CLAUSE 1.—(Rules of Procedure of Courts of Inquiry.) (Hansard, 7 August 1916)

Mr. HEALY
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so formally. I have just suggested that this stage should not be pressed unless we are able to come to some arrangement, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to assent to that course. I am most anxious that he should get the Bill. My point is this. You are here setting up a tribunal of a mixed character. The Army Council will nominate the military members and the right hon. Gentleman will clearly nominate the Members of Parliament, whether of this House or of another House. Therefore, for the first time in legal annals, you will have set up in addition to the Civil Courts of Law and in addition to courts-martial, a third court which will neither be a court-martial nor a civil court, but will be a mixed court. That is an anomaly in our procedure which I respectfully suggest ought not to be pressed on the House without fuller information. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious for nothing but what is fair, and I do not suggest for a moment that he is trying in any way to rush a device upon us, and I think he is absolutely engaged in trying to find out what is the best form of tribunal. At the same time, I deny his right to select a particular Member of the House of Commons and say, "You go on this Committee. I will ask you because you are a Liberal or, as the case may be, because you are a Tory, or because the colour of your hair and eyes takes my fancy."

The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled, on the Motion to report Progress, to enter into the merits.

Mr. HEALY
I quite agree, Sir, in ordinary circumstances, but to-day we are giving the right hon. Gentleman something in the nature of a favour. He has suggested that we should give him all the stages of this Bill to-day, and we are therefore departing from Parliamentary procedure. Having departed from normal 721 Parliamentary procedure, I suggest that I should be allowed to depart from it a little also on the give-and-take principle.

§ Mr. D. MASON
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not be in order on the question "That the Clause stand part"?

Mr. HEALY
If I waited until then, I should have lost my chance altogether.

The CHAIRMAN
There are several Amendments before we come to that question.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
May I suggest if those Amendments are proposed I may be able to say something, and on one of them the hon. and learned Gentleman can repeat his criticisms and will not have lost his rights.

Mr. HEALY
If I have the opportunity of raising my points on line 19, I do not wish to press the Motion.

The CHAIRMAN
I will take care that that is so.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I beg to move to leave out the word "may" ["and the rules may further"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The Bill as drawn provides that on the certificate of the Secretary of State persons not subject to military law can be compelled to give evidence and produce documents. It is further laid down that where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law, that the rules may further provide for the inclusion as members of the court of civilian members. I think in that case the "may" should be changed to "shall." The alteration is one which is simply in accordance with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think it is understood that the word "may" under these circumstances means "shall," and therefore from the drafting point of view the change is quite unnecessary.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I am only an ex-Law Officer, but in my opinion the word "may" here means "shall." The moment the Secretary of State comes to the opinion and certifies that the evidence will involve the character of the witnesses, then, I think, he would be bound under this Section to add civilian members.

Mr. HEALY
How can we, as a sovereign assembly, tolerate rules that shall or may provide for the sitting of two of our Members on a court with which we have had nothing whatever to do? I think that this is an invasion of Parliamentary privileges that the rules of the Army for the first time are to provide Members of Parliament shall be members of this court of inquiry, whereas hitherto this House has been the authority which has said that this House should provide how inquiries should be constituted. We are inverting the order, and that is why I suggest that this is a matter of great constitutional importance. Suppose the Member resigns, is he disqualified, or if he get up and says, "I am tired of sitting at this court"? That is why I said just now that in assenting to give the right hon. Gentleman this Bill we are taking a step which we have not explored sufficiently. I do not at all object in general to rule-making authority. I think it is a very convenient way of providing for matters to save the time of this House. But this is a question affecting our own privileges in that we are a consenting party that the Army Council, which is a fighting authority, shall, as regards two of our Members, dispose of them and provide that they shall be upon this tribunal. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not objecting to the Bill on any ground except on the ground of what I may call the privileges of the House and constitutional rights. I say that there is in this Bill a question vitally affecting the privileges and constitution of this House.

§ Sir G. REID
I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the point does not come up at this stage at all. The general words authorising the appearance of persons who are not officers on this court of inquiry do not necessarily include Members of Parliament. They can only include them if we pass subsequent words, to which I have strong objection. It is quite open to the Committee if they think fit to remove those words.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I suggest that we should discuss the hon. and learned Gentleman's points later on. I think it would be more convenient now to discuss the purely legal point. I think my hon. Friend is quite satisfied, having had the opinion of an ex-Law Officer, supported by that of a real live Law Officer, that the Clause as drafted will meet his view.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
That is so, and there is also the fact that the Bill automatically comes to an end after the War. Under those circumstances, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
Will the disposal, of this Amendment rule out the possibility of an Amendment which I desire to move to the previous line 14, which would have the effect that we would have no civilians at all?

The CHAIRMAN
We cannot go back after we have decided the question of an Amendment to line 15.

Colonel WILLOUGHBY
I would like to raise the point as to civilian members being on this court, which is the only point of special interest to the House.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Would not that come up on the provision to appoint civilians?

The CHAIRMAN
Surely that point was decided by the Second Reading of the Bill, as otherwise the Bill would not be necessary at all.

Colonel WILLOUGHBY
I am anxious to move that the same rule should apply to courts of inquiry as to courts-martial, and that the inquiry ought to be a military court and have power to call witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late there, except in so far as the subject can be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I accepted the earliest Amendment that was presented to me, which was that moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) and now before us.

§ Sir E. GOULDING
May not this point be discussed when we come to say whether they are to be Members of Parliament, men, or members of the Judicature? Surely it is possible on that to raise the question whether these should be purely military courts or not.

Mr. HAZLETON
If the right hon. Gentleman who is moving this Amendment were to withdraw, could we not consider the whole question?

§ Commander BELLAIRS
May I point out that this is one of the inherent disadvantages of the Committee stage following immediately after the Second Reading? It is not strictly in accordance with the Rules of the House to hand in any Amendment during the Second Reading otherwise, I 724 would have handed in my Amendment. I agree with the Clause up to line 14, but strongly object to the rest of the Clause.

