grievances to the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief in England, and he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree to the insertion of the words proposed. MAJOR NOLAN expressed his regret that some of the clauses in the Bill were not dovetailed. The case was made much worse for the soldier than for the officer. But the Government had introduced into this clause great practical changes. They read very well; but he doubted whether they would work well. There was, for instance, the case of an officer making a complaint against another officer-affecting the character of another officer-or of a soldier making a complaint. What was in the mind of the draftsman of this Bill? Clearly, his object must have been to discourage complaints. The old Articles of War were in the other direction-they encouraged complaints, so as to leave a safety-valve. They gave an officer or a soldier full permission to bring com COLONEL STANLEY agreed with the principle that an officer, in making an appeal, should not be shuttle-cocked about; but, as it was laid down, officers serving in India came under Clause 42, and had their right of appeal accordingly, it mattered not whether their complaints went to the Commander-inChief or the General Officer commanding, both of which officers were but the channels through which the complaints were forwarded. If he found that his impression was wrong, and that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire was correct in the view he had taken, he would agree to the in-plaints before their superior officer, if sertion of the words on Report. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he was perfectly satisfied with the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and, therefore, he should withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. · they felt themselves aggrieved. There was no penalty on an officer bringing a complaint and failing in it, though there was on the soldier; but there was this provision-that if he brought a complaint before the regimental court-if he appealed to a higher court-he might be punished, if the appeal was found to be frivolous and groundless. The same MR. PARNELL said, there appeared was the case exactly with regard to the to be some confusion between the hon. soldier. He thought there was a very great and gallant Baronet the Member for change being introduced by this penal East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gor- clause, thus adding to the old Articles of don) and the Secretary of State for War. War. They now said to a man who The argument of the hon. and gallant made a complaint-"If you make a false Baronet came to this-that although the statement, you are liable to be tried." officer in India-serving in India-nomi- At first sight, that seemed fair; but what nally retained his status and right of ap- about the working of it? The man compeal under Clause 42, yet, owing to the plaining would differ in some matter of distance of England from India, it was fact from his commanding officer; there impossible for him, practically speaking, was nearly always a difference as to to make this appeal within any reason- a matter of fact, and if there was a difable time; and although there was a ference, it might fairly be said to Commander-in-Chief in India, the Com-"affect the character" of somebody. mander-in-Chief at home did not consider himself competent to interfere in the matter. Then came the question between the different Secretaries of State -the Secretary of State for India, and the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for War did not consider himself properly qualified. This appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) to be the argument of the hon. and gallant Baronet. Of course, if he only desired to reserve the technical right of an officer in India to appeal, he would have gained his purpose by the promise made by the Secretary of State for War. It might, for instance, affect an officer's military character to say he lost his temper, or something of that sort; and in the majority of cases of serious complaint they would have some statement affecting the character of an officer. What he believed would happen under this new Act was this-and it was designed, he was satisfied, for the purpose -when an officer made a complaint, instead of pressing it against his commanding officer, he would be put on his trial, and the commanding officer would. be told he must prove the charge against the junior officer, who would be told he X hardly any time at all to the consideration of the clause. They were unanimous, for the simple reason that they were helpless, and the clause was hurried through from beginning to end, and was not discussed at all. MR. STAVELEY HILL said, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim would look, he would find that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) took a division on another part of the clause. had made a false charge. The effect of this alteration, instead of assisting complaints, would land the junior officer in a trial in which he would be charged before a court martial for making a false statement. The superior officer would not know that he had made a false statement; but he would say we must investigate, in the same way, this fact; and in that way the junior officer would be placed on his trial. Perhaps, in the great majority of cases, the officer would not be tried; but if one was tried out of 50 who made complaints, it would be quite enough to establish the grievance which he had pointed out, and to stop the great bulk of complaints. It would stop the safety-valve which existed at present the right of making fair and legitimate complaints of grievances. He thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to point out why this clause was being introduced. They were removing by this clause the soldier's only safeguard. No soldier under the clause could make a complaint without being made liable to punishment. They might reply-" Well, let him make no false statement." He believed, in the majority of cases, both sides