ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL. (Hansard, 25 April 1901)

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
I desire, if I am in order, to move the following Amendment: "That this House declines to read the Army (Annual) Bill a third time, until it has received an assurance that the practice of looting while on active service will be more strictly dealt with."

§ * MR. SPEAKER
That will not be in order. It does not arise out of the Army (Annual) Bill, as the actual conduct of troops in war is not a matter that can be discussed on that Bill.

§ MR. DILLON
Of course, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to ask, on a point of order, whether I should be out of order in debating the subject which I desire to raise on the Third Reading of this Bill. I wish to know whether I would not be in order in referring to the administration of that part of the Army (Annual) Bill which deals with this offence of looting.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
That is obviously an Amendment with the view of discussing the conduct of troops in looting. That would be out of order. It is quite obvious that it would be out of order to introduce that subject now.

§ MR. DILLON
Yes, Sir, I accepted your ruling with regard to the Amendment. What I propose to ask now is whether I should not be in order in examining the Army Bill as to whether it has been effectual in dealing with the question of looting. It appears to me that inasmuch as the Army (Annual) Bill is the only machinery by which the Army is kept together, and is the Bill under which all discipline is maintained, I should be in order in discussing whether the Bill in its present shape has been successful in dealing with this most important particular.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
That is practically the same question over again. The hon. Member may point out that the Army (Annual) Bill should be differently worded, but he cannot proceed to discuss the action of the troops or of the administration. He may point out particular clauses to which he takes objection.

§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)
thought this was the time to bring before the Government the necessity for the consolidation of the Army Acts. In 1879 there was the Discipline Act, which was amended in the two following years, and in 1881 a Liberal Government brought in a Consolidation Act for the purpose of consolidating the Amendments. Since then there had been Amendments to the Army Act of 1881 every year, and anyone wanting to know the state of the law at the present moment with regard to the Army had not only to take up the Act of 1881, but to go through every Army (Annual) Act since then, 1349 before the law could be possibly understood. It was quite true there was power given to reprint the Act with Amendments, but the Act was not reprinted and put upon the Statute-book by Parliament. It was reprinted, he supposed, by the officials of the War Office. He was not astonished that the hon. Member for West Waterford the other evening was not able to find a particular section to which the Secretary of State for War was referring in the Army Act of 1881, although the words were to be found in the Act as reprinted. The Government of course reprinted the Act in the manual for the Army, and, so far as the Army were concerned, they had all they wanted; but there were other people in the country who were interested in the Army Act besides officers. There were the general public and Members of this House. How did the matter stand at present? The last reprint placed in the library only brought the law down to 1893, and anyone wanting to know the existing state of the law must either obtain the manual prepared by the War Office or must follow the statutes from 1893 to the present. He had brought this matter forward before, and had received admissions that the time had come for consolidation, and every year increased that necessity. Surely after an Act of Parliament had been in operation for twenty years, in every one of which it had been amended, it was time to have a Consolidation Act. What was the difficulty? The Army Act of 1881 consisted of 193 clauses and five schedules. How long did it take to pass the House of Commons in 1881? There were only two short speeches on the Second Reading, the Bill was considered in Committee and reported without amendment, and the Third Reading was passed on the same day. In the House of Lords it passed through all its stages in one day. There had been many innovations since the new procedure; there had been Workshops Acts consolidation and Public Health Acts consolidation, and wherever there was any amended Bill, as in the case of the Army Bill, the same precedent could be followed as in 1881. The Bill could be amended and produced in the House with its Amendments, and then it could be given out to a draughtsman who would carry out the effect of the law; 1350 and where there was no alteration in the law upon the Statute-book, a Bill could be passed through the House without trouble. It was a fallacy to suppose that, because there was a subsequent Act changing the words of a section, it was therefore a complete Act of Parliament. It was nothing of the kind, because everybody knew perfectly well that it was almost impossible to make any alteration in an Act of Parliament without affecting other matters more or less remote from the subject referred to. That was what was discovered in 1881, when it was found necessary, by the addition of some verbal alterations, to give effect to certain clauses which had been altered. It was not right that a matter affecting such an important subject as the Army Bill, where there were other interests besides the officers' to be considered, that the House should be dependent upon the official copy of the Act which was put into the library. If it were gone over by a draughtsman there would be found to be many slight alterations necessary, which, however, would not involve any discussion in the House. As it was, they had now on the Paper a makeshift amending Bill, which would have to be followed by a Consolidation Bill which would pass the House if brought forward without a single observation being made upon it. He was not regarding the present Bill from the point of view of amending it, but he thought the time had arrived when a Consolidation Act should be brought in, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who had shown great courage in the matter of Army reform, would see his way to commence his reforms by a reform of the Army Act.

§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said he was sorry he could not support the hon. Member for Mid Lanark to the extent of asking for a Consolidation Act in the present year. He did not think it would be possible to obtain it before next year. He was sorry that something more had not been done in regard to holding courts-martial upon officers who had been unfortunate, and had had to surrender, or who had lost their regiments through accident, as was done in the 1351 Navy in the case of an officer who had lost his ship. It was a great pity some system was not projected for the purpose. He had risen to inquire what had been the precise result of the discussions that had taken place in reference to the courts of inquiry with regard to the alterations to be made this year and the new additions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He did not understand how they would affect all courts of inquiry, or whether some of the courts of inquiry had been practically illegal, or whether they were justified in giving "findings" as well as the mere report of evidence. He would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman upon those points.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford
said he certainly was not disposed, and could hardly be expected, to take up time in rediscussing the subject