§ In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act, which relates to the liability of a soldier of the Regular Forces to have deductions made from his pay on account of his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age whom he has deserted or left in destitute circumstances without reasonable cause, for the words "under fourteen years of age," there shall be substituted the words "under sixteen years of age."
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEI beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words:—
In Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act, which relates to the liability of a soldier of the Regular Forces to have deductions made from his pay on account of his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age whom he has deserted or left in destitute circumstances without reason able cause, there shall be inserted at the beginning thereof the words, 'any officer or,' and at the end of the Section there shall be inserted, as a new Sub section,"—The Amendment, which, I hope, will receive the support of the Committee, although it appears to be somewhat formidable upon the Paper, embodies a very simple principle, and I will endeavour to 975 make my arguments on behalf of it as brief as possible. Section 145 commences:—"A soldier of the Regular forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of his children,"
and so forth, and the only object of the three Amendments I have put down is to make that obligation apply all round—to make it applicable to all ranks in the Army, and not merely, as at present, to a private soldier or a non-commissioned officer. I admit that my interest in this matter has been aroused by a very hard individual case which came to my notice in my own Constituency—the case of the wife of a retired colonel who has been deserted by her husband for some years. The husband is now living with another woman. He is drawing a large pension from the Government, and yet he contributes nothing whatever to the support of his wife, who he left in destitute circumstances. I do not suggest we should base a change of the general law upon an individual case. I only mention that case, the details of which I shall be only too glad to give to the War Office if necessary, in order to have an opportunity of reading to the Committee extracts from correspondence which took place with regard to it some time ago between lawyers representing the lady in question and the War Office, in which the War Office stated the principle upon which its action in this case was based. This inquiry was addressed to the War Office by the firm of solicitors:
We shall be much obliged if you will kindly let us know whether, in the event of the lady obtaining an order for the payment of alimony or maintenance against an officer on half-pay, the Office will act on that order and deduct the alimony or maintenance from the pay or whether they will disregard the order.The reply given by the Adjutant-General at that time was:—I beg to inform yon that if is not in accordance with our Regulations to take account of the payment of alimony or maintenance, or to deduct such alimony or maintenance from an officer's pay.[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the date of that?"] 1910. The War Office were asked whether it made any difference whether the officer was on half-pay or on the retired list, and the further letter from the Adjutant-General said:—It makes no difference whether the officer is on half-pay or on the retired list, as it is not in accordance with our Regulations to take any action in such cases.That appears to be the attitude taken up by the War Office at the present time. I cannot help feeling that apart from the 976 fact that it is a very real hardship that any individual wife, whether the wife of a private soldier or the wife of an officer, should be deserted in these circumstances, that she should know her husband is drawing a considerable income from the State, but that it should be considered as sacred from an order of the Court. It is a hardship that he cannot be made to provide for her maintenance, and that the War Office should take up the position of protecting the officer or soldier, as the case may be, against the order of the Court and from making any provision for his deserted wife. The right hon. Gentleman the new Secretary of State for War said just now that in looking at a portion of the Army Act it had a very archaic look to him. When he has been long enough at the War Office he will find many other things which bear a rather archaic look, and I hope he will not hesitate to lay the axe to the root of the tree.In this particular case the attitude of the War Office is not merely archaic, but almost primeval; at any rate it is exceedingly undemocratic. I must frankly say that I am not quite sure whether the exact wording of my Amendment will efficiently carry out my purpose. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am in other respects a beginner, and I do not know that I have ever before drafted, entirely unaided, an Amendment to any Bill before the House. It is quite possible that the wording may not be entirely water-tight. In that case I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the War Office are willing to concede the principle, whether he will not consider some words which are more effective to carry it out and have them moved on the Report stage. I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the principle, which I think I have made sufficiently clear, and which is simply this: That the obligation laid by the words at the beginning of the Section on a soldier in the Regular forces to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and children under the circumstances specified, shall be taken in the broad sense that the word "soldier" shall apply to all ranks and more particularly, that the Regulations shall provide that while the pay of any soldier can be drawn upon for this purpose that the pay of an officer should not be exempted.