§ 3.55 p.m.
§ Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I do not propose to take up the time of your Lordships' House by arguing the case for the establishment of a court of appeal from courts-martial. It seems to me, whatever may have been the decision of other Committees in different times and in other conditions, that in the state of affairs which exists at the moment the claim for the establishment for some court of this kind is unanswerable. Apart from all other matters of concern, to-day it is not merely a question of a man joining the Forces as a volunteer and 886 possibly accepting as part of the conditions of his service the application of a somewhat different system of law. To-day at least a large number of those in the Forces are there under the element of compulsion, and are therefore entitled to be treated as ready as possible on the same lines as their civilian counterparts.
I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave some outline of the proceedings under the present system when a court-martial has delivered its finding and the subsequent stages have to be followed out. I think the opinion is too commonly held that once a court has pronounced its finding, and the sentence has been confirmed or confirmation has been withheld, that is the end of the matter. It is important that the public, as well as the Service men themselves, should realise that there are all these precautionary safeguards which come into operation under the present system. I agree with the view which the Government have taken, that it would be a great mistake to eliminate a process of what the noble and learned Viscount called the automatic review by the Judge Advocate-General's Department—automatic not in any disparaging sense as being either perfunctory or casual, but in the sense that it comes into operation in every case of a court-martial which comes to the Judge Advocate-General for consideration.
Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that His Majesty's Government have in this Bill gone a good deal further than the Reports of either of these two Committees in two respects—both as to the composition of the proposed court and as to the scope of its powers. The Lewis Committee were in favour of a court which should have jurisdiction in appeals merely on points of law. The Pilcher Committee, on the other hand, thought jurisdiction should be on points of law and on points of mixed law and fact. But when we come to look at Clause 5 of the Bill, we find that the new Appeal Court shall allow an appeal
if they think that the finding of the court-martial is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence or involves a wrong decision of a question of law or that, on any ground, there was a miscarriage of justice….That goes a good deal further than either of the respective recommendations, and 887 although I am not suggesting that it is wrong to go further—for, after all, the point of a court of appeal is that, so far as possible, it should be able to remove any chance of a miscarriage of justice—at the same time it seems to me that this enlargement of scope is likely to add to the volume of cases which may come to this court when it is established.As to the composition of the Court, I think it is plain from their Reports that both the Lewis and the Pilcher Committees hankered after referring these cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal as such, but they came to the conclusion that that would impose a well-nigh insupportable burden on that Court. Therefore, they suggested alternatives. In the case of the Lewis Report the Committee suggested a special court, consisting of what they chose to call the Chief Judge Martial—a title which, fortunately, we continue to know as the Judge Advocate-General—and certain of his deputies. The Pilcher Report recommended a court consisting of three King's Counsel chosen from a panel approved by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. The objection to the Lewis Committee's Report seems to me to be twofold: first, it puts the Judge Advocate-General and his staff in a dual capacity in which there might well appear to be a conflict of interest; secondly, it is a departmental court, and from that point of view is likely, however unjustly, not to obtain the full confidence of the Service men whose cases would come before it.
What the Government have chosen to do is to constitute a sort of parallel to the Court of Criminal Appeal, with a wider basis of selection, and, subject to the safeguards in the Bill of the obtaining of leave to appeal, to refer proper cases for argument to that court. One great advantage of a court of this kind is that argument before it will take place in the open—just as the great disadvantage of the existing system is that the whole procedure is gone through in an atmosphere of secrecy, and nobody knows what considerations are taken into account, or what arguments influence those who have to come to a decision. Here there will at least be a public hearing, and that in itself is an immeasurable step forward. Certainly the court which is now proposed is one of a considerably more exalted status than was suggested in 888 either of the two Reports. But if I may make this one reservation, the very fact that it will be a court of a more exalted status seems to me to contain possibilities of difficulty of practical application. I accept what the noble and learned Viscount said about the unwisdom of making any definite pronouncement in advance, but at the same time I think it would be wrong to silence one's own apprehension whether this court will be able adequately to discharge the functions imposed upon it at two crucial moments.
