§ In Sub-section (5) of Section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishments by courts-martial) the words "personal restraint or of" in line 7 of such Subsection shall be omitted.—[Mr. Hayward.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HAYWARDI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I must apologise to the Committee for not having placed this Clause on the Paper. It deals with a matter with which the Committee is thoroughly familiar, having been raised by myself on several occasions. If this Clause were accepted, it would impose a further limitation upon the Secretary of State in framing rules for administering field punishment. The Section dealing with this matter has already imposed some restrictions, and it might be helpful to the Committee if I read the Sub-section.
Where a soldier on active service is guilty of any offence, it shall be lawful for a court-martial to award for that offence such field punishment, other than flogging"—So that there is that restriction already imposed—as may be directed by rules to be made from time to time by a Secretary of State, 2335 and such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour, but shall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb.Those last words impose a further restriction, and what I wish to do by my Clause is still further to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State by saying that field punishment shall not consist of personal restraint. It is by virtue of these innocent-looking words "personal restraint" that the offensive part of field punishment No. 1 is at present carried out.
Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSONDoes the hon. Member consider that putting a man in prison is personal restraint?
§ Mr. HAYWARDI should consider myself under personal restraint if I were in prison. Field punishment No. 1, as everybody knows, is the tying up of the subject to a gun wheel, under rules made by the Secretary of State, but which have to be submitted to Parliament. It is Parliament that is responsible. We were told on several occasions during the War that the question of abolition or revision could not be reconsidered then, but that after the War probably the time would arrive when it might be considered and some modification made.
I do not want to weary the Committee by going at any length into the very grave objections to this method of punishment. Members of the Committee are familiar with them. If it were only used on rare occasions and for very serious offences, the same objection would not apply. We in this House know that it is not so. I do not for a moment suggest, in fact I have stated the reverse, that it is used by the Commanding Officer, by the general run of Commanding Officers, except on rare occasions and for very grave offences. I quite admit that, and fully; but it is well known to the Committee that other commanding officers have given this very serious and offensive punishment for very trivial offences. We had these cases up in this House again and again during the War. One of the objectionable features of the punishment is that it can be given by a commanding officer, as well as a court martial, for any offence whatever. That, I think, is one of the deficiencies of the Army Act as it stands, that although there is a scale of punishments, yet there is no scale of offences for which the punishment can 2336 be given. Consequently you have an Army, situated such as our Army was in the late War, where you got the greatest inequalities in the administration of justice throughout the Army.
It is said that this form of punishment is necessary to maintain discipline. I do not speak with any very great experience in this matter, but from such experience as I had, I should say the truth lay in quite the reverse direction. Field punishment No. 1 is, I should say, destructive of discipline, and is particularly destructive of, what is of equal importance, moral. I know perfectly well that when soldiers in France and elsewhere have seen their comrades undergoing infliction of this punishment, it has instilled a more rebellious spirit than anything else could have done. I know this of my own knowledge. Again, we are told that if this form of punishment is not inflicted, then the death sentences would probably be increased. I very much doubt that. I have sat on courts-martial, and I cannot conceive of a case where the infliction of field punishment No. 1 might be taken as a substitute for the death penalty. It is impossible for me to conceive of an officer, or a court-martial, taking such a view of a case as that. The time has come, I think, when Parliament might well review this matter, and once and for all abolish this very objectionable from of punishment, which is not directed to physical pain but is directed mainly to the degradation and humiliation of the man and the breaking of his spirit.
Mr. T. THOMSONI shall support the Clause moved by my hon. Friend. Although I imagine in the official army mind the small experience of a mere amateur will not count for more. I do, however, submit to the House that the slight experience one had overseas and the attitude of the men towards this kind of punishment ought to be some guide to the House in its deliberations upon this matter. I can testify from the very small personal experience of one who served only in the ranks that the feeling of the men towards the infliction of this particular form of Field Punishment No. 1 was the very reverse of that which was intended. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has referred to the feeling of degradation and humiliation engendered by what was commonly called in the ranks 2337 "crucifixion." It led to no good results so far as the moral of the soldiers was concerned. It differed in its administration, and its infliction varied tremendously with the personality of the commanding officer and of those who had to carry out its administration. I submit that no good purpose was served from the general point of view of military discipline, but rather that the reverse was the fact. Now, that you have an Army in which, if I may be excused for saying so, you have a higher type of men, and are trying to keep a higher type, these rare relics of barbarism are not applicable. You have in your hands plenty of methods of discipline and of severe punishment without falling back on these relics of the past. I submit you will get a better spirit in the Army than if you insist upon this form of Field Punishment No. 1.
