66 discussion upon the causes of the war. | course, the proceedings of martial law He would, therefore, only say that he were of considerable stringency, but wished to enter his protest against such were, at the same time, very well defined. language as had been made use of by the Dating from the earlier days of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who courts of chivalry-from almost feudal had applied the words "wicked" and times-we trace them in the form of the "" audacious to the Ultimatum sent to Court of the High Constable and of Cetewayo by Sir Bartle Frere. On be- the Earl Marshal, and in that form passhalf of Sir Bartle Frere, he must ask ing from the jurisdiction of the Earl even those who were most disposed to Marshal-almost a military office-they blame him, at any rate to hear what continue down to the middle of the 16th he had to say for himself before they century. Then came the time when the condemned him. absolute government of the Army was over, and the Army was almost entirely administered by Articles of War, framed under the Prerogative of the Crown. When the Court of the High Constable and the Earl Marshal had been extinguished, there was still a necessity for a tribunal to deal with military offences; and in 1625 a Commission was issued to certain military officers and civilians authorizing them to punish military offenders, and he was by martial law. Articles of War were sorry to say "other dissolute offenders," issued for their guidance. Three or more persons constituted a Court, and their sentences required the sanction of the Crown before they could be carried out. These Articles contain an outline MR. CALLAN said, that if the war Resolution to be reported To-morrow; ΜΟΤΙΟΝ. 190 ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION of the present system, without the pre BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. sent statutory authority. The first part deals with the martial law; the second with the Articles of War, growing out of it, as they now do out of the Mutiny Act; the third with the court martial to try and sentence offenders; and the fourth with the general confirmation of the sentence before execution. The same necessity for this Court seems to have existed under the Commonwealth as under Royal authority; and in 1642 the then Lord General seems to have found himself under the necessity of strengthening his hands by obtaining offences; and he obtained them, for on summary powers to deal with military the 6th of September, 1642, it is recommended that COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Discipline and Regulation of the Army, I cannot but feel conscious of the difficulty of the task before me, and I cannot but wish that my noble Friend and Predecessor (Viscount Cranbrook), who, in the first instance, had this subject brought under his consideration, were here at this moment, by his clear diction and his strong common sense, to make this somewhat complicated matter clear to the House. I do not propose, at this time of the night, to go back into various questions which might otherwise be of considerable interest, nor to trace from remote ages the manner in which the military law of the country grew up; but there ing to the custom of war;" are one or two points to which I must advert to show that even from the earliest times it was found necessary that a short, summary, and stringent law should be applied to such forces as were kept under arms. In early days, of "Special power be given him for the restraining and punishing of disorderly soldiers accord and apparently on the very same day the laws and ordinances for the better government of the Army were on his authority framed and confirmed. From time to time military orders and articles for the government of guards and gar risons were issued, and in some cases special commissions were given to Commanders-in-Chief for the framing of Articles of War. Under that system the Army appears to have been administered until we come to something approaching the Mutiny Act in 1689. That was directly traceable to the following incident-Several regiments which had enlisted under James II. were ordered by William III. to embark for Holland. Eight hundred of the men mutinied, and declared James to be their King, and that they would live and die by him. On the 13th of March leave was given to introduce the Mutiny Bill, and on the 15th the Government, desiring to suppress the soldiers now in rebellion, issued a Proclamation declaring them, and all that adhered to them, rebels and traitors. That Bill passed through all its stages by the 28th, and I hope the Bill I now ask leave to introduce may pass as quickly. It received the Royal Assent five days after, and it came into operation on the 12th of April following. That Bill was contained in 10 sections. The 1st section enabled the Government to punish any officer or soldier both in the Mutiny Act and in the Articles of War, the same general line has still been followed. There have been Mutiny Acts passed by Parliament, and Articles of War expressed the Prerogative of the Crown, although in later years statutory power is given to these Articles by a Statute passed by this House. But, passing to the more immediate business, I now come to the circumstances under which it is my duty to lay this Bill on the Table of the House. In 1869-whether following or in consequence of the Courts Martial Commis sion I am not at this moment prepared to say-instructions were given to the Parliamentary Counsel to prepare a Bill to consolidate the law relating to the Army. It was clear