The first, I would suggest, might well come when the court is first introduced, when it will be a novelty and there will be a great desire to take advantage of it. The second, and more formidable one, would come, as the noble and learned Viscount indicated, in the unhappy possibility of actual warfare. In war time it is not the experience that what I may call civilian crime is apt to disappear. Blackouts, shortage of police forces and shortages of goods of various kinds all encourage a considerable outbreak of crime; and, moreover, in the civilian courts emergency legislation of different kinds brings up a number of problems which His Majesty's Judges have to consider; and, after all, it must not be for-gotten that those who staff the Court of Criminal Appeal are the same people who carry on the work of civilian courts from day to day. At one peak period of the last war, between September 1, 1944, and August 31, 1945, there were over 55,000 courts-martial in the three Services. Let me assume—a not very extravagant estimate—that 2 per cent. of those courts-martial find their way to this new court of criminal appeal. There you have this court burdened with something over 1,000 cases with which to deal. What that would involve in the matter of what I may call, not disrespectfully, "Judge hours," is a consideration which it is not easy to decide upon in advance; but it must cause us considerable uneasiness as to the practicability of the scheme at a time when the need for it will be greatest.
It is said that in the last war the number of petitions was relatively small, and it is argued from that assumption that the number of appeals, or potential appeals, would equally be small. I believe that to be a false argument for this reason. I think it contains this psychological error: that procedure by petition 889 is a somewhat mysterious, unfamiliar and abstruse method to most people in the Services, and they would probably hesitate to embark upon so novel an enterprise. But everybody is familiar with the workings of the Court of Criminal Appeal; everybody reads in the Press of the arguments put before them, and decisions given by them. A procedure parallel to that of the normal Court of Criminal Appeal would, I think, lead a great many more people to make every endeavour to have their case carried beyond confirmation, and beyond the normal petition, to the stage at which this Court could be reached. It may be said, as the noble and learned Viscount said: "Well, we must see what comes out of this. No one can foretell. We must wait and see, and if necessary we will make some change." But one would like to see, if it is possible, not a new system which in the view of a good many people would necessarily have to be subjected to change in time of war, but one which was capable of fulfilling all the foreseeable requirements in war time, which I am afraid this scheme, in the opinion of a good many people, may not be capable of doing. With that reservation, and with possibly a certain number of minor proposals by way of amendment which we will raise on the Committee stage, we are in entire agreement with the general thesis of the Bill and wish it well upon its progress.
§ 4.9 p.m.
§ LORD GODDARDMy Lords, as, if this Bill passes, it will at present fall to me to be the President of the Court and responsible for its working, I hope that that is a sufficient excuse for my offering some observations on the Bill. If I asked your Lordships to reject it, as I should like to do, no doubt mine would be "a voice crying in the wilderness." But I cannot help suspecting that there are many among your Lordships, or some, at any rate, who have asked yourselves whether this Bill is really necessary. If the Bill had provided for a radical change in the Judge Advocate-General's office, so that all matters of prosecution or preparation of prosecutions were removed from it, and there could no longer be any misunderstanding as to that department, in its capacity as prosecutor, providing a Judge-Advocate at the trial and then being the department to review the findings, I 890 think that would have been a wise change and one very much welcomed.
But this Bill does not provide for that at all. Except for some departmental changes made in the second Part of the Bill, into which I need not go, its main object is to set up a Court of Appeal. As the Lord Chancellor has reminded the House, three Committees have sat upon this matter so far as the Army is concerned, and Mr. Justice Pilcher's Committee considered the matter for the Navy. The Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Darling in 1919 reported against any Appeal Court, and stated that, in their opinion, the safeguards against injustice afforded to the soldier by the existing system were at least equal to those afforded to civilians. Mr. Justice Oliver's Committee, as recently as 1938, reported most firmly against any Court of Appeal. When that Committee were sitting, by sending round to all the different Commands and also by means of advertisement, they invited anyone who had reason to complain of the justice of a court-martial or its findings to communicate with them under conditions of guaranteed secrecy. In the twenty years 1917 to 1937 exactly seventeen cases were sent to the Committee and the learned chairman—he was not on the Bench in those days—himself investigated every one of those cases. As he stated in his Report, he came to the conclusion that in not one of them was there any ground for suggesting that there had been any miscarriage of justice at all. The third Report is that of Mr. Justice Lewis's Committee in 1946, and the only reason which was given for differing from the Oliver Committee on the necessity for this Appeal Court was the fact that there was now National Service. Well, my Lords, I confess that if the existing system was sufficient to ensure justice to the voluntarily enlisted soldier, I cannot see why it should not ensure justice to the National Service man. If it has been good enough in the past. I think it ought to be good enough in the future—no doubt with certain changes which may be made with regard to the system of revision and so forth.
