SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 April 1893)

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST)
, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said, their Lordships were aware that the Army Act had taken the place of the old Mutiny Act. In former days the Mutiny Act used to be passed section by section; now the Army Act, which had replaced it, was passed annually by means of a short Bill with such Amendments as might be deemed expedient. This year there were some Amendments proposed, principally of a trifling nature, and scarcely more than verbal alterations; but two of them were of a more important character. For some years it had been thought that certain alterations in the Army Act were necessary. That opinion 749 was entertained not only by the civilian and legal advisers of the Secretary of State, but also by distinguished officers who were responsible to him for the discipline of the Army. Seeing that that was the general opinion, the Secretary of State ordered the assembly of a. small Committee to lay proposals before him, and he (Lord Sandhurst) had the honour to preside over its deliberations. Two of the members were the Adjutant General (Sir R. Buller), and the Deputy Judge Advocate General (Mr. O'Dowd), and he might say that the conclusions presented by the Committee were arrived at unanimously. In the first three sections of the Bill there were no alterations. No. 1 contained the short title, and Nos. 2 and 3 were merely continuation clauses. Section 4 provided for an amendment of Section 24 of the Act, and it was in the nature of an extended explanation of a term. Section 24 of the Act imposed a punishment on a soldier making away with or losing by neglect his clothing, equipments, arms, &c.; but it did not include all articles issued for the personal use of the soldier, such, for instance, as blankets. As the proposed Amendment ran, it was intended that the word "equipment" should include all articles issued to the care of the soldier for his personal use for military purposes. It was true that under Section 40 a charge could be framed in the cases contemplated, No. 40 being a sort of "omnibus" section, known among soldiers as the "devil's clause." There was, however, a great disinclination to use that clause for this purpose, and therefore the Amendment was proposed. The next Amendment was in Section 25 of the Act. The present reading, it was thought, was not very clear; according to the present wording, it was held to be necessary in the ease of fraudulent intent to prove that the intent was to defraud some individual, and as it turned out that it was the Government which really was the object of the fraud the charge would not stand. The Amendment proposed that it would be enough to show that there was fraudulent intent, and that it was immaterial whether such fraud were against the Government or against an individual. The next Amendment was in Section 32 of the Army Act. In Section 32 it was proposed to add the words "discharged for misconduct." At present a man 750 who had been discharged with ignominy, as incorrigible and worthless, or on conviction for felony, and who re-enlisted, concealing such discharge, was punishable under the section; but if discharged for misconduct he could not be tried under the section, but a charge had to be framed of making a false answer on attestation, which was cumbrous and inconvenient. The Amendment was proposed for convenience sake. It had been observed that the change might give opportunity for heavier punishment in such cases; but he could assure the House that it would not. So far the alterations bad not been very serious, but he now came to a change of rather more importance. As Section 46 of the Army Act stood at present, the commanding officer had power to inflict imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven days, except in the case of absence without leave, when 21 days was the limit, regard being had by the commanding officer, if be inflicted a punishment of more than seven days' cells, to the number of days during which the man had been absent. In the Rill it was proposed that 21 days should be the maximum term in all cases. That was the proposal in the Bill, but, as the Secretary of State announced in the House of Commons, steps had been taken before the SECOND READING to secure that 14 days should, for the present, be the maximum punishment that could be indicted by a, commanding officer. Before his commanding officer a soldier might claim to have the evidence taken on oath. It was considered that by this alteration the regimental court martial would almost entirely fall into desuetude. It was to the interest of the soldier that he should be dealt with by his commanding officer instead of being arraigned before a Court. By this Amendment the War Office were proposing to carry out a recommendation of a Royal Commission on Courts Martial, &c., which sat in 1869, and of which Colonel Wilson Patten was Chairman. That Commission reported in favour of increasing the powers of the commanding officer, and thereby reducing the number of courts martial, as the frequency of courts martial tended to deprive them of the proper weight which should attach to them. Then, in regard to Article 48, there was another change of some importance. Section 48 of the 751 present Act provided that the minimum number of officers serving on a district court martial in the United Kingdom, India, Malta, or Gibraltar, should be five; elsewhere, three. It was now proposed to reduce the minimum to three everywhere, and it should be observed that it was only the minimum which was to be reduced. By this arrangement much inconvenience in certain places would be obviated, and it was anticipated that justice would be better carried out. Such a court would consist of one field officer, one captain, and, at any rate, not more than one subaltern, so that it would be a court having certainly a sufficiency of experience. In all serious cases the number of the court would be five, and for these cases the General Officer commanding the district or station would provide. There was but one other Amendment to which he need draw attention. Section 9 of the Bill proposed to abolish summary courts martial and to enable field general courts martial to exercise their powers. At present these two tribunals were just alike in this—that they could not be resorted to except where an ordinary court martial could not be assembled, and thus each of them constituted a method of promptly punishing offences under circumstances of special necessity. They resembled each other in their powers and procedure, but the field court martial could be convened only for offences committed across the sea and against the property and person of an inhabitant of the country, whilst, the summary court martial dealt with offences on active service generally. It was proposed to abolish the summary court martial by the repeal of the 55th section of the Act, and its powers and procedure were incorporated under Section 49, authorising and regulating field courts-martial. In that respect there would not be any change in the law, and the law, in effect, remained the same. These were the principal changes in the Army Act which the Secretary of State recommended to Parliament. It could not be said they were against the interest of the soldier, and, whilst they might tend to the reduction of punishment, it was confidently anticipated by those best qualified to judge that they could not tend to relax discipline, and would in no way impair military justice.

§ *THE EARL OF CRANBROOK
My Lords, my noble Friend has made a very clear statement with regard to this Bill. There is no doubt that in the system which now prevails of supplementing from separate Acts every year the existing Army Bill some prejudice to the law is created because the references to subsequent Acts become very numerous. It is necessary to refer to them in order to ascertain what is the real meaning of the Army Bill; and it would be very convenient, when definite conclusions have been arrived at on these matters, to have the Army Bill consolidated and made into one measure, so that soldiers and others may know the Code under which they are living. But that point does not now arise. The only point I wish to call your Lordships' attention is with regard to the power granted to the commanding officer to extend the seven days' punishment to 21 days Tinder the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who fills the Office of Secretary of State for War undertook, as I understand, that 14 should be the extreme limit to which General Officers should go under an Order from him to be issued during the current year. That seems to be an unsatisfactory state of things, because you pass a Bill with a new limit of 21 days, and at once dispense with it by an Order from the Secretary of State. That seems a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding; but as I am unwilling to delay a Bill which is always dealt with regardless of Party considerations of any kind, I should offer every facility to my noble Friend, after putting into the Act an Amendment of "fourteen" for "twenty-one," by the suspension of Standing Orders to carry the Bill to a conclusion to-morrow.

LORD SANDHURST
, on behalf of the Secretary for War, quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite that the Amendment limiting the power of imprisonment to 14 days should if, possible, be printed in the Bill. If time permitted steps would be taken to meet the views of the noble Earl. He should move the suspension of the Standing Orders when next the Bill came before their Lordships, in order that all the remaining stages might be disposed of without delay.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, as regards mere method of procedure I see that the Bill did pass through the House of Commons in rather an abnormal manner. Though it would be improper for me to express an opinion upon or to contest the propriety of anything that takes place in that House, I would point out that the practically immediate acceptance which it is the custom of your Lordships to give to certain classes of Bills which come up from the House of Commons is conditional on the amount of consideration which they have received in that House.