This Amendment is unnecessary. in regard to the second Amendment, also in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I suggest that it ought to read somewhat differently.

On a point of Order. I understand that you, Mr. Chairman, have suggested to the hon. Member of Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that he should move this Amendment in a slightly different form. I want to suggest to him that he should withdraw his Amendment in order that words may be inserted to carry out his object in a more efficient way.

I beg to move to leave out the words

"paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of sub-section (3) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children)"

"amendment shall be made in sub-section (2) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability Of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) after the words in respect of a wife or children,' wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words whether legitimate or illegitimate ' and tire words I and in respect of a bastard child, three shillings,' and in respect of a bastard child. two shillings ' and in respect of a bastard child, one shilling and sixpence,' shall be omitted."

The form in which you have put the Question, Mr. Hope, fully protects the Amendment which I am to ask the Member for Bow and Bromley to accept. The Question he raised has been before the House on former occasions. It was raised two years ago by the present Minister of Health, and my predecessor made a sympathetic answer. He pointed out that there was little urgency in the matter, because the provisions of the Army Act, although they distinguish between the bastard and the legitimate child, were more generous to the bastard than the provisions of the civil law. But the War Office practice has always been, as far as possible, to put both on an equality. It was done during the War, and I am glad to say for both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War authorise me to accept this Amendment in principle.

The hon. Member has not moved his Amendment on the Paper. The Amendment which he has moved is precisely the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is ready to accept.

I should like to know whether the Amendment which is now to be accepted removes the word "bastard" from the Bill. If it does not remove that word, it does not meet the point that I want to see met. The word "bastard" may be a good English word, but it is a very opprobrious epithet indeed to use in connection with children, and I think the word "illegitimate" is the right one to use. Will the word "bastard" be removed by the acceptance of this Amendment?

The Amendment says that after the words "in respect of a wife or children," wherever they occur—that is to say, in the original Act—the words "whether legitimate or illegitimate ' shall be inserted, and that the words" and in respect of a bastard child," which are repeated three times, shall be omitted.

Thank you.

I am afraid there is some mistake about the bargain indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We appreciate to the full the intention of the Government to make the Amendment as indicated. We believe that they themselves see the reasonableness of the suggestion. But my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely in error in his intimation that the acceptance of this Amendment binds the Opposition not to take the steps that they may think necessary on the Report stage. No such arrangement has been made nor, indeed, could any arrangement of that kind be made; and, incidentally, may I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the absurdity of laying down any such condition? Here is an Amendment which the House generally would accept, but, if the proposition now laid down were accepted by any Opposition, the way for the Government to facilitate its business would be to introduce nothing, because then there could not be any Report stage. I only want to make it perfectly clear that there must be some mistake, and that no such bargain as my hon. and gallant Friend intimated has been made.

I think that really there is no substantial difference between us. The point is that we want to get the Report stage as well as the Committee stage to-night. If we are obdurate, there will be no Report stage, because when the Committee stage has been taken on the Floor of the House and no Amendments have been made, no Report stage is necessary. If our getting the Report stage, if necessary, to-night, is objected to, we cannot accept the Amendment here, but I would see if we could get it put in in another place, because I do not wish to make the Amendment suffer, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to meet us in this matter, and not to make any undue difficulty about the Report. stage, because, although it does not affect this Amendment, it does affect another Amendment on the Paper, which could not be put in in another place because it is a matter of money.

I only wanted to correct the mistake. It would have led to complications if it went forth that a bargain had been made and then it was repudiated. I quite understand and appreciate the situation, and only want to make the matter perfectly clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding afterwards.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not complain if, at the end of the Committee stage, we also take the Report stage to-night?

Oh, no.

There is one point that I want to raise on the main Clause. I know that, if there should be any points omitted during the Committee stage, those matters can be discussed on Report stage, to-night, and in any case I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee for very long. I want to ask the Government a question which happens to affect certain persons in my constituency. In the last Parliament certain legislative steps were taken in conjunction with some of the Dominion Governments—I think with all--about the cases of wives of Colonial soldiers who had been left deserted with their children in this country. The law was clumsy, and steps were taken by Imperial means to facilitate the bringing of these soldiers to book and charging them for the maintenance of their wives and children. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that has been put into operation, how it is working, whether it has been successful, and what information he can give us upon it. It affects a number of very unfortunate people and I should be grateful for any information.

The procedure to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred has nothing to do with this Act. It is the result of a separate Act of Parliament entirely. All I can tell him is that I understand the Dominions have raised no objection.

