§ As amended, considered.
§ *Sir CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said that on the Second Reading two questions were raised by himself and other hon. Members 1614 for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War. The first point was met by an Amendment of his right hon. friend on the Committee Stage, and he now proposed to raise briefly only the second question. Many hon. Members would remember that for many years past, whatever Government was in power, some of them had raised questions on this Bill affecting not only legislation by reference, but something much worse than legislation by reference, because the liberty of the subject was more concerned by this measure than perhaps by any other legislation which could come before the House. This was not an ordinary Bill, but it legislated by reference not to other Acts of Parliament but to rules which might be altered by the Secretary of State for War. He proposed to omit in this clause words which gave powers wholly indefinite to persons who were not necessarily in a responsible position and who were unknown to the House. It would be necessary to search through 1300 pages of small type to find out all the Rules and Orders referred to in the original Statute, and this Bill proposed to re-enact the original Statute with Amendments which made the law harsher and more vague than it was before. He proposed to omit in Clause 10 the words which would give to assistant provost-marshals the powers of governors of military prisons, conferred from time to time by the Secretary of State. Those powers might be altered and the provost-marshal need not necessarily be a responsible person. He believed that during the late war persons were appointed as provost-marshals who were civilians. In debate certain questions were put to his right hon. friend which, as regarded himself and the future, must be looked upon as a satisfactory assurance, but he wished to press upon the 1615 House the advantage of caution in legislating upon a subject which was so dangerous to personal liberty. His right hon. friend, as he understood him, promised that a Committee should sit at once and that a code of Rules should be drawn up, and that Parliament should be made acquainted with those Rules. He understood his right hon. friend to undertake that those Rules should not be lightly set aside; that was to say that, although they would not be of a statutory character, they would be permanent as far as his right hon. friend was concerned. There was something further, however, which he had to ask for, and that was as to the unknown persons who exercised these powers of assistant provost-marshals. During the late war they were appointed in a hap-hazard manner and there was nothing to prevent them from being persons of no high authority. He therefore thought that before they passed the Bill through this stage they ought to have an assurance from his right hon. friend not only as to the character of the Rules but as to the persons who should exercise these powers. He moved in Clause 10, page 5, line 32 to leave out the words "and his assistants."
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 10, page 5, line 32, to leave out the words "and his assistants."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,) Haddingtonexplained that in the field in time of war, when the duties of the provost-marshal came into operation, it was impossible for that officer to discharge all the functions himself. The theatre of war might extend over hundreds of miles, and he must 1616 have assistants. Who those assistants were to be must be determined by the authorities on the spot. The best was done in the circumstances, but it was one of the disagreeable incidents of war that arrangements were constantly thrown into confusion. To leave sufficient latitude he had agreed to lay the Rules on the Table, and if any subsequent alterations were made those also would be laid on the Table. No doubt in time of war the best people were not always selected for this and other positions, but the best would be done that circumstances would allow.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)suggested that the Rule should be to appoint as assistant provost-marshals commissioned officers not below the rank of captain. That being the rule, exceptions might be allowed when circumstances demanded them.
§ MR. HALDANEpromised to endeavour to see that assistants should be always commissioned officers unless in exceptional cases, and where possible of the rank of captain.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.