§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ Mr. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)said that the Bill was mainly legislation by reference, against which it was the duty of every independent Member to protest on every available occasion. As it stood, it was absolutely impossible for any hon. Member to understand precisely what the Bill meant. He 290 understood that some Memorandum had been issued, and an attempt had been made to explain what the Amendments were; but that was not, in his opinion, sufficient. He hoped that next year all the Amendments would be embodied in the Bill. With reference to Courts of inquiry conducted by Volunteer officers, he thought there was confusion as to the form in which such inquiries should carried on. The main point was whether officers conducting such inquiries could compel witnesses to take an oath. It was obviously improper that Volunteer officers should compel witnesses to be sworn when they had no power. He hoped some guidance would be given by the Attorney-General in the matter. Only last year the Financial Secretary to the War Office voted against the Bill, and made a most impassioned appeal against it. He himself wished to protest against the Bill being taken at such an hour.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghssaid he would point out that this was not a case of legislation by reference, but of amending a statute which already existed. A series of Amendments was proposed, and the effect and object of the Amendments was 291 explained in the Memorandum. He agreed that the Army Act should be reprinted, because in its present form it was not easily intelligible. With regard to the other point raised, it was true to say that statutory authority was wanted for the administration of an oath. Administration of the oath had only taken place in the case of Volunteers in two cases at the outside, and where it had taken place it had been through inadvertence. It was, however, in the interests of the Volunteers generally, and more particularly of the accused, that the evidence should be on oath, but it might be a question whether the Volunteer Acts should not be altered so as to confer the power of administering an oath. He was authorised to say that care should be taken in the future that nothing not strictly legal within the powers conferred on the authorities in Courts of inquiry should be done.
§ MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)said be wished to congratulate the War Office on the improvements in procedure which had been announced. They would remove many of the difficulties connected with legislation by reference. He quite recognised that the Secretary of State for War was doing all he could to alter the existing system in that respect.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)said with reference to the schedules containing the prices to be paid to licensed victuallers for soldiers' rations, the, Secretary of State had made a promise which he hoped would be carried out. Only l½d. was, however, allowed for a soldier's breakfast, and the Committee were entitled to know what was provided for it.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,) Cheshire, Macclesfieldsaid that all the information was contained in the schedule. The soldier's breakfast consisted of half a pound of bread and a cup of tea.