I consider this clause unnecessary. We were told on the Second Reading, when the usual passage of arms took place, that it was absolutely necessary to pass the Bill in order that we should have a disciplined Army. It is a-very extraordinary thing that we manage to keep up large bodies of troops in mandated territory—Palestine, Mesopotamia, Kenya Colony, before the Peace Treaty was ratified—without this Clause being added, without the mandated territories being brought within the same legislation as British Protectorates. The Ministry of Air is now affected owing to the great. numbers of aeroplanes badly needed in this country, which are sweltering uselessly in useless parts of the desert. They have managed to maintain discipline and to keep the troops more or less happy and contented all this time without this Clause. What did they do last year or the year before? This is not by any means an idle question. There is a very great question of principle involved. We should be extremely cautious about any legislation with reference to mandated territories.

I will answer my hon. and gallant Friend. I am afraid, from what he has said, that we shall be deprived of another speech from him on the Report Stage, because I feel sure that I can satisfy him. The object of the insertion of the Clause is simple. At present the army in Palestine, or up to a comparatively recent time ago, was on active service. So long as the army was on active service no question of this kind arose. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member said about Chanak and Constantinope, discipline has been maintained because the armies are on active service.

Does that apply to the Rhine army also?

I cannot say off-hand, but I think it is so. In regard to Palestine, the state of the country has become so much more peaceful that some months ago we were able to bring to an end the condition of active Service, and on that account it is necessary to put the military administration in Palestine on the same footing as it would be in a Protectorate. In a Protectorate the High Commissioner has certain powers in connection with courts martial. For instance, it is his duty to confirm the death sentence. Death sentences, I am glad to say, are very seldom given in peace time, but it is necessary to put the High Commissioner in Palestine on the same basis as a High Commissioner in any Protectorate. That is the chief reason for the insertion of this Clause. There are two other additional advantages to be gained by this change. If the change is made it will be possible to imprison military offenders in civil prisons. That is impossible without this Amendment. It will also be possible to proceed in the civil courts against civil persons who unlawfully buy or steal military property. It is wholly owing to these three reasons that this Clause is inserted. The Committee will see that the result of it is to transfer authority that is now purely in military hands to the civil power. In Mesopotamia the state of affairs is still one of active Service, but as the country becomes more established the condition of active Service will come to an end. In that case this Clause will apply. There is

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time." The only object of this Amendment is to pave the way to the improvement of the machinery for the redress of grievances in the Army. I know it is not desirable to encourage appeals to tribunals, nor do I say that the present system is prolific of injustice, but I do say, it being admitted that there should be machinery for the redress of grievances in the Army, it ought to follow that the machinery available should be of the very best character. T think it will be generally agreed that the present system, as laid down by Section 42 of the Army Act, is not the best, and can in no sense be described as judicial machinery at all. If an officer in the Army has a grievance at the present time,-that grievance is transmitted through various General Officers Commanding, who are superior to the officer who makes the complaint, to the Army Council, and the Army Council examines that complaint. The examination is held in secret conclave. It is determined, as I understand, purely by documentary evidence. There is no examination of the complainant or wit- nesses, and there is no opportunity for cross-examination. It must be clear to anybody that a tribunal of that sort cannot give-the same satisfactory adjudication on a grievance as a tribunal which examines the matter in a proper legal spirit, giving each side a fair and proper hearing. The decision of the Army Council may mean that an officer's career is completely blasted, and that he has no hope of advancement in the future. If such consequences may be involved, I think it will be the wish of everybody that the grievance., whatever it may he, should be heard before the best possible tribunal, and adjudicated upon on the fairest principles.

I beg to second the motion. It has been moved so vividly by my hon. Friend that there is very little left for me to say. I can only say I hope the War Office will take this matter into consideration and will give us hope that some remedy will be applied in the manner we have proposed. I have raised this question before for several years, and I know it is a matter which is very much thought of and considered by the officers of the Service. I have with me this evening two letters, sent to me by generals who have been in high command. I think if I give the Committee a few words of what they have written to me it will show what the feeling is, not only among the junior officers now serving, but among the senior officers who have served. One general—of course, I give no names—says:

" Read Section 42 of Army Act. It is useless to appeal to the King against the Secretary of State for War, because it is he who advises His Majesty, and by our Constitution the King must act under the advice of his Ministers."

" Section 42 A.A. places that good, upright, honourable and just man, our Gracious King, in a very false and embarrassing position."

" I have no objection to raise against courts-martial in dealing with officers. It is the treatment of officers by means of reports that is so often unjust, and which calls for reform. So much depends upon the idiosyn-cracy of the Commanding Officer and the General. I remember, when I was in China, we had a very dogmatic and irascible General, who dealt very severely with three young officers. In reference to these the Admiral on the station "—

" said to me, I do not at all like the way you treat your officers in the Army.' We "—

" always have a court-martial; it is much more fair."