Sir R.SANDERSI only received notice a short while ago that this question was likely to be brought up. It was brought up last year, if I remember, by the hon. Member, and I think he then used very much the same arguments as now. I am afraid I shall have to reply now in much the same fashion as I did then, and I cannot add very much to the arguments I then put forward. The hon. Member said that a Committee ought to be appointed to enquire into this matter. That has been done. A Committee fully considered the matter, and decided that field punishment No. 1 ought to be kept. The opinion of such men as Sir Douglas Haig and Sir William Robertson was taken, and they were in favour of the retention of the existing system. The Revision Committee said:
The Committee consider that the question of the retention or abolition of field punishment No. 1 is one depending mainly on whether any other punishment can be devised to take its place which is suitable and effective on active service. The views of officers commanding in various theatres of war were obtained by the Army Council. These strongly support the necessity of retaining field punishment No. 1, and this view is endorsed by the service members of the Committee. No suitable alternative punishment which has the support of military and Air Force opinion has been suggested to the Committee. In these circumstances they do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of field punishment No. 1."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1921; col. 886, Vol. 140.]I quoted that last year, and also the opinion of General Macready, reference 2338 to whom has been made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause. General Macready said:The abolition of field punishment No. 1 would have disastrous and far-reaching consequence, and as a result calls for the death penalty would become more frequent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1921; col. 886 Vol. 140.]After all, no one dislikes this punishment more than I do, but we have got to have some punishment that is thoroughly disagreeable, and deserves all the nasty things that can be said about field punishment No. 1. It is all very well for us sitting here to talk about the relics of a barbarous system, but I do not think that we have the right—well, we have that—but I do not think it would be wise and statesmanlike for us to try and impose our opinion in this matter, and make that the rule for the men who have the real responsibility of maintaining discipline in the field, sometimes under very, very difficult circumstances.
§ Mr. HOGGEI trust my hon. Friend will divide the Committee, after an answer of that kind from the Under-Secretary for War. He has not met the points at all. My hon. Friend made one point which has always been made, that if you are going to have such a punishment as this for a certain list of offences, the latter should be framed in such a way that the punishment will fit the crime. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to get up and excuse himself on the ground that we cannot do away with these relics of a barbarous system is to argue that you might as well re-impose the tortures of the Inquisition for purposes of punishment—if we were sufficiently inhuman to do it! During the War we had case after case brought forward in this House, and I do not remember anything which moved the House more than the description of some of the crimes for which this punishment was given. To say that it would increase the death sentence is, in my opinion, a very inadequate argument. As a matter of fact, there were far too many death sentences in the War; they were far too frequent, and there was far too little investigation. Cases were discovered where inquiry showed that men had been shot needlessly and without adequate inquiry. It is an inhuman system. Seven million men went into the War. Five million went voluntarily, and, therefore, it was the more 2339 cruel to inflict Field Punishment No. 1, or crucifixion, on the type of men who volunteered for the Army. If what my hon. and gallant Friend has quoted is the opinion of Field Marshal Haig and General Macready of what they regard as necessary for the discipline of an Army, I think it is only fair to say that it alters one's views with regard to the authority of these men. These are great soldiers, geniuses in leading men. We have heaped upon them honours as a result of their genius for leadership, for leading men successfully, without having at the back of their authority such barbarous and inhuman punishment as Field Punishment No. 1. If they need it, I say, no thanks to their genius! Now that we are passed through the War, it seems to me it is just the time, the fitting time, to do what we are asked to do in the way of amendment of the Army (Annual) Bill.
§ 8.0 P.M.
Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSONMy hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, said nothing about hard labour. That was to be allowed to stay in, but the matter of personal restraint was to be left out. I leave it to his imagination to explain how a man is to be given hard labour without personal restraint. He said that the Army Act was so arranged that there were no punishments laid down there to suit definite crimes. That is not true. The ordinary Army Act does definitely lay down certain maximum punishments for definite crimes, and so do the King's Regulations. The point is that these Regulations are made for
§ peace time. You cannot lay down definite Regulations, on active service, that any particular crime should have a particular form of punishment, because it might be impossible to carry out that punishment. Remarks of the kind to which we have been listening come from people who do not realise the conditions under which men work in the Army, and the conditions they propose would tie the hands of commanding officers, and might make it impossible for them, in some cases, to maintain discipline. As far as I can remember, and I am speaking from memory, there is a considerable difference between Field Punishment No. 1 and Field Punishment No. 2. Field Punishment No. 1 involves forfeiture of pay, and Field Punishment No. 2 does not. To imply, as many Members do, that because a man gets Field Punishment No. 1 he is tied to a cart wheel is absolute nonsense. I have seen No. 1 punishment frequently, but I never saw a man tied to a cart wheel. I never remember a single case in my own regiment where Field Punishment No. 1 fell to be given in that way, and when it was given by commanding officers it was given because it entailed forfeiture of pay. If you abolish Field Punishment No. 1 you will deprive commanding officers of the only means of giving punishment, except in the mild form of confinement to barracks, without any forfeiture of pay.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 155.
2341| Division No. 77.] | AYES. | [8.5 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hartshorn, Vernon | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) |
| Banton, George | Hinds, John | Rendall, Atheistan |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hogge, James Myles | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Cairns, John | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Robertson, John |
| Cape, Thomas | Irving, Dan | Sexton, James |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spencer, George A. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sutton, John Edward |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kennedy, Thomas | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Kenyon, Barnet | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Myers, Thomas | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hallas, Eldred | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | |
| Halls, Walter | Poison, Sir Thomas A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hancock, John George | Rankin, Captain James Stuart | Mr. Hayward and Mr. Foot. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar | Reid, D. D. |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Gregory, Holman | Remer, J. R. |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Renwick, Sir George |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Hallwood, Augustine | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Rodger, A. K. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hopkins, John W. W. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Howard, Major S. G. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Jameson, John Gordon | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Bruton, Sir James | Jesson, C. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Sugden, W. H. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Kidd, James | Taylor, J. |
| Casey, T. W. | Larmor, Sir Joseph | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Lloyd, George Butler | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lorden, John William | Waddington, R. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Ward-Jackson, Major C. L. |
| Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives) | Macquisten, F. A. | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Mason, Robert | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Molson, Major John Eisdale | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Morden, Col. W. Grant | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Nail, Major Joseph | Windsor, Viscount |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Neal, Arthur | Winterton, Earl |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Wise, Frederick |
| Evans, Ernest | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Parker, James | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Forestler-Walker, L. | Pearce, Sir William | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Forrest, Walter | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Perkins, Walter Frank | |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Pilditch, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gardiner, James | Pratt, John William | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Rae, H. Norman | |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
Question put, and agreed to.
| SCHEDULE. | |
| Accommodation to be provided. | Maximum Price. |
| Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished | Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier. |
| Breakfast as specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Army and Air Force Acts. | Sevenpence each. |
| Dinner as so specified | Eightpence. |
| Supper as so specified | Threepence. |
| Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat. | Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier. |
| Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse. | One shilling and ninepence per day. |
| Stable room without forage | Sixpence per day. |
| Lodging and attendance for officer | Three shillings per night. |
§ Note.—An officer shall pay for his food.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
2342§ Mr. HOGGEI want in one sentence to draw attention to a point I wish to raise. It is one which I made before. 2343 If the Committee will look at what is provided for breakfast and dinner, they will find that the sums there are 7d., 8d., and 3d., which makes 1s. 6d., which is a little less than any dish we can get in the dining room at the House of Commons. I venture to suggest that this amount allowed for the sustenance of these men is not enough.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.