COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 24 March 1893 vol 10 cc1126-55

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

What clause are we on, Sir?

THE CHAIRMAN

Clause 2.

MR. HANBURY

I did not hear Clause 1 put. It was utterly impossible for anyone to hoar. I must appeal to your fairness as Chairman, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

Clause 1 is passed, and I now call Clause 2.

MR. HANBURY

On Clause 2, I must appeal to the Secretary of State for War not to bring on the Committee stage of this Bill at this late hour of the evening. The soldier has no vote. [Interruption.] When you had the Dockyard Vote under consideration you spent the whole evening on it, but because the unfortunate soldier has no vote you press on this Bill which vitally concerns his interests at this late hour of the evening. On that ground alone I protest. I have already stated my objection—I stated it last night. You are passing this Mutiny Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman himself opposed some years ago, and yet we had him last night pirouetting and prancing. [Cries of "Order!"] This Bill need not be passed before 80th April, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in common fairness to the 154,000 men affected by the Vote—for it affects also the Marine Service—in his own interest I would appeal to him not to press his technical right to proceed with the Bill at this hour. I would remind him that hitherto whenever there has been an Amendment to this Bill it has always been printed in italics, so that all could see it.

MR. FLYNN

I rise to Order. The hon. Member is discussing the Bill. We are in Committee considering a clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot say that at the present moment the hon. Member is out of Order, but he must speak to the clause.

MR. HANBURY

I ask the Secretary for War whether it has not been the universal practice in regard to this Army Annual Bill—which is one of the most important Bills which can be brought, before Parliament—from which for the first time he has departed this Session, that all important alterations to this Bill should be printed in italics? Notwithstanding the importance of the Bill, I was told last night I was obstructing because I -wanted to get it discussed——

THE CHAIRMAN

I have allowed the hon. Member some latitude. He is not now speaking to the clause.

MR. CONYBEARE

The hot.. Member for Preston, who is magnificent in his wrath——[Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I have already called the hon. Member to Order.

MR. HANBURY

Am I not entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are any Amendments to this clause?—because under the old procedure every Amendment had to be printed in italics.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would call the hon. Member's attention to the Bill itself, which shows where the Amendments begin. They begin at Clause 4.

MR. HANBURY

I am not quite sure that that is a correct statement of the facts. [Cries of "Order!" "Withdraw!" and "Name!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not suppose that the hon. Member means anything so disorderly as to impute to me a misstatement of the facts.

MR. HANBURY

rose. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member looks at the Bill, he will see that what I say is correct.

MR. HANBURY

I bow to your ruling, Sir. [Cries of "Withdraw!" "Apologise!" "Chair!"] May I ask the Secretary for War, as a matter of fact——[Cries of "Withdraw!" and interruption.]

MR. E. STANHOPE

I wish, Sir, to call your attention to most disorderly interruptions.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I really hope that this scene will not continue; but I think the hon. Member must feel before he continues his observations that he owes an apology to the Chairman.

MR. HANBURY

I want to ask the Secretary of State——[Continued cries of "Apologise!" and interruption.]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must appeal to the Committee to assist me in keeping Order. I have already expressed my view that I certainly did Dot understand the hon. Member to impute to me that I was mis-stating the facts. Had he done so I should have taken a very different course.

MB. HASBURY

[Cries of "Apologise!"] The only two questions I have to put to the Secretary for War are these in the first place, as a matter of fact, are there any Amendments made in the first three clauses; secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman not departing from that which has been the undoubted rule up to the present in not printing the Amendments to the Army Annual Bill in italics?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I do not know what the hon. Member means by Amendments. ["Oh, oh!"] Has the hon. Member who interrupts read the Bill? The hon. Member evidently confuses the Army Annual Bill with the old Mutiny Bill. The old Mutiny Bill required to have the Amendments in italics, in order that the attention of the House might be called to them, but this is the Army Annual Bill, and the first three clauses, so far as I am aware, contains nothing different from what was contained in the Bill of last year unless the number of men constitutes a difference.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

wished to move an Amendment to Clause 3—and trusted he would not be interrupted by hon. Gentlemen who contended that the Bill was being used as an engine of obstruction. Such interruptions he could not but regard as impertinent as applied to a Bill which he ventured to think as the most important Bill passed in any Session of Parliament. To show the importance of the measure he would read its Preamble.

MR. T. M. HEALY

rose to Order. He asked if the Chairman had not put the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

Clause 2 is before the Committee.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I propose to move an Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Did not you, Sir, put the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

We have approached Clause 2, but I have not yet put the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the Bill subjected men to Martial Law, and it was monstrous that they should not have a full opportunity of discussing it in this free Parliament of England. The matter was important because 150,000 of their fellow-subjects were to be deprived of their ordinary rights and liberties. The Bill outside the United Kingdom would operate for a year and three mouths instead of for a year.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to come to his Amendment. He is trifling with the Committee.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he wished to ask whether he was to be allowed to give reasons for his Amendment. He wished in Sub-section B, Clause 2, to substitute the date 13th June for the 31st July, and his reasons were——

MR. D.CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I move that the Question be now put.

