reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Distribution of Industry Bill): Mr. Wilfrid Roberts; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Clement Davies.

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether it is possible for arrangements to be made for further representatives of this House to visit the scenes of the terrible happenings on the Continent? Many sought to go, but only few were chosen. I think it would give great satisfaction if one or two more delegations could be allowed.

A number of hon. Members sent in their names for inclusion in the party which, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, should visit the concentration camps at Weimar. Mr. Speaker was able to select only eight Members from among the number who sent in their names. I am sorry that it was not possible to increase this number. In this particular case, the House will realise that if these gruesome scenes are to be inspected, it is necessary for the party to leave without delay. I will report to my right hon. Friend the suggestion that other visits should be arranged to German concentration camps.

How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect Business will last on Tuesday? If the House rises early, an interesting little ceremony will be delayed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also convey to the Prime Minister the opinion of some hon. Members of this House that the delegation to which reference has been made, is one all the Members of which agree with the Government, and that no Member of any Opposition group is selected?

I should have thought that there was no opposition to the detestation of those gruesome crimes.

That is not my point. The point is that there are certain Members who have been selected and who would increase if possible by 100 per cent. all the atrocity stories. Some care at least should be taken to see that every viewpoint is represented.

May I remind the hon. Member that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who was chosen, is an Independent Member?

No, he is not Independent. Do not tell us that.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, leave out "six months," and insert "one month."

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the first Amendment is discussed together with the two that follow, namely, in page 3, line 14, leave out "thirty pounds," and insert "forty shillings," and in page 3, line 14, at end, add:

"and at the end of the Section there shall be added the words:

'Provided that no person shall be deemed to be guilty of any offence under this Section who is the father or mother, wife or brother or sister, son or daughter of the deserting or absentee officer or soldier.'"

Hear, hear.

There are really two issues involved in these Amendments, that of the penalties imposed and that of the people upon whom the penalties may be imposed. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that some little time ago there was a great deal of feeling in the House and the country because a mother was sent to prison for 14 days because she had not reported to the authorities that her son was staying at home when he was an absentee from military service. The Home Secretary, when asked to remit the penalty, said that if a change was desired, that change should be made in the law. In this connection, the War Office ought to have amended the Army Act so as to impose a financial penalty rather than imprisonment. The penalty still left is far too heavy. It is obvious that there has never been any attempt to set up organisations for assisting absentees or deserters from the Services in this country. Very often an intolerable position is created in families of people who may be absentees from the Army. If the War Office believe that there should be some amendment of the law, they should also make the financial penalty much lighter. Accordingly, these Amendments seek to limit the financial penalty and the period of imprisonment that can be imposed.

As to the people who may become subject to the penalties, when the case to which I referred was before the House, there was a general feeling that those penalties ought not to be imposed on a mother or father at all. Let us look at the position. If a son stays too long at home, does anyone believe that the parents should go and report it to the police? That sort of thing was done in Germany under the Nazi régime. Members of families were asked to report about other members. We here, with our traditions, thought that one of the hateful things about Nazi tyranny was that children were asked to spy on their parents and parents were asked to spy on their children. I do not believe that any Member of this House would consider it his duty if a member of his family were an absentee, to report the matter to the police. I do not think that would be natural at all. I therefore press the Financial Secretary to the War Office to consider favourably these Amendments. I do not think that if they were adopted they would increase in any way whatever the difficulties with regard to absenteeism. It is intolerable that close relatives should be asked to act almost as Nazi spies on members of their families. I hope we shall get a favourable answer from the Government.

11.15 a.m.

I am fully in agreement with the suggestion that all the Amendments should be taken as one, because the same arguments can be applied to all. I agree completely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has said. When I asked the Home Secretary a question in relation to this matter some time ago he said it was not a question for him but for the War Office. He invited us to raise it with the War Office, and accordingly we are doing so this morning. I attach the greatest importance to the third of these Amendments, which refers to members of a family. I would have expected this morning a fairly big attendance on the Labour benches because many Members of the Labour Party were "on the run" in this country during the last war. A number of them were conscientious objectors, some were in prison and others were in hiding during the period of the war. Knowing these individuals, and their past record of opposition to war in 1914–1918, I should have expected that they would have been here this morning to give us strong support for these Amendments. I myself knew of people going round the country, speaking on public platforms under assumed names. To-day we find them 100 per cent. patriots, telling the young men all the things they should do in this war—things which they themselves refused to do in the last war.

Be that as it may, in this matter there are men and their families who are involved in certain penalties. It is one of the most unnatural things in the world to expect that if a son deserts from the Army, for some reason best known to himself, and comes to his home, his mother should telephone the police, or call at the police office, or take him down the street and hand him over to the authorities. To me that is outrageous. It is against the tenets of civilised home life. We have constantly been told in the Press and on the platforms of this country about this vile thing which has grown up in Germany of the giving of information by members of a family against parents, brothers and sisters, who hold views contrary to the Nazi view. Here, when a young man comes home, as some have done, probably with his nerve broken by the experiences through which he has gone, the parents are made liable to these penalties. The case to which reference has been made, in which a woman was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, was shocking, and whether the War Office recognises it or not it is completely contrary to public opinion in this country. I have not met an individual, no matter what his views on war may be, who has not roundly condemned the action taken in prosecuting this mother for harbouring her son. To say that a mother who has a detestation of war, and the desire to preserve and stand by her son, should hand over that son or that any member of the family should do so, is wrong. It conforms to Nazi tenets, not to what might be called free, British, enlightened opinion. I urge the War Office to take one step in advance of this orthodox militarist Nazi attitude, and agree to these Amendments.

I think the Committee will agree that the War Office has done well to make the changes in the Army Act which are contained in the Clause now before us, but I hope the Committee will resist the Amendments which are now being discussed. So far as the question of the amount of penalty is concerned, I think my hon. Friends opposite are labouring under some misapprehension. All that is set out in the Section of the Army Act which is being amended by this Clause is a maximum penalty, and it is left open to a court to determine the appropriate penalty in the case. It would be a great mistake to limit the jurisdiction of the court as proposed by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Act does not mean that in every offence coming before the court there is to be a penalty of six months' imprisonment or £30. The hon. Gentlemen opposite referred to an appropriate sum of 40s.; it may well be that there are cases in which that would be the appropriate sum, and I am sure that hon. Members may rest assured that if that were so that would be the penalty which the court would impose.

I wish to turn to the third Amendment with which the hon. Member has just dealt. The whole of this pathetic story about encouraging Nazism—the suggestion being that those concerned will be required to take the deserter along to the police court—has no foundation at all. There is no offence set out in this Section of the Act for failing to take a person to the police court, or for failing to report him. The offence is that of concealing him. All that the mother, wife, brother, sister, or other persons referred to in this Clause need do is merely to refuse to take in the deserter. If they do not take in the deserter, if they do what most hon. Members will agree is the appropriate thing, which is to say, "If you have deserted, your proper job is to go back," they do not commit any offence under the Army Act.

Is it not a fact that they are perfectly entitled to take in? All they have to do is not to conceal them.

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. The offence is that of taking them in and keeping them there, so that they are concealed from discovery.

My hon. and gallant Friend had better take his law from himself. I think very few courts would acquit a parent who let a boy in and then did nothing active. It is a small point, but we should face it.

I very much doubt whether a court would convict a relative who merely took the soldier in for the night, and sent him away the next morning. The offence is that of concealing.

I wish to refer to something which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and other hon. Members have said. When dealing with this matter they referred to "the boy"—a rather pathetic way of putting the case, which no doubt somewhat assists their argument. My experience is that the bulk of deserters are not boys at all. It is usually the old lads, who have had enough of it. The only remaining point I wish to make is this: There is no doubt that the provisions of the Army Act as they stand—that is, a penalty for desertion, particularly when it applies to the relatives—do have a very strong deterrent effect. The fact of a son or husband knowing that if he goes to his home he can get his family into trouble if they conceal him, that it may create difficulties for them, has a considerable deterrent effect. I hope that the Clause, as it stands, will be agreed to, and that effect will not be given to the Amendments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Whatever substance there may be in the arguments used by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), I believe that they lose a great deal of force, as emanating from the hon. Gentleman who, very sincerely, holds pacifist views.

May I correct the hon. Member? I do not hold pacifist views. In relation to war I refuse to take part in a capitalist war, but I am a revolutionary in working-class activities.

I do not know what the difference is.

Because the hon. Member is not a Socialist.

I am a patriot at any rate, and I am prepared to face realities and defend this country against enemy attack. To refuse to take part in the war is worse than holding pacifist views. We are dealing with the men who are fighting this war. The fighting soldier takes a very poor view of a deserter, and of whose who aid and abet him. I am voicing, I believe, the unanimous opinion of the Fighting Forces. They want to see the Government firm on this matter. Why should we weaken the administration in dealing with it, by accepting this Amendment? The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) has pointed out that six months is a maximum, and that the court can make the period 14 days if it wishes to do so. I object to this reflection on the system of dealing with crime in the Army. I believe that the court-martial system is as perfect as it could be in an imperfect world. There is nothing perfect in this world, not even the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). I hope that the Committee will support the Government on this point.

The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) gave so complete an answer to the first two Amendments that I do not propose to say anything on them, but I would like to say something about the third Amendment. I wonder whether those who put it down realise its full implications. The proposition is that those people who, by their intimate relationship with the man, should be most jealous of his honour and the last to do anything to bring him into dishonour should be told by this Committee that they are welcome to encourage a man to commit one of the most dishonourable acts any man can commit, namely, to desert the colours under which he is serving. Hon. Members say that a father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister or wife should be told by this Committee that they are quite welcome to assist a man to desert, and that if they encourage him to do so we will absolve them from all penalties. That is a monstrous suggestion, and I hope that the Committee will reject it with contempt.

Surely in this matter there is a leading case, to which reference should be made. I mean the case of Onesimus. St. Paul, being approached on the question of the deserting slave, informed the people concerned that the duty of the slave was to go back to his master.

11.30 a.m.

I want to add one or two words without citing any authority. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlow) about the first two Amendments. I do not want him to think that I was trying to do a little sob stuff—at which in any case I am very bad. I called a soldier "a boy" because somebody else had spoken about a son. On the third Amendment, I too have very little sympathy with the notion that members of the family should be exempt. There may be hard cases. Desertion is an offence which, like a good many other offences, may range from the most serious thing to the comparatively trivial. You may get a soldier who is never going to the front anyhow, and is being intolerably bullied, as sometimes happens, or, what is more frequent, a soldier who has applied for leave, in circumstances of great domestic hardship, and has not got it, and then deserts for a few days. But here we may have the most serious offences, including even that of inducing or assisting soldiers to absent themselves. I think the hardest case that you can conceive—and I had a tragic case of this kind in my own constituency—is the case of a wife. A man comes homes—he may have had good or bad reasons for deserting—and says to his wife, "If you tell the police about me it is the end of our marriage and you may get some serious injury as well." The police come to the door, and say, "Is your husband here?" and she says "No." When this happened in my constituency the magistrates sent the woman to prison for a month. The Home Secretary let her out after a couple of days, but when she came out her baby, which had been taken from her on going in, was dead. You cannot have a harder case than that. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton will agree that if the tenancy of the house is in the name of the husband, as it normally is, a wife can hardly be committing an offence, because the man will be in his own house. If the wife takes him into her house she may well be committing an offence.

In any event, the proposed Amendment is far too wide, and if we try to frame an Amendment to deal with the exceptional case it will be found impossible. It will be much too narrow or too wide. After all, the court can exercise its discretion. Personally, I have not a great deal of faith in magistrates' courts, and still less in courts-martial—and I have had a good deal of experience of both. We are always trying to improve our courts. These cases do not come before courts-martial, but before ordinary magistrates' courts, which sit in public and can be criticised, and whose sentences can be dealt with by the Home Secretary. They are not too bad, although I remember the case in my own constituency. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), who perhaps would not expect me to agree with him, pointed out that there is a very high duty on people to see that others do not desert. I agree that there are greater duties than family affection. We do not want them to clash, but this is a hard world, and sometimes they do clash. I am surprised at the number of people who come to me in my constituency, people of all sorts and colours—mostly of no colour at all, unfortunately—who say, "If my son, who has deserted, comes home, I shall send him to the police at once." That is quite surprising, and quite encouraging.