What I think gave a good deal of impetus to the demand for this new Court was the fact that one or two cases have lately received a great deal of publicity in the Press. One cannot help feeling 891 that the stir which has been created is to a great extent owing to the ineptitude of the War Office in the handling of the courts. Certain courts-martial are held abroad—whether in Korea or in Hamburg—and a small paragraph appears in the Press, sent perhaps by the Associated Press of America or one of our own news agencies, stating that Private So-and-So has been charged with murder or man-slaughter, as the case may be, and that the defence is that he shot because his orders were to shoot to kill. That is all. Thereupon an agitation at once arises, leading articles are written to say how monstrous this state of affairs is when a poor young soldier, taught to kill, has shot and killed. Not one word is given to the public with regard to the prosecution's evidence and what case was made against the man.
In a recent case—especially as a very distinguished lawyer wrote to The Times on the subject—I tried my best to find out what the prosecution evidence had been and what the facts were. I could not find them, and I wrote to the writer of the letter to The Times and asked him if he knew what the evidence for the prosecution was and if he had been able to find out. He told me that he had not. It seemed to me, therefore, that there was at least as much danger of doing injustice to the officers who formed the court-martial, and who were being attacked, as there was to the prisoner. The comments and criticisms which have been made upon officers forming the courts-martial may, for all I know, be justified, or they may be wholly unjustified. The prisoner may be a most unfortunate man or he may be a most guilty man. At any rate, we have never had an opportunity of seeing the evidence which might have been published so that the public could form an opinion upon the matter. I was told that the evidence could not be published as the case was sub judice, because the review had not gone through. That is a preposterous reason. You can publish as much evidence as you like while the case is going on. If the court were held in England the Press would be there and would report every word. I believe that a great deal of the present demand for the setting up of this court is due to the way in which the War Office have handled these courts-martial which have 892 taken place abroad, and the way in which they have refrained from giving the public any knowledge whatever of the facts relating to the charge.
As I have said, Mr. Justice Lewis's Committee recommended an appeal. They recommended the setting up of an entirely new court, not to be manned by judges but to have a lawyer presiding over it and to have as members other persons to be decided upon later. But they expressively refrained from recommending that the Court of Criminal Appeal should be the Court of Appeal. It is not only on the ground of the extra work which may be put upon the court that I think that this is an unfortunate proposal. In point of fact, what has happened is that the sections of the Criminal Appeal Act have been lifted bodily and put into this Bill. However it may be disguised, in effect the Court which has to work this Bill is the Court of Criminal Appeal. The only difference is that, instead of three judges of the King's Bench Division sitting, one judge will be enough, and he may be an English, a Scots or a Northern Irish Judge of the High Court.
This puts me personally into a very difficult position. I do not know—especially as it is provided that except if the Lord Chief Justice otherwise directs the court shall sit in London—what part it is thought that the Scottish judges or the Northern Ireland judges are to play. There is no indication. Suppose a Scottish soldier is the appellant: am I to send to the Lord President and ask him to send down a Scottish judge from Edinburgh to London? If a soldier belonging to the Royal Ulster Rifles is appealing, am I to send the court over to Northern Ireland to sit? I really do not know. I hope that some guidance will be given to me as to what part the Scottish and Northern Ireland judges are to play in this court.