THE CHAIRMAN

took no notice.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

, continuing, said that this was a question involving the liberty of the subject, and yet he was scarcely allowed to move an Amendment.

MR. HANBURY

Soldiers have no votes.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the reason for Sub-section B was that in the olden times people at Malta were a longdistance from this country, and communication with it was much slower than now.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I move "That the Question be now put."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is that the Question be now put.

MR. J. COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

What Question?

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

There is no Question.

THE CHAIRMAN

then put the Question, and declared that the Ayes had it. This was challenged, and orders were given to clear the House for a Division.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

Mr. Mellor, I desire to ask you what the Question is?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is that the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill be now put.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I have another Amendment to move.

MR. BRODRICK

May I inform you, Sir, that just now, on a point of Order, you told the Committee you had not put the Question.

MR. HANBURY

Have you put the Question, Sir.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I also wish to ask—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order. The Question is that the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill be now put.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 127.—(Division List, No. 37.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 335; Noes 24.—(Division List, No. 38.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

I rise with great regret to move to report Progress, and I do so solely on the ground of the intolerable interruptions to which speakers on this side of the House have been subjected with few exceptions. I am here solely to support Her Majesty's Government in trying to pass through certain clauses of this Bill to which I think no legitimate objection can be raised. I wish to offer every assistance to the Government in trying, not only to shorten discussion, but to get the Bill passed. But what happened? We were discussing a clause which embodied Amendments to the Mutiny Act, and which naturally gave rise to other Amendments. Upon that Clause an Amendment was proposed by my hon. Friend behind me. Whether that Amendment was wrong or right it does not matter for present purposes. I should not have supported it, but it was a perfectly legitimate Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to refer to the Amendment which has been disposed of by the late Division.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I think I am entitled to give some reason in support of my Motion for Progress. With all submission to the Chair, I think Public Business will make progress if I am allowed to finish the statement I wish to make.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Keep to the Rules of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already pointed out that it is impossible to reopen a matter already considered and decided by the House.

MR. E. STANHOPE

With great respect I am not re-opening the question.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is at the present moment proceeding to discuss Clause 2.

MR. E. STANHOPE

Then I will say this, the speakers on this side have met with intolerable interruptions. They have not been allowed to utter a single sentence. An hon. Member below the Gangway (pointing to Dr. Tanner) has in the noisiest possible way tried to prevent my hon. Friend behind me from uttering a single sentence of his speech. [Interruption and cries of" Question! "] That is not a fair way to treat hon. Members on this side of the House, nor is it the way business should be conducted. Then you, Mr. Mellor, were good enough to say from the Chair that no Question had been put by you on Clause 2. [Cries of " Order! "and" Question! "] That decision was loyally accepted by us, but within a moment from that ruling—[Interruption,.]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the Committee. I must appeal to hon. Gentlemen to assist me in keeping order.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I was saying that a moment after you said there was no Question you thought fit to put the Closure on Clause 2. I am not going to question that ruling for a single moment, but I rise to appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether they think it reasonable or possible that discussion can be carried on in this fashion at this hour. I appeal on that point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am as anxious as the Government that this Bill should be pushed on, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and I appeal to all hon. Members to whom such an appeal might reasonably be addressed, to at any rate allow hon. Members who have Amendments to move to state to the Committee their reasons for moving these Amendments. I beg to move that you report Progress.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I am quite sure that nobody can be more averse than I am to any scenes of disturbance in this House, but the House must bear in mind what is the character of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who has held the responsible position of Secretary of State for War knows that it ought to be proceeded with, and that to these clauses, which apply to the discipline of the Army, no reasonable exception can be taken by himself. Therefore, the Government had reason to expect that Members on both sides would take steps to forward the measure which is intended for the public advantage and for the maintenance of the discipline of the Army. But what happened? The hon. Member for Preston objected to proceeding at all with the Bill.

MR. HANBURY

I did not object to proceeding with the Bill, but I objected to discussing the Bill in the small hours of the morning when there is a month before us in which it might be discussed.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Last night the Speaker refused to put the Amendment of the hon. Member asking for the adjournment of the Bill; and the hon. Member who had that ruling from the Speaker last night comes down to-night also and objects to proceed with the Bill. When he did not succeed the hon. Member who sits next him (Mr. T. G. Bowles) makes a protracted speech which nobody could make out, and when the Chairman called on him to state what Amendment he was proposing to move, the hon. Gentleman proposed what, in my opinion, was a perfectly frivolous Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I desire to ask you, Mr. Mellor, whether oven a person who sits on that Bench has a right to make such an observation?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already explained that this matter having been closed by the vote of the House it is impossible to re-open it.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I wish to ask is the phrase—[Cries of "Name, name! "and" Sit down, Tommy!"] What I wish to ask is whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to characterise an Amendment regularly moved as frivolous?