I would like to draw attention to a case on which I have had correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I think it is related to the third Amendment. It is a case where the police called at a house where there was a man. They alleged that he had deserted. He said that he had never received any calling-up papers. However, he was taken away by the police, handed over to the military authorities, court-martialled, and found guilty of being a deserter. The police are now satisfied, as far as they can be, that no notice of calling-up was ever served upon this man. Yet the court-martial found in the opposite direction. I wrote to my hon. and learned Friend and asked him what proof of service of the enlistment notice, or calling-up notice, was required by a court-martial, and he said he could not answer that case in general. But it is quite obvious—and I am not disclosing from what part of the country this case comes from—that, if I had the opportunity of cross-examining the presiding officer of that court-martial, I might be able to get from him an admission from which it would be made clear that he had not really taken full care in making sure that the notice had been propertly posted.

I think it is rather unfair to attack a court-martial on that basis. The blame, if any, is not on the court which deals with the case; it is on the law as it stands at the moment. If my hon. Friend will look up the National Service Act, he will see that, when the notice is sent, the person is deemed to be enlisted, and, therefore, the court has no option but to act under the law as it stands and deem the man to be enlisted.

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am still trying to change the law in cases of hardship, and here is a case in which the police are satisfied that the man is not a deserter and that he never, in fact, got the notice, but, according to the law, it is assumed that he did get it. I think this is a matter which is directly concerned with this particular Amendment. Here we have a position in which a court-martial is satisfied that the man did receive, or was deemed to have received, his calling-up papers, when, in fact, he did not receive them. I am satisfied, and the family is satisfied, on that. I think that the War Office should give some consideration to cases of this kind because, quite obviously, under the present law—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this matter does not arise on the Amendment.

I am just going to say, with great respect, that it does.

The hon. Member cannot do that.

The position is this. Under the law as it stands, these people have been harbouring a deserter who is found, by the court-martial, only to be a deserter under the assumption that he is deemed to have received his calling-up notice. I think that, with great respect to you, Major Milner, this is related to the Amendment. What is to happen to the father and mother of this man now that he has been deemed to have received his calling-up papers and has been found by the court-martial to be a deserter? I say that that kind of position arises under the Act to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred and causes injustice, and I think that the War Office might consider changing that part of the law which lays it down that a court-martial has not to be satisfied that, in fact, the notice was received.

I must again ask the hon. Member not to proceed with that argument, but to relate his illustration to the Amendment. He has not done so. This Amendment relates to a different matter; it deals with the concealment of an absentee or deserter.

I appreciate that perfectly well, Major Milner. I am trying to find out whether, in the case of a man, found by a court-martial to be a deserter, but who is not a deserter, the parents, under the present law, are guilty of a certain offence. Surely, is that not so?

No, no.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but surely a person cannot be found guilty, under Section 153 of the Army Act, unless he has guilty knowledge of the desertion, and, if the desertion does not exist, one cannot very well have guilty knowledge of it.

Why, then, is a man supposed to have guilty knowledge, when his parents have not?

One guilt does not make two.

My hon. Friends are trying to get repeal of the penalty attaching to the parents of a deserter. In this particular case, they might be found guilty, subject to what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I hope that some attention will be paid to this matter. I shall continue the correspondence with the Financial Secretary to the War Office, as I cannot pursue the matter further on the Floor of the House.

I agree that it is the third Amendment that is likely to cause very serious concern. I think a case has been made out very clearly against the other two. It is only a maximum penalty that is named, and, for a maximum penalty, I do not consider that the proposals of the Bill are wrong. But I would like to ask the Financial Secretary of the War Office if he can confirm what has been stated regarding the position of near relatives in a matter of this kind. Is it a fact that relatives are not liable to any penalty if they refuse to report to the police that a deserter has arrived, or if they do not refuse to take him in? If they have to be proved guilty of some positive act, then, of course, it is a very different matter. But it is asking a great deal of human nature to expect parents or other near relatives definitely to give information in a matter concerning so serious an offence. Does this sort of thing frequently happen? Is it not a fact that the number of deserters of the kind affected by the Amendment are very few, compared with the very large numbers of men who are serving?

One must realise, too, that a deserter is not only acting dishonourably but very unfairly, so far as his comrades are concerned. He is also letting down his comrades, as well as failing in his honourable duty. Is it not a fact also that it is in the power of the courts, even when a parent has offended under this Bill, not to punish the parents at all if the circumstances are such that, in the opinion of the court, there was justification of any kind? I think that what may be wrong is not in the law as it stands, but in the fact that there may be occasions in which the law, as interpreted by the courts, works very hardly. My own experience is that these cases are extremely rare, and one has to ask oneself if, by amending the law, the harm that would be done would be greater than advantage that might be gained. If these points are cleared up, it might be useful to the courts in administering the law to know the views of this House, and to know that we are anxious that parents should not be expected to do things which are, perhaps a strain on human nature. It is for the courts to interpret the law, as, I think, they generally do it, in a humane and reasonable fashion.

Up to now, this matter has been discussed solely from the point of view of the fugitive. I ask the Committee to remember the man's comrades who are left behind. Desertion is a most reprehensible thing, and, the more dangerous the situation, the more reprehensible the desertion. There may be cases of what might almost be called innocent desertion—cases of a man who overstays his leave—but I am sure, in these cases, there is no severity in the findings. If we lighten the seriousness with which desertion is viewed, we shall do something very wrong indeed. It seems to me that the penalties are not unduly heavy. All sorts of people may be harbouring downright deserters. There is a Member of another place who prints publications and books against the policy of the Government in regard to this war. I can understand that he might be sheltered by certain people. These penalties ought to be appropriate to what happens in each case, and as these are maximum figures, I do not think there is any justification for disturbing them. On the question of those who harbour deserters, it really would not do to exonerate parents and relatives. Therefore, I ask that the Amendment be not accepted. We should remember the millions of our fellow-citizens who are now fighting and dying for us in this war, and who have gone through five years of horror, and we should not be too tender to those who run away from the job and come home for shelter.

11.45 a.m.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in assuming that it is an intolerable strain on parents or relations to report grave breaches of the law. To my mind that is an argument that cannot possibly be supported. I do not want to do any injustice to the mover and supporter of the Amendment for I had not the honour of hearing what they had to say, but looking at the third Amendment I find that they have been guilty of certain logical omissions. I cannot see why they should leave out grandfathers and grandmothers and uncles and aunts on both sides, and the girl or girls to whom the deserter is paying attention. As long as we have military service and retain the Forces of the Crown, it is hopelessly ridiculous to suggest that you should make exceptions such as are suggested in this Amendment. Therefore, I heartily disapprove of it.

I would like to say a few words before the Financial Secretary to the War Office replies. With regard to the first two Amendments, certain hon. Members say that the six months is the maximum penalty. Hon. Members who are lawyers, must know that there are various offences, and various penalties in connection with those offences. If a person comes into court in a case where the maximum penalty is several years' penal servitude, and is found guilty of that offence, the probability is that the penalty imposed will be a comparatively heavy one as compared with that for an offence for which the maximum penalty is 40s. I am surprised that the members of the legal profession who have taken part in the Debate think that it does not matter and that it is just a maximum penalty. I say, as a lawyer, it is simply nonsense to argue that it does not matter what the maximum penalty is, or that the penalty that will be imposed may be fourteen days or so many shillings, if the maximum penalty is a heavy penalty. The penalty imposed always depends to a certain extent upon the maximum penalty prescribed for that particular crime. That deals with the specious arguments put forward by members of the legal profession.

The difficulty with regard to the subject of the third Amendment has been faced by hon. Members. There is the case of the woman who was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. Her son came home and entered the house. The mother advised him not to stay in the house but to report to his unit. Those are the facts. She did not want him to say. She was afraid of what might happen; she was terrified concerning the penalty that might be imposed upon him because he had deserted from his regiment, and in those circumstances she pressed him very strongly to report to his unit. But in spite of that fact, the mother was found guilty of concealing her son. That is the point that has to be met, and it has not been met by any of the arguments of the hon. Members who have intervened in this Debate. As for the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), who did not hear us and was distressed because we had not included grandfathers, he has been long enough in this House to know that, in framing an Amendment, it is only necessary to put in sufficient to raise the issue. If he has any worries about it, I am quite willing to accept an Amendment to our Amendment to include grandfathers, uncles and other relatives. Kinship is a very limiting factor in connection with what a person is expected to do. There has been an outcry in the country with regard to what has happened in Nazi Germany.

I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. I said that there were certain logical omissions; I really should have said "illogical." That is what I meant. The hon. Member says that the terms of the Amendment are sufficient to raise the whole issue but my point is that in such an important matter as this, we want exactitude and want to know who is to be included.

I cannot be held responsible if the hon. Member said "logical" and really meant "illogical." If he is so confused as to make no distinction between "logical" and "illogical," I cannot see why he complains that I have not included everyone who has kinship with the person concerned. I want also to press this point upon the Committee. We are not concerned about the deserter. The Amendment does not deal with the deserter, and I would remind the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden), who sits on the Labour Front Bench, that he is sitting in front of many hon. Members who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) says, were "on the run" during the last war and were concealed by their parents.

May I point out that the purpose of the Amendment is to make it less difficult to be a deserter, and to make it easier for people to shelter a deserter?

It is not a case of making it easier but of preventing an injustice to a person who has kinship with a deserter and to prevent such a person being compelled to act in a way contrary to human nature. That is the point. I remember very well the events of the last war and I do not remember the hon. Member for South Bristol issuing any warning to members of his Party who were concealing relatives who had been refused exemption as conscientious objectors. But possibly it is different now. That is a little beside the point and perhaps the Committee will pardon me—the Amendment should be treated on its merits—if I have been a little extreme in replying to some of the arguments.

The point in connection with the third Amendment is that there is a mother who did all that a mother could be asked to do in the circumstances, and that was, to advise her son to report. It may be that she did more than most mothers have done. Yet she was found guilty and was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment and had to go to gaol. I have been told that she could not be found guilty of concealing in those circumstances, but she was found guilty, and that is the point that the War Office has to meet. The present situation is quite unsatisfactory. It is no good people in this country shouting about the horrible things that happened in Germany with regard to relatives being asked to give information about kinsmen who were regarded as dangerous to the State. We are asked here to give the same information. It is the glorification of the State. An hon. Member behind me asserted his high patriotism by his contempt for this Amendment, I reply to him by referring to what a much more famous Englishman than he is ever likely to be, said in the 18th century about patriotism. I hope that the War Office will recognise in this connection that while we do not seek to make desertion easier, or the concealment of desertion easier, at least we should not impose penalties upon people because they have not done something which is contrary to decent human nature, in reporting to the police about members of their families who have come home, against their advice and their own wishes.

I have considerable sympathy with the object of the hon. Member, as indicated in the third Amendment. I do not think anybody likes the notion of imposing a criminal liability upon near relatives to give away to the police, or to the military authorities, people who may have committed technical offences. The proposal of the Government goes a considerable way towards ameliorating what was becoming an intolerable position. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), however, that the Amendment, if carried, would go far beyond the object that he has in view. It would make it impossible for any offence under this Section to be committed by anybody who was a relative as defined in the Amendment, so that technically it would be possible for a mother, father, son or daughter to entice a soldier out of the Army, actively to assist him in running away, actively to harbour him at home, and actively to assist him in the committal of the offence. I hardly think that the hon. Member really desires that. If I understood his argument correctly, it was that people in this situation should not be guilty of a criminal offence merely by passive acquiescence in something that happened in their house. I suggest that this Amendment goes far beyond that, and I doubt if the Committee as a whole could consider exempting a whole class of persons from the criminal law, merely on the ground that they were close relatives.

12 noon.

The Committee has discussed for some time an offence which, in the view of the Service authorities, is of considerable importance, and it may be an advantage if I state to the Committee exactly what the offence is. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) seemed concerned to know the gist of the offence. The matter is governed by Section 153, Sub-section (3) of the Army Act, which provides that: is that the person charged must know that the officer or soldier is a deserter—

While I am not in a position to deal with the specific case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) referred, I think that all the lawyers who are present in this Committee will agree with me that it would be inconceivable that there should be a conviction, unless there were evidence to the effect that a question had been put to the relative, "Is John Smith—the deserter—at home?" and if the person charged were to reply "No," or, in some other overt way, indicate that the person was not in the house. That, presumably, would be prima facie evidence in support of a charge under this Section.