" Officers frequently ask to he tried by court-martial, but it is never allowed."

I think the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) is misinformed as to the practice of the Navy, because there is just the same opportunity of dispensing with the services of officers found inefficient in the Navy, without any court-martial, as there is in the Army. I am afraid that this Amendment—although although I recognise that it has been seconded with great military authority by a hon. and gallant Member with a long and distinguished military career, as well as with the military experience of the mover, would not, by any means, be overwhelmingly welcomed by the officers of the Army as a whole. The real question is whether the Army Council are to judge grievances, or whether an outside body, such as the hon. Gentleman has proposed, would be any better. What are those grievances? Very often they are confidential reports. These reports have, in all cases, to be shown to the officer concerned, and initialled by him. It is a most unpleasant duty for any senior officer to report adversely on anyone under his command, and when a man feels that he is aggrieved, he can appeal to the Army Council. Three members of the Army Council have to go into this matter, and they have all separately to record their opinions. Both the hon. and gallant and the hon. and learned Gentle men who have put forward the Amendment attach too much importance to the weight of the Appeal Tribunal. An Appeal Tribunal seems to me to be much more useful on matters of law and fact than on matters of opinion; and efficiency, after all, must be a matter of opinion. I am sure that every officer who has suffered from this kind of report feels in his soul that the senior who reported against him is, in the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, "dogmatic and irascible." But you have to have some meaning attached to "efficiency." You see the same distinction in civil life where employers, to the public benefit, have the right to deal with inefficiency. In War you have even a greater need for efficiency than in civil life, for not only the national interest, but the interests of the fighting men all depend upon an efficient command. We all know men of the most praiseworthy character who are quite unfit to command troops in an emergency. Some men cannot take responsibility. Some are too slow in the "uptake." Some fail from physical causes, being unable to bear fatigue. A court cannot judge of these matters. They can only really be decided by the superiors of the officer who know the work and strain and have been able to test it and to form an opinion. I must ask the Committee to reject the Clause because as we have got a small Army we must have an efficient one. I believe that this proposed change would be a serious obstacle to, and a discouragement of, the system of honest confidential reports and of promotion by merit.

The Mover and Seconder of the Clause will have received the cold comfort of the replies of the War Office with a certain amount of dismay. The remarkable thing is that the Mover of the Clause is a man with war experience, and the Seconder a member with a long military career. We have the right to assume that against the opinions expressed from the box opposite, some consideration should be given to the experience, long and varied, of the two gallant Gentlemen to whom I refer. It is said that the decision of the Under-Secretary is in the interesters of the officers themselves. But we have had quoted not only the opinion of junior officers, but of two distinguished Generals. I hope that at least my hon. Friends will have the courage of their convictions. The Mover of this Clause said he moved it because he not only believed it was right, but he thought that it was in the interests of efficiency and discipline, and the seconder supported it on precisely the same grounds. On this side of the House we believe this is a good proposal and we believe that the War Office will make a profound mistake if they ignor the experience and advice of those two hon. and gallant Gentlemen. I think an opportunity ought to be given to my hon. Friends of testing their opinion in the Lobby, because I am quite sure that they would not have stayed here until this late hour unless they were actuated by a high sense of their duty and responsibility, and unless they thought they were doing something in the interests of the Army and the country. The remarkable thing is that my hon. Friend states that in civil life and in the relationship between employer and employed thus is an innovation. Let me examine that argument for a moment. The railway porter or platelayer who is charged with an offence has the right to appear before an independent tribunal. and state his case if he thinks an injustice has been done to him. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to contend that a British General or a British officer is not entitled to the same consideration as a platelayer. The Mover of this Amendment said that in this matter he had had some experience.

I did not say that.

Here is a proposal put forward which the Mover and Seconder say is in the interests of the Army, and discipline, and if the Mover has had no experience in this matter at least the Seconder has had experience, and he has quoted the experience of others. I hope that we shall not only have a division but in addition. I trust that many of 'those officers who have expressed privately their view in favour of this Clause will at least show the strength of that opinion in this particular direction.