that such a step was necessary, for the Courts Martial Commission commented very strongly in their Report on the necessity of drafting the military law in a clearer form. Instructions were accordingly given to Parliamentary Counsel-I believe in the year 1871 an Army Discipline Bill was handed over to Mr. Davidson, the then Judge Advocate General. His untimely death-a death which, I am sure, those Members who were acquainted with him must deeply regret, for he was a person Inciting, causing, or joining in mutiny, or of great judicial power and of large deserting the Army, with death or such punish-views-was a loss to Parliament at that ment as by court martial shall be inflicted." Other sections declared the number and rank of the officers who were to constitute the court martial; section 8 limited the Act and prescribed the form of the proceedings; while the 10th further prescribed that all capital cases should only be tried between certain hours of the day. That Act made no provision for the discipline or government of the Army in minor matters, and made no mention of the Articles of War. Apparently, therefore, the Parliament, by the Mutiny Act, while it strengthened the authority of William III. over the Army by enabling him to punish certain quasi-political offences, left the Army in every other respect to be governed by the Prerogative clauses. Further proof of it is shown by the fact that a court martial was held at Exeter in 1696, when certain men were found guilty under the 23rd Article and sentenced to be shot to death. No such section appears in the Mutiny Act. From that time to the present, although there have been important and considerable changes time, for it put a stop to any further proceedings in relation to the Bill. The subject was again taken up, I believe, by Parliamentary Counsel under instructions from Lord Cardwell in the Autumn of 1872. A War Office Committee, consisting of officers high in the Service, went through a large portion of the Army Discipline Bill in March, 1873, and suggested certain alterations, which, I believe, were introduced at that period by Counsel. Another pause ensued; some of the questions raised by the then recent organization were not settled, and the Secretary of State for War thought it best to postpone the Bill for another Session. During the Vacation of 1873, Mr. Ayrton was appointed Judge Advocate General, and on the 13th of November he took up the subject, and undertook to conduct the Bill through Parliament. He suggested that the Bill should be altogether assimilated to the Mutiny Act, and that the clauses relating to billeting, moving of troops, and enlistment should, so far as they are included in the Mutiny Act, be inserted in the Army Discipline Bill. Bills were prepared, were submitted to Mr. Ayrton, and he introduced into the Bill, then called the Army Discipline Bill, so much of them as was necessary for the consolidation of the Mutiny Act; but he omitted the enactments of the Army Enlistment Act, 1870, and two other enactments, which had previously found a place in the Mutiny Act. The change which took place at this time in the composition of the House caused us the disadvantage of losing from our discussions on this point the services of Mr. Ayrton; but with a public spirit and good feeling, which is an example to many of us, although both out of office and out of Parliament, he did not relax from his labours until he had thoroughly completed his revision of the Bill and forwarded it to the Parliamentary Counsel, who afterwards reprinted it in the form as he settled it. We then found ourselves in this position. From the time of the Courts Martial Commission-a period of nearly 10 years-the military law had been so far condemned that, although we were anxious to adhere to its provisions, all felt it was in a confused state, and must reasonably be re-drawn. Pressing business before the House prevented the introduction of the Bill by successive Secretaries of State; but it was always felt and I think that those who were most intimate with the subject have felt it strongest-that, like the dancing bear, of which it was said that the wonder was not that he danced so well, but that he danced at all, the wonder was not that the officers of the Army administered the law as they found it in the Mutiny Act with so little complaint, but that they were able to administer it at all. When, therefore, attention was called to it in the House, it was felt that many of the sections could not be theoretically or practically defended. My right hon. Friend, now Viscount Cranbrook, gave a pledge to the House that at the earliest possible moment he would have the Bill re-drafted; and he expressed his confidence that 1877 would be the last year in which the present form of the Mutiny Act would be submitted to the House. Owing to the force of circumstances, it was found impossible to proceed with the re-drafting of the Bill in 1877. In 1878 the natural desire of the House for the assimilation of the law was more definitely expressed, and a definite state. ment was made by Viscount Cranbrook during the course of the debate, that he would at once place a Bill before a Parliamentary Committee to be appointed from Members of this House. Then, Sir, came a change in the personnel of the War Office, and when I succeeded to my present position I found myself with a Bill which had been making considerable progress, but was, in many respects, far from complete. Notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts of the able Parliamentary Counsel, it was found impossible to lay the