SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 March 1884)

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he understood that Mr. Speaker had ruled that this Bill did not come within the terms of the amended Standing Order known as the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and therefore it might be taken as an unopposed Motion. He wished now to call attention to the question of flogging under the authority of foreign Sovereigns or Rulers. That was a most im- 1109 portant question; for, without any doubt whatever, the express terms of the Statute which was passed in 1881 for the purpose of abolishing flogging in the Army had been evaded in the case of certain Egyptians attached to the expedition of General Graham which succeeded in relieving Tokar and rescuing the garrison of that place. These Egyptian camel-drivers were attached to the British Army as camp followers, and, consequently, under the Army Discipline Act they were subject as soldiers to the provisions of British military law. On the return of the expedition from the relief of Tokar, or after the expedition against Osman Digna, Admiral Hewett considered that he had power, under the commission he had received from the Khedive of Egypt, to order these camp followers to be flogged for an offence committed while they were with the expedition; consequently, as they were attached to the British military forces, they were flogged for an offence committed while they were undoubtedly subject to British military law. He thought the House would agree with him that it was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that a British officer abroad should, under the authority be had received from a foreign Ruler, flog persons who, being attached to a British force, came under the provisions of British military law. He, therefore, wished to suggest, when the proper time came, that it should not be possible to put in force against persons attached to any British military expedition, and who were subject to British military law, any more excessive penalties than the British law allowed with regard to British subjects. By that law, when a British officer in command of a British expedition accepted the services of any persons, whether soldiers enlisted under the law of any foreign country, or merely natives of that country, those persons at once became subject as soldiers to the Army Discipline Act. It was exceedingly hard that it should be, in addition, possible to try them under British authority for an offence committed while attached to the expedition under the provisions of another code. It was highly improper that British officers should be permitted to have recourse to the barbarous practice of flogging, especially when that form of punishment had been especially con- 1110 demned by Act of Parliament. They all remembered the discussions which had taken place on the question of flogging. He was certain that when the present Government brought forward their Bill abolishing flogging in the Army and Navy, it was not supposed it would be possible for any British officer in the future to run a coach-and-six through the Statute, and to flog persons without the authority of the law. It was in order to avoid a repetition of such a great scandal that he desired to draw attention, on the Committee stage of the Bill, to these matters, and to ask the House to insert provisions to prevent anything of the kind happening in the future. They knew that, under the provisions of the Egyptian naval Code. Admiral Sir William Hewett had flogged men, utterly ignoring the English law; and he (Mr. Parnell) would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intended to assert that the Queen's officers were to be entitled to inflict that punishment? It so happened that he could only ask the protection of Parliament for a very limited class of Egyptians who had been in the service of Her Majesty during the recent campaigns. As regarded the soldiers of the Regular Egyptian Army, they had been under the authority of their own officers, and he did not seek any protection for them. As a matter of fact a large number of those men, in addition to the 16 carriers or camel-drivers, had been flogged; but, as they, undoubtedly, were not subject to the Army Discipline Act, but to the provisions of the Egyptian military law, he did not feel himself at liberty to interfere on their behalf. Where, however, it was established that persons subject to the British military law, had been flogged under another military code, and that punishments had been inflicted upon them that were disgusting to Parliament, and which had been expressly repealed and abrogated by Parliament, he had a right to ask that provisions should be inserted in this Annual Army Act which would render the recurrence of such a thing utterly impossible. He did not intend to prolong the discussion on this stage of the Bill; but he wished to ask the Government whether they would afford an opportunity, in Committee, for drawing attention to this important matter at a reasonable hour, so that hon. Members might be able to enlist ********** 1111 the sympathies of the House on the subject at a time when it would be possible to have it properly discussed?