Mr. HEALY
I contend that it is only possible to consider the matter on this limb of the Clause, which introduces for the first time the civil element into these military courts of inquiry. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment is that it will make it imperative to substitute "shall" for "may". I say it is imperative already, because "may" will be rendered "shall" by every authority, and the Amendment in that sense is unnecessary, The mere fact, however, that we have to attack the Clause enables us here and at the outset to make our protest against the proposed composition of this authority in the way in which we have taken the objection. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Wait until you get the Members of Parliament." I say, "No," because it is at this stage that the objections arise. The objection from one quarter comes from the fact that you are in any sense changing the composition of courts-martial, or the court of inquiry, and making it other than a military court, while the objection from my point of view is that you are giving a rule-making authority a power over Members of this House which I deny them. I say that you may exhaust your inquiries into British legislation, and you will in no way find any precedent—I ask for any, if one can be found—for providing by Statute that a body must include Members of Parliament. Therefore, it is at this stage that we are entitled to make objection. The War Secretary says, "Go on until you get to the exact words, and that will be the time to raise it." Then the objection to having these men will be gone, whereas now I have the advantage of what I may call the bifurcated stage. There is the military objection, and my objection is that I decline to give you the right to make the House of Commons a panel for forming a military court. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state at this stage what it is that has led him into the state of mind that causes him to ask for this rule. A rule of this kind is in itself, so far as this portion of it is concerned, an absolute invasion of our rights. Who call and create these courts-martial? The convening authority, namely, a military body; and the whole of the power of the court-martial, or inquiry, arose, as promotion arose from the King, or as, in the case of an ecclesiastical commission, 725 it would spring from the Pope, or, I suppose, the Archbishop in this country. So with the right of authority to convene a court of inquiry. You depart from that by this rule, and therefore you are attacking an ancient principle laid down in these works that a military authority should convene it. What are you doing? You are creating a double form of convening a court-martial. The first part of the in quiry is to be directed by the Army Council. As I understand the British Constitution, the War Secretary is not in control of the Army Council. It is an independent authority. He may take its advice or not, but he is not in control of it. What will happen in these cases? The War Secretary says on a particular case, "I do not like the way in which the Army Council has consituted this court of in quiry. It has put on five generals, when I think there should have been ten." Or, "They have put on too many colonels, or captains, or friends of the accused from the Army end of the auhority. I, representing the civilians, will find two of my friends, two of my old stalwarts, though not necessarily Welsh members. I will water your military wine with my selection." Is that a dignified procedure for any War Secretary? —I do not say the present War Secretary, because we have had three or four during this conflict I say it involves an innovation in the constitution of the court, and secondly that it involves Members of Parliament, who, we all know, are subject to all kinds of influence. My embarrassment is that I cannot re member who was made a baronet since I was here last; it is really most embarrassing, because you can always remember a man's name, but you cannot remember the other thing—and who are the last kind of person to be put on an inquiry of this kind. The judge who was removed from our influence—

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have Amendments before me raising these points, both with regard to Members of Parliament and to the judge? I do not think I can allow him to proceed beyond this Amendment of substituting "shall" for "may." If that Amendment is withdrawn, it will be open to an hon. Member to leave out all the words after the word "courts-martial" to the end of the Clause. That can be done when this Amendment is withdrawn, and that would, 726 of course, if it was desired to do so, enable these questions to be taken together, and not separately.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I am perfectly willing to withdraw.

Mr. HEALY
May I point out that we are giving the right hon. Gentleman this additional stage to-day on a particular understanding? I do not suggest that it has been departed from, but the result will be that he will have practically secured the whole of his Bill through Committee except for the last three or four words.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite taken the suggestion of the Chair, which was that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that then it would be quite competent for anyone to move the omission, not of three or four lines, but of the whole of this branch of the Section which deals with these appointments.

Mr. HEALY
To that I agree.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I understand that that will not stop me from moving my Amendment with reference to having a judge as the president of the court?

§ The CHAIRMAN
If this Amendment is withdrawn, I shall call upon the hon. Member to move out the whole of the last sentence; but I shall naturally put the resulting question in the form which will reserve the subsequent Amendments I have before me.

§ Sir E. GOULDING
The lay representation will be reserved?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes.

Captain BATHURST
Do I understand that when this Amendment is out of the way it will be possible, as has been suggested, to move that all the words from the word "courts-martial" to the end of the Clause be omitted?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is what I have been trying to explain, so that the Committee can find itself in order.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
I beg to move to leave out the words "and the rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law who are to be called as witnesses, provide for the inclusion, as members of the court, of one or 727 more persons, being Members of either Houses of Parliament, who are not officers."
I do so because the right hon. Gentleman has not at all convinced me that it is necessary. He has not answered my question which I asked during the Second Reading, but I dare say he will do so. In the first place, this is a precedent. It will be a precedent for the Navy. The Navy will have to follow suit if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is such a very obvious defect of the military courts of inquiry that they do not have civilians. Has he consulted the Admiralty as to whether they desire this precedent to be created? My second point is, Is the inquiry a preliminary to a court-martial? A court of inquiry of such a character used always to be preliminary to a general court-martial. If it is not, if you can hold a general court-martial without a court of inquiry, then you already have the machinery you ask for in a court-martial. They can summon witnesses and investigate the whole question, and settle it on oath. I wa3 telling my right hon. Friend just now that he has a precedent for putting civilians on a court-martial or a court of inquiry, as the case may be, in that famous diarist Samuel Pepys. He was made captain of a man-of-war for-twenty-four hours in order that he might sit on a court-martial, but I would take away from the force of that precedent by saying that we had no regularly constituted corps of officers in those days. What I attach importance to is the fact that you are creating a precedent, because I am perfectly certain that this precedent will affect the Navy and multiply in other directions. I suppose that it is in the Scriptures that precedents are referred to in that sort of way when it is said that Paul may plant and A polios may water, and these precedents will increase and increase, I am sure.
Is it a good precedent? That is the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army. In fact it is more important, if he issues commands, that they should be right than if a colonel of a battalion or regiment or the general of a brigade or division or an army does so. The first principle of command is that you should never give an unnecessary command. I think that in placing civilians on a court which is to try a military officer, and which will not be for the purpose of trying civilians at all, but for advising as 728 to a general court-martial, you are making a totally unnecessary suggestion. Soldiers are perfectly competent to be the custodians of their own honour. You are really hurling an insult at the Army, for I think the Army officer is perfectly competent. Your court could consist of two officers, as was done in the case of Admiral Trou-bridge, or of three, four, or five officers. It is perfectly possible to get general officers who will impartially investigate this particular question which has been the cause of it all. You are also doing this in the absence of nearly 140 Service Members of Parliament. These are not the old days of the Military Service Bill, when every bench had ten or eleven Members dressed in khaki. They are absent, and their views ought to have great weight in a Debate like this, and I hope those of them who happen to be here will speak on that matter. By putting in the Members of Parliament they are not only to have the power of laying down the law, but of administering the law, and, as I said before, that is altogether against the principle on which the judges were removed from this House. You say, "We will sit in your courts and mix ourselves up in your discipline of the Army." I think that is a bad principle to establish. It may lead to a reversion in the swing of the pendulum. The old complaint of the Army was that it mixed itself up in politics. If you are going to sit in their courts and mix yourself up in their discipline, the time may come when they will say, "We must curry favour with Members of Parliament, because at any moment they may sit in judgment on us." That will be a bad thing altogether. I also distrust the origin of this Bill. I share in every enconium that has been passed on the late Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham). He was a brave and courageous Member of this House, but he was not always discreet, and he seemed, in association with other Members, to have got this Bill introduced into the House together with the Clause about Members of Parliament by following strictly the tactics of the importunate widow. I think that Members of Parliament by being importunate should not be able to secure that the Secretary of State for War, a Cabinet Minister, should give in against his better judgment. I cannot help feeling that it is against the better judgment of the Cabinet, certainly of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who 'may have to follow this precedent, that this particular part of the Clause is put in.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I will just answer the questions put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman first of all. He knows perfectly well—in fact, he has stated it to the House—that the rules of procedure in regard to courts-martial in the Navy are on a totally different basis from courts-martial in the Army. These rules have been in existence probably for generations. They have been running side by side, and they form a precedent— and a very good one, by the way. Therefore I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered his own query by the information he has given to the House. In regard to the second point, a; to whether these inquiries are an essential preliminary to a court-martial, I am assured they are not. They are not essential to a court-martial.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
It depends upon the court-martial.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No, no; an inquiry of this kind is not essential to a court-martial.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
A general court-martial?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No. I come to the general argument. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that soldiers are competent to be judges. Nobody doubts that. That is not the point. The charges in this particular case, which in effect are very well known to the House, involve not merely the honour of soldiers, but the honour of civilians. That is the difference in this case. As a matter of fact, if the facts are as they have been presented to me, civilians primarily are the culprits.

