§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI handed in an Amendment early this afternoon to leave out this Clause, and my reason is, not that I wish any person to wilfully obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with any officer or soldier in the exercise of his duties, or to wilfully produce any disease or infirmity in, or to maim or injure any man whom he knows to be a soldier with a view to enabling such man to avoid military service, or to do anything to enable a soldier to render himself permanently or temporarily unfit for service—it is not that I wish to object to a person doing these things, being imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months, that I object to this Clause. But this is an Army (Annual) Bill, and I submit it is very objectionable that a change in the common law, creating new offences, should be smuggled through Parliament in this way. This, I believe, is one of the offences dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act. We have certain statutory limitations, always excepting in the case of unhappy Ireland, limiting the operation of the Clauses of the Defence of the Realm Act to a certain time, but I do suggest that new offences ought not to be embodied in the Army (Annual) Bill in this way. That is not the purpose of the Army (Annual) Bill at all, for that measure is simply brought forward to enable the Government to perform an otherwise illegal act in keeping up a standing army. To bring in this Defence of the Realm Act Regulation, which affects not soldiers, sailors, airmen and Royal Marines, but civilians, is, I suggest, most improper. I think we should have some very good reason from the Government as to why it 1595 is being done in this case, before we consent to allow the Clause to stand part.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI understand that the hon. and gallant Member does not disagree that the offences mentioned in the Clause are serious and reprehensible, and should be punished If that is so, and if a soldier is to be punished for committing any of these offences, on what ground of justice can a civilian commit such an offence without meriting punishment? The object of this Regulation is to make a civilian, who interferes with a soldier in the manner indicated, liable to punishment for an offence which would be punishable if committed by a soldier.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMy whole argument is that, while such an enactment may be very right and proper, this is not the sort of Bill into which it should be put. I very much question its legality, and I regret that no Law Officer of the Crown is here to give us his opinion on that point. I beg leave to move the adjournment until a Law Officer of the Crown can attend to give us his ruling on this point, which affects every person in the country. It is a point of very great substance, and we should have the Law Officers here. I very much doubt whether, if it were embodied in the Army Act and a case were brought under it, such a case would lie before a court of law. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The CHAIRMANI could not accept that Motion. The only question for me, as being in charge of the proceedings, is whether or not the Clause is in order, and in my opinion it is in order. The proper course for the hon. and gallant Member to take would be to move that the Clause be left out.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI apologise for having omitted to deal with the question of the punishment of civilians under the Army Act. Under Clause 153 of the Army Act, which has already been passed by this House years ago, civilians are capable of being punished. I can therefore assure the hon. and gallant Member that no new precedent is created.
§ Clauses 24, 25, and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.