I have had some experience in these matters during my early days in the Army, and have been had up before my commanding officer more than once. Nevertheless I do think that there is an enormous feeling among the rank and file of the British army that they have faith in their commanding officers. After all the whole foundation of discipline is not the fear of punishment but the faith and respect which the ranks maintain not only for their superiors but also for their inferiors. Although I admit there are occasional hard cases, I think we must all admit that, hard cases make exceedingly bad laws and that the whole basis of a confidential report is, the matter of opinion. I agree that in cases of misconduct, more justice would be done by holding Courts Martial much more quickly and in granting officers courts martial instead of having them quietly send in their papers. But this would not be affected by the amendment. From an entirely junior officer's point of view, I do not think that any more justice would be done and a very great blow would be struck at the faith of the junior officer which he ought to have, and in 99 eases out of a 100 he has got in his commanding officer. After all, there is always the confidential appeal which the junior officer has to his company commander and the second in command, and they can give an explanation to the Colonel if he has made) a mistake in judging the capacity of a junior officer. There is that wonderful influence which exists in a regiment of public opinion, and that has got a control over a commanding officer as it has over the most junior subaltern.

I hope the Committee will sec fit to accept this most reasonable new clause. Some of us on this side of the House have been in the Army as well as members on the other side of the House and some of us even to-day hold His Majesty's Commission although we do not think fit to publish it in blue books and directions. I have had some little experience of officers in the army and I have seen some things which make it necessary to bring such a matter as this before the House. It is true that I may not have had the experience of some officers in the Regular Army service, but those who only held commissions during the war had a good deal brought to their notice of the kind of thing which renders such a protection as this really necessary. I remember what happend to a gentleman of my acquaintance, a highly distinguished medical man, who gave his services freely to the country and the Army during the War. He was a great specialist, and was in charge of a hospital in which I was for the time being. One of these high officers came down on a visit of inspection, and he was, in the words of the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion, certainly dogmatic and certainly irascible; and he had us all tailing one behind the other on this visit of inspection—I forget whether it was 25 or 35 officers and non-commissioned officers—behind the brass hat going round the hospital. Finally, although he knew very little about the exceedingly important work of that specialist, he spoke to one who had voluntarily given the best of his knowledge and technical advice to the relief of the men in that hospital and to the work of its organisation, in a manner which many a man, certainly on this side, would not speak to his dog. I remember, too, experiences in other stations in which I was during my service in the Army, and all I can say is that if some officers who held commissions, whether temporary or regular, had to depend entirely for their careers upon what appeared in confidential reports, it would be a very bad thing for them indeed. I do not mean to say that we did not meet in the Army many excellent. and friendly superior officers, whom I was very glad to meet, and who taught me a great deal; but at the same time we met many who could hardly be. depended upon to give a really square deal to the junior officers under them. It would be only a matter of justice and equity for this Committee to accept such a reasonable Clause as this, and give these men the right to appeal, not to a too democratic tribunal, but to a tribunal, say, of three, appointed by the Army Council itself, and including a representative with legal knowledge. I hope the Committee will accept the Clause.

I was much impressed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Major Paget). He put a point which we must have before us in considering this matter, but, when he puts forward, as his reason for disagreeing with this Clause, the time-honoured saying that hard cases make bad law, I think he is really going a little too far. It is not really a question of rectifying hard cases, but of taking precautions that hard cases shall not arise. After all, the whole career of a young officer depends entirely upon the opinion formed of him by his commanding officer, and, when a man's career is at stake, I think he is entitled to every precaution for his protection against possible injustice. The Under-Secretary for War said that this Section of the Act really only aimed at weeding out inefficients.

indicated dissent.

That was what I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say. Will he repeat what he did say?

I said there was a very large number of cases in which the appeals under the proposed Clause would be appeals against confidential reports; I did not say in all cases.

I accept that, of course, but, even so, the Section really goes deeper than that. It says that if an officer feels that he has been wronged by his commanding officer, and if, on due application made to him, he does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Army Council. That covers a great deal more than the question of efficiency. It covers every possible cause of friction that may arise between the commanding officer and the subaltern or the captain. I quite agree that if it were a case of expediency in war time it would be an entirely different matter. It is obvious that in time of war the commanding officer, or someone higher, has to arrive at a quick judgment on the efficiency of an officer or the degree of control exercised by him over his men, and it is undesirable that there should be any misunderstanding or delay; but, after all, the purpose of the Army Act is—or at least I hope it is—to apply to peace time as well as war time. We are not at the present moment considering any case of war, and in any case it would be perfectly possible, by introducing words of limitation, to make provision that in time of war this proposed independent tribunal should not function. The proposal seems to me a very reasonable one, and I hope the Under Secretary will reconsider his decision in the matter. I would suggest that, even if he cannot see his way to accept the Clause as it stands, he might consider whether words should not be introduced into the Army Act giving an officer, in these circumstances, the right to appear in person before the Army Council. That might to some extent meet the case which has been raised, and I very much hope that some such proposal may commend itself to the Government.

