HC Deb 19 December 1916 vol 88 cc1282-5
24. Mr. MORRELL

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has yet received reports with regard to the continuance of that form of field punishment known as "crucifixion"; and when he will make any statement on the subject?

28. Major HAYWARD

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that there is inequality in the administration of justice in the British Army in France owing to the varying practice of commanding officers, some awarding field imprisonment No. 1 only for grave offences while others do so for minor irregularities; whether he is aware that this form of punishment is not only degrading to the victim, but by creating feelings of indignation and discontent in the minds of British soldiers who witness it tends to destroy the moral of the Army, besides leaving a bad impression on the minds of our Allies the French population; and whether, seeing that field imprisonment No. 2 is precisely the same punishment as No. 1, with the omis- sion of the part known as crucifixion, the Government will take immediate steps to abolish it and substitute field imprisonment No. 2?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I must, in the first place, protest against the term "crucifixion." By its continued use, unfair and unnecessary prejudice is introduced. In accordance with the intention indicated by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, reports were sought from all the General Officers commanding Armies in the field. I would remind the House that it is upon these officers and not upon any of those who sit here that the responsibility—I must say the very onerous responsibility—lies of maintaining effective discipline without which, not only the safety of the Armies, but also the success of operations will be jeopardised.

All the responsible commanders consulted except one agree that it is impossible to do away with field punishment. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in France, whose experience in this matter, of course, covers the widest field, strongly desires that this form of punishment should be retained, and in particular thinks that the abolition of Rule 2 (b) would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences. He attributes the rapid building up of discipline in the New Army units largely to the judicious use by commanding officers of the power of awarding field punishment, and he fears that the result of its abolition must inevitably be that recourse to the death penalty would become more frequent. I am sure that the House will recognise that civilian standards of what is suitable form of punishment are quite inapplicable to the necessarily stern conditions of active service. In such conditions punishment must be summary and concentrated; it must not, by being spread over a long period, deplete the fighting line and provide men, even men of good character, with a chance they may find it difficult to resist of getting away from field conditions. The essentials in field punishment are the infliction of physical discomfort and the stimulation of the sense of shame.

The desire of the military authorities to use the necessary power of awarding exemplary punishment for its just objects, and for no more than its just objects, has, I think, been conclusively shown in the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Act, the provisions of which are well known, but in regard to which it may not be equally well known that the principle and details of the measure were suggested by the then Commander-in-Chief in France.

Although, therefore, field punishment cannot be abolished, the Army Council see their way to provide some additional safeguards and to standardise the carrying out of the punishment when it is inflicted, but this requires some further consideration, and I am not in a position to furnish any details to-day.

Mr. MORRELL

Are we to understand that a written report will be laid before the House upon the subject? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be in a position to furnish further details?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I cannot say that. If my hon. Friend will consult me in private I shall give him all details I have in my possession and arrange with him to discuss the thing in this House if necessary.

Mr. PRINGLE

Will the articles on this form of punishment appearing in the newspapers associated with the present Secretary for War now be suspended?

Mr. OUTHWAITE

Will inquiries be made as to the methods adopted in the French Army for maintaining discipline without this form of punishment?

Mr. MACPHERSON

My right hon. Friend has made those inquiries.

Mr. HOGGE

Will the reports from the commanders in the field which the War Office has received be published?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I have not consulted my right hon. Friend.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, pending these decisions, that field punishment No. 1 shall cease in this country?

Mr. MACPHERSON

As far as I know, field punishment No. 1 has never been enforced in this country.

Mr. BILLING

If I give the hon. Gentleman instances will he assure the House that it shall not occur again?

27. Major HAYWARD

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many sentences of field punishment No. 1 have been inflicted on British soldiers in France since the commencement of the War; how many of such sentences have been awarded by courts-martial and how many by commanding officers under their summary powers, respectively; and whether this form of punishment has been inflicted for such minor offences as galloping mules on the highway, losing steel helmets, losing iron rations, firing a round of ammunition by accident when practising rapid loading, and first offences of simple drunkenness unaccompanied by aggravating circumstances?

Mr. MACPHERSON

It is not practicable to give the information which the hon. and gallant Member desires, but I would remind him, as has previously been stated in this House, that under the provisions of Section 44 (5) of the Army Act, field punishment may be awarded for any offence.

Mr. MORRELL

Will the hon. Gentleman obtain particulars of the case in which it is admitted by the War Office that men suffering field punishment died under the infliction?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I have no knowledge of any such admission made by the War Office.

Mr. PRINGLE

Will my hon. Friend see that those persons who have circulated reports that men have died under crucifixion are dealt with according to law?

Mr. BILLING

What is the most junior rank of officer who is capable of inflicting the punishment of crucifixion?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member should give notice of that question.