HC Deb 28 March 1895 vol 32 cc435-42

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.

Clause 1 agreed to.

On Clause 2,

MR. A. C. MORTON

pointed out that the clause said— The Army Act shall be, and remain, in force during the periods hereinafter mentioned. The incorporation of this Act, 44 & 45 Vic., c. 58, in this Bill caused an immense amount of confusion. Could not the Act be recited in the Bill so that those interested in this legislation might be put in a position to understand it without difficulty?

THE CHAIRMAN

asked whether the hon. Member was about to move an Amendment? At present there was no question before the House.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

explained that he was asking a question. Whether he moved an Amendment or not depended upon the information which might be given him.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order. The hon. Member if he wishes to ask a question must do so on the motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.

MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

moved to leave out on page 2, line 28, the words "30th day of April" in order to insert "31st day of May." He explained that the effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the interval between the time when the Act expired in this country and the time of its expiry elsewhere in Europe. At present the interval every year between the expiry of the Act in the United Kingdom, and its expiry in Malta, Gibraltar, &c., was three months. His Amendment would reduce the interval to two months. If it were agreed to they would not in future have to discuss this Bill at a time when there was a great pressure of financial business. They would be able to discuss it after Easter, and there would be another month in which to consider it. He believed that the change would be convenient, and he proposed it in no spirit of hostility either to the Government or to the Act.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)

said, he did not know whether the hon. Member really moved the Amendment seriously. It was moved last year, and they discussed all the changes that were proposed in regard to dates. They were fixed a few year ago, and no inconvenience had arisen from them. He, therefore, saw no advantage in changing them. It was very undesirable that there should be any considerable time after the commencement of the financial year, for which the men were voted, before any changes in the law came into operation.

MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that as the right hon. Member did not see his way to accept the Amendment he would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he wished now to deal with the point to which he had already referred. The Army Act, which he maintained was incoporated in this Bill, was passed 13 years ago. In that period a great many clauses had been repealed; and for all he knew, some might have been added. Some parts of the Army Act were at variance with the Army Annual Act, and when a question in regard to the allowances mentioned in the Schedule of the Act came before the Public Accounts Committee about a fortnight ago it was found that the Auditor General understood the Act in one way and the Representative of the War Office understood it in another way. After considerable discussion it was found that there was a third way, and that the War Office proceeded under some rule which was neither in the Army Act nor the Army Annual Act. In some countries, notably the United States, it was part of the Constitution of some of the States—that every Act or part of an Act incorporated in a new Bill should be recited. He thought the time had arrived when a similar course should be followed in this country. He was glad to notice that Lord Salisbury had in another place taken some steps in that direction. He did not want to take up the time of the House at that hour (12.10 a.m.), but he was sorry the Bill had not been brought on at an earlier hour. A Bill like this, which affected the well-being and comfort of many thousands of soldiers, ought to be discussed before 12 o'clock. He trusted his right hon. Friend would give them a promise that the matter would be considered, and that next year, at any rate, he would recite the Army Act or any other Act he wished to incorporate in the Bill.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it was not a case of incorporating any Act in the Bill. The course adopted was to save re-enacting and quoting clause by clause year after year. It was many years ago felt that there should be a fixed Act and that there should be an annual Bill. The Act would expire unless it was revived in this annual Act, but that was not incorporation in the ordinary sense. If there was any inconsistency between the Acts that would be amended, when it was discovered, by this Bill. His hon. Friend had an advantage, as he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee. When he saw the report of that Committee he promised him that if there was any misunderstanding or ambiguity it should be put right in the proper way. There was no longer any reason why any one connected with the Army need be ignorant of the law.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

asked how was any one to know that the Army Act had been altered?

*SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

said, there was no mistake in connection with the Public Accounts Committee that the Secretary of State need look into. The mistake was on the part of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The Army Act directed that the Innkeeper should provide a hot meal for every Soldier on march; the War Office prescribed by Regulation that, if halted, the limit of this provision should be three days for each soldier. After that time the soldier was to provide for his rations, as in barracks, out of his pay. The confusion in the Public Accounts Committee, and in the hon. Member for Peterborough's mind, was between the provision in the Army Act, and the War Office regulation.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

denied the statement of his hon. Friend with reference to what took place before the Public Accounts Committee. He asked how would the soldier know that there had been any alteration made in the Army Act?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the soldier knew it because the Bill became law, and anything in it affecting the Army Act was incorporated in the copies of the Act which were in possession of the regiment, but the Amendments were trifling and not of very material concern to the interests of the soldier.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

Do I understand that these alterations are sent round to each regiment?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Certainly.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 3.

On Clause 4.

*MR. R. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay) moved an Amendment repealing "Subsection (4) of Section 96 of the Army Act." His reason for doing so was because the sub-section produced hardship in many cases and was of no use as far as recruiting was concerned. In enlisting lads who had been apprenticed after 16 years of age the military authorities were not bound to give them up on application of the master; after a youth had reached 21, the Army authorities were not bound to give them up, and to the latter he had no objection. A lad apprenticed after the age of 16, if he did not like his work, could snap his fingers at his master, and the master had nothing more to say. This produced great loss, because a master had to provide the apprentice with a kit and often to maintain him for one or two years, and just as he was becoming useful to him, the apprentice could go away and leave his master in the lurch. He knew a case in which a boy was apprenticed to the master of a fishing smack. He had an accident, and was in hospital for many months, where the master maintained him at a cost of £10 or £12. When he came out he enlisted in the Army, and the master could only get him back by purchasing his discharge at a cost, of £10. He did not think it was right that the War Office should connive at an apprentice breaking his contract. Recruits were wanted not only in quantities, but of good quality, and it must be a very bad recommendation on a man coming to enlist that he should already have deserted from private employment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would either accept the Amendment or, at all events raise the age from 16 to 17 or 18.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the question of dealing with the case of alleged apprenticeship was of course a matter of public interest. It was very undesirable to interfere with genuine and legitimate apprentices, but, on the other hand, they must guard against apprenticeships of an imaginary or false order being pleaded in favour of the discharge of a man who had been legitimately enlisted. It was to prevent that that the regulations were so strict. His attention was only called by the Amendment to the particular case in which the hon. Gentleman was interested. He would look carefully into the matter to see whether there was good ground for the lenient action which the hon. Gentleman required. But until he had looked into the case and saw how the regulation worked, he was not prepared to have it altered. Its object was to prevent the defeating of the recruiting regulations by collusion in the matter of apprentices.

*MR. R. MALLOCK

said, he had not brought forward the matter simply in relation to the case he had mentioned, but the regulation had been found of great inconvenience in his constituency, as they were situated not far from a garrison town where there was a temptation to apprentices to enlist.

The Amendment was by leave withdrawn.

Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 were added to the Bill without Amendment.

On Clause 8.

*THE CHAIRMAN

ruled out of Order the following Amendments put down by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury):—

Page 3, line 24, before "In section," insert "In section 180, sub-section 2 (a), after the words 'being natives of India,' shall be inserted 'except that the punishment of flogging shall no longer be inflicted under such Indian military law.'"

"And in sub-section 2 (b), after the words 'articles or other matters,' shall be inserted 'except any articles or regulations which provide for the infliction of the punishment of flogging,' and after the words 'are saving,' shall be inserted 'in co-operation with other forces of Her Majesty.'"

MR. HANBURY

said, he would move to omit the whole of Section 180, which would secure the object he had in view. That was to abolish flogging in the Indian Army. Flogging had been abolished in all the other branches of Her Majesty's Army; but it still prevailed in the Indian Army.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order. I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is now moving the same Amendment though in a different form. It is to the substance of the Amendment that I object, and not to its form. The Amendment proposes to extend the scope of the original Act to the Indian Army by an Amendment of the Annual Mutiny Bill, and that can only be done by a separate Bill.

