§ In Section one hundred and forty-five, Subsection (3), of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain wife and children), at end of Sub-section, there shall be inserted the words "unless such soldier has in fact attended, or had sufficient opportunity to attend, the summons under which the process has been served at a date prior to the issue of such orders."—[Lieut.-Colonel Hurst.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I very much regret that this new Clause is not on the Paper to-day. It has been on the Paper for the last two days, but, by a misunderstanding, it has been struck out of the Paper to-day. Section 145 of the Army Act now provides that no process whatever shall be valid against a soldier of the Regular forces if served after such soldier is under orders for service beyond the seas. That has given rise to hardships to women, particularly the mothers of illegitimate children by soldiers, in consequence of the soldier being under orders for service overseas. There have been a few cases where a soldier has actually appeared in Court and fought the case, and had an order made against him for 5s. or so a week. He has gone back to his regiment, and then received orders for overseas, and the attempt to force an order made upon him is all nugatory, owing to Section 145. With a view to rectifying that injustice, and without in any way disturbing the real substratum of Section 145 (3), as it now stands, I move this new Clause.
Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSONI beg to support the Clause. Although it is a very small point, it is a very important point to those concerned, and I do not think this would make any serious difference to the whole Clause as it stands. I hope, therefore, the Government will accept it.
§ Captain BOWYERI should like to say a word about this, because it has been till now the custom of the law of the country always to neglect the interests of the illegitimate child and the unmarried mother. Here is another case in a long line of cases, which has extended over about 350 years, and if Parliament is now, for the first time, going to deal with the question of illegitimacy, then a very good change in the law is going to be made. I hold in my hand now a definite case which has arisen within the last few weeks, and perhaps I might, without mentioning names, read out the message which was sent to the unfortunate mother who applied for an affiliation order. In this case the actual summons had been served, and the soldier was given leave by his commanding officer to attend the Court, and the order was made. She got this reply:
The attached Court Order against the above-named soldier in favour of (here was inserted the mother's name) is returned, as the man was under orders for service overseas when the Summons was served on him. Compulsory allotment is, therefore, not recoverable from the soldier.No case, I submit, could be stronger than that, because here the soldier was actually given leave by his commanding officer, and the only explanation that might arise is this. If there were a time of emergency, when no leave could be given to the soldier to attend the Court, then, I believe, the question would not arise; but if the soldier does attend the Court, and the order is made against him, I do submit that compulsory allotment should be recoverable.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDI think it is only a just proposition that has been made, if it be limited to the cases suggested, but I did not understand, when listening to the Amendment, that there was any limitation as to the process, so that any summons for any trivial thing might prevent a man going on service. Subject to proper safeguards in regard to that, I would lend my assistance to the appeal that has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. A soldier himself, however, might commit some trivial offence for the purpose of evading foreign service. Subject to a provision of that description, it is a very good proposition.
§ Sir R. SANDERSI am quite in sympathy with the proposal, which is not 2334 made for the first time. The War Office has been looking very carefully into the matter, and I had hoped that it would have been possible to have included in this year's Army Annual Bill an alteration of the Army Act which would have met the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend. However, we have had to consult other Departments as well, and drafting a Clause of that sort is not quite so simple as might be imagined. I am afraid that all I can say is that we very much hope—in fact, I should be exceedingly disappointed if we were not able, next year, to insert a Clause, which, although not in exactly the same words, would carry out the meaning, and, I think, perhaps, carry it out as fully, if not more fully, than my hon. and gallant Friend's Clause.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTHaving regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.