Bill before the Committee in a complete form. Indeed, at one time suggestions were made that the Committee should be asked to postpone their sittings; but I felt that a pledge, especially given under such circumstances, should be redeemed at any hazard, and, therefore, I laid the draft before the Committee, without professing that it was a complete measure. They reported upon it; and I am bound to say that their Report seemed to me as favourable, on the whole, as it could possibly be, under the circumstances in which it was presented to them. If I may venture to do so, I should wish to bear my humble testimony and extend my sincere thanks and those of the Government to my hon. and learned Relative opposite (Sir William Harcourt) for the pains and care with which he piloted this Bill through the deliberations of the Committee. In acknowledging his kindness, I am happy to state that, as far as possible, the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce follows the general lines of the Bill laid before the Committee. The Bill was to consolidate and amend the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War; and though I am afraid it looks rather bulky and formidable, I hope hon. Members will not think it unduly so, when they remember that the Mutiny Act contained 110 clauses, the Articles of War 192; and, further, that we have endeavoured, in certain matters, to bring within the scope of the Bill portions of the Enlistment Act. Heavy as the task has been in some respects, it has not been our wish that the Bill should be too much changed in character. A great many alterations take place; but they are mostly in form and construction, although there are some extremely important changes in principle made here and there, upon which I will very briefly touch. It is divided into five parts:-Enlistment, billeting, empressment of carriages, certain miscellaneous provisions, and the application of the Act, together with certain saving clauses and definitions. The first part, again, is sub-divided under the heads-crimes and punishments, courts martial, and execution of sentences. As to the first part-crimes and punishments-we have retained the old language where it is clear, believing it is more easily read and interpreted, its very familiarity to the soldier being a point of some importance. We have, however, taken a distinct departure in one respect, and we now classify offences by grouping together offences of a similar character, ranging the various groups, as between themselves, in a manner which is intended to impress the soldier with their relative importance. Thus we have-first, misbehaviour in the field-the greatest crime a soldier can commit-by sentinel on duty; mutiny and insubordination, by way of showing that, after misconduct in the field, mutiny ranks next; then desertion, absence without leave, disgraceful conduct, drunkenness, and other offences, which I will not detain the House by specifying. With regard to crimes and punishments, these appear to me the chief differences in principle. We have differentiated between offences on active service and those not on active service, active service being, by the way, defined as meaning service in war or when in occupation of an enemy's country. We have farther defined, or attempted to define, desertion, which has been so far extended as to include merely abandoning one regiment for another. We have now endeavoured to restrict it to quitting or deserting the Service. We have found it necessary to set up again, as in one of the earliest Mutiny Acts, the crime of fraudulent enlistment as such, not treating it as desertion, but as a fraudulent breach of an engagement, with a view to a fraudulent contract. The Bill then proceeds to declare a scale of punishments, and in this we follow the precedent of the Naval Discipline Act, making a considerable deviation from the existing practice. At present punishments are constantly designated as" such punishments as a general or other court martial may award." The Bill defines the maximum punishment, and then, under the head "Scale of punishments," provision is made that a court martial may award that or a less punishment. Passing next to courts martial, we have re-arranged the old law, but we have maintained the principle. Now, courts martial will be divided into two classes in respect of the mode in which they are convened. First of all, courts martial are now convened under the authority of the Statute alone; and, secondly, under authority, derived mediately or immediately by Warrant from the Crown. The first class, under Act of Parliament, are regimental courts martial and detachment courts martial; secondly, general courts martial and district courts martial. I should add to these a fifth sort, detachment general courts martial-which can be convened without Warrant-having the powers of a general court martial, but only under special circumstances, for the protection of the life and property of the inhabitants of a country in which the troops are acting. The law will remain unaltered for regimental or detachment courts martial, which will still be convened by Statute; but we do not see the advantage of keeping up the separate name for detachment general courts martial, and we propose to merge it, with its functions, into regimental courts martial, keeping the extraordinary powers merely under the same circumstances which under the former Act rendered extraordinary powers necessary. General courts martial will remain unaltered, the convening authority being, as hitherto, either a Warrant directly from the Queen, or from a