MR. HANBURY

asked whether it was not within his power to omit the whole of Section 180?

*THE CHAIRMAN

The natives of India are under their own laws and Articles of War, and to make so great an alteration as the hon. Gentleman proposes in the original Act would be out of order. It can only be done by a separate Measure.

MR. HANBURY

said, that if it were in Order he would move to omit the words "Natives of India" from Section 180. It would then enable him to raise the question, with a distinction between the natives of India and the other troops.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The reason given by the hon. Gentleman may be a perfectly good reason for amending the law, but it must be done by a separate Measure. To do it here would, in my judgment, be out of Order.

MR. HANBURY

I do not want to resist your ruling in any way, but the point is this. If I may quote the language of the Section, it says:— Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the Indian Military Law respecting officers, soldiers, or followers in Her Majesty's Indian forces being natives of India. I do not in any way wish to alter the Indian Military Law, but I do not want the exemption created by this Act to continue. That exemption is created entirely by this Act, and is not a portion of the Indian Law.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I quite understand the point taken by the hon. Gentleman, and I quite understand his object. But I was pointing out to him that what he desires to have done must be done by a separate Measure. To do that by this Act would be to extend the scope of the Act—the very thing which is excluded by the Section in question. I think, therefore, it is out of order.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 were added to the Bill.

On the question that the Schedule stand part of the Bill,

COLONEL NOLAN

moved the omission of the words, providing that the payment for a soldier's breakfast "so specified" should be a penny half-penny. The price of three half-pence for the breakfast of a soldier when on march was much too low. It was not sufficient to enable the soldier to obtain a proper substantial meal, or else if he was supplied with a decent meal for such a sum, it meant that the licensed victualler, who so supplied it, must lose on the transaction.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

had more than once explained that these different rates were fixed some years ago, and the penny half-penny was never intended to buy the full breakfast of a soldier, but was only intended as a contribution towards it. This was an extra allowance, and it was never intended that the soldier should not pay more for his breakfast if he chose to do so. Originally, no allowance was made, and then this sum of a penny half-penny was introduced.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked what did the Secretary of State for War expect a soldier would get for a breakfast for Which such a small sum as three halfpence was paid?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

He will get 1½d. worth more than he would have got if he had not the 1½d.

COLONEL NOLAN

pointed out that the soldier was not likely to get a good breakfast if the Secretary for War did not even know what he ought to get. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know, the officers would not know, and nobody would know. This was a most niggardly allowance, and ought to receive attention.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said that, when on the march, the soldier ordered what, to the best of his judgment, was good for him. Half-a-pound of bread and a cup of tea would be provided for him for 1½d. If he wanted anything more toothsome he could pay for it himself.

COLONEL NOLAN

said that half-a-pound of bread would cost ¾d., and he did not think a good cup of tea could be got for ¾d. They now knew from the Secretary for War what was considered sufficient for the breakfast of a soldier.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

hoped that the Secretary of State would take this matter into consideration. He would remind his right hon. Friend that soldiers and their friends now had the Franchise. They wanted, and would insist on having, better treatment than they had ever had up till now. His right hon. Friend had better give way on these points, as these soldiers, and especially their friends, would have a Vote at the next Election. He trusted that the Committee might have some satisfactory assurance from his right hon. Friend.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

repudiated what the last speaker had said. However discontented a soldier might be, he would not use his vote against discipline.

MR. J. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, N.W.)

pointed out that, in the second portion of the Schedule, he saw no mention of breakfast.

*MR. A. C. MORTON

explained that he did not intend to say what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Lockwood) had said. His contention was, that a private soldier, now he had a Vote, would be in a position to insist on better treatment than he had ever had before. He said nothing about discipline, which was another question altogether.

COLONEL NOLAN

said he did not wish to trouble the Committee to divide, and he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule and Preamble agreed to, and Bill reported without Amendments.