Mr. HEALY
Who is it?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Surely my hon. and learned Friend must know that it is exceeding undesirable to publish that in the House of Commons, and before the world—to publish facts of this kind before they have been investigated! Once they are published the mere fact that the evidence was before a court, and that court, after investigation, found them not to be true, would not answer the purpose. The mischief would have been done. In a state of war we cannot afford it, and that is one reason why I am bringing this Bill into the House of Commons, and why I have done all in my power to prevent the premature publication of statements which on inquiry may prove to be untrue. I have consulted both the military authorities, 730 and taken civilian advice, and it is upon their joint recommendation that I have come to this conclusion, and after the most careful inquiry. This is not something which has arisen within the last few weeks. This is something which I inherited. It was investigated by the late Secretary for War, by the Prime Minister, and by myself. I had not the opportunity of discussing it with the late Secretary of State for War, but I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the Prime Minister, who has gone through all the facts, and after I had considered the matter I came to the conclusion that this is far and away the best method of dealing with the matter. I also have had the opportunity of discussing it with the military members of the Army Council, and the conclusion we came to is that which I am recommending to the House of Commons. For the reasons I have given a mixed court is favoured. It is not merely the honour of an officer which is in question, but the honour of civilians in very grave circumstances. When you come to inquire into that which involves considerations affecting civilians and soldiers, and perhaps civilians much more seriously than soldiers, surely it is fair that you should have a tribunal which alike should represent both civilians and soldiers? The soldiers fairly recognise that, and I do hope that those who represent the Army here will not carry this matter too far.
Are they going to say that where the honour of any officer is involved, although a civilian may be more implicated, no civilian should be there to judge at all? That is a proposition which will not stand for a moment—nor would the public stand it! The Army Council has not put it forward. The hon. and gallant Member talks as if the House of Commons had never sat in judgment on officers. It set up two tribunals last week for the purpose of judging the conduct of officers. The Gallipoli Investigation Commission is one upon which you have got civilians, and a minority of officers; that Commission is going to sit in judgment upon the conduct of officers of the Army and Navy. The House of Commons is constantly setting up tribunals of that character. What is the good of saying, 'You are making laws, and you must therefore not administer them, and ought not to sit in judgment. I never heard of a proposition which so completely destroyed the power of the House of Commons 1 This House can investigate every charge into the ad- 731 ministration of the laws, and sit in judgment upon anybody in the public service. I come to the other point which the hon and gallant Gentleman has made. If I could see any other tribunal that would be a fairer one I should be very glad to assent to any proposition which would create it. I understand that an hon. Member has put down an Amendment to the effect that judges of the High Court should be added. Very well, when we come to that 1 shall be prepared to consider it. That is another matter. But the reason why I think the military advisors were anxious to confine it to Members of the House of Commons was this: that it recognised the authority of the House of Commons to investigate any charge against either those who are serving the State civilly or in it miltiary sense. They recognise the authority of the House and they do not think there is any derogation from the rights of officers in setting up a tribunal where Members of the House of Commons are concerned. The House of Commons has a right to do so at any moment. It has done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future in any case that requires consideration, whether in the Army or the Navy.
Members of the Legislature have the most complete right to investigate any charge of this kind. An hon. Member wishes to add judges of the High Court. It may be desirable to add judges. I cannot for the moment imagine any objection. Beyond that, however, it is felt that in charges involving the honour of officers there should be some restriction of this kind included in the Act of Parliament, upon the panels, as it were, from which you select your judges. At any rate, this being a first departure from the old practice in that respect, I hope the House of Commons will very carefully restrict the panel from which the selection is made. I cannot help thinking that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork knew the circumstances that he would rather assist me to set up a tribunal of this kind. I am thinking of a young Irish Catholic soldier against whom an accusation is brought which involves his honour. I am perfectly certain that the court proposed to be set up will give him the fairest chance of answering, and it is just as much in the interests of a humble soldier as of anyone that I wish the tribunal to be set up. I cannot go further than that. I wish to see fair play to the humblest soldier of His Majesty's Army, and I am perfectly 732 certain I am going along the line that will ensure fair play. He has no right to more, and he ought to get no less. This, I am certain, is the way to give him that fair play, and that is why I am urging the House of Commons to the course I am. I am crippled. My hand is, in all the circumstances, rather tied. I beg the House of Commons not to ask me to publish the facts. It will do mischief which it will be very difficult to patch up if these facts are published at the present stage and before investigation is made.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I am one of those who happen to know a good deal about the facts of this particular case. For myself, I see no alternative between having a discussion of those facts in this House and setting up a tribunal. In the middle of a war, with officers involved, and questions involved relating to the conduct of those officers, I cannot imagine anything more disastrous than that we should have a discussion in this House. The House could come to no judicial decision. Members would take opposite views on what they believed to be facts and which might not be facts at all. One man in the House might take the view that one side was right, and another man take the view that the other side was right. That would settle nothing, and at the same time would cause a public scandal. That, I think, of the courses possible is the one that this House ought to try to avoid. Then comes the question of the tribunal. What is the tribunal? You could, I suppose, set up a special Commission, or something of that kind. But you have in existence a court of inquiry which is the proper court to try the charges so far as the officers and soldiers are concerned. You cannot carry out that inquiry satisfactorily without bringing civilians before them, and, therefore, this Bill says we must bring the civilians there; but it is only fair, as regards the civilians who are brought there, that there should be some representatives on the court to protect those civilians who would be brought before what would otherwise be a purely military court. While there may be questions as to whether Members of Parliament are the best persons to be put upon the court, or how they are to be selected, I cannot imagine anything fairer, having regard to the difficulties of the case, than what is proposed. Nobody is impugning the military court, but certainly this House would be jealous of putting civilians before 733 a military court of inquiry in a matter of this kind. Therefore, I think my right hon. Friend was doing what was right towards civilians in making the proposals he makes in this Sub-section. And, even as regards Members of this House, I think what was really in my right hon. Friend's mind, from his observations, was this: This House has the right itself to inquire into any charges of this kind which affect the public service, whether they be military or civilians. He retains a certain control of this House. Knowing the facts, or a good deal of the facts, I join with my right hon. Friend in urging upon the Committee not to attempt in anywise to go into them or seem to prejudge them, and I am perfectly certain you will easily get from this House under those circumstances any Members of this House who would approach this matter judicially. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will not be persisted in, although we may have ultimately to discuss what will be the form of tribunal to be set up.

Colonel WILLOUGHBY
I am sure I do not wish to press the military point of view above the civilian point of view, but I have sat on a good many courts of inquiry and courts-martial. As to the court of inquiry, is it going to be ordered by the Army Council? I am speaking in the dark; I do not know what it is about, beyond that I have been told accusations have been made. I suppose somebody is going to order this court of inquiry to sit. Is it going to be ordered to record its opinions? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is."] A military court cannot have any power over the civilian, but if I go before a court of inquiry and give evidence and my evidence is wrong, then, under the Army Act, I can be brought up for committing libel and can be tried by the 'Civil Court. I believe that is the position of the law.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Let me put this to the hon. and gallant Member. Supposing it were a charge of embezzlement or peculation, and officers and civilians were involved, and supposing it is found at this tribunal that a civilian was the guilty person, surely then the Army Council and the Secretary of State would institute proceedings against that civilian.