Until the two cases which have come to the public attention in the last few months arose, the only sanction, in fact, was punishment up to a maximum of six months. That goes back a long way, I think to the year 1866, when it was first provided in the Mutiny Act of that year. I had hoped that the War Office would have been received with commendation to-day on coming to the Committee to ask for authority to alter the punishment, so as to give the magistrates an alternative, in their discretion, of fining up to a maximum of £30. As one hon. Member pointed out, there is nothing to prevent the magistrates who are dealing with a case of harbouring, from imposing a fine of 10s., 20s. or 40s. up to a maximum of £30 or, alternatively, imposing a day's imprisonment, seven days' imprisonment, or 14 days' imprisonment up to a maximum of six months. They may even go further than that. It would be possible in suitable cases for the magistrates to bind a person over under the Probation of Offenders Act. The hon. Gentleman proposes, as an alternative to the maximum of six months and £30, a maximum of 40s. or one month. That, I suggest, would be reducing the offence to the level of a petty misdemeanour. I have taken the trouble to look up some of the offences for which a penalty of 40s. might be imposed, and one of them is ringing a door bell and running away. When I was a small boy, living in the North of England, I used to ring a door bell and run away on a number of occasions, and I think that most school boys are not aware that for doing this, they are liable to a fine of up to 40s. I suggest that an offence of the nature we have been discussing might not be committed only by a relative. An employer might shelter and employ a deserter for purely commercial reasons, and in such a case as that, a fine of £30 or six months' imprisonment would not be excessive.

The third Amendment proposes to exclude father, mother, wife or brother or sister, son or daughter, of the deserting or absentee officer or soldier. If we accepted that Amendment it would, as has been pointed out from the benches opposite, completely destroy any possibility of taking action in these cases. I would point out to the Committee that it must not be thought that this is a very prevalent offence. Since the war started, nearly six years ago, the number of cases has been very small. It is a natural thing that an absentee or a deserter should make his way home. I am sure any of us would do that if we were in that position. Although I am not married I have some sympathy with a wife in those circumstances, but that does not alter the fact that it is her duty, as a citizen, to persuade the absentee or deserter to return to his duty, and not to assist him in disobeying his duty. As I have said, magistrates will have complete discretion as to the punishment which they may think fit to impose in any case. If the circumstances warranted it, they could impose no punishment at all, except that of binding over the offender under the Probation of Offenders Act. For those reasons, I regret that it is impossible for the Government to accept these Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move in page 3, line 14, leave out "thirty pounds," and insert "forty shillings."

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at end, add:

"and at the end of the Section there shall be added the words:

'Provided that no person shall be deemed to be guilty of any offence under this Section who is the father or mother, wife or brother or sister, son or daughter of the deserting or absentee officer or soldier.'"

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Political discussion.)

Until the conclusion of the general election next ensuing after the passing of this Act no person taking part whilst off duty in discussion or propaganda relating to issues likely to arise at such election shall be deemed thereby to be acting to the prejudice of good order and military discipline within the meaning of Section forty of the Army Act nor to be offending against King's Regulations 541 (Army) or 1092 (Air Force).—[ Mr. Pritt. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided, Ayes, 1; Noes, 108.

12.15 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause is intended to permit of comparatively free political discussion among the Forces when off-duty in relation to issues that may arise in the General Election. It is a matter that has been discussed before. I might say that it has been the annual outing for the "Blimps," though, of course, the retort might be made that it was the annual outing for those who believe that citizen soldiers should be allowed to be citizens as well as soldiers. The Clause is in somewhat narrow terms, confining its operation from now until the conclusion of the next General Election, because my hon. Friends and I who have put down this Clause were anxious to head off any criticisms such as have been put forward in the past that the proposal was too wide. Therefore, we have kept it as narrow as we possibly can. I think the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), whose name is second on the list of those who wish to speak, will be forgiven by the Committee for having regarded the opportunity of going to Germany with other Members of Parliament as something that took precedence of this, and I would like formally to apologise on his behalf for his absence.

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take a little while in moving this new Clause, because I think it is of importance, and I will put my case without further delay. First let me remind the Committee of the setting of the picture. At present political activity and discussion by the Forces is very narrowly limited. In the first place almost anything may be held at different times and in different places to be—I am using the words of Section 40 of the Army Act— view that there should not really be any—certainly no organised—political discussion; and the other feature in practice is that it is extremely difficult to discover how far they go and, as is the case with all obscure legislation, people are led by prudence, anxiety or fear to abstain from a great many things in which they might, in fact, indulge.

With that preamble, let me put my argument. With much of it hon. Members opposite will have at any rate to pretend agreement, I think, and with much of it many will actually agree. This is a democratic country. They will all pretend to agree with that. Soldiers are citizens, with all the obligations of citizens, and they have votes. There are more soldiers than there ever were before, which means, of course, that there are more citizens in uniform than ever before. Those citizens are vitally interested in the future of their country. If they are not they ought to be slapped. In any event they are vitally interested in the sense that what is to be the future of their country will make a very great difference to them. The past of the country, under the tender guidance of hon. Members opposite, has meant that half of them are dead already, but the rest are still alive and have to be reckoned with. There is a General Election coming—most hon. Members will really agree with that—and it will be the most important General Election in history so far as we can tell. The lives, the jobs, the hopes, the fears, the very houses, of these uniformed citizens and their wives and children depend in a very large measure upon that election.

Soldiers have a certain amount of freedom. They may write to the Press. Indeed, it is probable that their right to write to the Press has been somewhat enlarged by the circumstance that one of them who did so turned out to be related to a very distinguished and very eminent statesman. They have votes, and special arrangements have been made for them to utilise their votes, and nobody can be sure that those arrangements will not actually lead to some of them voting. They have a right to be candidates. They will be supplied with election addresses—of a certain size and a certain number of words but still election addresses—and I do not think anybody will suggest that it will be an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline to read the addresses, although some of the addresses may lead them to behave in all sorts of ways. Seriously, it is most important that they should not only vote but understand for what they are voting. I gather from my correspondence, with my usual modesty, that they understand that they ought to vote for me, although, of course, only some of them are in North Hammersmith, and this is a wider problem than that of my future. Their future is very much more important.

As we are considering the question of their right to discuss I think the known fact, with which perhaps most hon. Members will agree is, that these many millions of citizens in uniform do in fact discuss everything—heatedly, repeatedly, semipublicly, publicly and privately. They discuss the competence or incompetence of their officers, the attendance of Members of Parliament in the House, and I have no doubt they discuss both women and drink, both of them in short supply—I am told that is correct. Moreover, the Government have equipped them with opportunities for discussion. I do not suppose—I may be doing him an injustice, and I have never done so before—that the Secretary of State for War was really thrilled about the idea of establishing the A.B.C.A. organisation. It is a very valuable organisation. What was it established for? Because troops wanted to discuss things, and because it was thought right, as they were citizens, that discussions should be encouraged. They have a weekly publication called "Current Affairs," and I am bound to say that a very great deal of it is very good; and they also get people to come down and address them. I think nearly every Member of Parliament is qualified to go down and address them. I am not. They get addresses not only by "Blimps" but by quite bright and intelligent people. They get addresses by Members of this House, and you can never be sure that a Member of this House is non-political. Yet we were told last year, and I expect we shall be told again to-day, that the Heavens will fall if on any substantial scale these citizens, even when off duty, actually discuss political issues which will face them and other citizens in the near future. I think most people would say that they never heard such nonsense, but one always wants to consider things, and I suggest to the Committee that when we come to consider them we shall say once again that we never heard such nonsense.

In circumstances like these one naturally searches for some reason that the Government or their satellites might put forward. One studies anxiously previous HANSARDS; one searches for reasons. Alleged reasons are given, and diligent search by persons who have long training in discovering what people mean when they use words does lead me to make a list of a few things which apparently are put forward as the Government's arguments on this point.

12.30 p.m.

One argument is that if men are allowed to discuss politics in their off time, discipline will vanish. All I can say is that if anybody at the War Office thinks that, he should give up his job. The British Army is generally described as being composed of lions and led by asses. I am not sure that a great many of the asses have not ceased to be asses during the present war. I think the Secretary of State for War is right when he claims that, taken by and large, it is the best Army we have ever had. It has gone through some very difficult times both when fighting and when not fighting, because it is not easy to be a good Army when you have nothing much to do. Are we really to believe that if these men, who must be thinking about politics, get together in their spare time and discuss politics, all discipline will vanish? If the people responsible for discipline in the Army have no more confidence in themselves than that, then I recommend the Serpentine to them. But I do not believe the people responsible for discipline are as incompetent as that.

It is also said that the men will criticise the Service and their own officers if they are allowed to talk politics. If there is anything that is well known about the British Army, it is that it does that. I thought it gave almost all its time to discussing that, with the aid of a very rich vocabulary. I should have thought that the only possible result of injecting politics into the discussion would be that they would take up some time discussing politics instead of spending half the time discussing women and drink and the other half discussing their officers. I am not, of course, speaking seriously there, because they spend their time discussing much more intelligent things than that. These arguments to which I have referred remind me of the arguments that have always been advanced by "Blimps." It must be a great comfort to be a "Blimp," because you know that not only are you wrong, but that your grandfather and your father were wrong before you and that your children also will be wrong, if you bring them up properly. The grandfathers of the people who use the arguments I have mentioned stood up in the House of Lords and said that if the death penalty were removed from larceny, no man's property would be safe for a moment. One has only to go through the "Blimps" history in the House of Lords and the House of Commons to find a family likeness to the nonsense that is talked in support of the arguments I have mentioned.

The next argument advanced is that if the troops are allowed to discuss politics, the Army will become a political force, which means, I suppose, a force that can be used politically one way or the other. Then why give the soldiers votes? Why give them A.B.C.A.? Why not have their brains neatly excised when they go into the Army? The army in Monarchist Spain and in Primo di Rivera Spain was a political force, but it was a very peculiar show; it had almost as many officers as men, and they went into the army to get a living in order to carry on their politics. But does anybody think for one moment that, however much the Army talks politics, it could ever become a political force in the sense that it would feel itself as having a separate and distinct power which it would be prepared to use as an Army in disobedience to the Government against any section of the country, Right or Left? The fact is that it is a citizens' Army. As one very shrewd questioner told me at a meeting, the soldier is just the bloke who lives next door. If the Army takes to politics, as of course it does and will do, the only sense in which it will become a political force is that it will consist of 6,000,000—or whatever the figure may be with the R.A.F. and Navy included—citizens with the same interests as other citizens and as anxious to take an interest in politics and to have as much weight as possible in politics. But it will no more be a particularly Army political force than the whole of the fried fish vendors are a separate political force as fried fish vendors. The soldiers will be politically interested, and some of them will think one way and a small proportion another way, but they will never be a political weapon which can be used as an Army by itself. I shall mention the Curragh incident later, because that is the nearest approach, although a very distant one, to an attempt by the British Army to interfere in politics in any half-direct fashion.

A somewhat similar argument is the suggestion that if the Army thinks about politics there will come a point where it will refuse to carry out the orders of the Government. I cannot conceive of anything more unlikely at present or in any foreseeable future than the Army as an Army refusing to obey the general orders that come down to it. I want to say a word or two about the Curragh incident in 1913, and even in 1914, which seems to lie at the back of the idea that the Army will become a political force. In the first place, that incident did not happen through relaxing any of the rules to allow the Army to talk politics. It happened under the existing rules which are supposed to protect us. It does not become much of an argument anyhow, but of course, the Curragh was simply a bit of Tory politics carried out by the officers alone. It was the Tory party fighting the Liberal party; it was a piece of damned impertinence, and if it was anything worse than that, they ought all to have been court-martialled. What actually happened was that so serious was the Tory officers' mutiny that the very-distinguished person who was Liberal Home Secretary of the day had to negotiate with the rebels to see what he could get them to do. His name was Winston Spencer Churchill. The idea that that bit of narrow-minded sectional impertinence should have any bearing on the argument as to whether this magnificent collection of millions of ordinary citizens would become a political force or refuse to carry out the orders of the Government, does not carry one very far.