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir John-Simon)I agree that we should deal with the first Amendment first. The hon. 977 Gentleman will see that, supposing his proposal were accepted, we should have to make a consequential change a few sentences lower down. The question he has raised is not one to be disposed of by any technicality. I will try to deal with it on broad and common-sense lines. He has not, perhaps, quite appreciated the justification for the form in which the Statute at present stands. The Section to which he has referred is Section 145 of the Army Act, and, as he says, that Section begins:—
A soldier of the Regular forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and his children—The hon. Member in his speech stopped there, and from what he said it might have been inferred from this Section of the Army Act that soldiers were to be liable to certain consequences to which other persons, officers or civilians, are not liable. It is not so at all. The effect of the Section is exactly the other way about. If I may summarise it, the effect of the Section is this: It provides in the case of a soldier, as distinguished from the officer, that though a soldier is liable on the desertion of his wife to maintain her, or liable on an affiliation summons, if it is proved that he is the father of the child, still, since he is a soldier, he is not on that account to have to suffer the ordinary penalties of the law, but special arrangements are made by which certain stoppages can be made out of his pay. That is substituted for the ordinary law in the case of a soldier. No such provision is made in the case of an officer, not because officers are exempt from the duty of maintaining their wives or from being answerable to an affiliation summons, if such summons is well founded, because the ordinary law applies to them. The hon. Gentleman will see that the provision in Section 145 is not really some special penalty which is attached to the common soldier in order that officers may be treated more favourably. On the contrary, it is a provision made in view of the special hardships of the life of the common soldier, and, it may be, the special difficulty of bringing the common soldier from a distance, and dealing with him like an ordinary citizen who has to answer an ordinary summons. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am making a technical point, because that is really the explanation of the matter. I will read the Section of the Army Act as 978 it stands, then I will indicate the change which the present Army (Annual) Bill proposes, and then I will refer to his Amendment. The Section in the Army Act says:—A soldier—That is, as distinguished from an officer—shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of his children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father, to the same extent as if he were not a soldier; but execution in respect of any such liability, or of any order or decree in respect of such maintenance shall not issue against his person, pay, arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments, regimental necessaries or clothing; nor shall he be liable to be punished for the offence of deserting or neglecting to maintain his wife or family, or any member thereof, or of leaving her or them chargeable to any union, parish, or place.So far it is plain. That is by way of exempting the common soldier from a law which does apply to the rest of the community. Then the Section goes on to provide in view of that, supposing the proceedings were taken against a soldier and an order were made under which he had to maintain his wife or child, or to pay maintenance in respect of a bastard child, then that order is to be communicated to the Army Council or an officer deputed by them, and, upon the Army Council or the officer so deputed being satisfied, then an order is to be made which will involve a deduction from his pay. That is an alternative procedure to the ordinary procedure of the law. If it were not for that the ordinary soldier in His Majesty's Army would be liable to have his pay, person, and anything that belonged to him dealt with under the ordinary law for this purpose. It is really a misapprehension to suppose that this Clause which the hon. Gentleman criticises confers some special favour on officers and puts a severe penalty on soldiers. So far as it goes, it is rather the other way about. Then the hon. Gentleman puts a case of which I am for the moment assuming the facts. Assuming such facts as he is instructed to put forward, it is obviously a case which everybody must feel is a very hard case on the lady concerned. But I must point out these two things—first, that the hardship of that case is not due to the fact that the husband who deserted her is a retired 979 officer. It is due to the fact that whatever proceedings a deserted wife may take, she can only make those proceedings effective and only get paid if the process of the law enables her to extract payment from the defendant. That is natural enough. In the second place, I point out that if it be true that in this case that the retired colonel has any kind of means except his retired pay, the lady, of course, can certainly execute process against anything else he has got—furniture, clothing, moveables, anything which is valuable and can be turned into money.
