§ "With a view to reducing the number of cases which have to be sent for trial by courts-martial owing to the limited powers of punishment exerciseable by commanding officers, the maximum period of detention which may be awarded by a commanding officer who deals with a case summarily shall be fifty-six days and accordingly 'fifty-six' shall be substituted for twenty-eight in (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section forty-six of the Army Act, and Sub-section (4) of the same Section shall be repealed."
The CHAIRMANPerhaps I should explain to the Noble Lord that I think I am correct in saying that Sub-section (4) has already been repealed. I have a note in my book to that effect.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHI move this Clause with a twofold object, and I am sorry that, owing to limitations of time, it is impossible to enter into a full discussion of this subject. It will be within the recollection of this House that last year I incurred the entirely undeserved censure of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) of endeavouring to place a most formidable power in the hands of commanding officers who would inevitably make use of that power for the purpose of tyrannising over the men under their jurisdiction. I think that the Committee will acquit me of any suggestion of the kind. The first reason for which I desire 951 to give the commanding officers fuller powers than they possess at the present moment is for the purpose of saving the soldier from being tried by court-martial, which he has to be tried by at present, when the offence that he has committed is outside the scope of the power which the commanding officer is allowed to make use of. I am strengthened in that proposition by personal experience. I have had the opportunity of seeing that almost always when a soldier has the power of choosing whether he will receive the award of his commanding officer or be tried by court-martial, he almost invariably accepts the award of the commanding officer. Within the last few years we have seen a great decrease in the number of courts-martial, and that is a development which we are all very pleased to see. I should like to see courts-martial still further decreased, and I believe that that result will be produced by the Clause which I am now moving. A great many soldiers are tried and convicted by courts-martial for offences which to the civilian convey nothing whatsoever, but when it comes to the employment of a soldier after he leaves the army, if there is the stigma of conviction by court-martial against him, it tends to prevent his obtaining employment.
In exercising that jurisdiction you have to be very careful in the selection of officers. And that brings me to the second point. One cause of the difficulty that you have now in obtaining officers is that it is impossible for them at an early stage in their career to arrive at a position of real responsibility. If you alter their position and give them more real responsibility—and I am speaking not only of officers but of men all through the ranks—it would increase the efficiency of the Army and benefit all ranks concerned. At present there is no inducement to an officer to command his regiment. The commanding officer, as a rule, goes through all the various ranks until he arrives at the commanding officer stage. But the route has been made easier for him because of the other officers who have been more energetic and who have desired to obtain greater scope for their talent and have done their best to leave that regiment and go upon the staff. If you go through the higher ranks of the Army at present you find that most of the general officers have not been in the position of commanding their regiment. To my mind the command of a unit should be the stepping-stone to 952 higher rank, and whether you like to make smaller units and so place the individual in a position of responsibility at an earlier age, I should make it a sine qua non that the command of a unit should be the stepping-stone to obtaining the higher grades in the Army. I admit that the Clause that I am proposing to insert lays me open to the charge which the hon. Member for Stoke brought against me last year, but that is not the object which I have in view. It is to place the commanding officer of a regiment in a position of greater responsibility than he attains to at present. It is an inducement which I think would make officers join the Army more readily than they do at present, and when they have joined the Army would urge them to stay in the Army.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDTo punish the men.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHThe hon. Gentleman, I know, is not wilfully trying to misrepresent me. I know that he has most minute knowledge of the Army in a great many matters, but as regards the relations which exist between the officers and the men he has entirely erroneous ideas. He believes that the object of the officers is to tyrannise over the men. I would suggest that the hon. Member should spend a little time consulting with the men in various ranks, and I am convinced that he would then be in a better position to judge of the true state of affairs. I am perfectly certain, if you determine to increase the power of the commanding officer, that from the point of view of the men it will be approved, as is seen from the way in which they accept the awards of the commanding officers, though they have the opportunity of selecting to be tried by court-martial. That is a fact which speaks for itself. In the Clause which I am moving I am making no endeavour to take away from the soldier the right which he has at present of electing to be tried by court-martial. All I desire to bring under the control of the commanding officer is jurisdiction over offences which are taken out of his hands at the present moment, and which consequently compel a soldier to be tried by court-martial, with the stigma which afterwards attaches to him by reason of his having been so tried. I wish to acquit myself of the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. John Ward) that I am bringing anything forward to increase the punishment of the soldier, because my proposal is one which 953 has for its object rather to make the punishment less than it is at the present moment.