As the principle embodied in the Clause has now been amply ventilated, and the purpose that was in our minds has been carried out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

I think the hon. Member has not really the leave of the Committee.

I am sorry that I cannot speak with the same experience of commissioned rank with which many hon. Members have spoken. I am more familiar with what may be described by the words which have on occasion been used by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), that is to say, with the work of mucking out rather Than messing in." I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was afraid of the fact that a ranker was going to speak on this matter, but as a matter of fact I was going to support the contentions which he put forward. I think the attention of the Committee ought to be drawn to what the hon. Gentleman was asking. In Clause 42 it is laid down quite clearly that an officer, if he is wronged by his commanding officer, may, if he pleases, appeal to the Army Council. What the hon. and gallant Member wants is a sort of independent tribunal. He wants something outside the ordinary Army organisation. I think that is a very good thing. Do hon. and gallant Members understand what they are doing in making a proposal of the kind? I hope the attention of the "Morning Post" will be drawn to this. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the ' Daily Herald.'"1 Yes, it is astonishing how ends meet at some points. Hon. Members are proposing something that is a feature of the Soviet Red army. The only people who have a civilian trial are the soldiers in Russia. I hope the attention of the "Morning Post" will be drawn to that fact. It is a very good thing that. this question has been raised to-night, because we are going to ask, in much graver circumstances, that the ranker should have the same liberty to appeal to an independent tribunal outside the ordinary army organisation. The ranker has to be satisfied with an appeal to the commanding officer, who is not good enough for the officer himself. It would be a very good thing when the ranker is in trouble if he had the right to appeal to an independent tribunal. I have not had the experience of being turned down very much myself by a court-martial, but I have had the opportunity of leaving my cap and stepping over it between the escort. I tried it to see what it was like. As a rule commanding officers are very decent people. There are rankers who have their grievances but I do not think they have many definite complaints against the men under whom they have served, but there are times when they do not get satisfaction. The officer should have an opportunity of appealing to an independent tribunal. We should put a little bit of civilian life into the Army. As a matter of fact, that is what the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen have been asking for. They have been asking for a civilian tribunal. I think it is a very good thing indeed, because I would like to see that operating and the rank soldier have the same opportunity.

It must. be perfectly obvious to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the War Office that on this side of the House we are very anxious to help him to carry through his vote. He ought., therefore, to accept the very moderate proposal which has been put. The suggestion is not merely made on the ground of expediency, but even apart from the very important question of Army discipline, the question of political expediency, ought to enter into it also. It would be a queer thing if the "Morning Post" to-morrow morning had to record that it was the Labour Members that had to march in force into the Lobbies to support a reform for the officer class of the British Army.

They went to press at ten o'clock.

It would be as well if you went at the same time, and we would be freed from an unintelligent interruption. It is alleged that we are essentially a class party. Where would the class party be when this division takes place? We are going to support a Measure of justice for the officer class, because we believe that the proposition has been made in all good faith by a distinguished soldier who is a representative in this House, and seconded by another distinguished soldier, and if they have done that it is because they realise. the time has come for an independent tribunal. May I suggest without knowledge of active service in the field, and in that respect I am on equal terms with most of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. You conducted the War from armchairs, and you were busy making profits during the War. I am not posing as an authority on military law, but as a matter of clear interpretation may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office that in the Amendment that has been moved there is nothing inconsistent with Section 42 of the Army Act, which reads

" If an officer thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer and on due application made to him does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Army Council in order to obtain justice, who are hereby re- quired to examine into such complaint and (if so required by the officer) through a Secretary of State make their report to His Majesty in order to receive the directions of His Majesty thereon."

I frankly admit at the outset that I have no Army experience.

Why not?

What has it to do with you?

May I repeat again I have no Army experience, and may I say the only people who have the right to know why not are the Government of the country at the time. If they thought I should have been in the Army, it was their business, and not the business of the men who asked the question. I am as willing to do my part for the country as you are. [Interruption.] You cannot shout me down. You cannot bully me anyway. You will have to rise a little earlier in the morning, and come from another country. There is nobody for whom I have a greater regard than the hon. Member who is in charge of this Bill. May I remind this Committee that on many subjects which come before this House, all of us at some time or other are as it were, juries on questions of which we have had no experience at all. Large numbers of Members in this House know nothing at all, or practically nothing at all, about agriculture, for instance. They must he the juries on questions that must be discussed on one side or the other. How many of us are frankly ignorant of the Colonial Office But we must listen to the experts and then form our judgment on matters affecting it. I have listened to the experts, to the Mover and the Seconder, and to the reply by the right hon. Gentleman, and I have also listened to the excellent plea put by the Member who is now sitting below the Gangway. His argument is an argument against. the whole Clause of the Bill. His argument is that the comradeship of the Army is so excellent that no injustice can happen to any officer at all. If that is the case why have any appeal for the officer at all? But you have an appeal, and that shows there is injustice occasionally. But there is another reason why you should be even more careful in this respect. The hon. Member who opposed this Amendment stated that after all in Army life we must have efficiency, and even in ordinary civilian life the inefficients get weeded out, but there is this difference between the two branches. If the foreman or manager in the shop or warehouse is dismissed there are other warehouses and shops in which he can find employment, but if the officer in the Army is dismissed. he has no other alternative employment in which to seek around and look for, and, as a consequence, you must be very careful in the dismissal of the man, as the injustice is far greater than in civilian life. I listened with due respect. to an excellent speech delivered by one of the Liberal Members—I do not know to which wing he belongs.