§ MR. SEXTON
said, that with regard to the disgraceful acts referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), although it could be understood that British officers proceeding to a foreign country might receive authority which would give them new powers subsidiary to those already conferred upon them by the Government at home, it was not to be conceived that they could receive powers conflicting with those vested in them by that Government. The course he (Mr. Sexton) intended to pursue this year was the one he had pursued in former years as to the disgraceful condition of the law in regard to the liability of the military to maintain their wives and children. The first provision of the law to which he took exception was that which rendered it necessary, before the case of the woman who had a claim on a soldier as his wife, or of the woman who, not being his wife, had a claim on him in the matter of the paternity of her children, came before the Court—it might be in a place far distant from that in which the soldier was located—for such woman to lodge a sum sufficient to defray the expenses of the man to the Court and back again from the Court to the barracks. The next thing to which he took exception was that shameful order which enabled the soldier to use the plea of foreign service to avoid the claims of the woman; and the next was as to the amount paid by the soldier to the woman. He would ask that the Committee should be fixed for a day not earlier than Thursday, so that the House might have reasonable notice of its coming on.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I am sure Her Majesty's Government will be pleased to consider any proposal that may be made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in relation to the question which he has brought before the House. I do not know how it will be in his power to make provision in this Bill against the recurrence of what is alleged to have taken place at Suakin. It must be remembered that, as yet, we have no accurate account of what actually did take place. We have only the statements of newspaper correspondents on the subject; for all we learn from Admiral Hewett is that he punished— 1112 he does not say in what manner—certain camp followers of General Graham who had disobeyed orders. There will be some difficulty, I am afraid, in putting into the Army Act provisions which will restrict the power of the Governor of a place invested with authority over the whole of that place by a Foreign Government. However, the subject is one for consideration in Committee. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, as well as that raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), we have no desire to prevent discussion. We will put down the Committee stage for Thursday, and take it as the second Order of the Day. I trust it may be reached in time for the discussion of the points which have been now raised.

§ MR. HEALY
wished to point out to the noble Marquess that the Government were endeavouring to fix Thursday for the Division on the Franchise Bill. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) shook his head, but he (Mr. Healy) believed he was right in what he said. ["No, no!"] He was only repeating what had been said in the hearing of the House. If the Division were taken on Thursday, they all knew it would be late—no big Divisions ever took place until somewhere about half-past 2 in the morning. Surely such an hour as that would not be a time to take the discussion of a point like that raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork; therefore, he might assume that if the Division on the Franchise Bill was taken on Thursday, the Committee stage of the Army Bill would not be taken on that day. As to the alleged cases of flogging at Suakin, the noble Marquess declared he had no information on the point, and that the statements which had been made on the subject had come from newspaper correspondents. Well, were hon. Members to dispute and refuse to receive the statements of newspaper correspondents when they were derogatory to the Army, and accept them only when they were in laudation of that branch of the Service? In the future, when newspaper correspondents described a brilliant charge, and the Army was accorded the fullest measure of unstinted praise that could be poured forth, we were to accept all that was said as true; but when our soldiers were accused of the assassination of their opponents, 1113 and our officers were charged with flogging offenders, we were to wait for the Admiral's despatches. In this matter the Government seemed to be playing the game of "Heads we win, tails you lose." He regarded many of the newspaper correspondents as conspiratorial liars, who might be relied upon, as a rule, not to say anything adverse to their country's honour. They were the greatest of "Jingoes;" and he did not believe that if they saw their own Army beaten they would say so—like the Roman warrior, they would cover their face in their cloak so that they might not see what was going on. Therefore, when he saw a newspaper correspondent chronicling such a circumstance as the flogging of unfortunate Egyptian carriers, seeing that it told against the correspondent himself, he (Mr. Healy) was inclined to accept it as the truth. The noble Marquess pointed out how difficult it would be to introduce into the Army Bill a provision of the kind described by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. What was it they wanted to provide against? They wanted to provide against a British officer, military or naval, acting in derogation of the Army Act. Well, he (Mr. Healy) himself could draw up a provision to do that in two minutes, and, no doubt, the noble Marquess would be able to do it in half the time. He would say that under no circumstances should any British officer take his power from any Foreign Government as to the infliction of corporal punishment, and that he should neither inflict, nor suffer to be inflicted, any corporal punishment other than that what might be allowed under the Army Act. It was simply absurd to set up this miserable Khedive—who, in reality, had no more power over Egypt or the Soudan than an imprisoned Potentate in Hindustan— as the person from whom these Hogging powers were derived. He trusted they would have from the Government a distinct assurance, in the first place, to the effect that they would have an opportunity of debating the question in the course of the ensuing week; and, in the second place, to the effect that the Government themselves would bring in the required provision, and not put hon. Members on the Irish Benches to the trouble of doing it.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, he 1114 did not intend to follow hon. Members into a discussion upon the Egyptian Question. It was suggested that Thursday should be fixed for the Committee stage of the Bill, and he wished to point out that the measure must become law by the 30th April, the date at which the existing Army Act expired. It must by that time pass through all its stages in this House, and through all its stages of the other House. According to the late ruling of the Speaker, they could proceed with it at any hour; but, at the same time, the Government were anxious to give opportunity for its discussion. If hon. Members would take the discussion on Monday, the Bill might be put down for Committee for that day.

§ MR. SEXTON
No; Thursday.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
Very well. In any case, I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a second time to-night.