person authorized by order from Her. The district court martial has been altered as to the mode in which it is convened. The authority to convene a general court martial we now intend to carry with it, first, the authority to convene a district court martial; and, secondly, to delegate to another officer the power to convene a district court martial. The matter is a little complicated; but the result stands in this way. Practically, every court martial, except a general court martial, will derive authority from the Statute, although in the case of district courts martial the authority will be exercised by a person who has a derivative authority under Warrant of the Crown. There is some difficulty in explaining who are the confirming authorities; but, practically, we have thought it best to allow the law to remain the same under the Bill as it is at present. We have endeavoured, however, to clear up the language, and to make it perfectly intelligible as to who is the confirming authority under the various circumstances in which he has to exercise these functions. The confirming authority for a general court martial is appointed by Warrant; and in case of a district court martial, confirming power is given to the officer having power to convene the court martial. Before we come to the matter of procedure, there is one matter which does not come under courts martial, but so nearly trenches on their functions that I think it better to allude to it here, and point out the reasons which, so long ago as 1869, were urged in favour of the change. The Courts Martial Commission, in their Report, say their very arduous duties, we have thought it right to give the commanding officer the power to reduce a non-commissioned officer, by one or more grades, as he shall think fit. I am quite aware there is much to be urged on both sides. Many eminent military authorities hold to the view that a non-commissioned officer who once commits himself has so lost caste that he would never be able to assume a position of authority, and that his reduction to the ranks must ensue. Practically, I am bound to say that the effect of that is that-I do not say in many cases, but not infrequently a non-commissioned officer obliged to be reduced is, within a very few days, after re-instated. It might not be wise to punish a non-commissioned officer, not altogether, perhaps, for some fault "It is a question whether the frequency of of his own, by putting him down in all regimental courts martial does not tend to cases to the bottom of the list; and, diminish, in the mind of the soldier, that dread therefore, we have given the commandof them which ought to exist if they are to ing officer power to reduce a man one or have their proper weight as preventives of indiscipline and crime, and it is submitted for more grades. But while we give this our consideration whether the powers of com- power to the commanding officer, with a manding officers might not be advantageously view to diminishing the frequency of increased, so as to lessen the number of trials. regimental courts martial, and so of Some of the evidence was in favour of abolish-giving them their proper weight in the ing regimental courts altogether. We are not prepared to recommend the latter course; but maintenance of discipline, we have also we concur in the view that the jurisdiction of given in these two cases the power of the commanding officer may be safely extended, appealing from the sentence of the comand we recommend that his power of imprison-manding officer to the court. We have ment be extended from seven to twenty-one days." not thought it right that the power of forfeiting pay, liberty, or rank should After very careful consideration, we have be left, without appeal, in the hands of found it advisable to extend to comany one person, however good that permanding officers this further power of son may be. Passing on to the prosentence, recommended by the Com-cedure, the first thing I have to mention mission of 1869, and we have also given the commanding officer the power, as urged upon the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that, in the case of a non-commissioned officer, there should be some power given to the commanding officer to deal with offences in a less summary and strict way. At the present time, if a non-commissioned officer comes before the commanding officer charged with any crime there is practically no middle course between sending that officer before a court martial or letting him off, without punishment, altogether, or with merely a reprimand. Under the altered circumstances of the Army, and under the very strong wish we have to obtain good non-commissioned officers, and, when we have got them, to encourage them to remain in the performance of is, that we have effected an alteration in the form of oath taken by members of a court martial. The Commission pointed out that the present form was very vague and unsatisfactory, and recommended that the oath should be that now used under the Naval Discipline Act. That is a very simple form, and it amounts to this-that the officers are sworn to try and determine the charge under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Another important alteration suggested by the Courts Martial Commission we have thought it advisable to carry out— that where there is a verdict of acquittal on all the charges, that acquittal shall be pronounced in open court. At the present time, until the finding of a court martial is approved the prisoner, even although there may be a verdict of acquittal, is detained in custody, some |