One of two wings without a body.

There is one wing that you usually see in the Government lobby, and the other you usually see in the Labour lobby. I do not know to which wing the hon. Gentleman belongs, but he delivered an excellent speech and he put one point which is worthy of consideration. He says in effect that this is too revolutionary a change for the Government to accept, that the persons who moved it are too revolutionary to be even in the Tory party. But, he said, if you cannot accept this Amendment, accept a modest proposal that. would allow the person to appear before the Army Council. Even that modest proposal the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill casts off with scorn. If the House of Commons is going to be of any real service, it must try to look at Amendments with some idea of fairness. We are told that the Amendment. will affect the discipline of the Army. That is the kind of argument used against every reform in the Army. I remember that my father, who was in the Army, and afterwards had a long connection with the Volunteer Force, used to tell me that in his days in the Army every reform that he could think of was always opposed because it would affect the discipline of the Army. This is the old argument trotted out again. It will not affect discipline. Another thing you must remember is that you can have no discipline unless you have justice. Justice and discipline must. go hand in hand, and that is the effect of the Amendment. I would plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, who is a comparatively young member of the Government, to look on this Amendment with an unbiassed view. It generally falls to the lot of every man who hold office in a Government to introduce certain changes. These changes are usually handed down to future generations associated with his name. I would plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept the Amendment if for no other reason than that it would be associated with the honourable name which he bears. He has already accepted one Amendment in most generous fashion, and this one would go down to his credit in future years.

I intervene in this Debate with some trepidation, as my experience of the Army is confined to the Volunteer Force, in which I served in every capacity from recruit to commanding officer. I join issue with the last speaker. I do not think that justice is at all a necessary element in this; nor do I think that the most severe discipline is in any way the most just. It is quite possible to have very severe discipline with no justice at all. That is not what we want. The history of the Army in the course of the last ten years has proved that it is the desire of the authorities that all grievances should be fairly ventilated, and that every man against whom an accusation is made should have a fair chance of presenting his case. To this end when an adverse report is made on an officer a copy of that report has to be sent to the officer concerned. I am entirely in support of this Amendment. I do not say that it contemplates a civilian tribunal at all. What is proposed is that the examination shall be carried out by an independent tribunal of three members of whom at least one shall have had a legal training. From the wording of the Amendment and from what was said by the Mover and Seconder, it is proposed that the tribunal should consist of officers of the Army, and it would he perfectly simple to constitute a tribunal of this sort to hear cases as they arise. I join with hon. Members above the Gangway in pressing this Amendment upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If he cannot see his way to accept it as it stands, it may be possible for him to accept the suggestion that the officer should have a chance himself of approaching the Army Council. it is true there may he difficulties on some occasions. while officers are abroad on garrison duties. It would not be so easy for them to approach the Army Council, but I think it might be easily arranged that an officer might be allowed to come home for the purpose in cases in which complaints are made against him.

When he is on active service?

If he was on active service he would not be under these regulations. This is simply a matter for peace service.

Some of the hon. Members above the gangway opposite have a very hazy idea of how the Army works. That is not very surprising if they take very good care not to go into the Army. They say that it will surprise officers in the Army very much when they go into the Lobby on their behalf. I doubt very much if the majority of the officers in the Army want this amendment. I sin personally an officer in the Reserve of the Army.

The Boy Scouts.

By no means. If I were in the Army I would not want it. The whole point is on what particular question is this independent tribunal to be set up. The whole debate has turned on these confidential reports. Confidential reports on an officer can only be made by somebody who knows that officer extraordinarily well. Supposing he is adversely commented upon. If this is brought before a tribunal of these three people they cannot have the slightest idea of what the real capacity of that officer as an officer is.

