SECOND HEADING. (Hansard, 23 March 1893)

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
said he hoped the Secretary of State for War did not really intend to take this important Bill at so late an hour as 12 o'clock. It was a Bill dealing with the whole of Her Majesty's Forces on land and sea alike. There were many reasons why the Bill should be brought forward at an hour when it could be properly and thoroughly discussed. The Bill was not the same Bill as had been introduced in other years, for it contained a large number of new proposals, such as establishing a special jurisdiction for special offences, and in justice to the soldiers and marines affected by the Bill, it should be brought on at a time when it could be properly considered. Then, again, in every other year there had always been an officer responsible to the House who saw that courts martial were properly conducted. They had had recently a remarkable, and to some extent an alarming, speech from the late Judge Advocate General. The right hon. Gentleman had said that 988 in 1880 there were 250 cases of courts martial, in which he had to set aside the judgment, and the right hon. Gentleman added that he was strongly of opinion that many innocent men were wrongly convicted on hearsay evidence. For the first time this year there was no officer of the kind to look after the interests of the soldier, and to see that he was properly tried by court martial. The weight of the work of revising the judgments of courts martial was thrown on a man who had no connection with the Army; whose work as Judge of the Divorce Court was already great; who could not have time to attend to the judgments of courts martial, and who was not responsible to the House, as his salary came out of the Consolidated Fund. He therefore appealed to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who had shown an interest in the private soldier, not to ask the House to do the injustice of hurrying the Bill through at such a late hour of the night (ten minutes past 12), but to bring it on at a time when its provisions could be properly discussed.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby
I do not think the hon. Gentleman is aware of what he is doing. To endeavour on the Second Reading to postpone the Army (Annual) Bill is a proposal of an extremely revolutionary character.

§ MR. HANBURY
I am doing nothing of the kind. There is no need for this Bill to be passed before the end of April, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that. Therefore what the right hon. Gentleman has said is totally irrelevant. All I want is fair discussion.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Evidently the hon. Gentleman would like to make another speech. The responsibility must rest on the hon. Gentleman, and on those who sit around him, for the consequences of the step they are about to take. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the office of Judge Advocate 989 General. The proper course to take in regard to that question is to raise it on the Military Vote, and not on this Bill. Remember that this is the Bill on which the discipline of the Army depends. I want to know whether the organization to delay the business of the House will operate on the Mutiny Bill too? I want to know are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to go the length of obstructing the Mutiny Bill, the object of which is as well understood outside the House as in the House? I should have thought that if there is one Bill which hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have attempted to use as an instrument of obstruction it is the Mutiny Bill. But if that is what they intend to do it should be understood by the Country.

§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)
said that in former years the Bill had always been the subject of debate. [Cries of "No"!] Well, since he had been in the House it had been debated at considerable length. There were many important points which hon. Members wished to raise on the Bill in the interest of the soldiers, which could not be properly raised at such an hour of the night, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I cannot put that Motion. The Bill is exempt from the Standing Order which prevents Opposed Business being taken at this hour; there is nothing to prevent the Second Reading being taken now, and I therefore put the question—that the Bill be now read a second time.