§ 80. Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the nature of the orders that have been given to the effect that in future no attempt is to be made to enforce obedience by means of physical violence; whether any Regulation has been issued on the subject; and whether commanding officers have been warned that when a man represents that his disobedience to orders is due to a conscientious objection to military service he must forthwith be brought before a district court-martial for trial?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe hon. Member does not possibly realise, although I stated it, that in reply to his question of the 4th July I read the report of the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Western Command, and that the last paragraph of the report contained a statement as to the orders which had been issued by him. The nature of the orders seems to me perfectly clear. The Regulations in regard to the powers of a Commanding Officer in disposing summarily of offences under the Army Act will be found in paragraph 487 1662 of the King's Regulations, and the hon. Member will see that an offence which, falls within Section 9 (1) of the Army Act cannot be summarily disposed of by a Commanding Officer. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, Commanding Officers have not been so warned, as the suggestion introduced by the hon. Member is not contemplated by Section 46 (8) of the Army Act, and it is therefore not possible to give effect thereto. But the effect desired can be produced by the soldier himself exercising his statutory right of demanding a court-martial under-Section 46 (8) of the Army Act.
§ Mr. MORRELLDo I understand that the reply given the other day applies only to the particular case, and that it is still open to officers of other regiments to-enforce obedience by physical violence?
§ Mr. TENNANTOh, no!
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere are many questions still to be got through.