I am tempted to endorse the remarks made from these benches, that it is to me a great regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Islington (Captain Hudson) did not continue his speech and give us at greater length some knowledge with regard to what has transpired for many years in this House with regard to this Amendment, which he says has been withdrawn upon every occasion. But. I am dealing very seriously with this case, though we are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for introducing a great deal of amusement and treating this matter lightly. I wish to assure him that if his knowledge of the Army is not greater than he has shown of the history of this matter in the House, it is not very valuable. It is more than interesting and peculiar that upon each occasion officers who have had ripe experience of the difficulties, injustice and hardship to young officers, especially by the whims and caprices of commanding officers, have supported the Amendment. I know of young officers—I am speaking with some experience, and I am saying this quite seriously. I have had some experience of the Army, both in peace and war, for twenty-five years, and I have known young men broken after they have spent a good deal of the early part of their Eves in training themselves for the Army, and then being cast on the scrap heap, so that for many years afterwards they are of no value to themselves or to the nation. I can, therefore, understand the Mover and the Seconder once more making an attempt to secure that at least a court of appeal should be provided. What can there be said against a court of appeal being provided against commanding officers. I speak as one who has had some slight experience—I hope equal to the hon. and gallant Member—during the Great War. I have found in many cases, even during the Great War, circumstances which ought at least to warrant that this Amendment should have consideration and sympathy. I found a number of cases where, if redress of wrongs as provided in this Amendment had existed, many young men whose reputation went by the board would have been saved, and I wish to join in the appeal which is made. I want to point oat that there is nothing wrong in the establishment of this tribunal, whereby the officer who thinks he has not been properly dealt with can make an appeal. This section, as many other sections of the Army Act has not been changed at least during the last 35 years. If you look at the Act of 1881 and 1885—

It has been amended during the reign of King Edward and during the present reign.

Not to any appreciable extent as far as establishing any further Court of Appeal. Outside the commanding officer's confidential report itself, he has no right of appeal at all. If you look at the Acts of 1881 and 1885, it was precisely, except that there are some words added, in its main provisions what it stands to-day. It was brought home to me very forcibly during the war. I was moving about a great deal in several of the zones in which our operations were carried out and I found that young officers were being proceeded against very unduly. We are living in days when, if you want the best out of men, you ought to give them reasonable security or to allow them to have all the opportunities of either proving their case or of going by the board after this tribunal has considered and examined the evidence, so that they might know fully and upon what grounds they have been charged either for inefficiency or anything else. Then they nor anyone else can have a word to say against the decision arrived at. What I do protest against and protest strongly is—and at least this side of the House will go into the division lobby to mark its disapproval—that no effort is being made that whenever an inquiry into the conduct of an officer is concerned it should be made in the light of day, above board, and without any suspicion at all. There are commanding officers who are liable to do wrong, and the young officer, when charged with an offence should have the satisfaction of knowing that at least he has had fair play to the fullest possible extent that he can have in this country.

I do not want to take the time of the Committee, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. He seems to think that there is no appeal. There is an appeal and a very definite appeal. Any officer can appeal to the Army Council or to the Air Council. If he appeals to the Army Council or the Air Council he has the right, so I am informed, of actually interviewing a member of the Army Council or of the Air Council in certain serious cases—in cases, for instance, in which he may be required to resign. He has the right, so I am informed, of actually seeing

Under Statute?

should be very much obliged to know under what regulation.

Will the right hen. Gentleman tell us whether the information he has now given us is provided by Statute, and, if so, how it did not apply to the very notorious case we discussed clay after day in this House of young Barrett and Mrs. Cornwallis West? There was a case where a young officer was absolutely and completely ruined. The hon. Member for Mansfield, the late Sir Arthur Markham, day after day in this House raised that case, and there-came such a storm of protest in the country that an investigation was made and the late Member for Anglesey, Brigadier-General Sir Owen Thomas, was empowered to make the investigation. The young lad was vindicated. The whole position would have been saved if a tribunal had been in existence. That is one case. There is another case that applies to a lady where the same circumstances arose. Miss Douglas Pennant was dismissed on the ground of inefficiency. There was no appeal and the Prime Minister, owing to the influence that. was brought to bear, had to set up a special committee of investigation. This would have been avoided if the proposal we are now making had existed. Here is a proposal made not from this side of the House, because I want to make it perfectly clear that there are Motions coming up of vital importance that we ourselves are moving—but here is a proposal made by two responsible officers, a proposal not made in this House for the first time, but made year after year, reflecting not only their individual opinions but the opinion of officers in the Army. I only want to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that he himself would not pit his experience against the Member who seconded this motion or against the two generals quoted by my hon. Friend. But what is more significant is this, that a statement has now been made that there is a right of personal appeal. Is it provided by Statute? I want the hon. Member to apply himself to the many arguments that have been adduced. We have been debating this for an hour and a half, and I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to give full consideration to this matter and to remember that we are dealing with something that affects the future and the lives of those people, and we are entitled at least to see that justice is done to them.