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no objection even in this House to an Amendment being characterized as frivolous.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

Mr. Chairman—[Loud cries of "Order!"] during which the hon. Member sat down.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will say nothing about the Amendment that is offensive, and, if the hon. Member opposite objects to the use of the adjective "frivolous," I beg to withdraw it. But the right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should report Progress, and says that these are intolerable interruptions. Well, there are other intolerable things. In my opinion there is, and has been, intolerable obstruction, and it is our duty to meet that obstruction, and we will meet it. As you have chosen the Mutiny Bill as your field of battle for obstruction, we will fight you upon it to the end.

MR. E. STANHOPE

When I rose it was for the purpose of trying to push this Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 234.—(Division List, No. 39.)

MR. HANBURY

said, this was not one of the contentious clauses, therefore he only wished to ask one or two questions, and he should not divide upon it. Though the contentious clauses did not begin until the fourth clause, this clause was important for some reasons. He supposed he should not be entitled to refer to the Schedule, as he should be able to discuss that when they reached it.

THE CHAIRMAN

No, the hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing the Schedule upon this clause.

MR. HANBURY

said, in that case he would only ask one or two questions. In the first place, he wished to know whether the prices in regard to the billetting of soldiers were the same all over the country, because it must be quite manifest that what would be fair in one part of the country, in the North for instance, would be unfair in other parts where labour, provisions, &c, were cheaper? He was not quite sure they ought not to have different prices for different parts of the country, just as they had different regulations in respect to fuel for the troops. The right hon. Gentleman would see there was something in this contention, because there was no doubt they ought to treat the licensed victualler, in regard to billetting, on the same principle as the troops themselves were treated, and the right hon. Gentleman knew that the system on which he treated the soldiers with regard to firing and things of that kind differed entirely in different parts. He would like to ask whether these prices had varied within the last 20 years, or whether in all the 20 Bills they had passed in that time the prices had been the same. The other question he wished to ask also bore on the question of billetting soldiers upon licensed victuallers, and was whether, in future, the troops would be marched more frequently through the country than in the past from quarters to quarters? He believed that would be a great advantage both to the Army and to the country, as it would enable the people in the out of the way places in which the soldiers would be billletted to see more of the Army than they did at the present time. This system of marching the troops through the country was adopted by his right hon. Friend the late Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) when he sent a regiment marching through Wales, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would adopt that system and march the troops through various parts of the country?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.) (Stirling,

The hon. Member asks me whether the prices are the same as they have always been. I cannot answer that.

MR. BRODRICK

For the last 20 years.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The prices are the same as they have been for many years past.

MR. BRODRICK

They were altered last year.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Then they are the same, at all events, as they were last year; there is no alteration in this Bill with regard to them. With regard to marching the troops through the country, I do not know whether that would be feasible or not. Then the hon. Member says there are different prices with regard to fuel, but that, of course, depends pretty much on the climate and the amount of fuel required. The hon. Member asks whether we will march the troops about the country in order to show the Army to the inhabitants, and in this way, to some extent, benefit the licensed victualler. This class of experiment has been tried by a march through Wales, and another small attempt, to save expense, in a part of Scotland, and good results followed from them, and I shall be glad to extend the practice.

MR. BRODRICK

merely rose to correct a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman stated there had been no change in the prices paid to licensed victuallers for more than 20 years, so far as he knew. The fact was that as the prices formerly paid did not allow anything for wear or tear, only the actual cost to which a publican must be put in housing soldiers, they decided to make an amendment in the Schedule. That amendment was made to a moderate extent in the Army Act of last year, and was continued in the Bill of the present year.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