Colonel WILLOUGHBY
The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and has had the advice of the authorities, but I cannot myself see that a court of inquiry can come to a decision that the civilian has com- 734 mitted any wrong. [HON. MEHBEBS: "Why not? "] Because a court-martial cannot try a civilian.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Supposing the charge were that of peculation or embezzlement, and supposing, as the result of inquiry, they expressed the opinion that it was a civilian who was guilty, then the Secretary of State could take steps to prosecute the civilian supposed to be guilty.

Colonel WILLOUGHBY
Before a Civil Court?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Certainly!

Colonel WILLOUGHBY
Then that is a case to be tried in open Court. I cannot see that it will protect a civilian going before this court if there are two civilian members on that court. I am not desiring to impede the passage of the Bill, but, so far as I understand, the court is purely a military court of inquiry set up for military purposes. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] If it is confined to one particular case, I am quite ready to take the advice of my leaders who believe this is the best course to take. But what I do feel is, that it is a great misfortune to set up a court which may have civilians on it who really have no power, so far as I can see. It seems to me to set up an entirely new principle of military procedure, which I look upon with a good deal of dread.

Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken will set his mind at rest, and do as I have done in regard to the Amendment now before the Committee. On the Second Reading I took strongly the military position on this question, but, having heard the very weighty pronouncement that fell from the Secretary of State for War just now, I have considerably modified my view. I took the position that military officers should be allowed to manage their own affairs and inquiries entirely. I did that speaking on the general principle that the subject matter of inquiry before a military court of inquiry is something that affects a military officer or military discipline, or some matter that is purely military. I quite see now, without asking any questions as to the particular matter which is going to be inquired into, of which I know nothing, that there may be a matter now for inquiry which will involve possibly the characters of many persons, and that it is under these particular conditions necessary to have a peculiarly constituted 735 court in order that every one may have full protection. It is, in fact, what I did not understand it to be when I heard my right hon. Friend moving the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, ad hoc legislation to deal with a particular case. In those circumstances I withdraw anything I have said against this Bill, and I am perfectly prepared to see it go through at once.

Mr. HEALY
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down as to the ad hoc legislation, but that, I respectfully submit, does not apply to this Bill. This is a general Bill to affect, not a particular case, but any number of cases that might arise during the progress of this War. Nobody would object to an ad hoc Bill which named two Members of Parliament, because we could discuss the Members of Parliament, who they were. and what they were. We could say this was an emergency. I have taken a stand in this matter as a Member of the House of Commons defending its privileges, and here we have a general Bill, and we are going to create rules which may make a panel on which two Members of Parliament must be members, because the rules must so provide. I say, with great deference, it is a blasphemy against the House of Commons. I say nobody has the right to create a panel by rule, and say that on that panel two Members of this House must sit. I say it is against our Constitution, and it is no answer to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is a case as to the privileges and rights of an Irish Catholic soldier. No doubt that is a very moving appeal to make to me, but how does it affect the matter? It reminds me of the story told by President Roosevelt, who was being pressed to pass a particular Bill by a well-known Irish politician. He said, "I cannot; it is against the constitution." "But," was the reply, "do you think the American constitution should be allowed to come between friends? "I certainly gathered here for the first time in the discussion that this is a case in which an Irish Catholic officer is affected. How can that dispose of the objection which I entertain to the constitution of a military panel which must contain two Members of Parliament? What right have we to put our rights and privileges at the disposal of the Army Council?
736 If the Secretary of State for War points to the case of Mesopotamia and Gallipoli, that was an ad hoc Bill which originated without a single military or naval man being upon either Commission, and, in the end, on the pressure of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. Meux), that it was unfair to the House to have a lay tribunal on naval and military matters, the House conceded the right of the Army and Navy to have a couple of representatives. But this is something entirely different. I have no objection, but, on the contrary, I desire that a judge shall be placed on the court instead of Members of Parliament, and therefore my objection is purely one of what I may call principle and form. Let me put this question. Most of us who are engaged in the law have had recent experience of courts-martial. The first question asked by a court-martial of the prisoner is, "Do you object to any member of this inquiry? "Would it be a nice thing for us to have' a panel on which the antecedents of Members of Parliament were canvassed, and for a person to say, "I challenge the Member for so-and-so. He is an unsuitable member because he is a Tory; or the other is an unsuitable member because he is a Liberal."[An HON. MEMBER: "This is not a court-martial."] So you say. It is not a court-martial in form, but it is a court-martial in fact, because I now see, from the very weighty statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, that he has for the first time lifted the corner of the curtain and has told us something to this effect. He says, "This is a case that gave trouble to the late Lord Kitchener and the Prime Minister. I found it on my threshold when I entered the War Office, and my predecessor had been unable to deal with it." It means that the challenged man, whoever he be, may elect to be tried by court-martial. The War Secretary says, "No, you are too important a man to be tried by court-martial, and besides, you have not committed a crime I cannot court-martial you." Then the man, driven and pinched, says, "Very well, I will come to a constituted inquiry which shall be in the nature of a court-martial."
Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Very well, I will give you two Members of Parliament." Who are these Members of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman stated that this was an inquiry instituted because of the pressure of the 737 much-lamented late Member for Mansfield. Are Members of Parliament to be his friends of his enemies? Are those Members of Parliament to be the men who have sat around the hon. Member for Mansfield or those who have attacked him? This case now assumes this aspect: A voice from the grave calls for inquiry, a voice from the grave has made charges against some military man, and that military man waives for the first time his right to be tried by a court of soldiers. He says, "I will take a court on which there shall be two Members of Parliament." They may be prejudiced by the fact that the hon. Member for Mansfield was the originator and author of those charges, and that would make it the less desirable that Members of Parliament should sit on the inquiry. After yielding to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the court should not consist of purely military members, what is the objection to a judge? You had a Court sitting the other day with a judge from Ireland and England upon it trying the rights of Irish prisoners, and you had no hesitation in asking a judge from the English Courts and the Irish Courts to investigate these charges, and they sat somewhere within the precincts of the House for three or five weeks. This is an ad hoc inquiry—why not appoint these two judges to sit with the soldiers, and that would satisfy everybody? You cannot say that the judges have been so pressed recently, and I am sure they will be most happy to serve, and that will remove an element of prejudice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I did my best to meet my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. He wants judges on the inquiry. Perhaps it would meet the case if we inserted after the words "Members of Parliament" the words "or judges."

Mr. HEALY
Which will you appoint?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I do not see why we should not appoint both.

Mr. HEALY
The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the case of the Irish Tribunal you had Mr. Justice Shearman leaving in the middle of a term and going over to Dublin. Then we had Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Pim sitting here in London to investigate the case of the Irish prisoners alleged to be connected with the rebellion. Therefore there cannot be any objection on the score of want of time on the part of 738 the judicial bench. I suggest that we should amend this Bill by leaving out the words "being Members of either House of Parliament" on the understanding that judges should take their place. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has two Members of Parliament in view, why does he chain himself to the particular form in which the Bill now stands? I think we are only doing constitutionally, as well as in a dignified way, the fair thing if these charges be so grave as has been alleged by providing that judges should take the place of Members of Parliament. We have not yet been told whether this is to be a public or a private inquiry.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Private.