I only gave way to the right hon. Gentleman.

May I ask whether this right of appeal applies to complaints under this Section of the Act?

I have had the opportunity of conferring on the statement I made to the Committee. I find that Section 255a of the King's Regulations states that if an officer is called upon after the date of this order to retire or resign his commission he may after submitting an application through the usual military channels immediately be accorded an interview with a member of the Army Council in order that he may have an opportunity to state his case if he so desires. Further than that, in every case where he feels aggrieved he can appeal, though not in person, to the Army Council. This is a very important question and one wishes to remove any possibility of injustice, but I do feel most strongly that an appeal to the Army Council is really much fairer to the officer than an appeal to a special tribunal such as is described in this Amendment.

The Army Council first deals with it. This proposal is to ensure an impartial consideration: that. is to say the tribunal must consider the case, free itself from any responsibility in it.

I want to avoid any possibility of injustice, but I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the Army Council or the Air Council is a partial body. I hold it is a much better body to deal with a case of this kind, for the reason that it knows all the officers concerned in a particular case. It knows something about the commanding officer who originally reported unfavourably on a young officer. That in itself is a very valuable thing, and a tribunal of that kind is much more likely to take an impartial and merciful view than an outside tribunal.

Is that not exactly the reverse of the Barrett case? Barrett was a young lieutenant who was dismissed by an officer. The case was ultimately investigated and those responsible knew the officer that had created the injustice, but notwithstanding all that machinery it was proved that a wicked injustice had been done, and that boy's life had been blasted, and he died. If an independent tribunal had been in existence we believe that would have been prevented.

I am afraid I cannot carry my mind back to the Barrett. case, but the right. hon. Gentlemen and I disagree, and there is no use disguising the fact. I hold strongly the view that the Army and Air Councils are independent bodies which is much more likely to be impartial and merciful to the young officer, than some outside tribunal. That is the whole case of the Government. Having said that, I venture to suggest to the Committee that we have had a very full debate. [HON. MEMBERS "No! "] I suggest that. while we are quite ready to discuss this or any other question, it would be a good thing to get on to the many other Amendments, and I therefore ask the Committee to let us come to a decision on this question.

I desire to say a few words on this Amendment and I should like first to deal with the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government. I feel as one who was wearing His Majesty's uniform before the right. hon. Gentleman who spoke opposite was born, and who was in the National Reserve at the outbreak of war, and who came up at once and served until after the Armistice, that his view of discipline is one I do not hold, and one that tended very considerably to lengthen the late War. I feel as one who has had experience of the Army, that the proper thing to do is to insure for these officers a tribunal in which at least one Member has not soaked in the old Army tradition. There must be many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who were officers in the Territorial Army at the outbreak of war, and they know how they were unable, in spite of long experience, to break through the cast-iron traditions of the officers of the Regular Army. We had our attention drawn to the fact from time to time that no officer of Territorial experience had managed to rise to any very high office in spite of the marvellous work the Territorials did during the War. If we are to test the real efficiency of the Army, we must have it open to the reception of new ideas among the officers, and there is a general feeling that I have heard voiced by officers in the Army and after they have left the Army, that new ideas are not too readily accepted and men who have new ideas are not too readily welcomed by those holding the old army traditions. I applied twice for a commission during the War. I applied to the Lord Lieutenant of the county for a commission. was his colleague on the County Council.

I do not see how the hon. Member connects this with the question of an independent tribunal.

I was trying to support the argument with which I started that it was necessary to have an independent tribunal so as to break with the old tradition. The question that was asked me was how much of my private income I would be prepared to devote to the commission. I do feel if you have an army based on a tradition like that, if we are going to get real justice for an officer with new ideas that we are riot going to get it if he has to go in front of such a tribunal as that, and. I totally dissent from the argument used by the hon. Member for Islington with regard to the question of discipline. He pointed out the necessity of preserving the old British tradition, and that dirty buttons are a sign of bad discipline.

rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

I desire your ruling on the decision to accept the Closure moved by a Minister who has not heard the important points raised by the Debate, and is not aware that no answer has been given to the many important subjects raised.

I wish to ask, Mr. Hope, what the position of affairs is just now. Nobody here is able to say.

The Question is "That the Question be now put."

On a Point of privilage, Mr. Hope —