favour the Committee with some explanation of why the Government had made this change.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that formerly this offence was increasing, but now it had diminished.
§ MR. WARTONpointed out that in Section 32 of the Act the words "penal servitude" were used in two senses. He thought there should be some clear definition of who was the person to 1746 be discharged with disgrace from the Army.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that what he proposed to do was to amend the clause by inserting, after Section 32, the words "Sub-section 1."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause read a second time.
§ Amendment proposed, after Section 32, to insert the words "Sub-section 1."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, the clause he now proposed spoke for itself. It read thus—
(Unauthorised Punishments.)Whereas doubts have arisen whether commanding officers or courts martial administering the provisions of 'The Army Act, 1881, in dealing with offences under sections thirty-eight, thirty-nine, and forty of the said Act, committed by persons with whom they were also entitled to deal, under powers conferred by some foreign Potentate or Power, were, under the authority of such Potentate or Power, entitled to deal with the persons committing such offences otherwise than as provided in the said Act: Be it therefore enacted, That wherever any court martial or commanding officer exercising the power or authority conferred by 'The Army Act, 1881,' also holds commission or authority from any Foreign Potentate or Power, such court or officer in dealing with offences committed against sections thirty-eight, thirty-nine, and forty of the said Act shall prosecute, punish, or otherwise deal with the same only in manner and form as provided by the said Act.Some men had been punished in Egypt by methods which would not be approved of by hon. Members; and he believed the general feeling of the public revolted at such punishment. If British officers were empowered to inflict such punishment as they had imposed, an example would be given to foreigners that would not be to the credit of the British Army, while it would destroy the morale of the Army itself.New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause which his hon. Friend now proposed to add to the Bill was an alternative clause to one which stood in his name, and he thought 1747 it was one which the Government might very well adopt. The necessity for some such provision as this in the Army Discipline Act had been rendered apparent by recent events in Egypt, where persons subject to British military law, and to all the penalties provided by the Act of 1881, had been tried under Egyptian military law. They were persons who accompanied our Forces as camp-followers, who were subject to British law, and who stood side by side with our soldiers; but on their return they were tried not under British law, but under Egyptian military law, and sentenced by a British officer to be flogged, which punishment had been abolished by English law. When this Army Act was going through the House, in 1879, the question was considered whether it would not be possible to extend the provisions of that Act to officers who might be tried under what was known as martial law. During warlike operations it was the habit of commanding officers to proclaim martial law; and the proclamation of martial law meant the suspension of all law and the establishment of such regulations as the commanding officer chose or thought necessary to maintain his position. But soldiers could not be tried under that martial law; if they were British soldiers they could only be tried under the Army Discipline Act. The House came to the conclusion that it would be impossible, under the Act of 1879, to assent to such a considerable alteration as was then proposed; and the clause of his hon. Friend did not in any sense extend so far as that, because, on the very expedition which had directed attention to this matter, a large number of Egyptian soldiers who were subject to Egyptian military law were tried and flogged under that law. Those soldiers had never come under the provisions of British military law; and he and his hon. Friend, therefore, confined their attention to the case of persons who were subject to British law, and they asked that such persons should not, under any circumstances, be punished by British officers with penalties not allowed by the Act of 1881. This, he thought, was a very reasonable request. A British officer accepting the services of a Foreign Power did so, or ought to do so, with a knowledge of the Military Code of that Power; and in every case it would be a reasonable con- 1748 dition to insist upon that officer not inflicting punishment, under the law of that Power, upon soldiers who were at the same time subject to British military law. He thought the lash had been finally abolished by that House; and he was very much surprised—and he believed very many other people had been greatly surprised—to find that the obsolete "cat-o'-nine-tails" had been applied to certain persons who were subject to the stringent penalties of the Army Discipline Act of 1881. In the discussions on flogging, the House was told that it would be impossible to maintain the provisions of that Act unless the lash was retained; but that statement had been falsified by the results. The discipline of the Army and Navy, and the courage of their soldiers and sailors, had not been impaired by the abolition of that barbarous punishment; and he believed it was quite possible for the officers of the Queen to maintain discipline among auxiliaries accompanying British Forces, and engaged in the same operations, without resorting to this horrible and condemned system of punishment. He, therefore, trusted the Government would see their way to making a graceful concession, and that they would not, by refusing an amendment of the law in this matter, go back on the hustings' declarations of the Liberal Party at the last Election.