Mr. HEALY
If it is to be private, what is the meaning of the words
"and the rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law"?
If this is going to be buried in the archives of the War Office, then I would not mind being charged with perjury, because the inquiry would be as secret as the grave. It is to be a private inquiry! Should we allow this House to constitute a War Office panel, nominated and selected by the Minister for War, to come back and circulate in the Lobby this, that, and the other in regard to this inquiry? The true and proper course is to substitute His Majesty's judges for Members of Parliament.

§ Mr. THOMAS
If I understand the Amendment now before the House, it is not merely a question between judges and Members of Parliament. I think the arguments intended to show that judges would be better or preferable to Members of Parliament are entirely beside the point. If the Amendment is carried all civilian representation is taken off the inquiry, and therefore I think the House should direct itself to that aspect of the question. If the Amendment is carried and the Court is constituted of military representatives entirely, there is no need for this Bill at all, because a court-martial could be set up. I submit that the civil population of this country is entitled to as much consideration as any military man and no more. I think it was unfortunate in the early stages of the Debate that the hon. Member opposite raised the question of the Army versus 739 the People, because that has nothing to do with the matter. I submit if a charge is brought against a military man he is entitled to say, "I shall be judged by my own people." On the other hand, if there is a charge preferred against a civilian, then he is entitled to say, "I wish to be judged by those independent of military authority." I understand the right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that a court-martial could follow some charge against a military man equally as well as that an action could follow against a private individual, therefore the cases are on all fours. I submit that it is only fair at this stage to raise the issue about the judges, and we might deal with that point upon the Amendment on the Paper. For the moment let us keep in mind that if the Amendment is carried you will destroy all the rights I have mentioned.

§ Sir GEORGE REID
There seems to be very little difference between hon. Members, and I hope we shall now be able to come to a definite point. I think we are all in favour of this Bill and the provision in the subsequent part of the first Clause. I object to the words "being Members of either House of Parliament," and making that compulsory upon the Array Council, because it puts the whole of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament on a sort of panel from which the Army Council may select two, and they must not go beyond that. It must be remembered that on the two great Commissions which have been spoken of there were gentlemen who were not Members of Parliament. I do not approve of the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member that the words "being Members of either House of Parliament" be left out, although I should be willing to come to some understanding and leave it to the Secretary of State or the Army Council to choose anybody without making it compulsory that they should be Members of Parliament, because that puts them in a false position. This is a Supreme Court to hear all grievances, and a grievance may arise in the case of a person found guilty of some offence the case comes before this House and there are two Members of Parliament sitting on the inquiry. A juror may come and say to a Member of Parliament, "Look here, old chap, you are on that inquiry, and this man is a bad lot." You do not put men there to try a man you 740 have already found guilty. This raises the question of the position of this House, and we should be absolutely free to say that if any appeal comes to us we have no' one in this grand jury who has formed a previous opinion.

§ Captain C. BATHURST
The difficulty the House appears to be in is unfortunately that the whole of the facts cannot be disclosed. If this were merely in a strict sense ad hoc legislation I should take no exception to it, but it is not. It is legislation promoted owing to a certain delicate case arising the facts of which are not disclosed to us, but for the whole of the duration of the War, however long that may be, the provisions of this Bill when an Ate of Parliament will be applied to similar cases which may arise in the Army. I think that is a very large order indeed, and you are striking at the whole root of the administration of military law in the national Services. I should be quite prepared under pressure from the Secretary for War to accept this Bill if he could assure us and secure within the Bill itself the appointment of persons of some judicial capacity. We have no indication that persons with any knowledge of the law or of military law, or those who have acted in any judicial capacity, are going to be appointed. Take the case of the ordinary Army officer. Before he sits on any tribunal he is not only instructed in military law and also in the King's Regulations governing the discipline and internal ad ministration of the Army, but also in the provisions of the Army Act, and he has to sit for a considerable time as a supernumerary member of a military court before he can sit as an adjudicating member of that tribunal. I think in these eases you want men with some knowledge of the internal administration and discipline of the Army, and if you are going to have persons without any judicial training or any judicial capacity I am afraid that in many cases serious injustice may be done. This House is confident that it is trusted by the outside public, and especially by the Army, but I can assure hon. Members, having been in a somewhat responsible position in His Majesty's Army three months ago, that my own impression is that there has been such a lack of confidence among the officers and men, in the proceedings and the personnel of this House, at any rate up to the present time —I am very sorry to say it—as to inspire them with no enthusiasm over the adjudication by its Members in military cases.

§ Colonel GREIG
I think the hon. Member has completely misapprehended the point of the Bill, which he says is going to cut at the root of military law. Supposing you pass that part of this Bill which compels civilian witnesses to go before a purely military court, what would be the result? A civilian witness would feel a certain amount of awe before a military tribunal, but if you had the civilian element represented, (he would have confidence, and would be able to give his evidence in a proper way. Parliament has already provided that a witness can be compelled to go before a court-martial, but the court cannot punish him if he refuses to answer a question, and it has to report him to a Civil Court, and the Civil Court deals with him. It is now sought, in the case of this military inquiry before which civil witnesses are to be called, to make two Members of Parliament members of that court. The hon. Member spoke of this House as the supreme court of the land, and we sit in review upon decisions of Committees in this House. What difficulty would there be in our considering the proceedings of a military court in which one or two Members of this House have taken part? After all, the very rules of procedure under which this kind of inquiry is conducted are subject to our own control. These rules of procedure are all made in pursuance of the Act, and are laid before Parliament as soon as practicable, and, if there be the slightest objection to any one of them, it is open to any hon. Member to lay that objection before the House. The whole course of the inquiry is under rules of procedure which are subject to the control of Parliament itself. In my opinion, the Bill is a most sensible one, and it is a measure which will give confidence in the administration of justice.

Mr. HAZLETON
The Secretary of State for War came to the conclusion that at this stage he could not give the facts to the House of Commons. I think it was unavoidable that the Committee should be consulted on the details of this Bill, but we are practically in the dark, because we are asked to set up a particular court of inquiry to deal with particular cases, and we are not told at all what the charges are. I think it would be almost impossible to expect the Committee to come to any reasoned conclusion with regard to what the course should really be in the absence of knowledge of what the charges are. All Ave have been told is that these charges do 742 not merely involve officers at the War Office, but civilians as well, and, therefore, I think that with the particular Amendment now before the Committee it is quite clear that the justice of the case admits that there should be civilian members present. The Secretary for War, in his speech dealing with this Amendment, referred to the Commissions which were appointed by this House a week or two ago' in connection with the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia. But in that case the facts are wholly different. It is true that in those Commissions the House included Members of the House of Commons. But in that instance the House knew what it was doing. In this case they are asked to give practically a blank cheque, so far as the Government is concerned, or to the Secretary for War, or the Army Council, or whoever will ultimately make these appointments. I would make a suggestion to the Secretary for War. He is very anxious to get all the stages of this Bill to-day, and it is quite possible that he may do so. If he does I presume that this court will be set up probably to-morrow, or certainly within a very few days. That means that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever has got the decision in their hands, can come to a conclusion as to what Members of Parliament they are going to put upon this Committee this week. If they are coming to a conclusion this week why not follow the course adopted in the case of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia Commissions, and tell the House who are the members to- be proposed, instead of appointing them behind the back of the House of Commons? I said on the Second Beading of this Bill to-day that so far as I was concerned I had no objection to any Member being put on a court of inquiry of this kind, but I would like to know who is going to be appointed, and I would like to know who is going to appoint them; I would like to know, also, what are the principles governing these appointments. It would be quite an easy matter if the right hon. Gentleman adjourned the consideration of this Bill until to-morrow, and then in the meantime he could make up his mind as to the Members of the House of Commons whom he wishes to appoint and ask the House to approve their appointment. If he does that he will be getting over the difficulties that have arisen in the course of this discussion, and I think he will see that, in the circumstances, it is a reasonable and easy course for him to follow.

