Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for gross insubordination;" and, if he is aware, or, if not, will inquire, whether such punishment was inflicted; if so, on board what ship and under what circumstances, whether after trial by court martial, and what was the sentence? COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I did not see the statement referred to; but I have made inquiry, and have ascertained that three men of the 1st Dragoon Guards were tried by court martial on board the transport ship Spain. The sentence on the first two was that they should receive 25 lashes, and the sentence on the third was that he should receive 20 lashes. I believe these sentences were carried out.

ARMY COURT

OF INQUIRY AT

NETLEY IN 1873.-QUESTION. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Colonel Cameron succeeded Colonel Hawley as President or Member of a Court or Board of Inquiry which assembled at Netley in 1873 to investigate certain irregularities; and, if so, if he will explain how his name came to be omitted from the Return asked for by the House

"Of the names of all officers who sat as President or as Members of any Court of Inquiry held to investigate the irregularities which led to the trial of Assistant Controller Godrich; and, whether it is true that Colonel Cameron, having sat on the Court of Inquiry which investigated the irregularities above mentioned, was afterwards the President of the Court Martial held for the trial of the person who was thereby implicated?

COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he was informed that it was not the case that Colonel Cameron succeeded Colonel Hawley as president or member of the Court of Inquiry.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he would repeat his Question on Thursday, and at the same time would ask the Secretary of State for War if he would take steps to ascertain whether Colonel Cameron did or did not sit on any Court of Inquiry held to investigate the matters referred to. What he wanted to know was whether the officer referred to was or was not a member of such a Court of Inquiry?

COLONEL STANLEY said, he was sorry if he had not made his former

answer sufficiently clear. He was positively informed, and had no reason to doubt, that Colonel Cameron had not been a member of such a Court of Inquiry.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he would ask, on Thursday, why the Return in question was not in accordance with the terms that had been adopted in the Address moved to the Crown.

SOUTH AFRICA - THE ZULU WARTRANSPORT SERVICE IN NATAL. QUESTIONS.

MR. W. H. JAMES asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the transport service in Natal is paying for the hire of waggons at the rate of £80 each per month, besides engaging to pay drivers' wages and to make good any injury done either to the waggons or the bullocks; whether equally exorbitant prices are being paid for the requisites needed by the troops engaged in military operations in Zululand; and, whether, having regard to the great expenditure of English money involved in these transactions, it is not desirable that the Commander in Chief should be instructed to "requisition" the articles he needs, and to pay for them at a fair valuation?

COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have reason to believe that the hire of waggons has, in certain cases, reached the amount stated in the first Question of the hon. Member; but it includes the wages of the drivers, who only draw commissariat. I should add that the waggons convey from two to three tons, and are drawn by from 14 to 16 oxen. With regard to the second Question, it is not the case that equally exorbitant prices are being paid for the requisites needed by the troops engaged in military operations in Zululand. The Departments made such shipments as they thought necessary to give us command of the market, and the prices of the main articles of supply are now very moderate in Natal, so much so that in some cases we are reducing the shipments. With regard to the third Question, the War Department in February last drew the attention of the Colonial Government to the exorbitant charges on account of transport, and requested that measures should be adopted, by requisition, or otherwise, of obtaining the

necessary transport on paying reason- | present; but I presume that if the able rates. Instructions have been sent, others give way he will do so also. and recently repeated, to Sir Henry Bulwer, that such steps should be taken as might be deemed necessary in order to secure proper provision for transport. It has not been found necessary to resort to requisition for other supplies.

MR. W. H. JAMES asked, if it would be convenient to produce the Papers in connection with the whole Transport Service in Natal?

COLONEL STANLEY said, the House was already in possession of the substance of the Papers. He did not know that it would be convenient to produce all the Departmental Correspondence; but he would look through it to see if there was anything of public interest.

PARLIAMENT BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-DEBATE ON THE INDIAN BUDGET.-QUESTION.

MR. W. E. FORSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer state, for the convenience of the House, whether, in case the debate on Indian Finance is not concluded on Thursday, it is the intention of the Government to postpone the discussion until Monday, or to resume it on Friday?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it would, of course, be more convenient to the House generally that if the debate is not concluded on Thursday, it should be resumed on Friday. The only question is as to the position of those hon. Gentlemen who have Notices upon the Paper for the latter day. The first of those Notices is one by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) with regard to Elementary Education in Ireland; and I have been informed by that hon. Gentleman that if there should be a general wish on the part of the House to proceed with the discussion on Indian Finance on Friday, and if those Members who have Notices below him will consent to take a similar course, he will be prepared to waive his right. The next is a Motion by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms). I do not know what that hon. Gentleman's view may be; but, as he is present, he will probably tell us. The third Motion is in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Dr. Kenealy). That hon. Gentleman is not

Colonel Stanley

THE O'CONOR DON said, he would certainly not stand in the way of the wishes of the House; but if he gave up the first place on Friday, he might possibly ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a few hours of Government time on some other day, and he hoped his request might be favourably considered.

MR. J. HOLMS also consented to give way; but stipulated that the Government should help to keep a House for him if he succeeded in getting another night.