thought the discussion had shown that the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was absolutely ignorant of the regulations contained in his own Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he did not know the regulations concerning prices or that they had been altered recently, and he thought that showed the great importance of their considering this most serious matter. They were kept up to this time of night by an issue which concerned the interest of a great number of persons, the soldiers of this great country, and he must say it seemed to him to be a question that should be more discussed than it could be at the present time. Another reference the right hon. Gentleman made was that they were interested in benefitting the licensed victualler. He rather took it that the whole class of licensed victuallers would be obliged if they excluded them from the operation of the clause, for they did not desire to have the soldiers billetted upon thorn. When they found that the price for a breakfast was 1½sd.—[Laughter]—hon. Members might laugh, but that was the fact, and he did not think the bulk of the licensed victuallers would be extremely overjoyed at the Bill. But he rose mainly to point out that the great questions in the Bill, and which would come forward in the next clauses, required that they should be properly and fully discussed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he rose on this clause to make an appeal to the Secretary of State for War. He thought a great deal of the difficulty that had arisen, and had been experienced by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), was due to the fact that the Army Bill this year contained a large number of Amendments upon the previous Act. In previous years it had been the custom of the Secretary of State for War to make a statement to the House which might enable them to understand what changes were made. It was obvious that in regard to this particular clause the change was so small that they might not require to discuss it at any length; but there were changes of very serious importance in the Bill, and as his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) said, there was no one to look after the soldier in the House of Commons, and it would be quite possible, through an inadvertence or some other reason, to affect the interests of the soldier. For instance, in regard to Courts Martial, it was proposed to reduce the number of officers necessary from five to three, and that was a subject of great importance to the soldier, and, therefore, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would give them a complete account of the changes it would greatly aid the passage of the Bill.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The hon. Member knows very well that upon Clause 4 I cannot give an explanation of the changes proposed in the other clauses. I am prepared to state what the change is that is effected by Clause 4, and to give similar explanations upon the other clauses as we reach them. This is a very simple matter. What is called "making away with equipments" is dealt with under Section 4 of the Army Act, hut there has been some doubt expressed as to what is included in the word "equipments"; and it has been decided, therefore, to define the word as including any article supplied to a soldier. One of the most ordinary cases to come under this section is that of a blanket, which would be issued to soldiers as an equipment if this Amendment is made. When, therefore, a man makes away with his blanket, he is to be tried under the general section, No. 40, for conduct against good order and military discipline.

MR. HANBURY

said, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was no explanation at all, and he should have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain a good deal more fully to the Committee than he had yet done, especially after the recent amount of ignorance he had exhibited. ["Oh, oh!"] He must press for a fuller explanation; but perhaps he had better put his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), who said "Oh, oh!" and who seemed to know a great deal about this Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Oh, yes; the right hon. Gentleman was a lawyer, and knew all about the subject. There were at least two points he wished to raise in connection with this clause. It was their bounden duty, when there was no Judge Advocate General to look after the interests of the private soldier, to examine every Amendment to this important Bill. With regard to the now words to be inserted, he wanted to know exactly what those words meant, because most of the objections he had to raise had reference to an injustice to the private soldier. Take this point: "Any article issued to the soldier for his use." As he understood that, it would clearly cover the case of articles issued to the soldier that were purchased with his own money, and he asked if it referred to cases of that sort.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I say it is not, so presented.

MR. HANBURY

said, they had been issued to him all the same. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert these words "not being his property?"

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The property is not issued in the technical sense of the word.

MR. HANBURY

said, he would move to insert after the words "issued to a soldier for his use" these words "not being his property."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, after the word "use," to insert the words "not being his property."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

At the present time what occurs is this: If a man is ordered by his commanding officer to replace a tunic with a new one he is obliged to return it at the expiration of the period for its use, or he has to pay for it with his own money.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 244.—(Division List, No. 40.)

MR. HANBURY

said, they had now got the clause into the somewhat ridiculous position that a soldier could not, give a crumb out of his rations without being subjected to certain penalties. By what court martial would the soldier be tried for what was constituted an offence under the clause, and what was the extreme term of imprisonment he could be subjected to under the clause?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the section to which this clause was an amendment stated that a soldier who committed this offence should, on conviction by court martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as was mentioned in the Act.

MR. HANBURY

considered it was perfectly monstrous they should be asked to pass a clause like this sub silentio, without the Secretary for War knowing what penalties they were imposing. He begged therefore to move the omission of the clause altogether.

THE CHAIRMAN

The proper course is to negative the clause when it is put.

Mr. Paul rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill' be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Question proposed, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

MR. BARTLEY

said the clause in the Army Act of 1881 stated that— Any soldier who committed any of the following offences, that is to say, makes away with or is concerned in making away with arms, ammunition, equipment," &c. Those were all definite articles, but under this amending Bill the word "equipment" was meant to mean any article issued to a soldier for his use, and if a soldier made away with any such article he came under the penalty in the clause. Rations were issued to a soldier for his use, and were they going to enact such an absurdity as that if a soldier made away with his rations he should be liable to this penalty?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I have only one word to say in answer to the hon. Member, and that is—Does the hon. Member think that rations is equipment?

MR. BARTLEY

said, he certainly did. The expression "equipment" for the purposes of that section, it was expressly stated, included any article issued to a soldier for his use and he contended that rations were issued to a soldier for his use. Such loose and careless wording ought not to be submitted to the House, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would revise the Bill and make it intelligible.

MR. HALDANE

I wish to ask what Question we are now discussing?

