ARMY ANNUAL BILL.—(No. 1.) (Hansard, 21 April 1893)

§ THE EARL OF CRANBROOK
My Lords, in accordance with what I stated yesterday, I move that instead of the words "twenty-one" in Sub-section 1 the word "fourteen" be substituted.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST)
said, he had stated yesterday that if the noble Earl brought forward an Amendment to this effect the Government would accept it. At the same time, having given that 879 assurance and the Secretary of State for War being ready to agree to it, be should like to state that both the War Office Authorities and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman entertained great objections to the Amendment. As the noble Earl pointed out yesterday, it would be a very easy matter another year to substitute 14 for 21 if it was thought advisable. In the opinion of the Military Authorities it was extremely undesirable to keep on altering the Army Act if it could be avoided, because it was, in the first place, confusing to the officer who had to administer the Act, and, in the second place, it unsettled the minds of the soldiers who were affected by it. Though the Army Act was, of course, the basis of authority, Regulations were made from time to time by those who were responsible to the Secretary of State for the discipline of the Army under his supervision, for the guidance of the officers who had the carrying out of the Act. The section in the Queen's Regulations relating to discipline contained, among other things, a series of instructions such as this with regard to the 14 days to those officers. The Order with regard to the 14 days was a temporary instruction given in the hope that the important change introduced by the Bill would be worked as smoothly as possible to begin with. He had had the opportunity of seeing His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and on his behalf might state that he held very strongly to the retention of the clause as it now stood. These clauses had been most carefully considered by those who thoroughly understood the Army—by the Adjutant General, an officer of great experience, and also by the officers responsible to the Secretary of State who possessed legal knowledge. He would regret the substitution of the figure proposed by the noble Earl for the standing in the Bill which, if it remained, would, he believed, greatly diminish the number of Regimental Courts Martial. Lord Chelmsford had stated yesterday that he would like to see the clause remain as it was, because it was a lesser slur upon a soldier, and rendered it much easier for him to make a fresh start in his career if he was dealt with by his commanding officer for an offence instead of having to go before a court martial. The Report of the Commission on Courts Martial, presided over 880 by Colonel Wilson Patten, recommended that the commanding officer's power of punishment might be increased to 21 days. If the noble Earl, however, pressed the Amendment, in accordance with the assurance he gave yesterday he would not oppose it; but it would be more satisfactory to the War Office Authorities, to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and to the Secretary of State if the noble Earl could see his way to withdraw it.

§ *THE EARL OF CRANBROOK
I confess I am very much surprised at what has taken place. The noble Lord stated yesterday on behalf of the Secretary of State and the War Office that the Amendment would be accepted. It was moved on the ground that in the House of Commons the Secretary of State had undertaken that the matter should be treated as if it were 14 days: that is to say that an order should go forth that 21 days should not be given by the officer, but 14; and this being an annual Bill, it struck me as contrary to all precedent and reason that a dispensing power should be exercised at the beginning of the Act, and that it should not be intended to mean what, on the face of it, it says. For that reason I thought it right to move the Amendment, and it was accepted on the part of the Government. The strongest opinions have been expressed that an Act of Parliament should not be passed by us even for a single year when the provisions made in it are not intended to be fully carried out, but only to the extent promised by the Secretary of State. With regard to alterations of the Army Bill, I feel quite as strongly as the noble Lord that, in the interests of all concerned, it is desirable there should be a certain Code. It is necessary for commanding officers to refer to a number of Acts in order to see what his powers really are, and therefore I should press this Amendment on the ground that if the War Department is anxious, as I hope it will be, to codify this law and make it complete, there will next year be an opportunity of putting in this 21 days if it is so important. But the importance of it I cannot imagine to be so great as is expressed, because the Secretary of State himself promised in the House of Commons to, dispense with it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, I certainly, like, my noble Friend, consented to accept the Amendment, but I do not say that we approved of it. That is quite a different thing. However, we are perfectly prepared to carry into effect most fully the engagement we have entered into both here; and elsewhere, though the Amendment is not one that we can approve of. That is all that we think it is necessary to say. I believe Mr. Campbell-Bannerman stated in the House of Commons that it was intended to bring the 21 days' power into operation gradually; and I should myself have thought, though I do not in the least press it, that, looking at the undoubted evil which the Act deals with, at the view entertained by the War Office Authorities, and at the general consensus of opinion in favour of the 21 days' power, it would have been better to have left it in the Bill. But as we agree to the Amendment there is nothing further" to be said about it.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
very much regretted that the Amendment should have been forced upon their Lordships. He quite understood the ground on which it Was pressed, but thought it would have been much better, in the interests of the Army and of the soldiers themselves, had the number of days remained 21 instead of 14. The blame did not lie with their Lordships at all, as, unfortunately, the pledge had been given; and no doubt in the circumstances, if the Act had been passed with the 21 days in it, it would have been illegal and unconstitutional for the Secretary of State for War to so far alter the provisions of an Act of Parliament as he had proposed.

LORD SANDHURST
proposed another Amendment in Sub-section 8, page 4. The Bill at present ran— (8) Where a commanding officer has power to deal with a case summarily under this section, then, unless he awards one of the minor punishments referred to in this section, he shall, after hearing the evidence, ask the soldier charged whether he desires to be dealt with summarily or to be tried by a district court martial, and so forth. He proposed, in line 13, to leave out the word "then," and insert 882 in its place "and, after hearing the evidence, considers that he may so deal with the case, he shall"—then leave out the words "after hearing the evidence," and continue "ask the soldier," and so on.