§ Sir HOWARD VINCENTI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that the chairman of the Royal Commission on South African Stores, in opening the proceedings and repeatedly in the subsequent sittings, declared that it was not a prosecution with parties litigating against one another, but an inquiry; that the persons who have been punished, by dismissal and otherwise, had no opportunity of being represented by counsel or of cross-examining the witnesses; that the Commission in South Africa was in the nature of a secret inquisition, unfettered by the rules of evidence, held in the absence of the persons accused, and before which they were denied representation; and what precedent there is for meting out severe punishment to public servants of long standing without their being brought to trial before their countrymen and being heard in their defence.
§ MR. HALDANEIn general terms, the duty of the Royal Commission was to inquire into all the circumstances connected with contracts, etc., in South Africa, but the terms of reference further directed the Commission "to report on the responsibility of the persons concerned, whether in this country or in South Africa." To assist them in the discharge of this duty, the Commissioners despatched a Special Commissioner to take evidence in South Africa. Mr. 383 Roope Reeve, who undertook this duty, followed exactly the same procedure in taking evidence as that of the Royal Commission, that is to say, the examination of witnesses was made in open court by the Special Commissioner himself, no person being allowed to be represented by counsel. By the middle of April the Royal Commissioners were in possession of the minutes of evidence taken by their Special Commissioner in South Africa, and it was not until the 4th May that the first military witness was examined before the Commission. This examination was, to a considerable extent, based on the evidence taken by Mr. Roope Reeve in South Africa. As regards the punishment inflicted on officers and non-commissioned officers, I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer to a somewhat similar question on the 25th October,† when I fully explained the steps taken by the Army Council to investigate each case, but I may add, having regard to the last portion of the hon. and gallant Member's question, that officers and non-commissioned officers of the Army are, in the same manner as other servants of public and private employers, liable to be dismissed, or to be called on to relinquish their appointments, when they show themselves unfitted for the position they occupy.
§ Sir HOWARD VINCENTI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, under what statutory authority he caused certain non-commissioned officers, who were witnessess before the Royal Commission on South African Stores, to be reduced to the ranks and dismissed the service without trial by court martial, and without their being afforded any opportunity of hearing the evidence against them, or of cross-examining the deponents, having regard, moreover, to Section 161 of the Army Act precluding any man being tried or punished for any offence triable by court martial committed more than three years before the date at which his trial begins, except in the case of mutiny, desertion, or fraudulent enlistment, and to Section 183, providing that reduction to the ranks must be by sentence of a court martial.
§ MR. HALDANEUnder Section 183 of the Army Act, a non-commissioned
† See (4) Debates, clxiii., 403–406.384 officer can be reduced to the ranks either by the Commander-in-Chief or by the sentence of a court martial. I explained to the hon. and gallant Member on the 25th ult. that the offences of these noncommissioned officers were not cognizable by court martial. The abolition of the office of Commander-in-Chief does not, however, confine this punishment of reduction to a court martial. The section is one which enables a Commander-in-Chief to reduce a non-commissioned officer to the ranks without reference to the Crown, and is not one which limits the inherent power of the Crown to deal with its own servants. The non-commissioned officers referred to were, therefore, reduced to the ranks by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The statutory authority for dismissing them from the service is contained in Sec. 92 (1) and 101 (1) of the Army Act.