were in the right, and that the facts were as they stated them; and the result would be that a man would be tried for making false statements when, in fact, he had told the truth. When they came to Clause 43, he would show how very much worse the soldier's case was made than it was at present. It behoved the Secretary of State for War to show to the Committee why he had departed from the old Act. He should, in page 18, line 2, move to leave out all the words after "thereon," to the end of the clause. MR. STAVELEY HILL said, the Committee upstairs had agreed unanimously to the clause. The object of the insertion of the words was clear. It was to prevent false charges. The Committee deemed it proper to make this a specific offence. Let him point out that the words were "knowingly making a false statement," and concealing any material fact. He asked whether "knowingly making a false statement" was not a matter which should be punished? MAJOR O'BEIRNE, in reply to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill), wished to say that the Committee gave Major Nolan MAJOR NOLAN wished to point out that his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Beirne) and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) differed as to a matter of fact in the Committee of which they were Members. This was exactly a point on which an officer would be tried. If a junior officer put the statement in writing, he would probably be tried for making a false statement. The provision in the new Act was a dangerous one. Here they had two hon. Members differing as to a matter of fact; but under this Act the mode of investigation would be to try the complainant. This was the dangerous feature to which he most strongly objected. COLONEL MURE said, that hon. Gentlemen who complained of this clause were the same who complained of the "Devil's Clause." Offences of this kind must be punished; and if that were so, surely they ought to make the matter clear. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give way. COLONEL STANLEY rose to explain that it was not a false statement as to fact, but false statements affecting the character or wilfully suppressing any material facts. As to matters of fact, no court in the world would convict a man for a statement, unless it was convinced of the intention of the person making the statement. MR. HOPWOOD said, the Committee was discussing a very important pointthe possibility of the accuser being brought to trial. He agreed, on the face of the thing, "knowingly making a false statement," and "wilfully suppressing facts," were strong terms; but, taken in connection with the words with which they were placed in juxtaposition, "by himself making complaint first," something like a menace was held out, or a {MAY 16, 1879} warning was given to the man not to SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, MAJOR NOLAN said, there was one point to which he wished to allude, and that was with reference to the evidence given before the Committee on the Mutiny Act. He thought, if anyone looked at the list of witnesses there, he would see that the people who gave evidence were those who, in many cases, had frightful bothers with complaints. think the Committee had one witness of He did not the class of men who complained. The Committee had been hearing one class of witnesses; and it was rather better, he thought, for the Committee of the Whole House to hear all sides of the story. The safe right of complaint was a safety-valve for discontent. Abolish, or nearly abolish, that right, and they would remove the safety-valve. men would interpret the clause as meaning that, however true, the complaints The were not wanted. . read a few lines from the evidence of be perfectly true this statement was ings of the Committee had been referred X 2 H posing. They were put to a task which could not be performed in two or three Sessions. MR. HOPWOOD said, their opposition to the clause was so rooted taht he thought it would be well if the question were taken into consideration by the Secretary of State for War. At that hour (15 minutes to 7) the clause could The clause pronot be disposed of. posed, in effect, to abolish a right which they were all anxious to secure to the men. SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA said, he thought this provision gave a complete discouragement to any man making a complaint. He had had a good deal to do in civil matters with receiving complaints, and he could assure the Committee it was very difficult to get men to make complaints, even where they were aggrieved; and where the discipline of the Service in which they were engaged was involved, the difficulty always was to get men to impeach authority, even when right. A man had a great deal to contend with before he made up his mind to bring a charge against a superior. If, in addition to the natural reluctance to accuse a superior, he had to labour under the reflection that, when he did bring a charge, if he did not prove the charge, he would be liable to imprisonment in addition to the imputation that he brought a false charge, the proper exercise of the right of complaint would be seriously curtailed. He knew of one case where his own judgment went wrong. He thought a man brought a false charge; but afterwards the charge proved to be true, and it would have involved a serious injustice if the man, immediately after bringing the charge, were tried for bringing it forward. A case occurred to him at the moment. A man made a charge against a respectable party placed over him in authority. It was apparently so absurd that he did not investigate it, especially as the party bringing the charge made a mistake in one very important point, which would seem to destroy his veracity. The charge, however, was true, for all that-and was the man's whole evidence to be discredited? And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day. Mr. Parnell It is MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in rising to call attention to Brewers' Licences; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the nature and incidence