HC Deb 08 November 1916 vol 87 cc185-6
24. Mr. MORRELL

asked the Secretary for War whether his attention has recently been called to the frequent infliction upon soldiers upon active service of the punishment known as crucifixion, officially called field punishment No. 1; whether cases have been brought to his notice in which this punishment has been awarded for comparatively trivial offences; whether it often leads to permanent injury and sometimes to death; and whether he will authorise an investigation into this matter, with a view to modifying the regulations prescribing this form of punishment?

Mr. FORSTER

Cases have not been brought to my notice in which this punishment has been awarded for comparatively trivial offences unless, of course, the hon. Member is referring to a newspaper report which has not been substantiated and upon which I am still awaiting sufficient information as to the man's regimental number and regiment to make inquiry. As has been previously stated in this House, the offence for which field punishment may be awarded will be found by reference to Section 44 (5) of the Army Act. No authenticated reports have reached me that field punishment No. I has led to permanent injury or that it has resulted in the death of the soldier concerned, and hon. Members who make these statements must produce evidence in support of them. If the hon. Member will again refer to Section 44 (5) of the Army Act he will find that field punishment "shall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb." If the punishment has been carried out under conditions which have produced either of these two effects I can only say that this is illegal and would receive immediate attention. I therefore invite the hon. Member at once to place all the information which is in his possession in this respect in my hands.

Mr. MORRELL

Is not my hon. Friend aware that I have already placed before the War Office cases in which injury has occurred through punishment of this kind, and in which punishment was inflicted for comparatively trivial offences; is he not also aware that the punishment in one case was inflicted for exceeding the speed limit; will he further undertake, if I give him some more cases of this kind, to cause investigation to be held?

Mr. FORSTER

Yes, Sir; I think my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that so far as we are concerned if he will give us some authenticated information we will pursue it.

Commander WEDGWOOD

Did the hon. Gentleman see that article written by Mr. Robert Blatchford in a Sunday paper the other week; did he allow publication of the article to take place; as it did appear will he make inquiries and not leave it to-the good will of a Member of this House to himself inquire into it; does it not concern the honour of the Army, and is it not the duty of the War Office—

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should put that question on the Paper.