Another matter which I think is not without interest is this. If your Lordships refer to page 2 of the Bill, you will find that the other persons who can be judges of the court are
such other persons as the Lord Chancellor may appoint, being persons appearing to him to be specially qualified for appointment as judges of the Court.My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will, of course, understand that I am perfectly confident that, just as all 893 his other judicial appointments have been above criticism, so he would see that only properly qualified persons were appointed. But who is it who are to be appointed? The Bill does not say whether they are to be lawyers or soldiers. If this Court is to be constituted in that way, I personally should rather welcome soldiers, because that would give it an appearance, at any rate, of being in part a military court. The one main objection I have to this proposal is that for the first time in our history civil courts and military courts are to be concerned with military law. Hitherto, civilian courts have never had anything to do with military courts, or with military law, except to see that no one not subject to military law appeared in a military court. If a military court attempted to deal with anybody not subject to military law, of course the High Court would interfere on an Habeas Corpus or prohibition or other appropriate writ. But in this case the partly civilian court will be acting as a court of appeal upon military law, and I cannot think that that is a desirable state of affairs.I should say that if there is to be an appeal it should be to some such court as was envisaged by Mr. Justice Lewis's Committee—a court which I think was meant to be a military court. If it were to be a civilian court, I should have thought that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would be the prefer-able body to which to send the cases. They advise His Majesty in the matter of quashing a conviction. But, as it is, in effect the work of this court will fall largely upon the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal—who already have enough to do; and if judges are dealing with these cases it is inevitable that a body of case law will begin to be built up; and some enterprising firm of law publishers will proceed to publish a series of "Courts of Criminal Appeal Cases." I do not envy the baffled brigadier who is doing his best in a case when he is told that in the case of Jones the Lord Chief Justice said one thing, a second member of the court did not agree and the third member said he agreed with the Lord Chief Justice but for entirely different reasons. When these matters come up in civilian courts we know how to deal with them, but I am not sure that it will be fair if they go 894 before military courts. And, as I say, I am sure that if the judges have to decide these cases there will grow up a large body of case law.
There is another point that seems to me to be overlooked in this matter. The number of cases that will be likely to come before the court is anybody's guess. I am not afraid of that—we shall have to do it, and I have no doubt that we can make arrangements. But it seems to me that a great deal of time is going to be occupied before a case comes before us. I am told that it was hoped that there would be very few appeals, because leave must be obtained from the court. What is the proceeding? First, there is the court-martial and then there is the appeal. Then there is the confirmation. Then the convicted soldier puts in a petition, and that has to be considered. Finally the application has to be made to the Court. It seems to be thought that an application is a very small proceeding. I do not know whether the draftsmen of these Bills have ever seen the work which judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal have to do every week-end. When I am in London no week-end passes in which I do not have to read a pile of papers in connection with about twenty-five cases of application for leave to appeal. That is where the difficulty comes in. If leave to appeal is given by the court, it is generally because the court can see that the conviction will have to be quashed. We have to consider these applications for ourselves, because counsel are not given to applicants merely for this purpose; if they were the cost would be enormous. And many of these applications for leave to appeal are frivolous. Men say that counsel—who have been paid at the public expense—advise them to plead guilty when they are not, or else that the jury have found them guilty but ought not to have done. It is the rarest thing for the Court of Criminal Appeal to quash a conviction on the ground of fact, because the Court has always declined, from its earliest days, to substitute itself for the jury. The Court does not see the wit-nesses, and cannot, therefore, assess their truthfulness, and so forth. The jury is a constitutional tribunal, and so is the court-martial. The real reason for quashing a conviction is that there has been misdirection in some way. In all my experience in the Court of Criminal Appeal, 895 there have been only two cases in which I was a party to quashing a conviction because I was convinced the man was innocent.
I am satisfied that the safeguards of confirmation and review are great. I think it would be a good thing if the department which had to do the reviewing were entirely divorced from the department which had anything to do with the prosecution. And I have no doubt it would be a good thing if the decision of the reviewing authority could be communicated in some formal manner to the accused. But I think that in the majority of cases that will come before this Court they will decide without the "bound and rebound" of argument which has been referred to. On Monday mornings generally, at any rate, there are no counsel at all in these cases. An applicant can instruct counsel if he likes, but the Court does not give counsel on application for leave to appeal, though if it does give leave to appeal then counsel are always provided. The Court have read the cases and simply announce in court brief reasons why they give or refuse leave to appeal.
It is very much, therefore, like a review, except that we give our reasons for refusing. If the present system of review were maintained with that alteration—that the prisoner is to be told why the Court do not accede to his petition—I believe that most of the dissatisfaction would disappear. This Bill puts a great many extra duties upon the judges and upon the Lord Chief Justice. I regret to find that it does not make any provision for extra remuneration, although it makes provision for extra work. However, if the Bill goes through, your Lordships may be sure that I and my brother judges will do our best to work the Bill; but I do not pre-tend that I approach it without a great deal of misgiving.