THE CHAIRMAN

I waited to see if the hon. Member moved an Amendment. The Question is that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. HANBURY

rose, when——

Mr. Haldane rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 66.—(Division List, No. 41.)

Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

explained that this clause had been inserted so as to make it an offence where any person knowingly and with intent to defraud obtained any valuable document, &c. Hitherto there had been some difficulty in dealing with such offences because of there being ambiguity or uncertainty as to particular persons against whom the fraud was intended, and these words had been printed to make it clear that a fraud committed against Her Majesty was a fraud against an individual.

Amendment proposed, in line 27, after the word "defraud," to insert the words "Her Majesty."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the clause had been introduced for the purpose of preventing bad characters re-entering the Army. It provided that where a man who had been discharged from the Army with ignominy, or as incorrigible, or who had been convicted of felony or sentenced to penal servitude, and on re-enlistment concealed these circumstances, he was liable to punishment. It was to make a man, discharged for misconduct, who re-enlisted and concealed the fact, punishable in some way.

MR. HANBURY

said, the word "misconduct" had never before appeared in any of these Acts; it was a word entirely unknown in military phraseology, and if this Bill became law a soldier, for an offence totally new in military phraseology, would be liable to a long term of penal servitude. He wished to know what kind of offences came under this word, and what were the penalties?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

thought the word was perfectly well understood. He pointed out that the man was not punishable for misconduct, but if he had been discharged from the Army for misconduct, and afterwards enlisted and concealed this fact, he would be punished for fraudulent enlistment.

COMMANDER BETHELL

Does it only apply to the case of men who have fraudulently enlisted?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Yes.

COMMANDER BETHELL

That does not make it so serious as it otherwise would be.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, this offence of enlistment under the circumstances mentioned rendered a man liable to suffer penal servitude. Was there any limit to that penal servitude, or was such a man liable to be sent to penal servitude for life, and not likely to be released by the Irish Secretary?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I can relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman. In Clause 32 of the Army Act it says that anyone who has been discharged under these circumstances, and afterwards enlisted without declaring the circumstances, shall, on conviction by court martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Manual, not from the Act.

MR. ASQUITH

thought, to put it mildly, it was wanting in respect to the House of Commons that hon. Gentlemen should rise in their places, criticise and ask questions about clauses of a Bill which referred to an Act of Parliament which was part of the Statutes of the Realm, and at the same time avow they had never read the Act. No intelligent criticism of any kind could be made of the clauses of that Bill by anyone who had not studied the Army Act or had not the Army Act in front of him. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn would take the trouble to study it instead of wasting time, he would know that the section of the Army Act to which reference was made was one which limited the power of courts martial as to imprisonment. The sole object of the new clause was to prevent a man already discharged from the Army from fraudulently re-enlisting.

MR. BRODRICK

did not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman into his statement as to how far a Member was justified in criticising the Bill without having the Act in his hand. He read the Act differently to the right hon. Gentleman. It said that a man who was found guilty on conviction by a court martial might be liable to penal servitude.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the hon. Member did not do himself justice. In the Manual of Military Law published in 1887, when the hon. Gentleman was at the War Office, it was stated that a man re-enlisting, after having been discharged for misconduct, was liable to imprisonment, or such less punishment as a court martial might inflict.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in correcting a misapprehension which might have arisen. He was glad that his right hon. Friend, during his period of Office, had been able to extend the clemency of the Crown to these men.

Mr. Haldane rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill 'be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 57.—(Division List, No. 42.)

Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Clause 7.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that this and the next clause would embody somewhat larger changes than the preceding clauses. It was found in experience that regimental courts martial were not regarded by all authorities as satisfactory tribunals. There was an objection to them on the ground that, as they were composed of officers of the regiment, those gentlemen were influenced by regimental views. Therefore, it was proposed to extend the powers of the commanding officer to deal summarily with military offences. Instead of his having the power only to sentence a man to seven days' imprisonment, as now, he was to be able to award 21 days' imprisonment. The soldier, however, had the option of claiming to be tried by district court martial. This was not an appeal from the commanding officer's decision, but an option whether a man would be tried by the summary jurisdiction of his colonel, or by a district court martial. The whole tendency of the change was distinctly in the interest of the soldier.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said this was really a substantial change in the law, the only change of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had stated ample grounds for it. It was in the interest of the soldier, and he had no doubt hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side would agree with him.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he could not agree with the Secretary for War or the late Secretary for War on this matter. Very often the commanding officer was a captain, or a major, or the third or fourth man in the regiment, and he would not always be a good man to administer justice. At present this officer heard the cases that came before him on unsworn evidence. His power of sending a man to imprisonment was limited to seven days, and the Secretary for War was bringing about a revolution when he extended the power to 21 days. He did not think it was so much a bad commanding officer they had to be afraid of as a weak one. As to the option which would be given to the soldier of going before a district court martial, it was not likely to be very much availed of, because it would almost be considered a second crime to give the district court martial the trouble of assembling unless the soldier had a good case. At present the district court martial gave as a practical working minimum 56 days' imprisonment. The clause would have the effect of making a colonel of a regiment too much like the captain of a ship, and there was nothing worse than trying to manage soldiers as they did sailors. The experiment was a bold and dangerous one. He did not anticipate much evil from it for a couple of years or so, but in course of time they would find that the tendency of the change was to make colonels tyrants.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said he ought to have explained that, recognising that this was an experiment, an Order would be issued limiting the imprisonment at first to 14 days to see how the change worked.