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENENAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was aware of it; but, as a matter fact, neither his Amendment nor that of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) would effect the object the hon. Member had in view. Neither of the proposals would prevent a repetition of the act the hon. Members desired to put a stop to. As he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) understood it, Sir William Hewett, holding no military command in the British Army, but being a naval officer with no jurisdiction over soldiers, but being, at the same time, Governor of Suakin, ordered certain camp-followers to receive the punishment of the lash. He could not have done it, if he had been a military commander, either before or under the Act of 1881, for the abolition of flogging in the Army made no difference in the particular case in question, the punishment in question not having been awarded by a court martial 1749 as the law before 1881 required. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) asked under what authority Admiral Hewett had acted? Presumably, he had acted under his authority as Governor of the Egyptian fortress of Suakin. What jurisdiction the Egyptian military law gave the gallant Admiral, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could not say. English military law was difficult enough to understand, to say nothing about Egyptian. No doubt, by the law of Egypt, Admiral Hewett had been entitled to do what he had done. [Mr. PARNELL: He is a British officer."] No doubt Admiral Hewett was a British officer; but if his conduct had been regulated by English military law, his hands would have been altogether tied. He would have been governing a foreign fortress under a law altogether alien to that of the country in which he hold command. Moreover, he was in command of a beleaguered fortress—a fortress really believed, at that time, to be in considerable danger. Hon. Members would not contend that a commander of a fortress should never be entitled to take the law into his own hands; and yet they were complaining of Admiral Howett for having done that. Such acts might not be justified by military law, but by that necessity which justified the suspension of all law. For there might be times—nay, there must be times—when men were mutinous, when a commander, for his own safety, and for the safety of those depending on him, was entitled to disregard all law, military as well as civil. Sir James Mackintosh, a great jurist, and a man above all others opposed to the improper exercise of prerogative, in 1824 had pointed out, in connection with the case of a man who had been shot without trial, that while the law was silenced by the noise of arms, the rulers of an armed force must punish as equitably as they could those crimes which affected their safety. He went on to instance the case of mutineers, and to justify killing, in self-defence, by means other than those laid down by law. They knew what occurred during the Indian Mutiny, when acts were done which, of course, nothing but necessity could justify. Yet hon. Gentlemen now proposed to take away the power of resorting to these extraordinary measures by an amendment of the Army Act, forgetting that Admiral Hewett was not 1750 and could not be brought under its provisions. He doubted whether the Amendments proposed would meet even the case of General Gordon; but they certainly would not touch Admiral Hewett. They could not touch him in this Act, for it applied solely to military men; and the result of accepting either of the Amendments might be that they would have one law for a Military Governor of a fortress and another law for a Civil or a Naval Governor. He had shown hon. Members that they could not do what they wanted by their Amendments; but, besides, it was surely not the business of English law to interfere with the jurisdiction of the commander of a foreign fortress. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, hon. Members might differ from him; but he did not think it was right to interfere with the authority given to an officer as Governor of a foreign fortress. If they did interfere they would cause endless confusion; they would have an Englishman holding a foreign command governed by English law; and they might have cases of insubordination, and even of open mutiny, in which such an officer, simply for administering the ordinary law of the country in which he held command, might be subjected to the penalties attaching to a breach of the Army Act. He hoped British officers would seldom be reduced to the necessity of resorting to such extremities. But what he contended was, that neither by this Amendment, nor by any other, could they touch Admiral Hewett; and that if they could they ought not to interfere with him in the discharge of his functions as the Governor of a foreign fortress.
§ MR. LEAMYasked whether, supposing the Egyptian law allowed an officer to subject men under his command to the greatest possible torture, Her Majesty's Government would allow their officers to avail themselves of the powers of that law? Would English officers be allowed to use the torture? In the case of a naval officer, would he be allowed to keel-haul his men, supposing keel-hauling was allowed in the Egyptian Naval Service? If such a punishment were inflicted by an English officer in Egypt, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman get up in the House and defend that officer?
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the 1751 case would not come under English law at all—it would be an act outside English law. An officer who committed such an act would not be amenable to English military law, if he was acting as an Egyptian officer, and in conformity with Egyptian law.
§ MR. HARRINGTONdeclared that the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the point of the matter altogether. The law passed to abolish the punishment of flogging was passed in the interests of humanity; and hon. Members wished to know whether the Government could not, in the case of English commanders in foreign places, impose on them the restrictions they imposed in their own country?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREagreed with the Judge Advocate General that the Amendments did not meet the case of which hon. Members complained. They would not touch the case of Admiral Hewett, for the reason that flogging by law was still permitted in the Navy, and was only forbidden in the Army. It would meet the case of the Commander of Suakin, if he were an English military officer—indeed, without either Amendment, if Admiral Hewett had been an officer in the Army, the flogging would have been illegal, and the camel-drivers, whom he had punished, could have prosecuted him and obtained damages. But the Judge Advocate General went further than this, and said that not only did the Amendments not meet the case it was desired to meet, but that if they did they ought not to do so. Now, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that? He had read them an extract from the opinion of an eminent lawyer, in which, it was perfectly true, it was set forth that a commander in danger of his life might take extraordinary means for defence. It was shown that if a military commander suddenly found himself in the midst of a mutiny, he might shoot the mutineers without trial; but that did not give him a right to resort to the punishment of flogging. Why he (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the Amendment before the House would be carried was this—because whenever they had a British officer abroad in command of a force, if there were men in it of a different colour to himself; and of a race that they were prone to look upon as inferior to their own, that officer and all his subordinates were inclined to 1752 ill-use such men. He had no doubt that the men who had been flogged by Admiral Hewit had been badly treated all round by all those of our men with whom they had come in contact. What was desired by hon. Gentlemen who brought forward these Amendments was to place these unfortunate camel drivers and camp-followers under the same law as English soldiers. There ought not to be one law for the one and another law for the other. It was monstrous to say that because a British officer received his authority from a ridiculous puppet like the Khedive, whom they had set up in Egypt, he was to be allowed to flog Egyptian subjects. Suppose the British Army were in Persia, where impaling was a form of punishment practised by the authorities, and an English officer held a commission from the Shah, would he be allowed to impale Persian subjects? Hon. Members objected to impaling, because they thought it a horrible punishment; and, in like manner, they also objected to flogging—although their objection to that was, of course, not so great as to impaling.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had nothing to do with the question of a "puppet" who had been "set up in Egypt;" but if the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) would give him his attention, he would be able to show him that his Amendment would do nothing at all. The courts martial to which the Amendment would apply were not the courts martial the hon. and learned Member wished to affect—namely, the Egyptian courts martial. Egyptian courts martial would be governed by Egyptian law. The Amendment went on to say, after the Preamble—
Be it therefore enacted, That wherever any court martial or commanding officer exercising the powers or authority conferred by 'The Army Act, 1881,' also holds commission or authority from any Foreign Potentate or Power, such court or officer in dealing with offences committed against sections thirty-eight, thirty-nine, and forty of the said Act shall prosecute, punish, or otherwise deal with the same only in matter and form as provided by the same Act.If the offences were against the English Act, and if the Court was sitting under the authority or that Act, why, of course, they could only proceed in accordance with the terms of that Statute, 1753 If they were dealing with an offence in the Act, they could not administer any other punishment than that permitted by the Act. It certainly, therefore, would appear that the hon. and learned Member had not drawn up his Amendment in the manner he himself wished. The Amendment would leave the law exactly as it was, even if it applied to Egypt. He (the Attorney General) did not know whether he would be in Order in referring to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but perhaps he might, as the hon. Member himself had raised a discussion on it. If the hon. Member would look carefully at this Amendment, he would see it would be impossible for the Committee to adopt it, because it went oven beyond reference to military law. Let them take the case of a British officer, who became a Civil Governor in a foreign country. Supposing a person under his jurisdiction committed a murder, and he consented to the delinquent being hanged, that would be an offence against the Act. Did the hon. Member say that such an act as this should be held to be illegal? [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] Now he knew what the hon. Gentleman meant. If a British officer was acting as a civilian abroad he was only to be allowed to act in a military manner. They must remember they were dealing with the civil administration of a Foreign State. Was it possible the House of Commons would say to a Foreign State who took an English officer into its service—"That officer shall not administer your civil law, unless he comes within the terms of the English Act of 1881 affecting military men and not civilians." And yet that was the effect of the Amendment they were asked to accept. He could urge a great many other objections against the Amendment if they wished to apply it to the particular instance which had occurred at Suakin. It would not meet that case; but was it possible to say, even if they took away from its operation civil administration, that where a British officer put himself under the Regulations of a Foreign Army he should be bound, in effect, to declare—"I will not accept your punishments; I will adopt my own, or those allowed by the English Army Act?" Supposing it was deemed advisable by a British officer in command of a foreign fortress to hand- 1754 cuff a man instead of imprisoning or shooting him, he would find it impossible to carry out his desire. To his (the Attorney General's) mind if a British officer was going into the service of a Foreign State they must either prohibit him from entering it, or trust to that Foreign State to know how to deal with its Army. The adoption of the Amendment would really be to prohibit British officers entering the service of Foreign States. The intentions of the hon. Member for the City of Cork were most humane, and reflected great credit upon him. Votes were given in 1879 which similary reflected great credit on the other side of the House, and which had not been without their effect; but on the present occasion, however good their objects might be, hon. Members were attempting the impossible task of adapting the English military system to a foreign country. The only result of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to prevent British officers taking responsible positions in foreign countries.
§ MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that five years ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) brought this question of corporal punishment before the House, and succeeded in awakening a responsive echo in the breasts of hon. Members sitting opposite to him. To-night the hon. Member made a similar appeal, but with a very different result. Liberal Members on the occasion referred to, five years ago, boiled over with indignation because courts martial in time of war were empowered in certain cases in the field to inflict corporal punishment; but now they listened with callous indifference to the story of the flogging of Egyptian camp-followers by a British Admiral without trial. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who, at that time, sat on the Opposition side of the House near the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, declaring that flogging was immoral and altogether wrong; that it was brutalizing and unworthy of our civilization; and that the friends of civilization owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork for daring to stand up alone against this system of flogging, whilst he (Mr. Chamberlain) and many 1755 other hon. Gentlemen had not the courage of their convictions. The last part of that sentence was as true today as it was five years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not the courage of his convictions; and why was that? Because he was sitting in the safe and tranquil haven of the Treasury Bench; and, forsooth, his slumbers and repose must not be disturbed by the cries of a few wretched foreign camp-followers. He (Major General Alexander) had listened with astonishment to the special pleading of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) in regard to the camel-drivers who had been flogged by order of Admiral Howett. The noble Marquess said he had no official knowledge of those transactions, as though the special correspondents of the newspapers had invented them; and now, to-night, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General tried to fasten the responsibility for what had occurred on the Khedive. It was all very well to quote the authority of the Khedive; but the Committee knew very well that that authority was treated with but scant courtesy whenever Mr. Clifford Lloyd wished to get rid of, or summarily eject, one of the Khedive's dummy Ministers. The real fact was that the Khedive was only allowed to have a will of his own when it suited Her Majesty's Government to shift responsibility from their shoulders to his. The Committee would not condemn too strongly the spurious humanitarianism, the mawkish sentimentality, and the transparent hypocrisy which endeavoured to draw a distinction between the flogging of British soldiers and Egyptians. Believing, as he did, that if the punishment was degrading in the one case it was equally so in the other, he should have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it was true the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England had pointed out some weak places in the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Commins) and in his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment from a technical point of view. Well, the Amendments had been drawn up for the purpose of carrying out a definite object, and he and his hon. and learned Friend had drafted them to 1756 the best of their humble skill. They had not the legal ability of the Department of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) who was defending the conduct of the Government on the present occasion; but it was perfectly obvious what they desired to effect; and if there should happen to be some imperfections in the Amendments, the way to remove them should be pointed out, and he and his hon. and learned Friend should not be met by a double set of arguments. The Government should state to the Committee what they intended to do, and how they intended to meet this issue. Did they intend to rely upon the special pleading of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England; or did they agree with those hon. Members who contended that the officers of the Queen should not be allowed to inflict the punishment of flogging on the British Military Force in Egypt? That was the single question raised by the Amendments. If Her Majesty's Government admitted the justice of their claim as he had described it, and if they saw their way to bringing up clauses on Report to carry out this object, since they found fault with the words which he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. and learned Friend in their ignorance had employed, all he could say was that he should be willing to refrain from pressing his Amendment on the attention of the Committee, and also to advise his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment. But, so far as they had gone, they had had no such satisfactory assurance from the Government; and, failing any satisfactory assurance, they should be obliged to seek the opinion of the Committee by taking a Division on the words of the first Amendment.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had pointed out that the Amendments would not apply to a naval officer. Of course it would not, for the Act itself did not apply to the Navy, and, therefore, could not meet the case of Admiral Hewett. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made use of an argument which, if he would look at the clause, he would find was a bad one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman read it as if it only contained the words "courts martial;" but it also contained the words "commanding officers … 1757 administering the provisions of the Army Act, 1881." Supposing that instead of Admiral Hewett—who was a naval officer, and therefore did not, as he had said, come under the Act—a military officer was in command of the British Forces at Suakin, he would be the "commanding officer administering the provisions of the Army Act, 1881," and precisely under the conditions that the Amendment was intended to meet, such an officer would not be able to act as Admiral Hewett had done, and inflict a cruel, unusual, and demoralizing punishment without any authority whatever from either this Act or any other British Commission, and would not be able to shelter himself by saying—"I have a commission from the Khedive or Foreign Power which enables me to do what I have done." Such an excuse as that might, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had pointed out, be used to cover occurrences which took place in Persia, or China, or other countries where systems of punishment were practised which were utterly abhorrent to the sense of humanity of the people of this country. The Amendment before the Committee would meet the case of a British Commander who had a body of auxiliary troops under him as well as a British Force. It could not be said that the punishment of flogging had been resorted to by Admiral Hewett for repressive purposes at a time of great peril. Of course, at such a time, neither this Amendment nor anything else would this the hands of a commander; but in the case of the camel-drivers, so far as he could make out, the measure of their offending was only something like want of sufficient activity in performing their duty.