§ Sir J. SIMONThat is the same difficulty over again. If his only money is his retired pay, that is not peculiar to the Army Act. It may be that the House of Commons should consider whether or not the law ought to be altered, but the law at present—it is quite a general law—says that pensions which are paid to persons in respect of services to the State are not attachable. For instance, no charge can be given on such a pension to a moneylender. In the same way it is not possible, under the existing law, to execute a judgment against such a pension. It may be that it would be right to alter the law, but the hon. Gentleman will see that it cannot be altered under this Section of the Act of Parliament. There is another Section in the Act of Parliament under which the question may, perhaps, have to be considered. That is Section 136, which provides that
the pay of an officer or soldier of His Majesty's Regular forces shall be paid without any deduction other than the deductions authorised by this or any other Act or by any Royal Warrant for the time being.I think it right to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to that, because a deduction authorised by the Army Act might conceivably include a deduction in some cases not yet specified. While I am authorised to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he would consider most sympathetically any suggestion for the amendment of the law in this regard, I think I have said enough to show the hon. Gentleman that it really cannot be raised in the way he suggests, and that really and truly the law as it stands at present is not a law which confers a privilege on an officer at the expense of the common 980 soldier, but, so far as it goes, the Section under review has rather the reverse effect.
§ Mr. LEEI am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for the explanation he has given, and I quite admit that he has made it quite clear that my Amendment in its present form is impossible under the circumstances. I am quite prepared to kiss the Rod in regard to that point. I am more cheered by the closing remarks which he made, in which he very kindly referred me to Clauses 136 and 137. I think that Clause 137, about which I made an interjection, gives a list of penal deductions which may be made from the pay due to an officer, and I cannot help feeling that that list of deductions might be extended to cover a case of this kind, and whilst I do not wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to commit himself on this point, I would ask him to consider it carefully, with a view to either putting down an Amendment on the Report stage, if possible, in regard to one of these two Clauses, and he would then perhaps be able to give a more favourable reply, I only feel that, in view of the attitude which has been taken up by the War Office in regard to the document which I have read, he will see that it takes up a somewhat uncompromising and hostile attitude, in appearance at any rate, towards the victim in a case of this kind. I shall be glad if he will consider it and give me an opportunity of moving a more suitable Amendment on the Report stage.
§ Sir J. SIMONI should not like to make any promise about the Report stage, but, if the hon. Gentleman will meet me, perhaps he will allow me to communicate with him.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI do not think the Committee ought to let this important question of general principle go without discussing it a little further, because I do not think my hon. Friend (Mr. Lee) raised this question so much as a case of favour shown to an officer as compared with a man, but he rather raised it as an instance to show that a wife in this country who has been badly treated might, if her husband was an officer, and had no other means except his Army pay, be left entirely penniless upon the world, and this Army officer might enjoy his pay and his pension without contributing one penny to the upkeep of his wife or to any of his children under fourteen years of 981 age. That seems to me, whether it is the general rule of the and or not, a very wrong system indeed, and if we here in Committee can mitigate the general injustice which the law says now exists, namely, that no pay or pension of a public official shall be attached in order that the wife and children may be kept from starvation, in a small way, by a change with regard to Army officers, we ought to try and do so as soon as possible. It is no answer to say that, because there is a general evil, you ought to leave all that evil unredressed because you cannot redress it all at the same time. If you cannot redress it all at once, let us try if we can redress part of the evil which now presses upon a wife and children who are badly treated. None of the Committee can think it right that a man in any station of life, who is receiving £1,000, £500 or £300 a year from the State, whether it be in pay or pension or retired pay, should, if it comes from the State and he has no private means, be in a position to laugh at any Order of the Court made against him for the maintenance of his wife and children. It seems to me to be a scandalous state of affairs, and if that is the general law, the sooner we alter it, as we have the opportunity now in regard to the Army officer, the better. But there is one point which we have to consider. If I read the Section aright, at present only the daily pay of the private soldier can be attached to hand over to his wife and children and not his pension. My hon. Friend goes further, and says that not only the pay of an officer, but also his pension should be attached. If we had to do justice we should have to attach the pension of the private soldier as well as the pension of the Army officer. I appeal to the Committee not to allow this to pass, but to insist that this grave injustice which exists in regard to the wives and children of Army officers should be put right, and that the Government should be pressed by their own side to put this right on the Report stage.