§ Colonel SEELYWe must, of course, entirely acquit the Noble Lord from any desire to be more severe on the soldier, for his object in moving this Clause is to make his punishment less severe, and enable commanding officers to deal with offences rather than that they should come before courts-martial, where not only the punishment might be greater, but where there is the added disgrace of having been tried by court-martial. But we cannot accept the Clause for two reasons. In the first place, the Noble Lord proposes to give the commanding officer power of detention for fifty-six days, whereas the limit of the regimental courts-martial is less than fifty-six days. Of course, we could not give a greater power to the commanding officer than is possessed by the court-martial. That, of course, is a technical point which the Noble Lord could meet by reducing the number of days to forty. But, even so, I do not think we can go any further than we did last year. I think we have reached the limit of punishment which it should be lawful for a commanding officer to impose. I do not think, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, that we can give further power to commanding officers. I wholly agree with the Noble Lord as to the desirability of putting more responsibility on the commanding officers; but I do not think it could be done, or that it would be desirable to do it, in the way now proposed. The Noble Lord has undoubtedly the satisfaction today of seeing one of his labours now bearing fruit. He moved a similar Amendment last year in order to increase the power of the commanding officer, with a view to reducing the number of courts-martial. The annual report of the Army only goes up to the end of September; but the Noble Lord's Amendment of last year only came into operation on 30th June last, so that there were only four months in which it could operate. Although there was only this short time in which to observe the result of the Noble Lord's effort, yet the effect has been very good, and the Noble Lord will be glad to hear that in the short period to which I refer the number of courts-martial was reduced by nearly 900–897 is the precise figure, I think. If you take the number of regimental courts-martial held in all the stations, which is the class of court-martial most affected by the Amendment of the Noble Lord last year, 954 we have the very great reduction from 333 down to 211, although the Amendment did not operate throughout the whole of the year. It may be said, however, "if so good a result has been obtained from twenty-eight days, why not try the plan of fifty-six days"? But I think I have said enough to show that we cannot carry it so far as the Noble Lord proposes, and I submit to the Committee that we probably have gone as far as is required, at any rate, in the first instance.
§ Mr. J. WARDThe right hon. Gentleman is almost as great an offender in this matter as the Noble Lord opposite. Hero is a beautiful proposition. They give power to the commanding officer to inflict punishment that would be imposed by the courts-martial. Having given the commanding officer power to inflict punishment, they say that courts-martials have consequently gone down in number, and that the scheme has therefore worked magnificently for the common soldier, who may have been sentenced to even greater terms of punishment than he would have received at the hands of a court-martial. To follow the proposition to its logical conclusion it is this, that if you give increased power to commanding officers the number of courts-martial will be reduced, and that if the process be continued courts-martial will disappear altogether. That is a splendid way of showing the efficacy of giving power to commanding officers. A more absurd proposition or answer to the statements I have made on previous occasions in reference to this matter I have never heard. As a matter of fact it is that you have only to give greater powers to commanding officers and there need be no courts-martial at all. The commanding officer may give a sentence of a year's imprisonment, or five years' imprisonment, or even ten years, as the case may be, and then there need be no courts-martial at all, and then see what a grand Army it would be without courts-martial, I must say the thing is utterly absurd, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is even worse than the contention of the Noble Lord opposite.
§ Mr. SANDYSThe hon. Member who has just sat down entirely neglects paragraph 493 of the King's Regulations, which gives the soldier the right to elect to be tried by court-martial. The very fact that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 ho prefers to be tried by his commanding officer shows that there is absolutely nothing in the allegation made by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. J. WARDThe Annual Report of the Army distinctly traverses the statement of the hon. Member opposite. There have been nearly 7,000 courts-martial.
§ Mr. SANDYSBut there has been a reduction from 7,000 to just over 6,000 this year, showing the effect of the Amendment introduced last year. There is one point on which I wish to ask the Under-Secretary a question, and it has reference to cavalry courts-martial. I find at home there were 287 courts-martial for the Cavalry, whereas abroad there were only 158. I think that is a point which requires some investigation, because it shows a very curious state of affairs.
§ Colonel SEELYI will certainly look into the point which the hon. Member raises about the greater number of courts-martial at home, and I will do so very carefully. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him as full information as I can upon the point.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHI beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| SCHEDULE. | |
| Accommodation to be provided. | Maximum Price. |
| Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished | 6d. per night. |
| Breakfast as specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Army Act | 4d. each. |
| Dinner as so specified | 11½d. each. |
| Supper as so specified | 2½d. each. |
| Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat | 6d. per day. |
| Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse | 1s. 9d. per day. |
| Lodging and attendance for officer | 2s. per night. |
§ NOTE.—An officer shall pay for his food.
§ Earl WINTERTONI beg to move at the end of the Schedule, after the word "lodging," to insert the words "orderly room," making it read "lodging, orderly room, and attendance for officer."
It is very often necessary, when an officer is in charge of a prisoner that ho should have, in addition to the place in which he has his lodging, another place 956 where he can perform the ordinary duties belonging to an orderly room.
§ Colonel SEELYI stated at the beginning of this Debate that I would look into the subject, and, after having given very careful consideration to the question, it is thought that, unless there is some strong reason shown to the contrary, the proposal might be accepted.
§ Earl WINTERTONAfter that assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw that Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill reported without amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORI have no wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman's getting the Third Heading of this Bill, but I do desire to bring before the attention of the Committee a matter of very serious moment to my Constituents, and that is with regard to the contracts for the supply of meat to the Curragh Camp. On a previous occasion the hon. Member for South Kildare drew attention to what we regard as a great grievance in connection with the Curragh Camp. There are contracts now about to be issued, or probably have been issued, for the supply of foreign meat to the troops in Curragh Camp. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman desires this Third Reading, or whether he would suggest to me some more favourable opportunity for raising this Question.
§ Colonel SEELYThe Committee stopped the discussion on many points in order to get this Bill passed through in time to be considered in another place. If the hon. Member will raise the question at any moment some night after eleven o'clock I will give him an answer with regard to it in the best way I can.
§ Mr. J. O'CONNORAfter that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and as I have no desire to delay the passage of the Bill, I make no further observation on the subject at present.