§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government were aware, when framing the War Stores Commission Bill, that an officer cannot 1055 be tried or punished for any offence triable by Court-martial committed more than three years before the date at which his trial begins; and how the Government proposes to deal with any officer amenable under the Army Act for any offence arising out of the dealings with the stores in South Africa in 1902.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question the other day as to why the Government did not, in introducing their Bill on this subject, make provision for the trial of officers by Court-martial. I answered him at the time that that would be wholly outside the provisions of the Bill and quite inconsistent with its general character. I now gather that he wants to know whether there would be any possibility of punishing these officers should the inquiries of the Commission last so long that the three years would have elapsed before the Commission had reached the term of their investigation. If these officers had done anything which would justify their dismissal from the service, they can be dismissed from the service. If it was thought desirable to have a Court-martial I believe a special Ordinance could be passed to that effect. If they had made any infraction of the criminal law of the country they can be brought to trial. There is every provision, it seems to me, which can be desired for punishing the guilty.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEWould the special Ordinance over-rule the statutory enactment?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere is no statutory enactment.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid it was statutory, because no officer could be tried by Court-martial for an offence committed three years before the date of the trial.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think it was statutory, but asked that a Question should be put down. He would remind the hon. Member that his criticism of his Answer did not affect the 1056 assertion that it would always be possible to dismiss an officer.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEasked how the Government proposed to deal with breaches of military discipline which were not provided for inconsequence of neglect to produce the evidence at the proper time.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf it is proved that an officer has committed acts unworthy of an officer and a gentleman, of course he can be dismissed.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEWithout trial?
§ [No Answer was returned.]