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI heartily endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend and I think the Committee ought not to part with this question without getting some direct assurance from the Government that they would deal with the matter on Report, because undoubtedly a case of very grave and serious grievance may exist under the present law. There may be an order or a judgment made against an officer for the maintenance of his wife or children, or an order under an affiliation summons, for 982 which the officer is theoretically liable to the last shilling which is available, but when a person who is entitled to get the money comes to try and execute the order and get the fruits of the judgment there may be very great difficulty in getting anything at all. He may be abroad, for one thing, and, according to the existing law, it is quite impossible to get paid out of the officer's pay, because the Act says that only certain deductions may be made. Therefore, if the officer has nothing but his pay, the person may be entirely deprived of the fruits of his or her judgment, because the pay is not to be made available or attachable. In the same way, if an officer is only in receipt of a pension, the existing law precludes that pension being attached in the case of an officer as in the case of many other public servants. That is a very large question, but I think that in that case, just the same as in the case of the officer who is in the active service of the Army, there ought to be some provision by which a man ought to be prevented from deserting his wife and children and then saying that the provision as to his pension relieves him from making any payment for which he is liable. Therefore I hope, just as in the case of the private soldier, there are provisions for the Army authorities to deduct sums from his pay in order to meet these smaller liabilities, so in the case of the officer provision should be made that his pay, if he is on the active list, or possibly his pension if he has retired from the active list, should be made available to a certain extent, at all events, for meeting these undoubted liabilities.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere are two questions before the Committee. The first is whether or not an officer who is on active service and on full pay and who fails to maintain his wife and children should, or should not, have a certain sum deducted from his pay for the purpose of paying his wife and children. I was not quite certain, but I rather gathered from the Attorney-General that that practically should be provided for at present.
§ Sir J. SIMONI did not wish to affirm that.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAt any rate I gather that the Attorney-General will consider that point at a later stage. The other point is whether or not an officer who is on retired pay should have that retired pay attached. That, I think, raises a very 983 important question, but I do not think it is a question which ought to be raised now, nor do I think it is a question which should be settled by one isolated case. Hard cases make bad law. The law, as I understand it at present, is that the pay of Civil servants is not attachable. There is a very great number of excellent reasons why that provision should not be altered, but it is evident to anyone who has studied the question that that is a very important provision. If that provision is to be altered it should be altered to meet the ease not only of the officer, but of the Civil servant, and everybody else who is in receipt of a pension from the State. It is much more important that it should be altered generally, because, as a matter of fact, the pensions of officers are about the smallest which are given to anyone, and the larger pensions certainly make the worst cases—where a man is really in receipt of £500 or £800 or £1,000 a year, and does not provide for his wife and children, is worse than where a man is only getting £150 or £200, as is very often the case with retired officers. Therefore, the Solicitor-General is absolutely right, and this is not the opportunity or the time when we ought to consider this. It ought to be considered on the general question. Whether or not some amendment of the general law that attachment should be made in the case of the maintenance of wives and children is advisable, I do not know. Perhaps it is, but that is a question which should be met by the general law and not in the Army (Annual) Act.
Mr. CAWLEYI hope the Government will consider this point and will agree to alter the law as it exists as regards officers on Report. I agree that an alteration should, if possible, be made as regards Civil servants, too. It is very hard to get legislation passed in this House, and the chance of getting a general alteration of the law is, I believe, small. If we cannot get the whole, there is no reason why we should not get a part. Because we cannot get the law put right as regards Civil servants, I see no reason why it should not be put right as regards officers.
§ Mr. LEEI withdraw my Amendment now on the understanding that I may be allowed to confer with the Attorney-General with a view to bringing forward an Amendment on the Report stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
984§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
"And for the words 'a portion not exceeding, in respect of a wife and children, one shilling and six pence, and in respect of a bastard child one shilling, of the daily pay of a warrant officer not holding an honorary commission, and not exceeding, in respect of a wife or children, one shilling, and in respect of a bastard child seven pence, of the daily pay of a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant, and not exceeding, in respect of a wife or children, six pence, and in respect of a bastard child four pence, of the daily pay of any other soldier, to be deducted from such daily pay, there-shall be substituted the words 'such amount as the Army Council may from time to time prescribe to be deducted from the daily pay of the soldier,' and at the end of the cited Sub-section there shall be added the following provisions, namely:—
The power to prescribe the amount to be deducted under this Sub-section from the pay of a soldier shall include a power to prescribe different amounts in different cases, and a power to prescribe different amounts from time to time in the same case.