§ 4.32 p.m.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, the rather strong statements made about court-martial procedure apply in the Navy, too. I should like to say with what great satisfaction I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I am sure that speech will go far to remove many of the doubts about court-martial procedure which exist in the Navy to-day. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, it is necessary not only 896 that justice should be done but that justice should appear to be done. There is no need to convince the noble and learned Viscount on that point, but there are certain cases I could discuss with him. There was one case which I have very much in mind, where a certain department of the Admiralty behaved in a most shocking manner. However, I feel that while in future cases of injustice will occasionally occur, this Bill will remove a great grievance, in that justice has not always appeared to be done. In future enlisted men will feel confident that, subject to the demands of discipline to which all enlisted people must, of course, be subject, every effort has been made to approximate their position before a court-martial as closely as possible to the position of their civilian brethren before civilian courts. That, I feel, is the essential point in this Bill. Surely we should not delay in bringing the military system of law as closely as possible into relation with the civilian law, of which we are so justly proud. A great endeavour is now needed in the Services to reduce as far as possible the differences between the enlisted man and his civilian brother.
This is a great step forward. Every endeavour should be made and is going to be made to reduce any differences of the kind I have mentioned. Many of the points which have been raised to-day are points which will have to be threshed out in Committee. A great deal of discussion will then take place upon various matters relating to the mechanism of this Bill. In particular, I noticed what the noble and learned Viscount said about the state of affairs when war prevails. Of course, it is difficult to forecast what will happen then. While the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, expressed doubts, and gave weighty reasons for his doubts, as to whether the provisions of this Bill would be found to be workable under the stress and strain of war conditions, I feel sure that he would not feel it was wrong to proceed with the Bill because it is not possible to foresee what will occur in un-foreseeable circumstances. I think I am right in saying that there is a Latin adage that says that during a state of war laws are silent. I do not think that can be said nowadays. But as regards the manner in which this Bill will work in a state of war, I think we have to find out what difficulties may occur. I am sure that, with the ingenuity of our lawyers 897 and of our legal system, we shall not find that those difficulties are incapable of solution, and that we shall be able to discover a way of making the provisions of this Bill work, even during the upset and confusion of war.
I should like briefly to repeat with what great satisfaction I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount in introducing the Bill. If I may say so, it hit the nail so exactly on the head that I can only wish that all enlisted men in the Navy could read it. I am sure that they would then realise what a great effort this Government have made to approximate their position before the law to that of their civilian brothers. I feel sure that that would give them immense satisfaction. I believe that this Bill will remove what has been a source of great discussion, possibly of grievance, in the Navy in the past: that justice has not always appeared to be done. Now that the effort is being made it may well be that not only will they receive justice, but that the great grievance of having no Court of Appeal will at last be removed.
§ 4.39 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, after the penetrating and authoritative statement of opinion by the Lord Chief Justice, I hesitate to raise one small point. but it is one on which I should be grateful for the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. This Bill probably gives to the Appeal Court a jurisdiction in criminal affairs wider—I mean "wider" territorially—than any which has ever been given to any other court that the world has ever known, because appeals may arise to this court from any part of the world in which British troops happen, for any reason whatsoever, to be stationed. I think it is normal in criminal procedure of any sort to endeavour to bring the trial of a crime, whatever the form of that trial, as nearly as possible to the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. It occurs to me, therefore, that there are two points particularly (there may be many others) which arise from this consideration. The first concerns the contact between the accused and his counsel or solicitor. I notice that the Bill says that the court may appoint counsel, apparently without first appointing a solicitor. It is at least unusual for counsel to act without solicitors' instructions, and there may be some special point which has made that 898 necessary. It is important that any accused man should be satisfied with the manner the appeal is conducted. Unless it is quite clear that he is represented adequately, or has confidence in those who are presenting his case, one of the major features of this Bill will lose its point. That is one aspect which occurs to me.
Another is that, under Clause 8, this Court, as I understand it, has all the powers of an ordinary High Court—that is to say, it has the power to demand documents and witnesses. Equally, it has power to commit anybody who does not comply with that request. But it occurs to me that in some parts of the world where that might become necessary it would be very difficult for this Court to enforce its demand. For instance, it would be unusual for the writ of the Lord Chief Justice to run to Scotland, though I do not say that that would be impossible. I suggest that it would be easier for the working of this Court, when action of that character was necessary, that in each case it should be taken through the High Court in the area concerned without in any way restricting the power of the Court as such; that normally a committal or any action arising from contempt of court or other factors of the same character should be carried out by the local High Court. I suggest that simply be-cause I think that it is in the interests of the Court that it should in no way arouse offence in any part of the areas where it may be concerned to operate. Those areas are so wide that it appears to me possible that unless this is carefully observed something may arise which will adversely affect the reputation of this Court.