Another argument that has been advanced is that the Army's duty and loyalty to the Government are complete. I am using the words that have been advanced. I should not have thought "the Government" was the right term to use. I should have thought the Army had a loyalty to the country. If you want to think technically in the narrow sense of the people whose orders they obey, you do not think of the Government. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench do not go and tell the Army to advance. I tremble to think what would happen if they did. It is their officers, great and small, from subalterns up to field-marshals, who do that. Of course, their duty to those officers is complete in one sense.

But what is the idea? Must they never think of anything else? Must they never think of food, drink, or leave? The whole time they are on leave they are rendering no direct service at all. It may be said that it is a period of recuperation to make them good soldiers. Equally they must have politics in order to make themselves good citizens. If their duty and loyalty to the Government are such as to cover 24 hours in the day, and they ought never to think about politics, then whoever persuaded the Secretary of State for War to introduce A.B.C.A. ought to go to prison. I am sorry if I seem to be talking nonsense, but that is the plain trouble in this matter—it is all nonsense. Does a soldier fight worse because he has had leave and has thought about politics, or has been to an A.B.C.A. lecture? Is the only soldier you can rely on the one who has not got a girl or a wife, does not go on leave or to the pictures, does not drink and refuses to go to an A.B.C.A. lecture even when it is compulsory?

It is odd that we should have to go for a little common sense on this point to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now Minister Resident in West Africa. I do not suppose anybody remembers who he is at the moment, but he is the predecessor but one of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air who is now glowering at me from the Front Bench. There arose out of the Cairo Forces Parliament a singular business with the Secretary of State for Air concerning a gentleman called Aircraftman Abse. He was posted from Cairo because he had taken, it was said, a prominent part in the Forces Parliament. We raised the matter on the Adjournment and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now Minister Resident in West Africa put his case this way. He said, in effect, a certain amount of politics, yes, but if you talk politics all day long, you become a bit of a nuisance to your officers who do not agree with you, and you have to be posted; and it was originally intended to send him to the Persian Gulf, but by some mistake he was sent to London. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman then put the matter much more sensibly by saying:

12.45 p.m.

The last of the arguments is that, if the case of the civilian soldier is made out, you cannot legislate in one Act, for civilians and for professional soldiers. I think I could manage it. It may be a little difficult and it may be unnecessary, but what is the answer? If you have 5,000,000 civilian soldiers and 200,000 or 300,000 professionals, for whom are you going to legislate? I should have thought the answer to that was "for British citizens." I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they will have to invent some new excuses this time. I am both sorry and glad that the Secretary of State is not here at the moment and that the matter rests in the competent and reasonable hands of the Financial Secretary to the War Office.

I want to criticise the actual legislation. One cannot reasonably complain, of Section 40 of the Army Act—it is necessary to have something of that sort—but I do complain of King's Regulation 541. It is vague, wandering and uncertain. I should like to draw attention to the general legislative and administrative attitude of the Army, and of the Air Force and of the Navy, too. The truth is that these Regulations were drawn up when the Army, although it generally acquitted itself pretty well, was still a most extraordinary combination. The officers consisted almost entirely of youngsters of the upper class, with a certain number of people with a real gift for military work, who had made themselves efficient officers. I was not brought up very near the upper classes, but they generally sent the intelligent son into the legal profession, the moral one into the Church, and the stupid one into the Army. It is astonishing that the officers did as well as they did. The rank and file were enlisted by unemployment, or occasionally by a desire to evade obligations to a young lady who was unmarried. Naturally, the way to handle people in those days of a small professional Army was to say, "Do not think about politics at all. You might understand it if you do."

May I remind the Committee of the extraordinary position which King's Regulation 541 and the corresponding provisions in the Air Force and Navy take up in the Regulations? Politics come into Section 7 of the Regulations, a group covering discipline, courts martial, military prisons, detention barracks and courts of inquiry. When you look at the further details set out, they are discipline, responsibility of officers, redress of grievances, acquaintance with certain Sections of the Army Act, interviews with the War Office, character and conduct of officers, business appointments, relations with Government Departments, political and non-military activities, communication of military information and arrest in cases of drunkenness. That is what the Army thought about politics in those days. And that is what we are asked to-day to endorse. King's Regulations for the Royal Air Force are much the same. The successive sections are, officer's character impugned, bankruptcy, etc., dealings with contracts, purchase and sale of stores, political meetings and candidature for Parliament, smoking, gambling and intoxicants. The Navy is not so amusing but it groups it with communication of information useful to the enemy, writing to the Press and awards for inventions.

It is said that these rules are all nonsense, or at least that they are somewhat unsatisfactory in their wording, but that they are, in fact, administered with great discretion and understanding. I flatly deny that. At political meetings a "redcap" stands outside and takes particulars of every soldier who goes in; it is said he is there just to see that the soldier is not overstaying his leave. But how many of these young men get a black mark for it? The number of soldiers who come to me and say "Can I ask a question?" or, "Can I take the chair at a political meeting?" shows that things are not administered with any certainty or reasonability. There was a particularly infamous case recently in which an Army Council Instruction, No. 1527 of 1944, was issued. I said on an ordinary reading of it, that it suggested that it was an offence against Regulations for anyone to permit his name to be published for political purposes, or in public petitions dealing with political matters. I took it up in the House on 16th January and the Secretary of State for War said it did not assert that. It only pointed out that, if men did that, they might be prosecuted. I suggested that the whole thing was a blackmailing threat. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not in the least a threat; it was a warning. A good deal of money has been spent in getting the House of Lords in its judicial capacity to discover the difference between a threat and a warning.

Will not men fight better if they know clearly what they are fighting for? It is not enough to know that they are fighting to clear out Nazi bestiality. It is a good start, but it is negative. When they come home, it will not be enough to know that they are living in a world which has no Nazi bestiality. They want to live in a world which has some nice things too. They will want houses when they come back, and not three years after they come back. They will fight infinitely better if they think they are taking an intelligent part in securing that they have that world to come back to. I understand the attitude of people in and around the War Office and elsewhere, who think that the proper function for civilians in uniform is to be reduced to the level of automata, who will obey unthinkingly any order that is given to them, who will shoot Greeks as cheerfully as they shoot Germans, and will shoot down their fellow-citizens when the time comes. But the people who want that done to civilians in uniform, want it done to civilians out of uniform too. We—I think I am speaking for millions of people—want the troops to be enlightened, to know what they are doing, to make up their minds why they are doing it and to do it all the better.

Hon. Members opposite will feel that a speech from me would not be complete without some mention of the U.S.S.R., so I would remind them that in the Red Army, which is quite a good Army—I am not saying it is any better than ours but it is quite good—in peace time, a very large part of the first two years of a man's service is devoted to teaching him politics. Hon. Members opposite will say that, if they are very much the same as we are, that would be absolutely fatal to all discipline. I remember a little controversy I had with the Secretary of State some time ago concerning something which happened in the Eighth Army, then particularly prominent in the news. He pointed out that it was one of the finest Armies there had ever been. I said to myself, "Yes, and that is why it is always known in the Army as 'Joe Stalin's boys'" I think this is an important matter. I think that no serious reasons have been advanced yet against my proposal—I do not know whether any can be—and I ask the Committee to say that reasonable political discussion is not a luxury but is vitally necessary to the men in the Army, and to us who are out of the Army, and to everyone who has to live in the country in the future.

1 p.m.

I cannot hope to compete with the brilliance with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made out his case for this Clause, but I should like to say a few words in support of it. As it is some considerable time since he started his speech, may I remind the Committee of what the Clause says? It asks that there shall be freedom for political discussion and propaganda, when that political discussion takes place off duty, and when it takes place in connection with the issues of a General Election, and that this freedom is claimed until the Election is over. That is the limited and small thing for which we are asking. The argumentso in favour of this new Clause are, in the main; self-evident to people who are living in a democratic country which is governed by a Parliamentary system, but I must summarise them. Soldiers are citizens and, therefore, they must enjoy the rights and duties of citizens. Political liberty in the shape of freedom of expression of thought is not something which Parliament in its wisdom doles out to the people, in the same way as family allowances will be paid out or as local authorities are given the power to acquire land in certain circumstances. The case is rather the other way round. The authority of Parliament comes from certain conceptions of political liberty and freedom which have been fought for and won by our forefathers. It is not at all the case that Parliament gives these things to certain classes of the population and can, therefore, take them away again when it sees fit.

We are dealing with a Regulation which, say what you will, was designed in the main for the peace-time Army. When a man voluntarily joined the Army he knew what he was in for and he surrendered voluntarily some political rights. It was up to him at any time, if he wanted to regain his rights, to leave the Army or resign his commission. When he joined, something was not taken from him, but he voluntarily entered into a contract and surrendered his rights. In war-time the situation is very different. Men are compelled by law or force of circumstances to join the Forces, and it is completely undemocratic to take away from them the political rights which it was quite proper for them to give up voluntarily in peace-time. These argu- ments have applied during the whole of the war, but we axe now in a special position; we are facing a General Election quite soon. I want to remind the Committee of a statement on this subject made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office on 9th March last year:

There is one positive reason why this new Clause should be agreed to. I do not think anybody who considers the political situation and the difficult problems which the nation will have to face in home and international affairs after the war will disagree when I say that those problems will be of such a nature that there are bound to be great crises and disappointments, it may be for the people of this country. I can see a great deal of unrest and trouble if any section of the people feels that it has not had a full opportunity of having its say in the election of the Government which is to face this House. If things go wrong, and men and women in the Forces have been able to take their part in politics, they will be able to say: "This is our responsibility and we had our opportunity of taking our full part in the General Election." If any section has been excluded and are able to say: "This was done in our absence and we were not consulted," I can then see trouble arising. It is not sufficient to give votes to people in the Forces. They must be able to have full discussions and be able to understand the issues so as to use their votes intelligently. These are positive arguments for the new Clause which are self-evident, and I ask the Financial Secretary to give his attention to them instead of producing negative arguments, as was done last time.

In common with my hon. and learned Friend who moved the new Clause, I feel that I must turn my attention to arguments which were used against the change which we tried to make 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) spoke on behalf of the Labour Party, and one of his first objections was that he was afraid we were making a permanent change. I hope no hon. Member will repeat that argument. This is not a permanent change; it is limited to the time of the next General Election. In any case, this Act lasts only for one year and must be renewed. Again, the hon. Member seemed to think that by passing a Clause such as this it would become legal for soldiers or officers to disobey orders. I cannot see anything in the wording which gives that right. Every citizen has the right to discuss and, indeed, to disapprove of what the Government of the day are doing, but that right does not give them the right to go against the legislation which the majority passes. I can see no difference between the civilian and the soldier in this respect, for both are subject to the law of the land. There is nothing in this Clause which alters that.

The Secretary of State for War took up the same point. He was afraid that political controversy would lead to the questioning of orders and to disobedience. There is nothing in this Clause about Service matters. It confines itself to the issues of the General Election, and I cannot see that these words can be interpreted to allow discussions about orders given, say, by a commanding officer on matters of discipline. There will be no more discussion under this Clause on Service matters than there is to-day. As I read King's Regulations, there is nothing legally to stop political controversy in the Forces so long as it is not controversy connected with some party or organisation. There is nothing to prevent a soldier getting up "on his own" and putting forward any particular point of view or of writing and distributing leaflets. That would not be in furtherance of a political organisation, because you cannot call one man an organisation. That is another illustration of the anomalies which exist.

When we discussed this matter 12 months ago, the Secretary of State and, indeed, other hon. Members were afraid that, if a Clause like this were passed, officers would influence their men unduly. I would point out again that what we are asking for is freedom of discussion when people are off duty, and the picture which is conjured up by those who put forward this argument of an officer gathering his men together at some lecture and talking politics to them, would not be possible under this Clause. I assert from my own experience that when officers and men meet off duty in debating societies and discussion groups, a man is judged by his opinions and eloquence and not by his rank. In the kind of political and semi-political discussion you have in the Forces, I do not think that a man's rank has any influence. The attitude of the Secretary of State for War is that the fewer political ideas a soldier has in his head the better soldier he is. His ideal is a man with no political views. That is the attitude underlying his action and the kind of speeches he made on the Cairo Forces Parliament. Why has this House gone to all the trouble it has to try and devise a scheme so that Service men and women can exercise their votes effectively at the General Election? The view that the ideal soldier is one with no political views may be the view of the Secretary of the State and some Army officers, but it is not the view of the people or of this House. That has been demonstrated by the interest which Members of all parties have taken in trying to see that the soldier is given an effective way of casting his vote at the Election. Indeed, the Prime Minister has announced that pamphlets—which are bound to be one-sided, by the way—are to be officially distributed to describe the social legislation now before Parliament.