Where an amount is deducted under this Sub-section from the pay of a soldier no arrears shall accrue in consequence of any difference between the amount so deducted and the amount duo under the order or decree sent as aforesaid."
I have attempted now for four years running, I think, to effect some alteration in Section 145 of the Army Act. I am proud to think that each year proposals which have emanated from below the Gangway have been accepted the year after by the Treasury Bench, and have been put into force with the general consent. I should like to thank the War Office for the sympathetic way in which it has accepted, or at any rate regarded, my proposal. They have altered the amount which may be deducted from the non-commissioned officer or private by raising the sum; they have also allowed costs which are incurred in certain proceedings to be paid by deductions from the pay of soldiers; and they have also, by the Bill which we are now discussing, raised the age of the children from fourteen to sixteen, and that is the age in respect of which a soldier is bound to support his 985 legitimate child. On this occasion I move an Amendment which rather alters the whole condition of Clause 145. According to Clause 145 a soldier who has had an order made against him by the local Courts for the support of a wife and children, or an illegitimate child, pays by having deductions made through the commanding officer, and the deductions, when made, are sent direct to the woman or guardian of the child. They are made according to a certain scale which provides that in the case of a wife and children a deduction of 1s. 6d. may be made, and in the case of an illegitimate child 1s. In a case where the soldier is a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of a sergeant, a deduction of a 1s. may be made to support a wife or children, and of 7d. in respect of an order to support an illegitimate child. The amounts are 6d. and 4d. respectively in the case of a private.
I come forward to-day with a proposal which, I believe, possesses one or two points which will be valuable, and ought to be accepted by all parties concerned. My proposal is that instead of having a fixed scale of deduction, it should be left to the Army Council to prescribe how much in each case should be deducted from a soldier's pay. In many cases this proposal would have very strong advantages. One is this. In many cases the amount deducted is much less than what the soldier could pay. Take the case of a soldier below the rank of a sergeant. If he is a trooper in a Household Cavalry regiment he is receiving 14s. a week—that is 2s. a day. But if he is only a private in an Infantry regiment he is receiving only 1s. a day. Therefore, you may say that the rule as to deductions which applies to one who has just twice as much pay as the other does not work out fairly, or, at any rate, equally. If power were given to the Army Council to prescribe the scale, or to take the circumstances in each case into consideration, much more fairness and equity would be done. Then there is the further point that, under the present law, if the deductions amount at the end of the week to a less sum than has been awarded by the Court, arrears begin to accumulate, and the soldier when he leaves the Army is faced with a considerable amount of arrears, for which he may be sued, and, in fact, often is put in prison. Let me give an illustration, because I think this is a most important point. Suppose a soldier is the father of 986 an illegitimate child in respect of which he has been ordered by the Court to pay 3s. 6d. a week, if he is under the rank of a sergeant deductions are only made to the extent of 4d. a day, or 2s. 4d. a week, and arrears are therefore mounting up in this case at the rate of 1s. 2d. a week. At the end of the year he is £3 9s. in arrears, and at the end of three years he is over £10 in arrears, and when he leaves the Army, hoping to get some place, suppose the woman has handed over her interest to some of these lawyers who are out to get as much as they can, and to take their costs out of what they can get, that man may be persecuted, and often is persecuted. He may be put in prison, and he may have the conditions of his employment rendered so impossible that he may have to leave a good employer.
§ Colonel YATECan the hon. Member quote any instance of a soldier being ordered to pay 3s. 6d. a week? Is not 2s. 6d. generally the amount?
§ Mr. KINGI know of cases where the order has been for more than that. I have seen the papers to-day in regard to the case of a soldier who was ordered to pay 4s. a week. There are many soldiers—for instance, sergeants and troopers in Household regiments—who are receiving quite enough money to pay that sum. Although it is not often, I know that soldiers are sometimes adjudged to pay more than 2s. 6d. or 3s.
§ Colonel YATEWhen I say soldiers I refer to privates.