§ 4.43 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, perhaps I may reply quite briefly. I am grateful for the observations your Lordships have made and for the general welcome which this Bill has received. I think I must except the Lord Chief Justice, who feels very considerable misgivings about the Bill, but I hope that experience will show that he is wrong. I recall that years ago, when I was quite a young man at Bar, the late Sir Harry Poland, who then, I suppose, had a greater knowledge and experience than anyone else in this country of the criminal law, felt great misgiving at the setting up of the Court of Criminal Appeal. He thought the scheme would 899 not work at all, that it would take away the sense of responsibility of juries and judges; and he wrote to that effect. Thanks to the way in which the Court of Criminal Appeal tackled its work, that fear, which might otherwise have been a real thing, was dissipated, and no one can have any doubt at all that the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal has made a great contribution to the satisfactory nature of the law in this country. I hope that in a similar way by its practice, this court will show that it can deal with injustices or threatened injustices without in any way destroying or mitigating the sense of responsibility of the courts-martial. I should like to say that we have quite deliberately linked this court with the Court of Criminal Appeal be-cause we want the same sort of practice and the same sort of traditions to prevail in this court as now prevail in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
With regard to the difficulty about Scottish or Northern Ireland judges, that provision was put in at their express request—and, after all. why not? A large number of His Majesty's soldiers are Scotsmen or Northern Irishmen, and there is nothing so peculiar about military law as makes it in any way unseemly or improper that they should be tried before a Scottish judge or a Northern Irish judge. As to the way in which the Chief Justice will work this provision, we can, of course, discuss on Committee stage what, if any, Amendments are needed: but for the rest, so far as the Lord Chancellor of the day is concerned, if he can help the Lord Chief Justice of the day I am sure he will be ready and willing to do so. It is obviously essential that we should not allow the Scotsmen to feel any sense of in-justice, or that they too were not bearing their full share of responsibility for the working and administration of this Court. What I have said about Scotland applies equally, of course, to Northern Ireland.
When the Lord Chief Justice spoke, I think he forgot for a moment that since 1948 the Judge Advocate-General's Department has been reconstituted. The Judge Advocate-General is now responsible to the Lord Chancellor, and is in no way now concerned with the prosecution, which is the function of the various Army and Air Force Departments. If I may say so. I do not think that the agitation for this Court is as 900 recent as the noble and learned Lord seems to think. There were two recent cases, of which your Lordships are aware, which gave rise to a good deal of agitation; but it was in 1946 that we set up the Lewis Committee. Quite frankly, we set up the Lewis Committee only after very considerable pressure, and I am not ashamed to admit that I was one of the people who had to be pressed. Suitable pressure was applied to me, and I therefore assented to this Committee being set up. I think that the real grievance was that the man who was convicted perhaps thought that he was wrongly convicted, and resented the fact that, whereas a civilian had the right to go before his court and had the right to hear what was said, and to argue and try to influence the judges, the Service man did not have that right. Service men felt that that was unjust. My Lords, I think there was substance in that matter, and I think we were right to accede to this request, although, as I have already said, I do not by any means think that courts-martial were not courts which administered very satisfactory justice.
I will certainly look into and bear in mind the points raised by Lord Selkirk. I think he will agree that they are rather in the nature of Committee points, and I should like to give them further consideration. I was very grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. He has considerable experience and knowledge of this matter, and we shall welcome any suggestions that he may make when we reach the Committee stage, to see whether we can improve this Bill still further. It is the fact, as those of your Lordships who have read the debate in the other House know, that all Parties played a large part in this Bill. This Bill is not to be regarded in any sense as a product of one particular Party. All Parties have made their contribution and, indeed, can claim that this Bill is a House of Commons Bill. Lord Winster made a most interesting speech. I am grateful to him for what he said, and I shall rely upon his co-operation to see that this Bill goes through satisfactorily. My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in the debate.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.