§ MR. HOPWOODsympathized with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, but did not think the Amendments proposed would have the desired effect. As to the action of Admiral Hewett, if it had been as hon. Members had described it, no doubt it had been barbarous; but he should like to have more evidence on the matter before he pronounced on it. They must remember that they were now dealing with the Army, and not with the Navy, and that it was General Graham, and not Admiral Hewett, who was in command of Her Majesty's troops at Suakin. They were now proposing regulations which would 1758 not in the least affect the particular case of Admiral Hewett. As to the gallant Admiral, he was Governor of Suakin; and if he adopted a course which no British Governor had a right to adopt, and anyone suffered in consequence, he could be sued for damages. Many cases of that kind had occurred—there was the case of General Picton, and the cases of Governors of British Colonies, whose defence was that by the laws of the places and the circumstances of the cases, the punishment, and even torture, they had inflicted had been justifiable. This defence had been set up in British Courts, and declared invalid. A protest had been made against the conduct of Admiral Hewett, and many severe remarks had been made on the subject; and though it might fairly be said that that was very slight compensation to the unhappy men who had been flogged, yet it might not be without substantial effect in preventing any repetition of the flogging, at Suakin or anywhere else.
§ MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he had not intended to take any further part in the debate, and should not have done so if it had not been for the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He must express his astonishment that the hon. and learned Gentleman, of all men in the House, should have taken the course he had taken. He (Major General Alexander) remembered the course the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to take on, he thought it was, the 17th of Juno, 1879. The hon. and learned Gentleman spent a whole afternoon demonstrating to the House that a sentence of 50 lashes really meant one of 450, because the "cat" having nine tails multiplied the lashes by nine. The hon. and learned Member had horrified the House with the harrowing details of this punishment; and that he, of all other persons, on this occasion, should oppose what the real friends of humanity were proposing, almost took his breath away.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire (Major General Alexander) is indignant at what he considers the inconsistency of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who, having abolished flogging in the British 1759 Army, are, as he thinks, disposed to tolerate it in connection with the people of another nation. Well, I must say the hon. and gallant Gentleman's inconsistency is at least equal to ours, because I believe he was one of those who supported corporal punishment when applied to the British Army.
§ MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERI proposed to reduce the punishment from 50 to 25 lashes.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONTherefore, seeing that the hon. and gallant General would apply corporal punishment to a certain extent to the British soldier, I do not know why he should be so angry at its being applied to foreigners, who might or might not be soldiers. But I should not have risen to found an argument on the inconsistency of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, had it not been for another observation which fell from him, and which, I must say, I heard with great astonishment coming from a Member of this House, and from a Member of the hon. Gentleman's Profession. He has accused me of special pleading, or quibbling, because I said the other day I was not willing to form a judgment of the conduct of our officers until I had full official Reports before me bearing upon that conduct. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says—"Are not the reports of special correspondents sufficient?" They may be sufficient for the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I acknowledge openly, whatever hon. Gentlemen say, that these reports are not sufficient to induce me to form an opinion on the conduct of any officer in Her Majesty's Service. The newspaper reports are often highly sensational, and I am certainly not going to form an opinion from them. The material upon which I form my judgment must be of a more authentic and reliable character.
§ MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERwished to explain the course he had taken in June, 1879. He should not have gone into the matter if it had not been for a remark of the noble Marquess who had just sat down. He (Major General Alexander) had proposed that the punishment of flogging should be reduced from 50 to 25 lashes.
§ MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that his proposal had been accepted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley), and he had taken no further part in the debates. He was I perfectly content that the punishment should be done away with in the Army altogether; and now that it was abolished in the case of English soldiers, he objected to English officers having the power to inflict it on Egyptians.
§ MR. MOLLOYconsidered the doctrine laid down by the Judge Advocate General the most extraordinary he had ever heard. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if an officer in Her Majesty's Service accepted a command under a Foreign Potentate he was exempted from all obedience to the laws of the Service to which he originally belonged.
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)I did not say anything of the kind.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he should be sorry to misrepresent the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had understood him distinctly to say that they could not judge of Admiral Howett's conduct, because he was acting under the laws of the Khedive of Egypt, and was not bound by the military laws of England. It came to this, therefore, according to the doctrine laid down by the Judge Advocate General—that an officer in Egypt, though still remaining in the British Service, though under the laws of the British Army he was not entitled to administer certain punishments of an extreme character, yet, as he was in the service of the Khedive, might use the laws of the Khedive—or whatever Potentate he might be under—against the Natives under his command. Let them follow out that doctrine. Suppose a British, officer accepted service for a time, with the permission of Her Majesty's Government, in the Zulu Army, and supposing that impaling was justifiable under Zulu laws. According to the doctrine of the Judge Advocate General, a British officer, although bound by the laws of his own country, yet in time of war could exercise the laws of the Zulus on camp-followers who were fighting side by side with the British soldiers. That was one of the most monstrous doctrines ever laid down by the British Government. He should 1761 be obliged if the Judge Advocate General would explain whether that was his meaning or not. That was what he understood, and what was being argued upon. When the Attorney General rose, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to modify the statement of the Judge Advocate General; but after indulging in special pleading, which was like a red herring drawn across the path, he justified what the Judge Advocate General had said.