§ Mr. KINGI know cases in which it might be justifiable that he should pay what I have said. Especially in view of the efforts that are now being made by the War Office to give soldiers when they leave the Army steady and good employment, I think this Amendment should be accepted. It has been approved by many people to whom I have submitted it, and who have much more experience than I have myself. I believe that if next year it could be arranged to sweep away all the statutory deductions, and leave it within the power of the Army Council, or even the commanding officer, in each case to judge the amount to be deducted from the man's pay, very considerable benefit would accrue to all parties: and if with that you sweep away the principle of arrears mounting up on the soldier all the time when he is paying what he is supposed by law to pay, you would help the soldier in such cases.
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy hon. Friend must recognise that the efforts he has made in previous years in connection with this branch of our Army law with the object of making it more humane and reasonable have been sympathetically received by the War Office, and that considerable progress has been made in that direction. He is trying to take another step this year on the progress he has made in the past, and while I do not wish to express any conclusive opinion in opposition to the proposal—on the contrary, I believe further advance will be made before we finish with regard to these matters—I must just for a moment examine the argument he has put forward, and state what seem to me the prima facie objections. So far as I appreciate his argument, it is this, that the fixed and inflexible scale should be repealed, and that certain discretion should be allowed to the Army Council or the commanding officers. There is a certain amount prima facie of justice in that. On the other hand, my hon. Friend seems to overlook that while obliterating the fixed scale, and leaving it entirely to the Army Council to exercise in particular eases what is their view of justice, he would create the possibility of great difficulties in this matter. I am not at all sure that the common soldier would desire the arrangement he proposes in respect of his wife and family, or even his illegitimate children. I am not sure that the common soldier would not prefer to know in advance what are his liabilities in respect of any such misadventures in future, rather than that he should be exposed to the uncertain arbitrament of the Army Council, which may be composed at different times of different people who may have somewhat varying standards on questions of moral rectitude. It is possible that the private soldier would say that he would rather know for certainty what are his liabilities if temptation should overcome him, than be left in the position of complete uncertainty in which he would be left if this Amendment were carried. I am rather disposed to think that this matter had better receive a little further consideration before we commit ourselves upon it one way or the other.
§ Sir J. D. REESI would like to say, as one who has acted in the position of a magistrate, how rightfully the view of the common private soldier has been stated by the Prime Minister, and how erroneous 988 is the view of his hon. follower. If there is one thing the private soldier would dislike in this matter, it is the change proposed by the hon. Member. I do not believe that anyone could more accurately express the feeling of the private soldier in such a matter than the Prime Minister has done. It may seem rather bold of me to get up and say so, but probably there are not many Members of the House who, from experience as a magistrate, know the feelings of the private soldier better than I do. I am sincerely glad that the Government will not accept the Amendment.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. KINGNobody, not even the Prime Minister, has referred to my plea that soldiers should be let off arrears. I suggest that a soldier, when he has paid what he is supposed to pay by law, should not go out of the Army with £10 arrears hanging round his neck. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) did not do me the honour of listening to my speech, and therefore he was all the more certain that I was wrong. But I must insist that the Committee will not judge my proposal aright unless it takes into account this question of arrears. The sweeping away of arrears which I propose would be a decided gain, to balance what I admit might be, as pointed out in the Prime Minister's speech, regarded as a loss by the soldier, and it is a matter, I think, to which, on the whole, the soldier would agree.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINEThe passing of this Amendment would throw a lot of work upon the Army Council, whose energies, I think, ought to be employed on greater things. I think it also has the effect of making the liability of the soldier uncertain. As for letting him off with the arrears, what are the ratepayers going to say about that? It seems to rather give the soldier a kind of preferential treatment in regard to these matters, both of legitimacy and illegitimacy, by enabling him to go away without paying his arrears, whilst many other people less able to do so have to pay for the maintenance or their derelict wife or children. I do not think that is a good principle. I think if a soldier incurs these liabilities he ought to pay up, and I feel sure that if the liability for arrears be taken away from him, it would be objected to by the large class of people outside who would be called upon to make up the deficiency.
§ Amendment negatived.