MR. A. H. BROWN asked, if there would, under the altered circumstances, be a Morning Sitting on Friday?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, there would not.

[blocks in formation]

MAJOR NOLAN said, at the last sitting of the Committee this Amendment was moderately discussed; but its consideration had not terminated when Progress was reported. Hon. Members would see that the clause was divided into two sections. The first was a paraphrase of the 12th Article of War. It gave the officer who thought himself wronged by his commanding officer the right of appeal to the Commander-in-Chief, and to that he made no objection whatever. But the second part of the clause, which punished an officer who knowingly made

it would be to lean in favour of the officer, where there was any doubt at all in the case. He could not assent to the doctrine laid down, by implication, by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan), that an officer was to be held blameless if he knowingly made any false statement, or wilfully suppressed any material facts.

MR. RYLANDS thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) had missed the force of the objection to this clause. It was not for a moment maintained that an officer who made a false charge in this way was not to be punished; but there were one or two clauses in the Bill which, at present, were wide enough to punish this offence. What his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) objected to was not the punishment, but the placing of this punishment in juxtaposition to the clause giving the power of appeal. It seemed to say to the officer-"If you complain, and if in consequence of that complaint there is a court martial, then, if you have made any false statement in regard to your commanding officer, you shall be put on your trial for that also." The presence of those words would have a very deterrent effect on all complaints. They all knew from their own experience that two parties describing the same

any false statement affecting the character of any officer or soldier, was entirely new, and so was the sub-section in the next clause which punished any soldier for the same offence, except that the provision was complicated by further and still worse provisions. In every dispute between an officer and his commander there would certainly be something which would come under this head. To say anything about the temper of the commander, or his knowledge of his duties, or anything of that kind, would certainly be to make charges "affecting his character." What, he fancied, would happen under such circumstances, as the dispute would generally resolve iself into a contention regarding matters of fact, would be that the central authority would say -"The complainant stated one thing, and the commander another directly opposite to it. This must be on one side or the other a matter of wilful mis-statement. As one side or the other must be making a false statement, we will decide who it is by trying the junior officer." If that were done, the officer would be placed in a very unpleasant position, and the effect would be very perceptibly to keep down complaints, for an officer would not at all care to be transformed from a complainant to a prisoner under arrest. Nine-tenths of the men would not like to be thus tried by court mar-transaction would give very different tial, and would prefer to put up with the injustice. He did not think this subsection was wanted, for there were plenty of other clauses in the Bill under which an officer could be tried if he made a false statement; and he especially thought it was undesirable to insert these words in that particular position, just following the words which gave an officer power to complain.

accounts of it. Thus, it might very well happen that an officer, without any intention to deceive, might wilfully state that which afterwards turned out to be a falsehood. He also resisted the insertion of these words in the present place, because he was still more strongly opposed to their appearance in the next clause which dealt with the case of the soldier. It was most important that that sub-section should be resisted, and that a threat should not be held over a soldier

such steps as he might think right for the promotion of what he believed to be his interests. They ought certainly, if that clause was to be rejected, to put the officer and the soldier on the same basis.

COLONEL STANLEY could not see anything objectionable in guarding this power of complaint, which might other-in this way, preventing him from taking wise be very considerably abused, by this Proviso. It did not punish an officer for making a statement not strictly accurate; but punished the officer who wilfully made a false statement, or knowingly or wilfully suppressed any material fact. Whether he had done so or not would be a matter for the court martial to determine; and he felt certain that no court martial sworn to do justice would lightly find an officer guilty of this seriouscharge. Certainly, if there were any bias in the minds of the court martial,

COLONEL STANLEY said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) seemed to have abandoned the position taken up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He did not himself think that the general words in other clauses, and notably in Clause 27, were sufficiently explicit to

cover this clause; and, therefore, he did | his rank, his services, his position, and not think there was anything unreasona hundred other things, might prevail able in his desire that these words to secure the conviction. He did venture should remain. to say that in any Civil Court of Appeal there was no such provision as that punishment should follow the making of the appeal. If there was false swearing, let it be punished as false swearing, and let the matter be tried independently of whether any appeal had been made or not. There was already power to punish false swearing, which included. the wilful suppression of any material fact. He really thought that they had a right to complain of the way in which these words were inserted in the clause, offensively staring in the face of everyone who wished to appeal.

