Clause 37.—(DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT.) (Hansard, 2 May 1957)

Commander Maitland
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to some of the rather lovely old wording of the old Articles of War which have fallen in the drafting of the Bill. That is a great pity, because it must be realised—perhaps not every hon. Member realises—that these words are actually read out from time to time to assembled ships' companies.
I remember quite clearly some of the exhortations and statements on certain occasions. One particular set of words is the Section which this new Section 37 435 is intended to replace. The Section in the old Articles of War read as follows: Every person subject to this Act who shall be guilty of any profane oath, cursing, execration, drunkenness, uncleanliness or other scandalous action in derogation of God's honour and the corruption of good manners shall be dismissed from His Majesty's service with disgrace or suffer such other punishment as hereinafter mentioned. We were told by the lawyers on the Select Committee—and I am sure they were right—that it was quite impossible nowadays to put those sonorous words into action, and that I understand, but it must not be forgotten that these words were created to be read out. If exhortation is of no use, I cannot think, Mr. Hynd, what you and I have been doing in this place for so long. What have we been doing in this Chamber today but trying to change each other's mind by exhortation? It may be said that an Act of Parliament is not the right place for exhortation, but I am not so sure.
I wanted to draw attention to the passing of those age-old famous words. I believe they are the only words used in an Act of Parliament to suggest that good manners are a good thing, and I should have thought that in these days we do not care enough about good manners. It is quite astonishing that a Conservative Government should remove words governing good manners from any Act of Parliament in which they have existed.

§ Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith
I have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend. Like him, I served in the Navy for a short time. The trouble is that although those words sound very well, they do not mean very much. It is not clear to what offence the words "derogation of God's honour" relate. Probably they had some reference originally to heresy.
These words seem to imply that swearing in the Navy is punished. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that as well as I do that that is far from being the case.

Commander Maitland
Surely, in certain circumstances, it is perfectly possible to punish a man for blasphemy or swearing.

§ Mr. Galbraith
It is certainly possible, but these words imply that all swearing in the Navy is punished, which, as my 436 hon. and gallant Friend knows, is far from being the case. If any conduct of that character became serious, it could be punished under Clause 39.
These words have a tang of the past about them which, to a certain extent, is pleasing. We hope that the Committee later will agree to retain the old words in the Preamble. They are not only old, but are also ennobling. The words which my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to be put back into the Clause are ancient, but not ennobling. They are, in fact, slightly brutalising. I therefore think that it would be better to leave the Clause as it is drafted.