§ MR. HEALYwished to ask a question of the noble Marquess. A fortnight ago the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) put a Question on the Paper as to whether these men had or had not been flogged. The noble Marquess said he did not know whether that was so or not; and he now wished to ask the noble Marquess whether he had called for a Report on the matter; and, if so, whether he had received it; and, if not, why he had not obtained the information, knowing that the hon. Member for the City of Cork intended to raise this question? The telegraph wire was at the disposal of the Government, and was freely used. Admiral Hewett had now sailed away to Massowah; but he would like to know whether the Government put themselves in communication with that officer or not upon this subject? If not, their conduct was not justifiable, for they knew that this Bill was coming on; and if they had not got this information they were open to the charge of special pleading. It was entirely their own fault; and it was a shame to meet a question of this kind in the spirit that had just been shown. The noble Marquess accused the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major General Alexander) of inconsistency; but he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was much more consistent than the Government. The noble Marquess was an old Loader of the Liberal Party; but the position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major General Alexander) was a very different one. He was not opposed to flogging in the Army; but, it having been abolished, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, like a sensible and humane officer, said if it was abolished at all it was abolished for Blacks as well as for Englishmen; and in that he was much more consistent than the noble Marquess. He should like to know whether, as a matter 1762 of law, if these Blacks came over to this country and took action against Admiral Hewett, they would not have a good case against him? He contended that they would. There was a famous case in 1798, when so-called martial law was proclaimed in Ireland, and a High Sheriff had a respectable gentleman flogged. What happened? When the rebellion was put down this gentleman took action against the High Sheriff, and he obtained damages. Therefore, if an honest jury could be got together, and these Blacks took action against Admiral Hewett for assault, he believed they would win the case. Of course, he knew there was no chance of anything of the kind; but he thought it was very discreditable to the Liberal Government—the friends of humanity—that this punishment, which they had abolished in the case of White men, should be inflicted on Blacks. They must either be logical in this matter, or admit the possibility of this barbarous punishment. As the courbash had been administered to these Egyptians he would suggest that the Government should go to the country with the cry of the Courbash and the Caucus.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the result of that evening's debate was too instructive to be passed by without a few more observations. It was not surprising that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) should have raised this question; for there was nothing in all his career to which he could look back with greater pleasure than the abolition of Hogging in the Army. He wished to say a few words as to the position of the Government in this matter. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that the noble Marquess was inconsistent, for the noble Marquess had opposed the abolition of flogging in the Army as long as he could possibly stand by it, and he only abolished it when he was forced to do so. In fact, with regard to flogging in the Army, the noble Marquess performed the same useful functions he seemed always to perform in respect to the Army—he acted as chief Conservative spokesman on every proposed reform. Having been forced to abolish flogging in the English Army, he now took refuge in flogging in the Egyptian Army; therefore, the hon. Member for Mouaghan was not entitled 1763 to accuse the noble Marquess of inconsistency, but should rather offer the incense of his admiration to the ardent advocate of every abuse of the rights of human beings. When flogging in the Army was under consideration in that House, a discussion took place which he thought would not be publicly recorded until those long-expected Memoirs of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) were given to the world. The hon. Member was prominent with the hon. Member for the City of Cork in urging the abolition of flogging, and for a while they were let severely alone in their crusade against this punishment; but in the last Parliament the House of Commons had the advantage of gaining some keen electioneering instincts; and some hon. Members, seeing that the hon. Members for the City of Cork and Cavan had got hold of what he thought the hon. Member for Monaghan would call a "good thing," immediately joined the forces of the hon. Members, and distinguished themselves by the zeal, and energy, and enthusiasm of their attacks on the lash. But now came a little piece of private Parliamentary history which would foreshadow and anticipate the Memoirs of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member said to one of these electioneering English Radical Member whom he had called from the vasty deep, if such a course were adopted it would not result in the purpose which this English Liberal professed to advance—it would not advance the abolition of flogging. The hon. Member was of too ingenuous and almost Arcadian a disposition to understand the superior wisdom of his English ally; but he was soon undeceived, for the hon. English Member said—"We do not want to abolish flogging in the Army, but it is good for an electioneering cry." He was in the recollection of every Member of the House in saying that, with regard to that electioneering contest, the iniquities of Lord Beaconsfield were not so effective.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry the Chairman had found it necessary to curtail his observations on this point; because when he came into the House, after a brief absence, he found it engaged in an amusing contest be- 1764 tween the noble Marquess and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major General Alexander) with regard to their record on this question. He wished again to call attention to this point, which was perfectly novel, and which he hoped did not go outside the ruling of the Chair. The position taken up in this matter by the Judge Advocate General, and fortified by the Attorney General, was that there must be a distinction of nationalities; and the whole argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that these men should be flogged because they were not Englishman, but Egyptians. That was not what the Attorney General said a few years ago; his argument then was the equality of man, and sympathy with all races of men. But now the Government, who went to the country on the abolition of the lash, was standing up for the lash; they who went to the country upon the equality of nationalities were now standing by distinctions between races, and consenting to wholesale and purposeless slaughter.
