CLAUSE 5. (Hansard, 14 April 1899)

§ MR. CALDWELL
This clause is of a different character, relating to the Army in India, and I should like some little explanation with regard to the change which it proposes. At the pre- 1249 sent moment the jurisdiction in the matters referred to in the section rests with the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India, and also with the Commander-in-Chief of the forces of any Presidency in India. It is now proposed, in addition to these authorities, to insert the words— Or such officer as the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India, with the approval of the Governor-General of India in Councils may appoint. In order to get some explanation, I beg to move my Amendment.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,) Middlesex, Ealing
I think I can explain the matter to the honourable Member. As he is aware, the positions of commander-in-chief in Bombay and Madras were abolished, and lieutenant-generals were appointed by the Viceroy and commander-in-chief to fulfil the functions that were previously performed by the commanders-in-chief in Bombay and Madras. Some doubt arose in certain cases as to whether they had full authority, and all this clause does is to give to the lieutenant-generals the same powers as were held by the commanders-in-chief in Bombay and Madras.

§ MR. CALDWELL
Well, why leave in the words, "The commander-in-chief of the forces of any Presidency"? I understand the noble Lord to say they no longer exist, but they are still retained, and you are proposing to introduce a new body. Instead of removing doubts, I am afraid the noble Lord is going to create doubts. I do not raise this question in any hostile spirit. I only want to put the Bill right.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
We do not wish to stay here discussing these matters, but they are important matters which should be set right. My honourable Friend has, I think, pointed out that there is some ambiguity, at all events, in the expressions which are used in the Bill as affecting the existing law. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India has stated what is intended. We are all agreed that what is proposed is the right thing to do. The only question is whether the words really do convey the intention of the noble Lord. My honourable Friend, who has just displayed no small degree of acuteness in these matters, thinks they do not, and I would ask the Government to discover some way of putting them right.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA
If there is any misapprehension, it is caused by the fact that the honourable Gentleman has a copy of the old Act, and we have a copy of the new Act-In the latest edition of the Act the Section runs— As regards persons undergoing sentence in India, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India,"— to which we wish to add the words— Or such officer as the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India, with the approval of the Governor-General of India in Council, may appoint.

§ MR. CALDWELL
In the margin it says— Amendment of 44 and 45 Victoria, c. 58, ss. 57, 73, 183. I have the Act of Parliament in my hand. I know perfectly well that we have Amendment upon Amendment of the Army Act, and that they are so mixed up that actually it is impossible even for the noble Lord the Secretary of State to understand them, and I do not wonder at it. If the noble Lord will refer to the Act which in the margin it is stated we now propose to amend, he will see that the words which I have referred to are in that Act. To be correct, the marginal note should say— Amendment of 44 and 45 Victoria, as amended by another Act.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK)
My right honourable Friend opposite will recollect that when he was endeavouring to carry the Army (Annual) Bill, considerable inconvenience was experienced by the Committee in not having a reprint of the Army Act of 1881 as amended. The Act of 1881 still stands as amended, and is properly alluded to in this Act, but what the honourable Member opposite has is the original Act of 1881, and not the amended Act. In the latter the words— Commander-in-Chief of any Presidency in India have been taken out, and there only remain the words— The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in India. Therefore, if I may say so, the honourable Member is right, but he has a copy of the wrong edition.

§ MR. CALDWELL
If this Bill, as it stands, becomes law, it will appear in 1251 the marginal note that it is an Amendment of the Act of 44 and 45 Victoria, which is the Act of 1881. According to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that is not the Act which it is now proposed to amend. We are now asked to amend the Act of 1893 or 1894. No reference is made to the amended Act.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
We will consider between now and the Report Stage the advisability of putting in the words "As amended" in the marginal note.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The question now turns upon the marginal note, but that forms no part of the Statute. It is clear that there is an omission from the marginal note, and I will take it upon myself to alter it.

§ MR. CALDWELL
Then I will not press my Amendment, but I think the Committee will agree that so far as this Bill is concerned, there has been no unnecessary discussion, all the points I have raised being of an important character.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
My honourable Friend behind me has, with an astuteness to which I have already referred, pointed out some obvious errors which I am not surprised have crept into this complicated Bill. It is to the credit of the honourable Member that he has done so, and so far from deserving any laughter or reprobation on account of what he has done, he really has been doing a good service in seeing that this very intricate business is accurately discharged. But I cannot help recalling a few years ago, when we were kept up the whole of the night discussing this Bill, some of the honourable and gallant Members on the opposite side of the House at that time could not go to bed and sleep peacefully in the manner of well-conducted citizens under the dreadful burden of the knowledge that a breakfast for troops on the march was only to cost 1½d. per head. Several 1252 honourable Members, including the honourable Members for King's Lynn and Islington, kept the whole House alive until six o'clock in the morning with expressions of indignation at this monstrous treatment of the British soldier. Where are they to-night? Here is the same charge in this Bill which excited their indignation to such a lively degree a few years ago, but where are they? They are quite content now that 1½d. should be allowed to Mr. Atkins for his breakfast on the march, and I am not aware that anything has been done to alter the value of money in the interval so that more would be obtained for the men for this 1½d. I think it is singular that the honourable Members who raised so much indignation on this question some years ago are absent now, when the same issue is before the House of Commons.