MR. HANBURY

thought that they were making the soldier pay a great deal too dearly for the boon of the abolition of the regimental court martial. He thought that 14 days' imprisonment should be the maximum the commanding officer should be allowed to award, as he could impose two sets of fines as well. He also thought the evidence should be given against the men on oath. [Cries of "Divide!"] It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen, but the interests of the soldiers were more important than their time. He would move that the maximum punishment be 14 days instead of 21.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, to leave out the word "twenty-one" in order to insert the word "fourteen."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I cannot accept that Amendment. I have already stated that, in order to see how the plan works, and to prevent any rash use being made of the extended powers, we propose to issue instructions that 14 days shall be the limit. With regard to what the hon. Member said as to taking evidence on oath, if he will look at the terms of Section 46, Subsection 6, of the Army Act he will find it provided that where the power of summary punishment exceeds seven days' imprisonment the accused person may demand that the evidence shall be given on oath. That will equally apply in this case.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, it seemed rather hard, considering that during the last few years crime in the Army had considerably decreased, the alteration in the mode of trying the soldier—although perhaps acceptable in itself—should involve an increase of the maximum punishment allowed. He would be glad to see 14 days substituted for 21 days.

MR. BARTLEY

said, they intended to thoroughly thresh this matter out. He wished to point out to the Secretary for War that this was an annual Bill, and if he intended sending out to Commanding Officers a statement to the effect that the term 21 days really meant 14 days, it was surely unreasonable to insert 21 days in the Act of Parliament. He might as well now insert 14 days, and if necessary a year hence alter the term to 21 days. He hoped this concession would be made, seeing that crime in the Army was decreasing.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The Army Act is a permanent enactment, and the clauses we are now dealing with sanction certain alterations in that permanent Act. I say that the operation of these clauses is not limited to one year; but the Army Annual Act brings into life the permanent Army Act.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

said, he concurred in the proposed alteration, but still he wished the Secretary for War would consent to substitute 14 days for 21 days. He regretted, too, that the right hon. Gentleman refused to consent to make compulsory the taking of evidence on oath.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The soldier can claim to have it taken on oath.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

said, he held that that was not sufficient. He would like to see it compulsory, as in the case of Courts of Law, where the onus was not thrown on the accused person.

MR. TOMLLNSON (Preston)

asked what was the dispensing power which enabled the Secretary for War to go behind an Act of Parliament and direct Commanding Officers not to exceed 14 days, although the Act gave them authority up to 21 days?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The Adjutant General of the Army, who is responsible for the discipline of the Army, can direct Commanding Officers not to go within a certain distance of the limits laid down in the Act.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the words of the Bill were: "Whereas the Army Act will expire in the year 1893." That showed the Act was not permanent, and the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that it was not.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that in regard to the period of 14 days they might consider it in connection with observations already made by the Commander-in-Chief. Not long ago a Circular was issued to Commanding Officers requesting them to be more moderate in their punishments. A large number of Commanding Officers felt that that was unduly limiting their discretion, and, in view of that fact, would it not be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment of 14 days, and leave it open to himself to increase the period to 21 days next year, if necessary?

COMMANDER BETHELL

asked the Secretary of State if he could not arrange in future to have the original Army Act printed side by side with the Bill, so as to show the character of the proposed Amendments? Had that been done hon. Members would have been saved from the stern rebuke of the right hon. Gentleman—a copy of the best style of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for not having known the terms of the original Act.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that, seeing the Bill would only last for a year, the concession might well be made. The right hon. Gentleman must know well he was in the wrong in supposing that the Army Act was a permanent Act. He had not sufficiently studied that Act.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 67.—(Division List, No. 43.)

MR. HANBURY, in moving another Amendment, said that he thought all evidence taken at these Courts Martial should be taken on oath.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 21, at the end of the Clause, to add the words 'That, in the case of all soldiers tried under this section, the evidence shall be taken upon oath."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I have already pointed out that there is a provision for this matter within the terms of the Army Act, and if we are to insert the words the hon. Gentleman has proposed to this particular clause it would be inconsistent with other provisions of the Army Act.