989§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert,
(2) So much of Sub-section (3) of the cited Section as provides that in certain cases service of process shall not be valid unless there be left therewith in the hands of the commanding officer a certain sum of money shall not apply where the proceeding is in respect of a matter of bastardy and the soldier either admits or does not deny to the commanding officer paternity of the child in respect of whom the proceeding is instituted.This Amendment is in respect to the practice of providing a sum of money to cover the cost of the service of process in cases where a soldier has to be brought to the Courts. If he has moved or happens to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court where the process is being taken against him the cost of the process has to be found by the woman or the person who is suing, and very often it becomes a very great hardship and difficulty. In cases where a soldier has been removed, say, from London to Edinburgh or Ireland, it makes it practically impossible to bring him to Court, because the cost of his journey from where he is situated to the Court and back again has to be provided before the summons can be returned. The Amendment I propose is of a simple character, and I hope it will do no injustice to anybody. It simply proposes that where the man who is summoned admits to his commanding officer the paternity of the child there should be no necessity to provide the service money. In cases like this it is very often unnecescary for the soldier to attend, and it is obviously to his advantage that the costs which may be given against him, and may be recovered by deduction from his pay, should be as little as possible. My proposal is that n certain circumstances the conduct money need not be found and provided in the case of a summons served upon a commanding officer.
§ Mr. TENNANTI hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this matter. I was very glad to hear his remarks in moving the other Amendment upon the manner in which his proposals had been received in other matters, and I think he had good reason for taking pride in the action he has taken. In regard to the Amendment it is not an unreasonable thing to ask that these costs should be provided. It is very difficult to know what an admission or a denial means exactly. 990 In these circumstances I would urge my hon. Friend not to press this to a Division.
§ Mr. KINGAfter the sympathetic words which have fallen front the Under-Secretary of State for War, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, at the end of the Clause to insert,
(2) In Sub-section (3) of the cited Section there shall be substituted for the words 'under orders for service' the words 'under orders for active service."'This Amendment is also a simple one, and one in which, I think, I shall certainly get a good deal of sympathy from all quarters of the House. The law at present is that if a soldier is summoned in respect of a bastard child, and if, at the time of the service of the summons, he is under orders to go abroad, the summons is invalid and cannot be served, and he cannot be brought to justice. It is a strange coincidence that on the Question Paper to-day there appears question No. 77, which shows a very clear case of the operation of this provision. I can well understand that where a soldier is under orders for active service abroad nothing in the way of any sort of legal proceeding should prevent his going abroad to do the duty which his country expects of him. But in view of the fact that this provision can be, and often is, made the ground of actual injustice, I think that to alter it to make it apply only to soldiers tinder orders for active service is a very good and reasonable suggestion. Supposing that a soldier sees that a trouble of this kind is before him, he can apply for transfer into another regiment which he knows is going abroad, and as soon as he is under orders to go abroad he can get out of his responsibility in this matter. That is a ruse, or dodge, which to my own knowledge has actually been pursued. It is, I am sure, the cause of great injustice, and many soldiers get out of their responsibilities in this way by pleading that they are under orders for service abroad. I think the point is quite clear, and, if not, I am ready to try to make it plainer later on. I hope I shall get some sympathy in respect to this proposal.
§ Mr. TENNANTThe matter raised by this Amendment of my hon. Friend is one the importance of which I am the last to deny. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend stated, that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) asked a questions 991 to-day about a similar instance; where an apparent injustice, and possibly a real injustice, has been done through the operation of the existing law. But I would point out to the Committee how the remedy offered in this case is not the best one. The sending of troops abroad is not an uncommon event. Soldiers may be sent for five or seven years to foreign stations. If we allowed them to be detained for reasons of this kind, a large number of them might have to be sent straight home, and the drafts could not go to the stations in full. That is the practical difficulty in considering whether such an Amendment should be incorporated in the Army Act. I am very willing to consider such a reform as my hon. Friend puts forward, but I must remind the Committee that this matter has been before the Imperial Conference in another form, namely, whether exactions or deductions from pay shall be made in all quarters of His Majesty's Dominions. I believe that is one of the, recommendations made by the Imperial Conference. Since the Amendment appeared upon the Paper I have not had time to consult the Colonial Office, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I will make this promise to my hon. Friend, that I will consult my right hon. Friend and ascertain whether it is not desirable to make it possible that deductions and exactions from the pay of the soldier shall be made no matter what part of His Majesty's Dominions he may be serving in. I think that is the best method of overcoming the difficulty which my hon. Friend has brought forward.