§ Colonel GRETTON
It does not appear to me that the Secretary of State for War has made out a case for the introduction of this very extraordinary procedure in military courts of inquiry generally. If my hon. Friend who spoke last is right, it might do for one particular case, but the Secretary of State for War is making a general alteration in the Army Act, and his proposal has undoubtedly raised the greatest suspicion in the Army. What is the procedure? It is a military procedure under the Army Act which provides the court of inquiry. You have already got the extra power to call witnesses, but I think the Secretary of State has not made out his case that there should be civilian members of the court of inquiry. This is not an inquiry into the conduct of civilians.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Oh, yes, it is!

§ Colonel GRETTON
Why introduce this alteration into the Army Act? The point is that you alter the Army Act and interfere with the administration of the Army. If it is a mixed inquiry, why net set up a Commission, as has been done in many other cases? Such a Commission could be held in private. The objection to this Bill is that it introduces a general alteration in the Army Act for this particular purpose. The Secretary of State might easily have adopted some such course as I suggest, and if there is a Division to leave out these words, I feel bound to go into the Lobby in support of their elimination.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
Before I withdraw my Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I wish to meet the point raised by the hon. Member on the Nationalist Benches. He said the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should give us the names of the members to be appointed. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that this court of inquiry would be set up at once, and that therefore we should have the names. The objection to that is that this is not an ad hoc inquiry. I wish it were. We may have a dozen inquiries under this Bill before the end of the War and in every case, and under the simple fiat of the Secretary of State for War, one or more Members of this House can be put on these various courts of inquiry. I think the right hon. Gentleman has got himself into a difficulty because he did not set up an ad hoc inquiry, but has based his whole case on some mysterious things we are not permitted to know. The right hon. Gentle- 744 man said we did know, but if we do know it can only be through Lobby gossip. All we know in this House is that we get our gossip through the OFFICIAL KBFOET, and not from anywhere else. If the right hon. Gentleman had set up an ad hoc inquiry, there would have been no objections to these civilians or to these Members of Parliament, but in this particular case you are going to alter the military law, and these inquiries are to be set up as often as you like, and the military courts are to have civil members. The suggestion made by my hon. Friends is one which I would like, namely, to limit the inquiry so as to make it an ad hoc inquiry, and limiting the operation of the Clause to the present year instead of the end of the War. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of me being opposed to any inquiries. That is not the case. I am ready to have any number of inquiries provided they do not interfere with the conduct of the War. When he taunts with being opposed to the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia inquiries he must be fair and state the grounds, upon which I objected to those, inquiries, namely, that they would take up a long time and disturb the officers. I believe I promoted more memorials for inquiries before the War almost than any Member of this House. With reference to what the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said about having raised the question of the Army versus the people, I have not raised that at all. I simply stated that military men ought to be the custodians of their own honour. They will have no jurisdiction whatever in the secret court of inquiry to pronounce against civilians, and civilians who are implicated will have to be prosecuted by civil process. So there is no question whatever of the Army versus the people. But certainly one desires that military law should remain as it is, and that you should not have people who legislate the laws put on as judges in a military court of inquiry. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. HEALY
Before the Question is put—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am bound to put the Question at once.

Mr. HEALY
I should like to point out this Bill can have no real urgency for this reason: the Section which it proposes to amend has this Clause in it:
745 "All rules made in pursuance of this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable after they have been made if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be not then sitting, as soon as practicable after the beginning of the then next Session of Parliament."
That compels the laying of any rule that may be made under this Bill before this House, and if Parliament dissents from the rule, you could not decently hold the inquiry. Parliament might annul the rule, and therefore you are in this difficulty that this Bill can have no effect, because the forty days could not be accomplished before the Session ends. We shall meet again, I think, in October—I express the hope that it will be in November— accordingly it follows that you cannot hold this inquiry before November next, because your forty days will not have elapsed. Certainly, nobody advising the parties in this case would advise them to have an earlier inquiry, because then the court would sit under a rule which Parliament might annul. I suggest that we have reached a stage where Progress should be reported, and if the right hon. Gentleman will make that Motion I shall be obliged to him. If not I shall have to make it myself.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
What for?

Mr. HEALY
To remove the words from "except two judges."

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have not even reached that yet. If the hon and learned Gentleman would allow these words I shall be prepared to make a statement later, but we are now on a totally different proposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman is fighting for a purely military court of inquiry, for a purely military offence. This means, if it is carried, that there must be a purely military court, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is the champion of a purely military court where civilians are concerned. When the Committee has decided that question, one way or another, then I will be prepared to make a statement on it.

Mr. HEALY
I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. He says I am in favour of a purely military court where civilians are concerned. The only information I have as to who is concerned is that it is an Irish Catholic soldier.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. If he takes the trouble to read the Bill he will find on its face this statement: 746 It cannot be a mixed tribunal, except in a case where it is certified that it involves persons not subject to military law.

Mr. HEALY
The word involved is a very wide word. Persons in every court, witnesses, judge and jury, are involved. Therefore I do not understand what the word "involve" means. We have no information from the right hon. Gentleman as to whom this case affects, but we have heard that it affects an Irish Catholic soldier. I do not think even in the case of an Irish Catholic soldier that it is hard that he should have a purely military tribunal. As the House knows, I do not want to put difficulties in the way of the right lion. Gentleman, but if he wishes Progress should be reported at a stage two or three lines further down, I will be most anxious to gratify his desire in that respect.

§ Mr. SALTER
I beg to move to leave out the words "who are to be called as witnesses" ["persons not subject to military law"]. I think the powers given by this Bill are unnecessarily restricted.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think that is a reasonable Amendment.

Mr. HEALY
I wish to point out that the words the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) used just now against me are not in the Bill. It is not "involved" at all; it is "affect." The rules further state, "where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character—" So that we are dealing with what is even still vaguer than the word "involved"—" likely to affect."