MR. HANBURY

May I explain exactly why I make this proposal? At present this right to have the evidence taken on oath is only permissive, but it is a right which is not frequently availed of by the soldiers for fear of giving offence. I, therefore, want to provide that the evidence shall be taken on oath.

COLONEL NOLAN

said he did not know of any case in which the evidence was taken on oath.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, that some of the hon. Members who sat round him thought that this was a very reasonable proposal, and unless a better answer was given to it than had been given by the Secretary of State for War he would vote with the hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought it was a matter of extreme importance in cases where the liberty of a fellow-subject—whether a soldier or a civilian—was at stake, that every precaution should be taken that the evidence on which he was tried, and perhaps condemned, should as far as possible be above suspicion; and he thought that could only be secured by having it taken on oath.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

considered this was a matter of very great importance to the soldier. It seemed to be the general sense of the House that the evidence should be taken on oath, and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would accede to the proposal of his hon. Friend.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)

said, he thought they had now come to the discussion of questions of real importance. Hitherto in every Division—until the last Division—he had supported the Government, and, therefore, he could speak without a suspicion of obstruction. There was now raised a question which affected the liberty of the subject, and he did not think it was a point that could be properly discussed at half-past. 3 in the morning, when Amendments wore being hurriedly written down without proper time for consideration, and when Ministers were studying the Army Act during the interval in which they walked through the Lobbies. If the soldiers had votes, their claims would be considered at a more early hour, and he therefore begged leave to move to report Progress.

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

The hon. Member who has just sat down has stated that we have at last come to the important part of the Bill. I would like, then, to know what we have been doing for the last 3½ hours? It comes to this: that we have spent 3½ hours on the unimportant part of the Bill. Under these circumstances, I think the natural thing we should do is to go on.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 209.—(Division List, No. 44.)

GENERAL GOLDS WORTHY

thought it should be compulsory for this evidence to be taken on oath.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 197.—(Division List, No. 45.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8.

Question proposed, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the object of this clause was to reduce the number of the District Court Martials to three members. At present the minimum number was five, but two of them were generally subalterns, and justice would be just as well administered if the number was reduced to three. There were certain stations where the number of officers was so small that much inconvenience was experienced in obtaining the requisite number to constitute a District Court Martial.

MR. BRODRICK

said, it was now 4 o'clock in the morning, and he rose to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had reached the most important clause in the Bill, and also the most important Amendment. [Cries of "Go on!"] Hon. Members said "go on" without having considered this fact. This Bill was only ordered to be printed on the 20th March, and they had now reached the morning of the 25th. The time had been so limited that it was quite impossible the clause could have been considered by anybody outside the House, because the Bill could not have been sent to them for that purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that time had been unduly occupied in discussing other points in the Bill. He was not going to enter into that contention, because they had a good deal to say as to the manner in which they were met in the first instance. He would venture to point out that if these discussions were not to be carried on until 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning—[Cries of "Go on!"] He had sat in that House for 30 years; he had had experience of a good many all-night Sittings, but he had never known an all-night Sitting devoted to questions of this sort. As there was no desire to discuss the clause at undue length, he suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Progress should be reported, and the Bill taken again on Monday.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he understood that Monday was to be devoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite to a very different purpose—namely, to turning out Her Majesty's Government. He was quite sure, if matters were in the hands of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brodrick), there would only be a fair and reasonable discussion; but he was sorry the hon. Gentleman could not stand as godfather for the hon. Gentlemen behind him, as he could not promise and vow in their name. Therefore, he thought they must go on.

MR. HANBURY

said, there was no time to discuss this clause, which was an important one. There was no hurry for this Bill, and he suggested that its discussion should be renewed on Tuesday. There was no reason why there should be fewer officers on District Courts Martial.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought the number of officers on the Court Martial should not be reduced to three. It must be remembered that the officers sitting on a Court Martial were both judge and jury, and three would be much more likely to be under the control of the Commanding Officer than one would be.

MR. T. M. HEALY

In Ireland a Member of Parliament gets six months from two Removables.

MR. KENYON

said, he wished to deny that there had been any delay caused by Members on the Opposition Benches.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the clause before the Committee.

MR. KENYON

said, he was directing his attention to the clause, but the explanation of the Secretary for War was not sufficient to satisfy his crass ignorance, and that of hon. Friends near him.

Mr. Logan rose, in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill" be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 61.—(Division List, No. 46.)

Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

MR. P. SMITH

I rise to a point of Order. You, Sir, did not put the Question inviting opposition to the vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

I put the Question distinctly.

DR. TANNER

Order among the rats.

Clause 9.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said this clause dealt with the powers of Summary Courts Martial. It sought to transfer the powers of the old drum-head Court Martial to a General Field Court Martial, so that there might not be any over-lapping of powers in the case of war or in the case of an Army in the field.