There was another point of alleged substance put forward by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street in the Debate last year. They saw the danger of armed revolt by high Tanking officers, and they turned to Continental examples of that. If high ranking officers or officers of any rank want to revolt, no regulation will stop them. When people are in the mood for armed revolt, they have got to the stage of setting aside laws and regulations, whether they are good or bad. Even if a revolt were to take place or to be organised, I suggest that Section 541 would be no legal remedy against it. It refers to a political organisation of the democratic type we all know and to can- vassing and distributing literature. That is not the sort of thing people do when they organise a revolt. They organise a secret society, and that could not possibly come within the terms of the Regulation we are trying to alter. There is only one real safeguard against armed revolt, and that is unity between the mass of the civilian population and the mass of people of all ranks in the Army. One of the dangers we have to face after the war is a split between those who have served in uniform and those who engaged in war effort in a civilian capacity. We want to see unity between these two sections of the population. We do not want to see a split and one section being played off against the other. The more this unity can be promoted the better for the country. The more that Service men can meet their comrades in civilian life in political organisation, and face political problems together, the better it will be.

The second safeguard against a military coup d'état is for the Army to understand and believe in democracy as an ideal and as a method of governing the country. That belief can only be obtained through the practice of democracy, not only the practice of democracy which we have at election times in casting one's vote, but the day-by-day and week-by-week practice of democracy with which we get in the organisation of a political party resolving problems by discussion. To those hon. Members who have tried to submit that there would be a danger of an armed revolt of high-ranking officers, if a Clause like this were accepted, I would say that the converse is the fact. There would be a danger of a revolt if we had an Army which was non-political in the sense that it had no political ideas at all. One can look back in the history of our nation and see incidents such as the massacre of Peterloo, of which we as a nation must now be ashamed. That incident took place because we had a body of troops who were politically unconscious and unaware. Could anyone now say that it would not have been to the benefit of the freedom of this country, if the troops who were called upon to commit that frightful deed had refused? A politically aware Army, is a safeguard of democracy.

On the last occasion when this matter arose the Secretary of State for War said a soldier must forfeit that part of his civil rights which would interfere with dis- cipline We agree there are some rights which a soldier must forfeit. He must forfeit the right to strike for higher wages, to ask for his cards and to quit and to question the immediate orders of his boss. We are all agreed on that. This Clause does not deal with anything like that. The right which he does not need to forfeit in the interests of discipline, is the right to hold political opinions and to express those opinions when off duty. I submit that the point made by the Secretary of State for War is quite irrelevant to this case.

The Government must face the facts of the situation. What do they propose to do in the light of the facts as they are and the facts as they will develop? Whatever the Secretary of State or this Committee will say, I am sure that when the Election comes and large numbers of troops see election interest waxing, they will go to political meetings and ask questions, and become involved in such matters as organising meetings, distributing literature and canvassing. That will happen whether we in this House like it or not. I do not seriously believe that there is in this country any considerable section which would support widespread repression and disciplinary action against those people in the time of an Election. I ask the Government, unless they wish to bring ridicule and contempt upon this particular Regulation, which we are trying to alter, to face the facts and, in good time, make it clear that during the Election, men will be quite free when off duty to engage in politics connected with the issues of the Election.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said, there are two objects for which we are fighting in this war—the negative one of fighting against an evil, and the positive one of building and putting in its place something which is good. To sum up in a few words the thing which is good, it is the spirit of British democracy, toleration and freedom. I submit that unless we pass some Clause like that which is before the Committee, and unless the Government give this freedom for which we ask, a mockery will be made of that positive principle for which we have been fighting in this war.

The hon. Members who have commended this new Clause to the Committee have both, with some skill, avoided telling us what it is really about. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), in a sparkling speech, which made me regret only that he had left his cap and bells outside, carefully refrained from explaining what he really meant. So did the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). Both have told us they want to secure for the soldier the right of political discussion and the right to understand his duties as a citizen. He has got them. There is nothing to stop a soldier having a political discussion. What the promoters of this new Clause want, and what they carefully did not say, is the right for the soldier to appear on the platform at political meetings.

That is exactly what I said.

I am glad I have got that admission. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith was more careful than his helper. The position at the moment is that the soldier is denied the right to appear on political platforms and actively to canvass on behalf of a political party, to make speeches from the body of the hall at political meetings and generally to take a vigorous and active part in a political campaign. I cannot see that any argument has been advanced which would make us believe that those are desirable things. The passion for liberty which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith adduced and the fervour with which he advocated the right of a soldier to indulge in controversy astonished me when I remember that it is only three years ago since I heard the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith urging in this House that those persons who were against the opening of a second front should be interned under Regulation 18B. The fact that it included Field Marshal Montgomery, the whole of his staff and everybody who disagrees with the hon. and learned Member has probably now escaped his convenient memory. For him to pose in any way as the champion of any sort of liberty, is straining our credulity a little too far. No doubt he reads his own speeches, and I would ask him to re-read his speech of three years ago on Regulation 18B, in which he advocated the internment of those persons who disagreed with him on the imminence or otherwise of a military operation.

If this specialist in slander, the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick (Lieut.-Colonel Wise), wishes to misquote me, perhaps he will give the reference in HANSARD.

I have been wondering what this discussion has to do with the new Clause. We are becoming involved in a very wide Debate. I have given hon. Members considerable latitude, and I hope this discussion will now stop.

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and will refrain from referring any more to the hon. and learned Member's passion for liberty. I do, however, wish to bring to the notice of the Committee that in a soldier's life there are certain factors which make it undesirable that he should take part in any open controversy in the heat of political agitation. The soldier is not wholly and entirely as other citizens. It is all very well to say that the soldier to-day is a civilian first, and when he has a uniform put on him he is then made into a soldier. So is every soldier. No soldier springs ready armed, like Minerva, from the head of Zeus. They are all civilians before they become soldiers, so there is no difference between the soldier of to-day and the soldier of any other day. Where a difference arises is from his life and training, from the unity with his fellows, which does not exist elsewhere and the fact that he does become, to a certain extent, a slightly different being. Shakespeare was right when he described him as:

There is a considerable danger in loosing on our political life any very large number of persons who have been trained to settle arguments rather more drastically than by mere conversation, and the less violently active a part these men take, the more quietly will our election meetings be conducted. The soldier's first duty is not that of a citizen. Admittedly he is a citizen, but there is no question that, before that, he is a soldier, and it is impossible to build up a disciplined Army in any other way. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith quoted the example of the Army of our Soviet Allies. He pointed out that a large part of their recruit training before the war was devoted to the teaching of politics. That may be, but when the war started they stopped political teaching and started teaching the men to be soldiers, with extremely successful results. Every nation in the world, sooner or later, finds that it is inconvenient to have an Army—

I did not hear the hon. and learned Member's speech. Did he go so far as to say there is free political discussion in the Soviet Army?

No. He said a large part of the recruit training was devoted to political instruction.

Not free discussion?

No.

If I may intervene in this discussion about what I said, I know that hon. Members opposite foam at the mouth when the U.S.S.R. is mentioned, but let me tell them there is plenty of free political discussion in the Soviet Army, and that is one reason why it is a good Army.

It is not really germane to the question, in any case. What I was saying was that when the war started, those who were responsible for training stopped political instruction.

I have never heard that before, and I do not believe it.

The hon. and learned Member may not have heard it, but the fact remains that the political commissars were done away with, and incorporated in the regiments.

I cannot allow hon. Members to participate in a discussion about other Armies. If we go into details concerning the organisation of the Russian Army, we shall be going rather far.

The point is this. The soldier, by his disposition, is best suited for conducting his political discussions in the way in which he conducts them now. Both hon. Members who spoke said there was no shortage of political discussion among the troops. There is not. There is no shortage of encourage- ment to take an interest in politics. What there is is this prohibition against the soldier becoming involved in something which may bring discredit on his Service. Before the war, the main reason for encouraging soldiers to go out in plain clothes rather than in uniform was that if they got into a slight dispute in a public house they would not involve the Army in it.

1.30 p.m.

There is a further reason why I do not think it is right that soldiers should discuss politics. Those who discuss politics the least are probably the best soldiers. I have generally found in my personal experience that some people over-discuss politics. The hon. Member for Skipton would like a completely political Army. There has been such a thing. It was described some time ago as:

There is one last point, on which all would agree, even persons who are in favour of the new Clause. It is that a soldier should not, openly and publicly, criticise his own Service or any other Service. It is a little difficult to introduce a soldier on a political platform and allow him to make a speech and to expect no reference to the work and future prospects or otherwise of any of the three Services. I do not see how one could make a speech at the coming Election unless one did not.

I support the new Clause. The speaker who preceded me was not very convincing in his argument. The plain position is that millions of our fellow countrymen have been conscripted into the Services, and now that a General Election is to take place those men and women are to be debarred from taking part in political argument and propaganda which might secure in this House of Commons a Government representative of their opinions. They were conscripted, although the Government of the day gave a specific pledge that there would be no conscription without the electorate being consulted. That is how the matter presents itself to me. I know that members of my own party who are in the Services very often find themselves in a difficult position because some of the powers that be think they are dangerous individuals. Sometimes, I understand from some of them, their pamphlets and everything else are searched, in case they might be planning a violent overthrow of the present Government. Citizens who have been taken away in that manner should have a full right to take part in the political fight in this country to secure a Government really representative of the people and a real, free, democratic Parliament. The tremendous responsibility has been placed upon them of carrying the country through to victory, while they themselves are to be "cabined, cribbed" in regard to the election of the future Government.

Nearly all of them are overseas.

That is all the more reason why they should not be denied the rights that belong to the hon. and gallant Member himself of securing a free Parliament and a Government that will be in accordance with their opinions.

They cannot take advantage of this provision, because they are not here.

They can take advantage of it where they are, and they could have discussions, arguments and propaganda with some of their fellows, just as the hon. and gallant Member will indulge in propaganda in his own division. The greatest responsibility has been laid upon these people in carrying us to victory, yet they themselves are to be manacled and prevented from a full exercise of their democratic right of going on to the platform and telling people what they want. When I think of the great problems of the future and how millions of people will come back here and find themselves homeless, while the Government is acting in a miserable and incompetent way, for example in regard to housing, I say it is not right that those people should be denied the right to go on to the platform. I quite understand that the Secretary of State for War does not want to go to Cardiff for the General Election and find some soldier whom he controls telling the people of the mean and niggardly way in which soldiers have been treated. This is an attempt to prevent this large section of the people of Britain who have been conscripted into the Service from exercising their rights as our fellow countrymen. Therefore I thoroughly support the proposed new Clause and I hope that the Government will be compelled to accept it.

:I want, in a few brief remarks, to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Smethwick (Lieut.-Colonel Wise).

Smethwick was Sir Oswald Mosley's constituency.

If I may be allowed to proceed. I would say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Smethwick was freely elected by the electors of Smethwick and there was complete freedom for political propaganda of all kinds. I was about to say that the present Army was conscripted by the wish of the people of this country, and was formed for two purposes, one, to defend our country from the foreign foe, and the other to defend our liberties. Indeed, the two are complementary. It should not be diverted from either purpose. The most honourable purpose which any man can have is the defence of his country and his liberty. We have still a great deal to do when we have finished our job in Germany. We have to pay attention to an equally cruel and vicious foe in the Far East, the Japanese. I should deplore any political agitation starting in the Army which might interfere with those tasks.

It is frequently a mistake, in my opinion, to make people too politically minded, even in ordinary walks of life. It upsets their minds and disturbs their emotions. Without true knowledge of the facts on which to base their opinions they are often stimulated to excess and obscured judgment by wild oratory such as we hear from the hon. Member who has just sat down—and in the case of soldiers that does no good either to themselves, their country or the Army. It is different with ourselves; it is our business, we have got so much into the stream of politics that we cannot help ourselves, but the ordinary citizen is a much better person when he is calm and collected, and in his ordinary life he hardly ever makes a real mistake when he sees real injustice and is deter- mined on its removal. The discipline of the Army must be fair because I am convinced that if British soldiers thought that they were being treated with gross injustice they would say, "This is too much for us. We cannot stand any more of it." I do not think they would do that, except under a sense of the greatest injustice. In spite of what the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said about the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman administers the Army with great injustice. I know the right hon. Gentleman is very outspoken, but I believe him to be a fair-minded man and I do not think he is actuated by the motives imputed to him and he need not be afraid to face his electors at Cardiff as suggested by the hon. Member.