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I wish to move to insert the words "a judge of the High Court who may be president" ["as members of the court of."]
Th sentence, would then read "and the rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the Court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law who are to be called as witnesses, provide for the inclusion as members of the court of a judge of the High Court who may be president, and of one or more persons, being Members of either House of Parliament," etc. I admit that it is a very difficult case to meet. It is very difficult, indeed, to know what is the ideal tribunal 747 which should be set up to deal with this case, which may be a prolonged one, requiring searching investigation. But I do think that whether we secure one or two, or even three judges, it is really desirable that one judge should be on this tribunal. I think it is essential that there should be a man there who is respected and looked up to both by soldiers and civilians, and it is important that they should have a man who is accustomed to weighing evidence, and to know what is evidence and what is not. I suggest that the president of this court—I leave out for the moment who it should be—should be one of His Majesty's judges. It does not need words of mine to commend one of His Majesty's judges to this House. The only feeling I have is that the judges are very hard-worked at the present moment, and it might be difficult to find one to serve on this court. But I do think it would have a good effect upon the other members of the court if this were done. Supposing you have a civilianmade president. Obviously the military officers would say, "Why should we have a civilian; why should not we, as heretofore, have that office in our gift." If a military officer is put as president, the civilians will equally object, but no one can object to a judge being at the head of this court of inquiry. I purposely do not enter into the subject as to who the Member should be, because I believe that would come much more appropriately upon another Amendment, but I press most strongly that Members should consider whether a judge should not, in fact, be made president of this court of inquiry for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. HAZLETON
I beg to second this Amendment. As I suggested on the Second Reading this would be a wise course to pursue. I do not think we are dealing on this particular Amendment with the question whether we should also, in addition, have Members of the House of Commons on the court, so I will not discuss that matter, but I can hardly see how there can be any two opinions as to the wisdom of having a judicial authority on a Committee of this kind. The very function of this Committee is of a judicial nature, and I would be inclined even to go further than the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment, and say that, while I think there ought to be one judge who, in my opinion, should be the chairman of the court of inquiry, there may very well even be more than one judge a member of it. 748 We have had some military experiences lately of committees, not of this precise nature, but which may very well serve as a precedent. We had the Commission into the cause of the late rebellion in Ireland, and although the Courts were sitting in London at the time, no difficulty was made about sparing for that inquiry, which took up a considerable time, a distinguished judge of the High Court. Also, in the case of the Advisory Committee, which was dealing with the Irish prisoners in connection with the rebellion, there was not only one but two judges. Originally there was one judge who, I understand, is Chairman of the Advisory Committee, but in order to meet the special emergency, a second judge was brought over from Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman indicated at an earlier stage that he would be prepared favourably to consider this Amendment, and that being so, I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee.

Mr. L. WILLIAMS
If the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment would would alter the wording in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I should have very great pleasure in supporting it. Instead of the words, I would like him to insert to move "two judges of the High Court, one of whom may be president." That would do away with the objection which my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier in the evening, that a judge of the High Court might be unwilling to sit on a military tribunal under the chairmanship even of a distinguished officer. I do not know whether that might be so or not. We know that Mr. Justice Shearman sat as a member of the Irish Commission under the presidency of Lord Hardinge. But if there be any objection of that sort, the fact that the president of the court may be a judge of the High Court would do away with it, and I think if some such suggestion as this were accepted it would also do away with the objection of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not know that it would be possible to have Members of Parliament sitting on this court as well as two judges. Possibly it would be quite sufficient to have two lawyers (two judges) sitting. I do not wish to discuss the question of Members of Parliament sitting on the inquiry now, because I do not consider it is quite in order. I foresee a number of grave objections to using the House of Commons as a sort of panel from which the Army Council should call upon men to serve not 749 merely for this one inquiry, but possibly for other inquiries later on. I agree that the number of inquiries will be limited, and that the circumstances in -which they will be held will be very exceptional. I understand that a court-martial can be held without any preliminary court of inquiry at all, but, even so, these mixed courts of inquiry can only be held in very exceptional circumstances, because the Bill says that they shall be held where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence of persons not subject to military law is necessary. I foresee great objection to treating the House of Commons as a panel from which the Army Council should draw two Members.

Mr. HEALY
It does not say "two"; it may be one or more. It may be twenty.

Mr. WILLIAMS
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. There may be twenty or twelve, or it may be limited to one. There is grave objection to the Army Council being empowered at any time during the currency of the War to call upon one or more Members of the Houses of Parliament to serve on these courts of inquiry. If my right hon. Friend can see his way to accept this Amendment and appoint two judges of the High Court, one of whom shall be the president, he will facilitate the passing of this Bill to-day and will do away with great objections which otherwise might arise.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
My hon. and learned Friends forget that this is a general Bill. Although I am not concealing from the Committee that the occasion which necessitated my introducing a Bill of the kind at the present moment was a case which is very much in the public mind, it is not the only case awaiting decision at the present moment which involves civilians— not by any means. It is not the only case by any means in which I should put in operation the powers to appoint a mixed court the moment I had power to do so. I have another ease in my mind in which civilians are concerned, and in which it is possible that civilians may be the chief parties. That, however, is not the matter for the moment. You cannot have two judges of the High Court sitting in every case of that kind. It is not a particularly important case. You could not always have one judge or two judges of the High Court. So far as I can see, the real objection in the minds of hon. Members is confining it to Members of Parliament. There seems to be a very general feeling 750 on that subject. Most of the invective of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) has been directed against setting up a Parliamentary panel. It is regarded as a piece of impertinence on the part of the Army Council that they should treat the House of Commons as a panel from which they can choose their members for a court. That point has come from many quarters of the Committee. If it will meet the objections of hon. Members, I certainly would not object to leaving out the words
"being Members of either House of Parliament."
That would give absolute freedom to the Secretary of State to choose. He, after all, is subject to correction at the hands of Parliament. I can well understand in such a case as I have in mind you could not well have either Members of Parliament or judges, but rather another man, perhaps a lawyer who has not yet climbed to the bench. I think I should be meeting the criticisms of hon. Members if I were to leave out the words being Members of either House of Parliament. I may say that in the particular case I will consider the desirability of adding a judge.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
Will he preside—that is the point?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No; I think on the whole it would be better to have a distinguished officer presiding over the court. I do not think judges would object to serving on a tribunal under the presidency of a very distinguished officer of fame in the service of the country. If this Amendment is withdrawn—

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I withdraw it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Then I shall propose to leave out the words being Members of either House of Parliament.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dickinson)
Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

§ Major WEDGWOOD
May I ask my right hon. Friend, before he changes the form of the Bill, to consider the expense that will be involved if you have two judges of the High Court, or any important 751 officials sitting on this inquiry? I have heard details of the case. Everybody knows that the inquiry is going to deal with a thing which is trivial and which ought not take up the time of two judges of the High Court.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I do not propose to put two of them on.

§ Major WEDGWOOD
There will be extra expense if you appoint a judge.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
There will not.

§ Major WEDGWOOD
The judges will be taken from their ordinary work at the Courts. We are always told there is enough to do there when it is a question of appointing a new judge In the interests of economy I protest against taking up the time of the Committee for five hours over a trivial ease of this kind. I am strongly opposed to appointing Commissions like those which dealt with Strafford and Laud and making a mountain out of a molehill.

Mr. HEALY
The hon. and gallant Member (Major Wedgwood) is not quite fair to the Government when they have agreed to our suggestion. We have been fairly met. There will be no extra expense. If you take the case which occurred recently, Judge Shearman, of the High Court, may have received a railway fare or a hansom cab fare for coming down to the inquiry.

§ Major WEDGWOOD
They will be taken away from their work.

Mr. HEALY
There is a holiday at the Courts for the next two months. The Government have met the case fairly. They will have added great dignity to the inquiry. We have removed the sting of Parliamentary partisanship from the matter, because the Committee has very properly taken the view, which the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, that it is more desirable that Members of Parliament should not be put upon these inquiries. I congratulate him upon that, and, having led the opposition, T shall present no objection to the Government having facilities for passing the Bill through.

§ Sir C. WARNER
I hope that whatever arrangement is made will not necessitate having judges on these courts of inquiry. I feel quite certain that on a military court a judge would be a man altogether in the wrong place. He would not be sitting as president. I hope the question of having a judge will be put aside. This is not a 752 trial, it is an inquiry, and any civilian is better than a lawyer for the particular purpose.

§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS
May I suggest that if these words are excluded the Bill will read: One or more persons who are not officers. That would be very wide, and quite wide enough to enable the right hon. Gentleman to appoint anybody.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Hear, hear!