of the Tax upon Brewers' Licences, said: Sir, although it may seem rather a paradoxical statement, I feel that the task which I have undertaken to-night is, at the same time, easy and difficult. It is easy, because I have a good cause and a strong case. difficult, because in these days, when public attention is concentrated upon foreign policy and Colonial difficulties, it is not without an effort that the mind of Parliament can be brought to turn itself to the more prosaic subject of the details of home taxation. Moreover, Sir, the difficulty is increased by the fact that no immediate remission can be expected, even if I prove to demonstration my case against the tax of which I complain to-night. No remission of taxation can be expected, under ordinary circumstances, without a surplus. To such a luxury the Chancellor of the Exchequer has long been a stranger; and I fear that, unless and until, happily for him, there should occur an interregnum of Liberal Government, it will be long indeed before he has another surplus to distribute. But, properly considered, this circumstance rather strengthens my position. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer possessed a surplus, he would be puzzled and embarrassed between the rival claimants upon his bounty. As it is, the prospect of such a state of things being remote, his mind, and the minds of other men, are in a state of calm impartiality, which renders the moment peculiarly opportune for a full and fair 617 Brewers' {MAY 16, 1879} Licences. inquiry into the case of any particular | being that during the last 12 years interest which complains of undue taxa- more than 1,000 brewers per annum 618 tion. And therefore, Sir, I ask for a have been driven out of the trade, mainly Committee, to inquire into the nature owing to the injurious pressure of the and incidence of the tax upon brewers' exceptional taxation to which they are licences. And here, Sir, I moment to sweep away, if I can, a pre- mind the House that it is no answer to pause for a subjected. And let me respectfully rejudice by which I am encountered upon this statement to say, as was said by the very threshold of my argument. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Brewers are popularly believed to be a wealthy class, well able to endure taxa- subject, that before the imposition of course of a former debate upon this tion. In fact, it is a common opinion that, this tax in 1862 the number of brewers in these bad times, the three b's-the throughout the country had been on brewers, the bankers, and the butchers the decline. -are the only bees who have any honey left in their hives; and the brewers have certainly not obtained much sympathy from the public. But I venture to say that this arises entirely from a want of knowledge of the true facts of the case. The truth is that when we in this House speak of brewers, our thoughts instinctively turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass). Well, Sir, if all brewers were in the position of my hon. Friend, they would probably be rather the objects of envy than of commiseration. By the exercise, from a very early period of life, of a skill, energy, and perseverance rarely equalled in the history of mercantile enterprize, my hon. Friend has, no doubt, acquired a high financial, as well as a high commercial, position, and this I am sure no one will grudge him who knows, as I know, the kindly qualities of his heart, and the sterling worth of his character. But you must not take my hon. Friend, nor must you take the half-dozen representatives of great brewing companies who sit in this House, as fair samples of the brewers upon whom falls the pressure of this tax. On the contrary, I put this forward in the very front of my argument, that the tendency and effect of this particular taxation is rather to create and foster a monopoly in the hands of a few great and prosperous houses, and to drive out of the trade their smaller competitors, who, in the interest of the public, should be allowed to exist. And if you point to my hon. Friend and say -look how flourishing he appears to be -is this the man whom you seek to relieve from taxation? with the fact that 12 years ago my hon. I answer you Friend was one of nearly 38,000 brewers in the United Kingdom, and that to-day he is one of less than 24,000; the fact worth anything at all, may show that even before 1862 the disadvantages That argument, if it is under which the trade laboured were already so great as to drive men out of it; but surely, to a logical mind, this can be no valid reason for greatly adding to those disadvantages. indisputable fact, take it as you will, that since the establishment of the preIt is an sent system of brewers' licences, the number of brewers has decreased far more rapidly than was previously the case, and that, according to present appearances, things are working to this result-that in a few years the brewing trade will be a gigantic monopoly in the hands of a few great houses. are those who know this well, and there are some persons connected with these great houses who know it so well, that There they do not wish success to our movement against this tax, because, if successful, it will militate against the creation of a monopoly which will greatly benefit themselves. Gentlemen who are the champions of free competition in this House, whether they are prepared to acquiesce in the present system, and thus to assist in creating a monopoly in one large trade; and I ask those who are the champions of temperance, whether they think that the cause of temperance will be promoted by giving to this branch of the drinking trade such enormous power for action upon the Legislature as would undoubtedly be given to it by its concentration in the hands of a few individuals? And let me here say one other word to the champions of temperance. much an advocate of temperance as any I am as decline to believe that the cause of temman in the House, although I utterly perance can be advanced by unnatural and galling restrictions. But I want to put this to my hon. Friends-that the But I ask hon. |