§ Mr. ROWNTREEI hope that the War Office will be able to do something without much delay in this matter. There was a case in York which has excited consider able attention, and which I think shows how a grave injustice may be done in the existing circumstances. A girl gave birth to an illegitimate child on the 14th November last year. The sergeant, who was the father of the child, and so far as I can understand there was no denial of the fact—
§ Mr. TENNANTWas there an admission?
§ Mr. ROWNTREEThere was not an admission, but there was no denial, and I believe the fact is that within four days of the birth of the child, the sergeant was asked to go to the room to see the child. 992 The girl gave birth to the child on the 14th November, and the sergeant was placed under orders to go abroad on the 22nd November. He was served with a bastardy summons in the early part of December before the girl had the remotest idea that he was placed under orders for service beyond the seas, and the summons was brought before the magistrates' Court at York on Monday, the 15th December. When the case was brought up, the solicitor, on behalf of the defendant, urged that the provisions of the Army Act prevented the magistrates from dealing with the case, as the defendant was ordered abroad. That contention was overruled by the magistrates, and an order of 3s. 6d. a week was granted to the girl, but the War Office felt that they must accept the contention of the solicitor, and they have not enforced the order. What I mean is this: The case was put before the War Office, and the reply was:—
I am afraid that there is no doubt that in view of the very precise provisions, of the Army Act there is no other course open to the War Office than to accept the contention of the sergeant's solicitorThe War Office have perfectly frankly desired to treat this case sympathetically, but they feel that the provisions of the Act are such that it is impossible to enforce the order made in the magistrates' Court. I want to urge very strongly that really a grave injustice has been done to this woman. As a matter of fact the sergeant was within ten minutes' walk of the Court when this ease was tried, and it seems to me perfectly clear that something does want to be done to ensure that justice shall prevail in cases like this. I recognise fully that the object of the Section clearly is to prevent a soldier from being compelled to attend the Court at a time when it might seriously interfere with his regimental duties, or prevent his going abroad with his regiment. But if that is the case I think it is perfectly clear that something wants doing in the direction of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that even that would go far enough, because I suppose a man might be under orders to go abroad for active service and yet might remain some weeks in the country before actually going abroad; so that I am not quite sure that the Amendment would meet the case. I desire to say again that I recognise that the War Office wants to meet cases like this. I think it is perfectly clear that some change is absolutely necessary unless injustice is going to be done, and I do hope that it is possible, before the Report stage, for the 993 Government to see their way to bring forward some Amendment which will enable cases of this kind to be met.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add
"(2) The following Sub-section shall be inserted at the end of the cited Section, namely:—
(4) Where a soldier has consented to any stoppage of pay in respect of any matter of bastardy, such stoppage may continue notwithstanding that he withdraws his consent, if the Army Council, or any officer deputed by them for the purpose, so direct.
For the purposes of the Sub-section so inserted it shall be immaterial whether the consent therein referred to was before or after the commencement of this Act."
This Amendment is of a perfectly clear and plain character. The soldier who has obligations to his wife and child, or illegitimate child, agrees to a stoppage from his payment. Very often proceedings are not taken, and the stoppage of payment is acted on, the money being sent for the benefit of the wife or child. But it sometimes happens that a man withdraws his consent when he goes abroad. Two cases of this character have come under my notice, where soldiers have been paying while in England, and, when they have gone abroad, they have withdrawn their consent to their pay being stopped, leaving the woman and child unable to obtain any redress. This is obviously a mean thing to do, and I think in such cases something might be agreed upon. I shall not press my Amendment, of course, but I wish to bring the case to the notice of the War Office authorities with the object of securing that the soldier, when once he has consented to a stoppage of his pay, shall not be allowed to go abroad and get out of his responsibility by withdrawing his consent. I hope I shall get some promise from the representative of the War Office that, at any rate, the matter will be considered.
§ Mr. TENNANTI am uncertain whether, in regard to the Section to which this Amendment refers, anything is really required to effect the object which my hon. Friend has in his mind. But I engage to consider the point with my legal adviser with a view to seeing if any action is necessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
994§ Clause 5 and remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.