Soldiers should be given an impartial account of home affairs and it should be given to them by men with unbiassed minds and without any political axe to grind. I should deplore that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) should be allowed complete freedom in this matter. We well know what were the activities of the hon. Member in the Army. We know how dissatisfied he was with military life and we know of his subversive activities. The only way he could get satisfaction was to come to this House. Of course, the electorate of Skipton, for the time probably blinded by—

On a point of Order. Is it permissible for one hon. Member to describe the activities of another as subversive?

The expression may or may not be strictly unparliamentary, but it is certainly undesirable.

I will take your advice, Major Milner. I never wish to use language which is undesirable, even though it is not strictly unparliamentary. I am grateful for your kindly guidance. I will leave the matter at that. One thing which the soldier has at the present time is most valuable. Before I went into politics I spent a great deal of my life trying to attain what the soldier may attain freely in his daily life, a considerable knowledge of the peoples and the places of Europe. He moves about in foreign countries, educating himself in a knowledge of people, and their ways in foreign lands. Unless he is very unintelligent indeed, Which I am convinced he is not, he probably gains a great deal of knowledge and food for reflection in that way. The present advance and occupation of Germany must be invaluable in the formation of his opinions. Are we not all shocked at the horrors of the internment camps? Not only do we feel the degradation of those responsible, but we feel degraded ourselves to think that any human being can act in such a way.

1.45 p.m.

When a soldier has seen that, has he not been warned of the danger of revolutionary political thought? Does he not see that it is infinitely better to maintain a stable society than support totalitarianism of any kind, which brings to its aid, first, a lying propaganda and ends in the concentration camp and perhaps the degradation we have seen in Germany? The soldier is being given plenty of food for thought in his progress through Germany, and I believe that he will think it better not to support the society advocated by the hon. Member for Camlachie, and the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) or the anarchic State advocated by the hon. Member for Skipton. I trust that the Committee will, in no uncertain voice, throw out this Clause, and condemn it. We have a great task still to finish in order to remove the very forces which my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie in his heart, I believe, wishes to see removed from the world, but which his political propaganda would never remove, but would establish. I would like the soldier to complete that task before he is indulged in political propaganda and becomes the prey of people who would undermine his morale, and make him lose sight of the goal in which we in this country are determined to reach.

I am rather touched by the solicitude expressed from the other side of the Committee for the ordinary rank and file members of the Forces in case they should go wrong, and imbibe any propaganda that would send them along any other road than the Tory road to self-destruction. I look round in this country and I see these ordinary men, who are continually being prevented from that expression which one might have expected would have been granted to them very generously by the Government of this country, that is, if their fight is the fight which the Government make it out to be on platforms throughout the country and in this House. Hon. Members will note that the Lord Beaverbrooks have a right to pour their propaganda for 24 hours a day in to the minds of these men in the Army, this false propaganda, this degrading propaganda, that seeks to defend the economic society which is responsible for the war. There is no danger of subversive propaganda when that form of propaganda is being indulged in.

I went one evening to the Washington Club, where American soldiers were engaged in a "Quiz" meeting. I found there the son of Lord Lovat—I do not remember his title. He was a major in the Army, and was there in uniform. He was defending British capitalism, the Tory Party and the Franco régime in Spain at that meeting. I was there as an ordinary civilian, trying in my humble way to do what I could to upset the various theories he was so vigorously enunciating. I had no antagonism to his being there defending his class, his system, his war and his pal, General Franco. But as for the common soldier, who is either enlisted or has been conscripted, dragged into the Army, sometimes, to fight for a cause in which he does not believe and knows nothing about, and who wonders what the whole struggle is about, we must protect him at every single stage from imbibing revolutionary gospels. One notices what freedom there is for Army officers who are Members of this House to come here, wearing their military uniform, and to go into their constituencies, to go to party conferences and enunciate their ideas. There is no danger then, but as for the engineer, the dock-worker the clerk, the joiner, the slater, the office worker, the warehouse worker, we must protect him in case he imbibes some revolutionary propaganda when he is in uniform.

If he is sincere, and believes in the war effort, and if the war effort is what it is made out to be, he is fighting for something new, something real, some guarantees in life. Therefore, he has a right to find out who are the people who will lead him along this way, which is the party which stands for the things for which they say the war is being fought. Therefore, the ordinary soldier has a right to find out for himself about the propaganda being put out in this country. I do not quarrel with anybody for putting over their propaganda. I was never against a man, except in some political struggle, because he held different ideas from mine. I may say: "Have you stood by those principles, or are you only using them in a make-believe fashion? Are they sincerely held?" I am not afraid of revolutionary propaganda. The Red Army has been held up as an example during the war. We know that no army can stop in the middle of a battle or on the barrack square and say: "Give us your ideas about how we are to fight these battles," or settle down and have political discussions about Leninism, Trotskyism or Griggism. One does not indulge in those theories in the middle of a war. We are not asking that; we are very reasonable people, because although we are opposed to the conflict and have always thought that what its supporters have made out it was being fought for—I am more convinced now that we were right and that the great mass of the politicians were wrong—

All out of step except our George?

Jesus of Nazareth was in that position, and because the world has not accepted His Gospel, we are in the mess that exists to-day. The I.L.P. claims the same in the political field. We realise that the Red Army, when it was not engaged in the war, could afford to have political commissars. It could afford to decide whether the men should have the party line, but in Spain some of the greatest disputes, resulting in men being held in prisons in Barcelona, arose because they objected to the Communist political control of the army, and to men being put in control of the army because they had political knowledge but were nitwits in military matters. No one is suggesting that political control should be exercised under war conditions. If you are in a war you should have military persons of the most competent character to run that war in the interests of the lives and well-being of the community and nation. Russia went into war and abolished political commissars and propaganda, because it was essential to solidify the Army. They had seen the Hitler method of trying to get everybody to be of one mind on these issues. It is a warning to the hon. Member that the most dangerous thing when you are involved in war is to try and mould the minds of the soldiers into one common pattern, because out of that can be evolved military rule of the same type as there was in Germany, which brought about to a large extent the stage into which the world evolved in relation to war.

I am all for intelligent, reasonable propaganda. I think British soldiers are amongst the most enlightened in the world. People in Scotland can discern between complete froth and intelligence, and, after all, there are many ways of applying one's mind and adjusting oneself. If propaganda is wrong they will eliminate it. These men have been taken out of their homes and told that they are to fight for something. Now, after 10 years, we are facing a General Election, and the soldiers in the Far East want to know what the various candidates and parties stand for—whether the Tory Party has evolved beyond the stage in which it was before this war, when a large number of them were going to the Albert Hall and cheering Mosley, and some were writing to "The Times" eulogising him and saying, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said, that Mosley stood for everything for which the Tory Party stood—for love of country, King and Empire. He said: "Let us make it the youth movement of the Conservative Party." The soldiers want to know whether there still exists the same sort of mind as when Ribbentrop was entertained in London, and went round all the drawing rooms of the West End, and was received by all the "smart set." The train going to Nuremberg, when I was travelling to Prague, was packed with members of the House of Lords, M.P.s and journalists, going as Adolf Hitler's special guests. Soldiers want to know if there has been a transformation in the mind and organisation of the Party.

Who has a better right to know than the soldier, who has risked his life, and in many cases given his blood, performing, as hon. Members say, "a great task"? Whether he likes the Liberal, Conservative, Labour, I.L.P. or Common- wealth Parties, or is an Independent, he has a right to know what these Parties stand for. The only way he can know is by complete freedom of propaganda in this country. Up to now there has been a complete black-out. The I.L.P. and other parties who are unpopular with the Government have not had an opportunity of putting their propaganda over to the troops. The B.B.C. has been closed to them because the Prime Minister has appointed his faithful red-headed Goebbels to be Minister of Propaganda, to keep out parties who in his opinion are not entitled to consideration and are not entitled to put their point of view over to the troops.

On a point of Order. Would it be unreasonable to ask the hon. Member to say a word about the Clause?

I can understand that the hon. Member has been just tolerating every speech made which has not been propaganda for the Tory Party. I did not expect to please him, but nevertheless I say that the soldier is looking for this political propaganda, in the discussion group, in the canteen, in the camp, in the rest centre, in the hospital, at home, at political meetings, and in the General Election. He has a right to take part in them. It is being reserved for the officers, who consider themselves superior persons, and who are free to go about the country putting forward their point of view. I stand for the ordinary man and woman in the Services, whether they vote for or against me, getting a 100-per-cent. opportunity to take part in propaganda, to hear propaganda, to play their hand in the common struggle, and to vote for whatever political party they believe is going to offer salvation in the difficult post-war period.

2.0 p.m.

As a sailor, I have very great diffidence about intervening in this Debate, but, as I have served in combined operations and have had very close contact with the Army, I trust that the Committee will forgive me. We should regard this Clause from a strictly practical point of view. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said that the Army were debarred from political propaganda and from hearing the points of view of all parties. When I was serving in France with the Army I found that the vast majority of the newspapers delivered to us were copies of the "Daily Herald." It is a very excellent paper, and no one took any exception to it; it was read by officers and men alike. From the strictly practical point of view, we all know that politics are discussed in all the Services: in the messes, in the canteens, everywhere. As long as politics were discussed amiably, did not cause any commotion, and were not subversive of discipline, I have seen no man suffer for putting forward his own political views. While I was with the Army many men asked me questions about politics, and I did my best to answer them dispassionately. Officers and men, when on service, live very close together; they discuss many matters, when off duty, as between man and man; but I consider that it would be very prejudicial to discipline and good conduct to have organised political discussions, as suggested in this Clause. It is the duty of all servants of the Crown, especially the Armed Forces, to carry out His Majesty's orders without question, and what party His Majesty's Government is composed of is a matter of complete indifference. To carry out the orders of superior officers, which is to carry out the orders of His Majesty's Government, is the first aim and object of the Armed Forces of the Crown. For any discussion to be officially permitted which calls into question the orders of His Majesty's Government I would consider extremely prejudicial to discipline.

In the second place, it is proposed that members of the Forces should be allowed to take part in political discussions when off duty, away from their depots and camps. That is possibly more reasonable, in view of the large conscript Army we have got. Any man who desires to take part in politics should get into mufti, and take very good care that his rank in the Armed Forces should not be related to his politics, but that he should be taking part purely as a citizen. If he desires to express his political view he should do so in his private capacity, quite apart from his connection with the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Would the hon. and gallant Member adopt the same attitude towards himself, as a Member of Parliament, as he says these people should adopt in a democracy?

I am discussing this Clause.

So am I.

I do not see why this Clause should have a time limit to it. If it is good now, why should it not be included in King's Regulations permanently, instead of operating only until the next General Election? On all counts I am completely opposed to this Clause as drafted, and I suggest that it should be rejected.

I do not see why the rights which other citizens enjoy should be denied to a man because he happens to be conscripted into the Armed Forces. Many of these lads know very little about politics. They have no fixed ideas, as so many older people have; they do hot know what the different parties stand for. It is only right that all the different political points of view should be put before them, so that they may cast an intelligent vote. Those young men are cut off from educational and intellectual associations which they otherwise would have. I have a letter from a group of young men in the Air Force, dealing with the question of educational advantages for the men in the Services. A man who writes to me is an officer and an ex-schoolteacher. He says that he is alarmed at the mental deterioration which takes place among young men, because they are cut off from educational associations. He sends me a sample—which would be quite funny if I read it now—of the kind of conversation which went on in the barrack room. These young men, who have no knowledge of politics, should not be denied the right of knowing what the different parties stand for.