MR. TOMLINSON

asked for information as to the powers of these Summary Courts Martial in the case of war or of an army in the field.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he did not follow the hon. Member. The clause did not create new powers, but transferred powers from the old Summary Court Martial to the General Field Court Martial.

MR. TOMLINSON

asked how a case of murder would be dealt with?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said that if the person guilty of the offence came under the Summary Court Martial at present, in the future he would come under the General Field Court Martial. If the person came under some other authority he would be left to that authority.

MR. HANBURY

said, these powers were limited to forces serving beyond the seas in case of war. Now it was proposed to introduce the powers to forces serving in these Islands. He would suggest the insertion of the words, "Serving beyond the seas."

SIR A. HAYTER

said, the clause would apply in case of war in this country.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he did not see anything about active service mentioned.

SIR A. HAYTER

Yes, in Subsection 1——

MR. HANBURY

said, the right hon. Gentleman clearly had not seen the point he (Mr. Hanbury) had raised. If the effect he had pointed out had been foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman, he would have told the Committee so, but he had never alluded to the circumstances. To meet the difficulty, he (Mr. Hanbury) would move to insert after the words "active service" the words "beyond the seas."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "service," to insert the words "beyond the seas."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, the new clause would bring about a great change, and the Secretary of State ought to give the hon. Member for Preston some reply. He must express his surprise at the right hon. Gentleman sitting quietly there. [Cries of "Order!"] He did not know why hon. Gentlemen called out "Order!" Was it possible that hon. Members desired to see the powers in this clause brought into play in this island without discussion.

MR. HANBURY

I think we are entitled to a reply from somebody. [Cries of "Divide!"] I sec the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting opposite. [Cries of "Divide!" and counter cries of "Progress!"] As the Secretary of State for War is not able to answer a most pertinent question addressed to him, I would put it to the present Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Dr. Tanner rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

MR. HANBURY

said, the statement of the Secretary for War did not cover the point he had raised. [Cries of "Divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman seemed unable to answer it, therefore he would address the query to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a most important matter, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was possessed of vast knowledge.

SIR A. HAYTER

said, that if the hon. Member would look at Clause 55 he would see that limited the term "Court Martial."

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said he thought that this was a perfectly reasonable Amendment, and it was a pity it could not be discussed without the closure being applied and without interruptions of a disorderly character. He did not think the hon. Baronet who had just intervened on behalf of the Government understood the Bill. Most Members of the Committee were aware of the purport of the information he had just given, but that did not touch the point raised by his hon. Friend. It was now proposed to introduce an entirely new state of affairs, and they wished to know the grounds upon which that was being done. Probably the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had now refreshed his mind on the subject and was prepared to vouchsafe the information they asked for.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

remarked, that the confusion, if any existed, had been introduced by the hon. Member for Preston, for he had taken it for granted that this tribunal only applied to cases beyond the sea. He had quoted to the House no authority for that statement.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 216.—(Division List, No. 47.)

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

MR. HANBURY

asked for an explanation of the clause.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

This clause is a mere re-casting of the Amendments which have been made from time to time by the House in the Army Act of 1881.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, it was not clear to what the clause referred, and he pressed the Secretary of State for War for a further explanation.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I have just given the information to the hon. Member for Preston, and if the hon. Member will apply to his friend he will get it.

MR. HANBURY

said, the clause wan misleading, and it was difficult to understand to what it applied.

SIR W. HARCOURT

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has given an assurance to the House that this clause is the mere consolidation of the Amendments to the existing laws. It is a waste of time to discuss the matter further, and I beg to move that the clause be now put.

Moved, "That the Question 'That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill' be now put."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Question, "That the Question 'That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill' be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Schedule.

MR. HANBURY

said, that the Secretary for War did not know very much about the Schedule, because he had stated at the beginning of this somewhat protracted Debate that the Schedule had not been altered for years. It was only when the right hon. Gentleman had been corrected by the late Secretary for War that he had found out his mistake, and that a change had been made in the Schedule last year. He did not think the changes made last year went entirely in the right direction, and anybody looking at the prices allowed would see that they were ridiculous. For instance, for lodging and attendance 4d. only was allowed. Then he thought the soldiers could not get a good breakfast for 1½d., the sum allowed. He thought the soldiers should be allowed 3d. for breakfast, and he moved the insertion in the Schedule of 3d. instead of 1½d.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I wish to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether an addition could be made in this way to the charges in the Schedule? I do not think it can.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that is so.

MR. BARTLEY

Of course, we take it that we cannot move to increase the charge, but there is no doubt that we can move to strike it out.

Mr. Conybeare rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That this be the Schedule of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That this be the Schedule of the Bill' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 45.—(Division List, No. 48.)

Question, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.