§ Sir J. JARDINE
I should like to add my views to those of the hon. Member who has expressed an objection to taking judges away from their work. It will delay a great many suits that ought to be tried in the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is a bad precedent, especially as the class of cases contemplated by this Bill are not of immense importance. They are not equal to many that come before the ordinary Assizes. There is a great deal of difficulty in making a court for these cases. As regards the appointment of Members of Parliament, if we are to find a. substitute for them it would be a Select Committee of this House. Hon. Members will remember that on one occasion the action of the Duke of York, then commanding the Army, was brought in question as regards the procuring of commissions by a certain person. A Select Committee was appointed, the commissions were revoked, and five or six hundred persons voted as to whether he was guilty or not. That would be too much of a burden upon this House in this time of war. For that reason I am prepared to vote for such a tribunal as is set out, and to trust that the appointing authority will take care, when appointing outsiders, that they shall be persons competent to hear and determine the matter, who know something about military law, and who can get on fairly well with the military judges.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I beg to move to leave out the words "one or more ["of one or more persons"], and to insert instead thereof "such number of persons."
I shall propose later, if this Amendment be accepted, to insert the words "as to equalise the number of military and civilian members.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
You might simply want a civilian element in a particular case, and, on the other hand, you; might want just a dash of military in another case. You would want a larger proportion of civilians in one case than in another. I think each case must be decided on its merits.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
This Bill only applies in cases where the character of civilians is at stake. Clearly in the case which my right hon. Friend has in his mind, which is to come on for judgment at once, there is a very important decision to be arrived at which involves the honour either of civilians or of soldiers or of both, and it may be that both parties are guilty, and that it will be necessary to divide the responsibility for the guilt between the civilian and the military accused. The evidence is going to be taken in secret we are told. The report will be a bare announcement that the verdict is so and so, and apparently that is all that is going to be communicated to the House and the country. If there is a real dispute and a real difficulty about adjudicating the guilt of the persons who are implicated, and if there is, as there must be, in my right hon. Friend's mind a suspicion that some jealousy will arise as between the civilian and the military element unless you put a civil element upon the court, the mere fact that by a bare majority perhaps a verdict has been given seriously involving the character of some civilian person, there being only one or at most two civilians on the court, you will accentuate and not diminish the jealousy by introducing a small element of civilian representation. If it is necessary to bring in the civilian element at all it ought to be brought in in equal numbers. If the court can judge quite fairly without any civilian element at all, I should be quite content with a court of inquiry as it is at present constituted. If you are to have civilian representation at all, that representation ought to be an equal one.

§ Mr. SALTER
I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["one or more persons"], to add the words "to be nominated by the Secretary of State."
I think we ought not to allow the Bill to go without making some kind of provision as to who is to nominate the civilian mem- 754 bers, and unless we do we shall have to leave that to the framers of the rule, and I do not think the House ought to leave it to those who frame the rules to decide who is to have the power of selecting and nominating the civilian members. I think it should rest with the Secretary of State. As I understand it, the military members of one of the mixed tribunals will be nominated by the high military officer who ordered the inquiry to take place, and in very important cases the Army Council. In ordinary cases a high military officer directs officers who are subordinate to himself to form themselves into a committee of inquiry and inquire into some definite matter, and to report to him. That, I understand, is a military court of inquiry. When this Act applies there will be added to such military officers as the military authority appoints such civilian members as the Secretary of State appoints. The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that we ought to consider the numbers in which these courts will be composed, because, the military authority is free to appoint any number of military officers, and the Secretary of State is free to appoint any number of civilians, and it is conceivable that they might appoint one against the other. We are making no provision at all whether they are to arrange together in what proportions the court is to be constituted. We make no provision as to who is to nominate the chairman, and I really think we are leaving certain matters which we ought to deal with un-dealt with. My present Amendment is merely that the power of nominating civilian members shall rest with the Secretary of State. I think that will probably commend itself to the Committee. But besides that there is this other difficult question as to the numbers in which the court is to be constituted, which my Amendment does not touch, but which ought to be dealt with in some way.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I wish to support the Amendment. I think it is obvious that the nomination of the civilian members must rest with the Secretary of State. But the point which has been raised as to how many Army members might be appointed I think, in practice, would not arise, because in the last resort surely the nomination of the Army members must rest with the Army Council. The Secretary of State for War represents the Army Council here, and is amenable to this House, and therefore, in the last resort, we shall 755 here have all the power which may be necessary to see that if one case arises that he did not approve of at any rate in the second case not too many Army members should be put on.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
Has not the right hon. Gentleman considered that this House should be informed as to the constitution of every one of these courts which are set up? It has not been the practice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has fairly stated the present law. I think the court of inquiry is appointed by the Army Council or the officer in command. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the civilian members should be nominated by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
On a point of Order. My hon. and learned Friend moved the Amendment at the end of the Clause, and surely it comes in there?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I understand it must come, and was intended by the Mover to come, in after the word "persons."

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have no objection to it; and I think there is a good deal to be said for the civilian members being nominated by the Secretary of State.

Mr. HEALY
Is he on the Army Council?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Oh, yes; he presides.

§ Sir C. WARNER
Would it not be well to put in "Secretary of State for War"?

§ Mr. SALTER
I used the expression because it is used before in the Clause.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is an Act to amend the Army Act, and therefore "Secretary of State" would mean "Secretary of State for War."

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Listen how the words read, "One or more persons, being nominated by the Secretary of State, who are not officers." The word "who" must refer back to the Secretary of State. It makes perfect nonsense

Mr. HEALY
The Amendment reverses the whole position. The Secretary of State is a member of the Army Council It is the Army Council which will have the nomination We are now, by this Amend- 756 ment, creating that very duality of authority to which I objected in the Debate. As the Bill originally stood the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Army Council, would use hi3 very proper authority in the selection of these members. But that has been qualified by the opinions and acts of other members of the Army Council, and we are now putting the right hon. Gentleman in this invidious position, that whereas as a member of the Army Council he will have the selection of the officers of the court-martial, he himself will have the selection of the civil members of the tribunal and the Army Council will have nothing to say to it. It would be better to allow the Bill to remain as originally drafted. The Army Council has only sprung up in the last sixteen years, and it was received by the House with considerable doubt. I want to point out clearly that we are now splitting up the Army Council as an authority and giving the Secretary of State for War a power which is not vested in the Army Council at all, and we are doing that on the Amendment of the hon. and learned' Gentleman, who is not a member of the Government, and the Government themselves do not ask for these powers because the Bill as originally drafted has the nomination not to the Secretary of State for War, but to the Secretary of State for War and the Army Council.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave)
I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will persist in his objection if he will remember it is not always the Army Council that appoints a court of inquiry. Sometimes it falls to the officer in command to deal with a particular matter. Apart from that, we arc introducing a new rule—that is, that in these particular cases there shall be some element to protect civilian witnesses or a civilian who is affected by the inquiry. The point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is as to who is to appoint the civilian element. In that case perhaps it would not be right that the Army Council or the officer in command should appoint, not only the military members, but the person or persons who are to represent the civilian clement. You should have some other authority, and I think we cannot do better than the Secretary of State. He certifies that the evidence is likely to affect civilians.

Mr. HEALY
I will not persist in my objection, but I simply take the point that 757 you are making a precedent, which undoubtedly will have consequences, and that is being done, not by the Government having considered the matter, but upon the spur of the moment by an Amendment not upon, the Paper and moved by a private Member.