§ MR. SEXTONdoubted whether the most devoted supporter of the Government could feel any pride in the attitude taken by the Government upon this matter. They appeared to have taken refuge in silence; but as he and his hon. Friends did not think the argument had been exhausted, they could not consent to the Government taking that course. The Government had left this question in a most extraordinary position before the House; and they had placed themselves and the Liberal Party, on questions which were very likely to arouse deep feeling in England, in a dilemma from which they would not very easily escape. He had not derived any information from the argument of the Judge Advocate General, who generally got fogged on any question he attempted to deal with. All that he could gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that neither the words of his hon. Friend, nor any other words, could compel an officer to keep within the limits of British law. The Attorney General did not commit himself to such an extreme view as that no words could accomplish that object; but so far as could be gathered from the speeches of the two learned Gentlemen—one of whom said no words could accomplish that object, and the other allowed the 1765 Committee to infer that some words would accomplish it—was, that an officer holding the commission of the Queen might leave this country, and, with the sanction of the Queen and of this Government, take service under a Foreign Ruler, and might apply to persons acting under his command—which he had acquired by virtue of his capacity as a British officer—the rude and barbarous laws of the Foreign Power under which he took office. Such an officer might go to Egypt, as Admiral Hewett had gone, or to Abyssinia, or to Zululand, and might inflict on persons under his command punishment of the most violent character; and after a few years of such practices he might return to England, having all the time enjoyed the sanction and countenance of this Government, and resume his position as an officer of this civilized and Christian State. He should imagine that the British public would hear of this to-morrow, and that a strong feeling would be aroused by the helplessness of the Government to control their officers abroad. The Government knew the hon. Member for the City of Cork intended to call attention to this matter, and they were within a couple of hours' communication by telegraph with Admiral Hewett. The noble Marquess, or the Judge Advocate General, might have ascertained the facts of the case as to the infliction of the flogging if they had cared to do so; they could have found out from the Admiral without difficulty whether a mutiny had been attempted, or whether the punishment had been inflicted simply because the camel-drivers had been wanting in energy, or had attempted to run away. The noble Marquess was blameable for having taken no measures to ascertain the facts of the case since this inquiry had been set on foot, and for giving no answer to the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) as to whether or not he would now use the telegraph for the purpose of obtaining information. In order to give the Government an opportunity for reflection, and for explaining what their intentions were, he begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
1766THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI should be glad to give an answer to the question put to me; but it certainly would not be regular for mo to do it on the Motion for reporting Progress.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he should be happy to withdraw the Motion, in order to afford the noble Marquess an opportunity of making an explanation.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIn answer to the question put to me, I may say, in the first place, that it was not "several weeks ago" that the question was first put to me. Only a fortnight has elapsed since then. It is true we are in communication with Suakin by telegraph; but it is not possible to go into detail upon all questions of minor importance when serious events are constantly taking place, and the wires are occupied with business of importance. What I mean to say is that the matter is not of such great importance as to warrant full telegraphic communication with regard to it. When the question was first mentioned in the newspapers, Admiral Hewett was requested, without the aid of the telegraph, to send information; and, in reply, the telegram which has been communicated to the House was received. The matter is not connected with the Department in which I am specially interested, but is connected with the Admiralty. I do not think my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) has yet received a full Report. As to the observations made by several Members opposite, to the effect that any barbarous punishments sanctioned by the laws of barbarous countries can be inflicted by officers of Her Majesty's Army and Navy, I think that the obvious and simple reply is that it is possible, so far as any legal consequence is concerned, for such barbarous acts to be committed; but, of course, we know that the country is the judge of the conduct of its officers; and that if such acts as those suggested were committed notice would be taken of it by the public. The officers would be brought to account in regard to such acts, just as they are at the present 1767 moment brought to account in regard to failure of duty in other matters.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYwished to know how far the Government desired to go with hon. Members, and how far they wished to keep away from them? It was now admitted that the barbarous systems permitted in some foreign countries could be practised, under certain conditions, by Her Majesty's officers—when holding a foreign fortress, or in command of foreign troops. Well, hon. Members on those (the Irish) Benches desired to make that impossible. Did Her Majesty's Government wish to make it possible or impossible? If the Government wished to go with hon. Members for Ireland they could put an Amendment to effect the desired object into proper shape; and if they did not do so, those hon. Members would know perfectly well that the Government were against them.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that, as he did not see a Representative of the Admiralty present, doubtless the noble Marquess had been in communication with that Department on this question. As the Amendment referred to the conduct of a naval officer, he (Mr. Parnell) wished to ask whether the Admiralty had called for any Report on the matter from Admiral Hewett? It seemed to him that if such a Report had been called for by telegraph, sufficient time bad now elapsed to have enabled it to be sent several times over by mail. They had received detailed accounts by mail of things which had occurred in the Fleet since the flogging incident. He saw that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had just taken his place. He was asking whether the Admiralty bad called for a Report with regard to the flogging of the camel-drivers who accompanied General Graham's expedition, a Question on the matter having been put in the House a fortnight ago?
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had referred to the fact that a question, had been immediately put to Admiral Hewett by telegraph, and that the reply thereto had been laid on the Table of the House. No further inquiry had been made since then. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, no second 1768 inquiry was made, because the first appeared sufficient, and because, as had often been declared in the House, it was not desirable to repeat inquiries unnecessarily, or to occupy the time of officers in Admiral Hewett's position by sending and requiring needless telegrams. There could be no doubt that when they received Admiral Hewett's detailed despatches they would have full accounts of all the steps he had taken in connection with the matter under discussion.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it appeared to him that the answer of the hon. Member was most unsatisfactory. In reply to a Question' he had put to the Government a fortnight ago the noble Marquess had read to the House a telegram which had been received from Sir William Hewett. The noble Marquess had stated at that time that he was not aware whether the punishment dispensed by Admiral Hewett had been flogging or any other punishment. The noble Marquess stated that Admiral Hewett had reported that he had caused the camel-drivers to be "punished"—that Admiral Hewett had not used the word "flogged;" and that, therefore, corporal punishment might not have been inflicted. Under the very grave circumstances of the case, the probability being that a very unusual punishment had been inflicted by a British officer, and Notice having been given that an Amendment would be moved in Committee on the Army Bill, the least the Government could have done would have been to have sent a definite telegram to Admiral Hewett asking for explicit information on the subject. As matters at present stood, Admiral Hewett was probably under the impression that his telegraphic despatch to the Government was perfectly satisfactory, and that no further inquiry would be made. In order to give time to the Government to give further consideration to this matter, and to enable them to communicate with Admiral Hewett again, he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 76: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