It is extraordinary that it is mainly the people who are opposed to war who are determined to stick up for the rights of soldiers, and who tell you that the soldier is not so stupid as some people think. I get quite a "fan mail" from soldiers when any point is raised here against conscription. I have never had an abusive letter from the Services when trying to protect men who have been pushed into the Services. Those men have a right, like any other citizens, to go to political meetings. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Com- mander Prior) that a flaw in this Clause is that it is limited to the period up to the next General Election. This should be a permanent part of the Act. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will see how reasonable it all is. If those who support the war think they have such a strong case, why are they afraid to allow other political parties to put their views before the men in uniform; and why do they deny the men who are suffering and fighting—and I realise that they are suffering more than anybody else in this community—the rights which other citizens have, as though they were inferior persons? We know that there must be discipline, but why have a mental discipline? When these men believe in a political point of view, why should they not have the right to propagate it themselves?

They can go to these meetings and listen. I have many times seen them asking questions. Surely the hon. Member is giving a wrong impression.

My point is that they should be able to put forward their views. It is only by doing that, and having their views contradicted, that they can learn the other side of the case. I only want them to have the same opportunity as civilians have.

The Labour Party oppose this Clause. We cannot understand how anyone could put forward such a proposal, if he understood the necessity for the maintenance of democracy. This Army Annual Bill is one of our great institutions. It gives this House absolute control over the Army, and renews its existence year by year. It is an invaluable safeguard. It has been gibed at in recent Debates for its antiquity. It may be 300 years old, but it represents the matured wisdom of men who went through a military dictatorship, the only one we have had in this country, though we may yet have another. At the same time it was laid down in the Regulations that soldiers were not to participate in political activities. That was a most wise Regulation, in the interests of the freedom that was desired after the death of Oliver Cromwell. It is from that foundation that we seek to support the Bill as it is, and the Regulations as they stand. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Clause, in very light, fantastic, and entirely flippant fashion, said that there was one thing certain; that the Election was coming. He never reminded the Committee that in Russia there was an election coming in the days of Kerensky. In Russia they had set up Parliamentary Government, had just got it going, and had an election coming; and then a political army was formed, and Lenin and Trotsky seized power, and smashed the democratic election.

If this country has to face a threat of some section of the Army overriding the verdict of the ballot box, is a slight alteration to this effect going to make any difference, one way or the other?

My hon. Friend is in favour of opening a door which would lead to we know not what. I was particularly delighted that the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick (Lieut.-Colonel Wise) supported the Government in opposing this Clause. His predecessor in that constituency was associated with subversive activities, which were a blot upon this country. Had those activities succeeded, we should not have been here to-day. Members of Parliament would be in gaol somewhere, if they were in existence at all. They should be the last people in the world to open the door to anything which would give the Army a political flavour.

2.15 p.m.

We would like to see the Regulation strengthened rather than weakened. It has been mentioned rather freely that certain people were taking part in political propaganda for one particular Party. I do not know how far that is right, but, for my Party, I do plead that there should be no display of military or other Service uniforms, and no undue credit taken during the election for service in His Majesty's Forces. It is altogether wrong and causes much bitterness in an election, when candidates who are able to do so, appear and speak in uniform. All ought to speak in mufti, because it is a civic election. In some other cases, the election address carries a photograph of the candidate in uniform. That ought not to be so. The election ought to be a civic campaign, entirely non-military and having nothing to do with the Forces at all. It should be concerned only with general public policy, and how the business of the country should be carried on. That is the angle from which we view this subject, and we hope the Regulations, as they stand, will be continued and that the great civic principle of the civil control of the Army, Navy and Air Force will continue and will never be abandoned. Great soldiers may become very popular and have enormous influence in the country, but magnetic personalities ought not to have a chance to exploit that in the political field.

Having said that, I hope that Parliament will keep its mind clear, and never give way to any plausible, ill-advised or foolish recommendation that we should impair, in any way, the set-up we at present have, in which the Army, Navy and Air Force are under civil control. I am glad to know that there are reasonable facilities for discussions of affairs of the day. Men can get all sorts of newspapers, and their friends can send them pamphlets or write them letters. They have access to the wireless and, in other ways, get to know what is going on. Soldiers are not kept in closed compartments where they can learn nothing. But that is quite different from having talks and propaganda in the Army, and, to suggest that these should be allowed only while an election is taking place, is surely wrong, because it is just in the thick of the struggle when such a course would be most undesirable. If this were allowed for this coming election, there might be another very soon. Let us throw our minds back. In 1918, there was a General Election—which took place most unfairly, in our view—and there was another in 1922, and another in 1924. Should we have another experience like that, the Army will become more political than the people of the country, if they are to be considering politics all the time during those elections. I am sure my friends are very ill-advised to ask that the present Regulation should be impaired.

Before I deal with the new Clause, I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) with regard to educational facilities available to the Army. I understood the hon. Lady to say that she was informed that soldiers in the Army were cut off from education.

They do not get sufficient.

That is a different term—"not sufficient." Quite obviously, at the present time, when our men are advancing victoriously in Western Europe, there is not much time for education, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, in between times of active campaigning, the facilities which are available are very satisfactory, and, as I ventured to inform the House during the Estimates Debate, I think it will be found that the Director of Army Education at the War Office has done a magnificent job of work in the arrangements he has made for extended education immediately following the cessation of hostilities.

This is the third consecutive occasion in connection with the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force Annual Bill, when a full discussion has taken place on a proposal to remove the embargo on soldiers taking an active part in political controversy. Whatever differences there may be in the Committee as to the desirability or otherwise of removing that embargo, I am certain that there would be common and complete agreement on the desirability of doing everything possible to ensure that the men and women serving in the Armed Forces, who have rendered such magnificent services in the world war—which is, we are all glad to note, rapidly approaching a victorious conclusion, at least, in Europe—should have every facility for exercising their right to vote at the forthcoming General Election. In this connection, as the Home Secretary stated yesterday, it is estimated that the Services' Register will contain 90 per cent. of those members of the Forces qualified to be registered.

But there is another example of what the Government have sought to do, in order to make it possible for our serving men and women to take part in the General Election. I refer, of course, to voting by post. Every possible facility will be given to Services personnel to record their votes at the Election, including facilities to vote by post. The postal voting scheme introduced by the Representation of the People Act, 1945, the House will remember, enables Service voters who cannot vote in person in their own constituencies, and there will be many of them, to record a postal vote from nearly every part of the world, including all the main overseas commands. As the House is already aware, the postal vote and the proxy vote can both be used by a soldier, but, in those cases where a postal vote is received in time, the proxy vote will be cancelled, and the House may be interested to know that the necessary forms to enable application to be made for postal voting facilities have now been distributed to all overseas commands in the postal voting areas and will become available to the troops in the very near future. In some cases, no doubt, they have already become available to them.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is really necessary, in view of the fact that none of those hon. Members whose names are added to the Amendment are present?

On the contrary—

I am sorry; I apologise.

When the time comes for the ballot papers to be sent to postal voters, they will receive, in addition to the ballot paper, copies of the election addresses of the candidates seeking their votes. I should like to emphasise that a soldier can hold what political views he likes. He can express them freely and discuss them with his comrades in the barrack room or anywhere else, so that the proposal in the New Clause that soldiers should be allowed, whilst off duty, to enter into discussion of issues likely to arise at the Election is quite unnecessary, because free discussion is already permitted. Moreover, a soldier can vote for whatever candidate he prefers, and for whatever party he prefers, but what he cannot do, by reason of King's Regulations 541, is participate in organised activities on behalf of a political party, whether by addressing public meetings, by writing on behalf of a political party, or by asking questions on behalf of a political party. On the other hand, he can attend, either in uniform or in plain clothes, any political meeting under the auspices of any political party, so long as he does not take an active part in the meeting. This right—and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) raised the question of the Army Council Instruction to which I referred on an occasion last year—is to be made clear in another Army Council Instruction, which is about to be issued.

If, during the Election, a member of the Forces in plain clothes attended a political meeting, could he act as a steward, of would he be breaking the Regulations?

The question whether he could act as a steward would depend on whether the authorities would be justified in saying that he was taking an active part in the campaign, and that is a question of fact, and my hon. and gallant Friend's opinion is as good as mine on a question of fact. The question has been asked whether a soldier can put questions at political meetings. There is no reason why he should not put questions and act like any other citizen, in order to inform his own mind, and, if he does so, he is not taking an active part in the activities or organisation of a party, and so would not be infringing the Regulation as it stands to-day. But what I have said, of course, applies only to those soldiers who will be in this country when an election takes place.

Supposing there is an election in a constituency, and a military man, say a brigadier-general, comes down, will he be entitled to speak for the Conservative candidate?

Whether he be a general, or whatever his rank, he is, as a civilian, entitled to speak and express his view. But he would not be allowed to take part in the meeting, because he would be taking an active part in a political campaign. If he were a retired officer, or a retired corporal, or sergeant, he would have the same freedom as anyone else. They are not bound by King's Regulations.

Can a Member of Parliament, either in mufti or in uniform, come down into an area where an election is going on and be advertised as General So-and-So or Captain So-and-So, and speak on behalf of the opposing candidate?

I am drawing on my recollection now, but I think it was in 1040 that the Army Council issued an Instruction qualifying Regulation 541 in so far as it applies to M.P. officers or other ranks. In other words, they have complete liberty of action. There was a qualification that they should only be able to speak in their own constituency, but, recently, even that qualification has been removed, and Members of Parliament can speak in any constituency.

Perhaps I may deal with the position of those soldiers serving abroad who will be abroad when the Election takes place. Admittedly, they will be unable to attend political meetings to hear the views of the candidates, and the question must therefore arise of how they can keep themselves informed on the political issues which will be raised at the Election. The Prime Minister stated on 3rd October last that they would be able to keep themselves informed of particular political trends by listening to the wireless, and by reading the ordinary newspapers and journals. It will also be reasonable to suppose that, at the time of the Election, whenever it comes, broadcasts will be made by the leaders of the various parties and, no doubt, arrangements will be made to relay such speeches over the Forces programmes, in addition to the various Home programmes.

2.30 p.m.

It is doubtful, owing to the shortness of time between nomination day and polling day, whether it will be possible for election literature in support of particular candidates to be sent to reach troops in the more distant theatres of war, but as regards the various party programmes, it should be possible, to some extent, to meet their needs by means of the ordinary newspapers and journals. The new Clause we are now discussing proposes that soldiers off duty shall be allowed full freedom to take part in discussion and propaganda relating to election issues.

It was said that it was possibly owing to the difficulty of distance, that the election addresses of candidates might not be in the hands of the Service voter overseas. Surely, every Service voter overseas is to get a postal ballot paper, which will not be sent out until after nomination, and could it not be arranged to put all the election addresses into one envelope? I understood that that was to be done.

My hon. and gallant Friend must remember that postal ballot facilities will apply only to those soldiers who have registered a vote by post, otherwise they will vote by proxy, and the proxy in this country will do the voting. The Clause we are now discussing proposes that soldiers off duty should be allowed to take part in discussion or propaganda relating to election issues. I have already indicated that the fullest freedom to discuss is already admitted in the Army and, therefore, the proposal in the Clause in relation to freedom of discussion has already been made. The Clause, however, goes on to ask for full freedom to indulge in propaganda, and thereby challenges the embargo on political propaganda of serving soldiers under King's Regulation 541. This, I think the Committee will agree, does raise an issue of great importance. As a matter of fundamental principle, there would be general agreement that a servant of the Crown, whether a civil servant or a soldier, owes complete loyalty to the Government of the day, and that as regards the Armed Forces of the Crown, it is their duty to execute the policy of the Government of the day whatever the political complexion of that Government. I cannot agree that the position is necessarily altered in time of war, when the vast majority of those serving in the Armed Forces are men who were citizens before they became soldiers, sailors or airmen. Surely, there cannot be any differentiation between the regular soldier and the non-regular soldier in this respect, and certainly I do not think it is possible to discriminate between the wartime soldier and the regular soldier in any matter of disciplinary regulations.

May I suggest that, if one were to alter the Regulation, one could hot differentiate between the officer and the soldier, and Field Marshal Montgomery and Field Marshal Alexander and any of the other great military leaders of the country at the present time, in present circumstances, while on active service, would have the same right to express political views as the ordinary soldier.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing political expression and disobedience to orders. He is suggesting that it would be a bad thing if soldiers were allowed to disobey their orders, and will he say where, in this Clause, there is any permission to disobey orders?