MR. HOPWOOD very much regretted the decision of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, for he thought the position taken up by the Mover of the Amendment was a most reasonable one. They pretended by this clause to give the officer the power of appeal; but, at the same time, they accompanied that power by words which seemed to say-"We repent giving you this power of appeal, and, therefore, we will hold over you in terrorem the chance of this charge being made against you if you should resort to that power of appeal, which we affect to ask you to thank us for having granted to you." The mere fact that the one part of the clause was put in juxtaposition to the other was a matter of very serious signification. It was a warning held out to any officer not to appeal if he felt he was suffering from any serious wrong. They were all, of course, agreed that if an officer knowingly made any false statement he should be punished. That was not the question. The point he and his hon. Friends wished to urge was, that the placing of these words in their present position would raise a dread in the mind of a man having a fair right and ground of appeal that he might have some charge made against him. That might easily happen, resulting in the interchange of position between accused and accuser. Take, for instance, a case in which the whole question at issue might turn on the truth of one of two persons. The inferior officer might have very good ground of complaint; but he might have no evidence, except his own statement, and he would have against him the superior rank of his opponent, any services he might have rendered, a hundred things of that kind, which would weigh down, in a matter of this kind, even the truth. There would certainly be temper evolved in a matter of this kind; the charge might even be something in some degree disgraceful to the commander, and then, although there was good ground of appeal, the commander would be able to become the assailant, and to say-" You have knowingly made a false charge against me." The whole question would depend upon the sole word of the commander; and, again,

Colonel Stanley

MR. FORSYTH asked if hon. Members were contending that an officer or soldier who made a false statement was not to be punished? Surely, there was nothing more worthy of punishment than the offence of an officer or soldier who knowingly made a false statement accusing another. If made on oath, he would be liable to an indictment for perjury; but if not made on oath, still the false statement was a grave offence, and there certainly was nothing which was more deserving of punishment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, if there was any alteration made in the law which the Committee considered to be in favour of the soldier, it was the change made in this clause. Under the old practice, the soldier was sometimes punished for making statements which, though he himself believed them to be bonâ fide, yet broke down for want of evidence. It was that state of things which the Committee desired to obviate. The 13th Article of War, after allowing complaints to be made, enacted that if on appeal they should be pronounced groundless and vexatious, the soldier should be sentenced to such punishment as the court might direct. The words in the present clause were much more favourable to the soldier. Before, if a complaint were not proved, it was groundless, and from that it was a very short step to declare it also vexatious, and to punish it. But now the complaint was required to be one which the officer or soldier knew to be false, and which affected the character of some other officer or soldier. It was impossible to make a provision more entirely in favour of the officer. Their object was to give

the officer or soldier the widest latitude, | tween the two parties, prevented the and yet to take care that these com- appeal from going any further. If the plaints should not be made for libellous hon. and gallant Gentleman would alter or improper purposes. The great object his Amendment so as to leave out the of this clause was to remove the impres- last words of the clause, which he could sion which might have existed in the not at all see the use of, and return to minds of the soldiers that if they ap- the old form of procedure, he should be pealed they were likely to be punished, very glad to support him. and the words had been chosen with the greatest care with that object.

MAJOR NOLAN replied, that that Amendment properly belonged to Clause 43, and he should be happy to accept it, when they came to that. With reference to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Sir William Cuninghame), that this punishment should be put in a clause by itself further on, he wanted to point out that this matter had been amply dealt with in Clause 27. It declared that

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME could not help thinking it would be as well to make this offence punishable under a clause by itself. Why could not they have a fresh clause, with another number, making it an offence to make any false statement affecting the character of any officer or soldier. There would be a slight advantage in separating a penal clause from a clause "Every person subject to military law who giving the power of appeal, and he being an officer or soldier makes a hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentle- false accusation against any other officer or man would consent to make the altera-soldier, knowing such accusation to be false," &c. tion.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK marvelled that his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) should not have seen that this clause was expressly framed by the Committee, at the greatest pains and trouble, for the express purpose of providing that there should be no restriction whatever on the right of appeal, except it was shown that the appellant had wilfully and knowingly made a false statement, or suppressed important facts. What was the effect of the proposal as compared with the present state of the law? A soldier conceived himself aggrieved, and might make a statement which was perfectly bond fide, and which he yet failed in entirely proving. On that, and in connection with it, the court martial had the power to declare, upon the evidence given to establish the appeal, that it was vexatious and groundless, and thereupon to sentence the appellant to two years' imprisonment. Now the law was so altered that the soldier might make any statement, and bring any charge he liked, so long as he did not bring himself within the provisions of this sub-section. There could not be any comparison between the one law and the other. He must say, however, that he did not think any advantage was gained by doing away with the intermediate Court of Appeal. Formerly, there was first an appeal to a regimental Court of Inquiry, and that very often, by doing substantial justice be

That seemed to him to cover every possible case, and it did not connect the right of complaint with the punishment, as was at present done by this clause. Anyone who committed this offence could also be tried under Clause 25, which provided that any officer who made any false statement, or made any fraudulent omission in any official document, should be subject to punishment. He believed it had also been the custom, where any officer brought a false charge against any other officer, to try him, under Clause 16, for character unbecoming the conduct of an officer and a gentleman. Again, he might be tried, under Clause 40, for conduct contrary to good order and discipline, though he admitted that these two last clauses did not deal so specifically with the offence as the first he mentioned. But Clause 27 did give the fullest power of punishment that it was possible for anyone to want; and he could only suppose that this sub-section was put in as a sort of sub-section to frighten officers from making complaints, which it would be certain to do very effectually. He should also wish to restore the old Court of Inquiry; for, under the old law, a soldier could not be punished for the first appeal, whereas now he could be so punished.

SIR HENRY JAMES thought that Clause 25 would not cover this offence, for the words there were

« AnteriorContinuar »