1769§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought after what had occurred it was very evident that the Government could put an end to this controversy, which threatened to be so prolonged, if they liked. The former contention of the Government, when they were charged with shifting and shuffling, was that they could not state what the punishment inflicted by Admiral Hewett was, or why it was inflicted. Now, however, hon. Members had extracted from them the fact that, though they knew this Bill was coming on, and that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) intended to bring forward his Amendment, they treated the hon. Member with contempt, and declined to send a 2s. 6d. telegram to Admiral Hewett to ask for the required information. It, therefore, came to this—that, although the Leader of a Party which could muster in that House 40 men, and which, on an occasion like next Monday, would be in request by the Government, had asked for information which the Government could readily obtain, they did not think it worth their while to attempt to get it—and this, notwithstanding that the subject was the one which tore the Liberal Party asunder in 1879. This parsimonious Government did not think it worth its while to go to the expense of sending a telegram in response to the demand made by the Leader of an important Party in the House. Probably they would say it was not the expense they looked at. Was it the trouble? It could not be that, seeing that, after the recent battles, telegrams were sent to and from the Soudan almost hourly concerning the wounds of British soldiers. The sufferings of English soldiers were worth telegrams; but not so the sufferings of Egyptian cam el-drivers. British soldiers were wounded in the front—the Blacks were wounded on their backs, and whilst nothing was too much to say about the one set of wounds, nothing was to be said about the other. Royal personages could telegraph "hoping the wounded were well," and so on; but no one asked after the Egyptian and Arab wounded, save the Irish Members. Irish Members "hoped the Egyptian wounded were well," and 1770 asked Questions about them in the House; but their inquiries were treated with contempt. The Government treated the Leader of the Opposition with respect; but they treated the Irish Members with disrespect, because they numbered only 40; but they would treat them with respect when they numbered 90. The Judge Advocate General had said that no Amendment that could be drafted would meet the question; and the noble Marquess had advanced the extraordinary doctrine that there was a perfect safeguard in the fact that an, officer would not inflict this barbarous punishment, because the Government would know what to do with him. But if the noble Marquess had his back scored and coin bashed it would be a very poor consolation to him to know that the man who had done it would be punished afterwards. He would rather prevent the application of a barbarous punishment of this kind. Wherever British troops had gone they had carried fire and sword and torture with them; and he could not rely upon the honourable British officer. What he could rely upon would be a distinct provision in this Bill against what was clearly illegal. The Government, in this matter, had taken up the Jingo policy of Lord Beacousfield; and every time they sent an expedition abroad they so stirred up rapine that every British officer might act as he pleased under the laws of the country to which he went. Therefore, the humanity of this country depended not upon morality, but upon geography—not upon whether a man should be flogged or not, but upon the latitude in which he was to be flogged. He protested against this. Every time this bastard Jingo Government, which had not the courage of Lord Beaconsfield to go boldly into a spirited foreign policy—every time they went in for the annexation of some such place as Egypt, they did dirty work. The Irish Members felt very strongly upon this subject. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was a Gentleman who had been pretty successful in opening the minds of the Government. He had been able to open the mind of the Conservative Government when his Party was only seven strong; but now he had a Party of 27, who were young and strong. He begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 73: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 57.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. H. B. SAMUELSON, as one of the Members who had voted in the Divisions against corporal punishment during the late Administration, and had taken part in the debates at that time, and as one who had repeatedly spoken in favour of the abolition of that punishment as far back as 1868, wished to say a few words to clear himself from the accusation of inconsistency. He believed that hon. Members, in bringing forward this question, were actuated by a spirit with which he sympathized; and what he wanted to point out was that the object of the Amendment appeared to be that when foreigners were serving with British troops, and under the command of a British officer, no matter whether he derived his authority from the Potentate of that foreign country or not, he should not be entitled to apply to those foreigners any penalties other than those which the laws of his own country permitted him to apply to British subjects. That was an object with which he entirely sympathized; but this Amendment failed to attain that object; and it was very like a practical bull to ask Members to vote for an Amendment which confessedly failed to attain the object to which it was directed. He would vote for the abolition of corporal punishment in every form, and under all circumstances, in both the Army and the Navy; but he thought the wishes of the supporters of the present proposal would be better met if the Government, before the Report, would promise to look into this matter, and to endeavour to devise some means of dealing with it. He could not vote for the Amendment; and if the Government would promise to look into the matter and try to introduce words making it impossible for a British officer to apply a different form of punishment to foreigners from that which he was empowered to apply to British soldiers, he should advise hon. 1772 Gentlemen opposite for the present to withdraw their Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he quite recognized the good fooling and the good faith in which the hon. Member had, just spoken, and he believed that the hon. Member was entirely with him and his hon. Friends in desiring to take away this power, which had been abused; but he thought the hon. Member was not accurate in saying that the Amendment would not effect that object. He contended that his Amendment would effect that, and most effectually, and that it went further, and prevented British officers or Civil Governors abroad from inflicting punishment. He had suggested to the Government that they should bring up a clause on Report which would guard against the difficulty they had pointed out. The hon. Member would be safe in voting for the Amendment, because it did meet what he objected to; and as he could not help feeling that the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of what he desired to effect, if that could be done without injurious results to the Service abroad, he would suggest that the Government should consider this matter between now and Report, in order to see whether they could frame a clause which would carry out what he desired, and which, at the same time, would not be open to the objections which the Attorney General had urged against his Amendment.
CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONrose to make a suggestion to the Government. At this moment the Egyptian Army was commanded by an English General and by English officers; and he thought it would be in the power of the Government to say that, in an Army officered by Englishmen, no corporal punishment should be administered. He hoped the noble Marquess would consider this suggestion, for he thought that what was inexpedient in one army was inexpedient in another.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he was sorry that the Government had not adopted the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). What was asked was that these people should be saved from what every Englishman recognized as a brutal punishment; and the case appeared to him to be not contested by the Treasury Bench. Admiral Hewett had been 1773 spoken of as if he were merely a servant in the hands of the Khedive, and as if he were not fighting the battles of England partly with Egyptian camp-followers and partly with British troops. Though, acting under the authority of the Khedive, he would not be allowed to inflict unauthorized punishments on English troops, notwithstanding the Egyptian law. It was unmanly for an English officer to punish Egyptians by a species of punishment he could not inflict on English soldiers. They could not attempt, at that time of day, to draw a distinction between men who were of different colours. The poor Egyptians had been long accustomed to bad laws, and did not feel degrading punishments as much as Englishmen; but if Her Majesty's Government had gone to Egypt on a civilizing mission he could assure them they were not advancing the cause of civilization by allowing these degrading punishments. The Egyptians, it was true, had not tasted the blessings of the British Constitution—of Church Establishment, and so on—but they were human beings, of flesh and blood, made by the same God as Admiral Hewett; and it was a disgraceful thing that they should have been subjected to degrading punishments by British officers. It was a comforting tiling to know that there were Gentlemen in the House who, although they were supporters of the Government, would stand up in the House and support appeals on behalf of humanity, such as had been made that night.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI have referred again to the statement of Admiral Hewett, which I read to the House the other day, and I think it is extremely doubtful whether the persons the Admiral felt himself obliged to punish were subject to military law at all, and whether their case would be at all affected by anything we could enact in this Bill. The Admiral reported that he had punished the men because they refused to work and to obey orders, and added that he did not think the misconduct amounted to a mutiny, and, therefore, had not reported what had happened to the Lords of the Admiralty. A further telegram affords an explanation why no full Report has been sent home on the subject, for he says he is writing to Cairo for the reduction of an officer to lower rank for 1774 showing a bad example to the men. The affair, therefore, is not completed, and it is possible that his full Report cannot be sent in until he receives the answer he is expecting from Cairo. As to what the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has said, it is worth considering whether persons who at any future time come under military law should be, whilst they are so subject, at the same time amenable to any other law. But, as has been shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, the Amendments of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), will not effect the object for which they are intended. That, I think, is admitted. The question appears to be one of very considerable difficulty; and I could not, on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General, undertake that he will propose clauses which will be satisfactory to ourselves, or which will at all improve the condition of the law. All I can say is that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork is not satisfied with the criticisms which have been passed on the existing law to-night, and will place a more carefully drawn amending clause on the Paper, we will give it fair consideration, with, the object of, if possible, effecting the hon. Member's object. I could not undertake that we ourselves shall be prepared to propose any new clause on the matter.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would adopt the course suggested by the noble Marquess. He supposed some time would be given to hon. Members to enable them to consider the subject and draw up an amending clause.
§ MR. HEALYpointed out that unless the Report stage were delayed it would not be possible to get the Amendment on the Paper. It was out of the question to expect that it could be drawn up and handed in that night in time to appear in the next Votes. Then, on Monday, there was to be the final debate on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he noticed that the noble Marquess expressed some doubt in the matter, because he 1775 had stated it was not certain that the persons punished by Admiral Hewett were subject to military law. But he (Mr. Sullivan) thought the infliction of flogging ought to be equally objectionable whether the person punished in that way was subject to military law or not.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, this was a very untimely hour—3.10 A.M.—at which to proceed to move an Amendment; but he would endeavour to do it in a very few words. The Amendment he was about to propose had on a previous occasion been voted for by three Members of the present Cabinet and five Members of the Government. It raised no Constitutional question, its object being merely to carry into effect the pledge given by Viscount Cardwell, 10 years ago, that the soldier should be liable for the maintenance of his wife and children to the same extent as if he were a civilian. The law said that the soldier should be liable save when his regiment was ordered on foreign service. The number of calls last year was 840; and he wished to know what number were ordered on foreign service at the time the claims were made? If the Government could allege that the acceptance of his Amendment would impair the efficiency of the Army he would not press it; but he thought that if the Government would get statistics on the question, it would be found that the Regulation would affect an infinitesimally small number of men, and yet effect a great deal of good. The second point was that at present a we man making a claim on a soldier who was not at the time in the town in which she made such claim had to deposit a sum of money to take him to the Court, and back again to his barracks. That was very hard on the we man, especially as in the case of a civilian she was not called upon to pay anything, or leave anything, in the form of a deposit. Supposing a we man was in Kent and had a claim to make on a soldier in Belfast, it was not fair that she should be called upon to pay his expenses to Kent and back. the Judge Advocate General had said, last year, that in such a case as this it was not the man's fault that he was taken to Belfast, and that was perfectly true; but neither was it the -woman's fault. The Judge Advo- 1776 cate General seemed to regard the helplessness of the man as a justification for injustice being done to the we man. Supposing the Government paid the expenses of the men, there were only 840 cases last year; and if the expenses in each case amounted to oven £2, that would only mean an expenditure of £1,680, a very small consideration when they took into account the fact that it would remove from many poor women a financial obligation which amounted to a total denial of justice.
§
New Clause—
(Liability of soldier to maintain wife and children.)
Whereas it is desirable that the liability of a soldier or marine to maintain his wife and children should be real and better defined, and it is expedient to provide for the same, be it therefore enacted as follows: That Section 145 of 'The Army Act, 1881,' shall be construed as though all the words after the words 'commanding officer of such soldier,' in sub-section three were omitted,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he thought he had met the hon. Member half way last year by consenting to a proposal taking away from the military authorities all discretionary power as to stopping a portion of the soldier's pay. The Proviso objected to required a we man who made a claim on a soldier to deposit a certain amount of caution money, to answer the cost of bringing the soldier to the place where the summons was heard; but it was necessary to draw a distinction between a wife applying for maintenance and an affiliation case. The cases of this Proviso coining into operation in the case of married we men were extremely rare. They did not enlistmen if they knew they were married; and according to present Regulations, if a soldier made a false statement he was punished, and, on the parish charging him with desertion of his wife, he was discharged from the Army. In most cases—in 99 out of 100—the soldier admitted his liability, and the deduction was made from his pay as a matter of course; therefore, in the case of married soldiers, it seldom happened that resort was had to the power to which the hon. Member took exception. 1777 In fact, he did not know more than one case in which the provision had been put into operation. In the case of an unmarried we man applying for a maintenance order, the soldier and the civilian stood on a very different footing. But, even in the case of civilians, the inducement given by the law to we men to bring trumped-up cases against men was very great. The law was apt to be abused, being very often only used for the purpose of extorting money. The case of the soldier, moreover, was very different to that of the civilian. If the soldier were at a distance——
§ MR. SEXTONHe is always at a distance.
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he was not necessarily always at a distance. He might be at Aldershot, and the woman might be in the same place; therefore, the proposed clause, if accepted, would not come into operation in that case. But take the case of a soldier stationed in Kent and ordered to Galway. He did not change his residence of his own free will, as a civilian did. There was another objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member. Supposing the money was paid by the public, what would be the result? Why, they would at once open the door to endless collusion between the we man and the soldier.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 58: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.