I did not say anything about disobeying orders. The Regulations to which we are referring to-day, it is true, are vague. They have been pur- posely left vague, and I certainly do not propose to attempt to define in precise detail what the Regulations mean. That should be dependent upon how they are administered. What the Government and the Army Council can do, is to take special care to see that the Regulations in war-time, are applied with tact, discrimination and good sense. What I mean is, that slight infringements of the Regulations could be commonly met by warning, and there should be recourse to penalty only in cases of serious or repeated breaches. The fact that there have been only one or two cases of disciplinary action during this war, justifies my submission that the Service Departments have applied this Regulation with tact, discrimination and good sense.

And now I will say a word about facilities for candidates, to which reference has been made during the Debate, and perhaps I may now deal with the facilities that are to be given to Service candidates. The relaxation of the ordinary rules about political activities in favour of candidates for Parliament have been announced in a pamphlet entitled, "Candidates for Parliament and Members of Parliament," copies of which have been put in the Library of the House. Briefly the position is, that when a member of the Services has been formally adopted as a prospective candidate, he may conduct in his constituency, whether in person or by correspondence, all such activities in the way of addressing public meetings, publishing messages in the Press and so on, that his position as a candidate requires. The only exception is—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. A. Walkden) referred to this point—that he may not wear uniform while at a political meeting, while canvassing or while appearing in public on any occasion connected with his candidature.

As regards the use of a photograph taken in uniform on an election address, I can only say that it is considered inappropriate, as it is not consistent with the rule that uniform must not be worn by a candidate during his election campaign. But I want to be frank with the Committee; as far as I can gather it would not be possible to take any disciplinary action in cases where it is done.

It is a threat.

There is a distinction between a warning and a threat.

Can my hon. and learned Friend undertake to give a little friendly advice on this matter?

It is evident from what I have said that it would meet with the disapproval of the Army Council where-ever it was done. Shortly before nomination day the candidate will be released from the Service and will cease to be a member of the Forces from the day of release. Thereafter he will cease to be subject to Service restrictions until he returns to duty, and will be free to conduct his political activities wherever he likes, but the restrictions as regards wearing uniform to which I have just referred still operate. The Committee will be interested to know that since this pamphlet was first issued further arrangements have been made facilitating the candidature of members of the Forces.

How does that apply to Independent Members? What do they do if they have no party and no people to sign for them? Have they to nominate or adopt themselves?

The War Office is not as unreasonable as all that and I think that the Independent candidate would have no difficulty in getting, say, two local residents to vouch for him if he is going

to be a candidate, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), who is sitting next to him, would agree with me that that is what he would do.

The only difficulty would be, if you did not mind running the risk of forfeiting the £150 deposit, that a large number of people might wish to come back, and be Independent candidates.

Not even a party candidate could be nominated unless his nomination was signed by eight persons. The Bill now before the Committee covers the Air Force as well and the rules for the Navy are very much the same, if not exactly the same, as those of the other two Services. My right hon. Friend in this House in the Debate last year stated that he had consulted his Service colleagues and the Cabinet and that their view was that the present rules should not be altered or modified in any material particular. There can, therefore, be no question of conceding permission to take part in political activities of members of Armed Forces during the forthcoming General Election and the Government, therefore, cannot accept this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 106.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 9.)

In Section nine of the Army Act (which provides for punishments for disobedience to superior officers) after the word "mentioned" at the end of paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the words:

"Provided that a soldier shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence under this Section who refuses to obey an order of a superior officer to take part in an industrial dispute by undertaking the work of workers on strike in any factory, workshop or industrial undertaking."—[ Mr. McGovern. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.45 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause is one of principle which has been debated in the House quite a number of times by Members of the Labour Party, who moved it during the days when Socialism was more popular than it is to-day. I raise this issue this afternoon because there was a case recently of a private soldier—Private A. Lambert of the Pioneer Corps—formerly a dock worker at Swansea who was ordered to "blackleg" in Cardiff during the dock strike there. He went home and refused to "blackleg" on his former mates at the docks. He was charged with absence without leave and given a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. There can be, and I can conceive of there being, a fairly good case from the point of view of the War Office in relation to the use of soldiers during some very serious emergency. One would never attempt to dispute that there might be what one might call a political hold-up in this country, as was frequently happening during the period before Russia came into the war, when certain political forces in this country were attempting to sabotage the war effort. At critical stages in the world's history, it might be essential for the Government of the day to see that supplies were kept running for the men in the field.

We think that this weapon is most dangerous except in the most extreme circumstances, and in this case we find that there was neither justice, tact, nor intelligence behind its use and the prosecution of this man. To begin with, to ask a man who had formerly been a dock worker in this area for most of his life to go as a soldier to where he had previously been employed, and where his mates were out on strike, fighting for some vital thing, was, in our estimation, not wise or tactful. When the fact was drawn to their attention, the Army need not have court-martialled the man and sentenced him to 16 months' imprisonment because of his refusal to go. I question very much whether there is any man in this House who would not have done the very same thing in such circumstances.

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what was the vital object about which the strike was taking place?

Just the fact that the dock workers in the area struck work on a point which they considered to be vital to themselves.

What was it?

I do not know exactly, but it is sufficient, so far as I am concerned, that these dock workers, his mates, considered the matter to be vital. This man has now been penalised and prosecuted because he refused to take part in that "blackleg" action which he should never have been asked to undertake. I submit that was an occasion when the Army was being used for wrong purposes. If it is dangerous in war, it is even much more dangerous in peace, because about the only weapon that a worker has during any industrial dispute is to withdraw his labour power and to refuse to work on the conditions laid down by the employing class. If the Executive of this country were to carry their claim into peace time, they would have a weapon that could be used most effectively and unjustly in order to protect the ruling class, the employing class, to drive down working class standards—if they could depend, on these occasions, on the Army being used for that purpose. I draw attention to this case in particular and would like to know from the Financial Secretary whether this man has been freed, or whether he is still held in detention or in prison because of that offence. From the point of view of ordinary humanity, I would ask him to give us an assurance that if this man has not been released, he will be.

I intervene in this Debate to oppose this new Clause moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) because he referred particularly to the City of Cardiff, the dock district of which I have the honour to represent in this House, and also to the Pioneer Corps, with which I have been privileged to serve. The hon. Gentleman, who, after all, is quite an authority on these matters, knows perfectly well that one of the objects of the Pioneer Corps was to do the very work which this man was ordered to do. Large sections of the Pioneer Corps were especially recruited for dock work in this country and overseas. Whether the man to whom the hon. Gentleman referred voluntarily enlisted in that Corps for this specific work, or whether he was subsequently conscripted and posted to that Corps, I do not know, but my impression is that he would come within that category of dockers who voluntarily enlisted in the Pioneer Corps specifically to carry out dock work. Therefore, if I am right in that assumption, I submit to the Committee that the man has no right at all to object to carrying out that work in the national interest, whether there was a strike in the Cardiff docks or whether there was not.

On the larger question, as to whether the Army should be employed, when necessary, in order to maintain the machinery of State, whether in times of peace or in times of war, but always at a time of national emergency, I take the view that it is the duty of the Government of the day, irrespective of the political parties from which it is drawn, to take what steps are necessary in order to preserve the national machinery and efficiency of the State. If it is necessary when a strike has been proclaimed—in order to ensure the essential foodstuffs and supplies of an expeditionary Force overseas—the Government would be lacking in their duty if they did not use whatever means were at their disposal in order to ensure that essential service being maintained. I think that if at this stage we enacted a Clause which would prohibit the Army authorities, and the authorities which this House looks upon to discharge certain duties, from giving effect to their responsibilities, this House could not hold the Secretary of State responsible and it would be a bad day for this country now and in the future.

3.0 p.m.

I hope the Committee will oppose this proposed Clause because, first of all, it is bad in principle in that it seeks to make an exception to a law which is set out in Section 9 of the Army Act. Once you begin to make holes in a scheme of that kind you open the door to a whole list of exceptions, and it is certainly a novel form of legislation to take a particular case as an exception in that way. Secondly, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) destroyed his own case when he admitted that there might be circumstances in which it was necessary that work of this kind should be carried out.

The hon. and gallant Member is confusing me with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern).

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The expressions of opinion appeared to be so identical that I unfortunately confused the two.

We are a united party.

Will the hon. and gallant Member refer to me as well next time?

The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) destroyed his own case by admitting the necessity for this power. He did not say whether the strike with which he was dealing was officially recognised by the trade union concerned, and, therefore, I am not in a position to know, but what I do object to is the hon. Member saying that soldiers were being used on that occasion to support the will of the ruling classes. That was not, and could not be, the position. The soldiers were being used on that occasion to support the will of the great majority of the community—

How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that?

Because the majority of the community does not appear to have objected to it. I do not know whether the hon. Member has any evidence to the contrary, or whether his interjection was intended to be serious, but—

The hon. and gallant Member said that the action of using troops in industrial disputes had the backing of the mass of the people in the country. I asked him how he knew that, and he said that it was because they took no steps to make their protest known. How can they do that?

What the hon. Member has just said reinforces what I believe, that he has not really been listening to this Debate. The case we were dealing with was that to which the hon. Member for Shettleston referred, and there can be little doubt, I think, in the minds of most Members here that if a strike was one which jeopardised the war effort, and if troops were brought in to carry out work which was necessary and which otherwise could not be done, such action would have the support of the majority of the community. It is because it is necessary that work of this kind should be carried on in circumstances such as that that it is necessary to have this power.

One of the most remarkable features of our national life during the long struggle which we now hope is coming to an end has been the very small number of industrial disputes involving stoppages, lock-outs and strikes. We have had much less industrial trouble in the country than in 1914–18. That is because people have felt that they wanted to support the war effort and have as little dispute as possible. It is also due to the fact that ample provision has been made by the Minister of Labour for the hearing of grievances, whether collective, individual, local or general, and it is not the case that the only way which a worker can secure redress is by going on strike. We are not yet at the end of the European war, and we have another war after that to finish, and as we are dealing here with provision for the next 12 months I have been asked to say that any variation of the kind suggested in this proposed Clause is quite undesirable. The Labour Party would not support any change, because it does not think it desirable. It does not take that attitude out of any disloyalty in regard to what has happened in the past. We may have to argue differently in future when we have a stabilised peace, but I do not think that even that will be necessary. I well remember the cases of Ton-y-Pandy and earlier, Featherston. The ventilation of working-class grievances and the exposure of wrongful actions have caused a great modification, and in peace-time there is no tendency to use the Armed Forces of the Crown in connection with labour disputes.

I have been connected with disputes in the past when it seemed that there would be military intervention in one or two cases but, fortunately, there was not. It might have been justified in one case when a railway strike was impending, and the position was serious. It was contemplated that we should draw out everybody, including the men who were manning the pumps to keep the Severn Tunnel open. The question arose whether we should let the Tunnel be flooded, but the good sense of the railwaymen generally prevailed, and it was decided not to call out those men. Had they been called out, however, I do not think the railway-men would have dissented from the use of naval ratings to keep the tunnel free from water, so that it would be ready for work again when they went back. I do not think anyone would say that action should not be taken by the Government to maintain a service of that kind. There may be cases during a war when it may be necessary to use the Armed Forces to maintain a public service. Such a case happened recently in the North of England, where there was a bus strike, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) has asked me to say that the fact that soldiers transported people in lorries caused no complaint anywhere in his area. People seemed to feel that the right thing had been done. The bus strike did not last long, and there was no bad feeling at all on either side. For the reasons I have given we do not support this Amendment.

I am sorry to have to say it, but this is one occasion when I have to disagree with the official spokesman of the Labour Party. I notice that his opposition to the Amendment has received enthusiastic support, but the fact is that the reason why bad feeling has not been created in this nation during the war by the use of troops in industrial disputes is because the workers who have been on strike sympathised intensely with the position of the soldiers who were sent to the scene of the strike in order to "blackleg." It happened in London, where there was a bus strike, and it was remarkable that the pickets and soldiers were on the best possible terms. My hon. Friend, with most astonishing logic, argued that that sort of thing was because the workers on strike agreed to the use of the soldiers to "blackleg." On the contrary, it was the opposite. The workers on strike recognised that their comrades in the Forces were being compelled to perform an unpleasant duty and, therefore, did not clash with them. I received a number of deputations in the outer Lobby from bus workers at that time, protesting about the use of troops. These workers were saying, "We will not have a row with the soldiers, because we know that they have been called upon to do something which they detest having to do."

I am amazed that the spokesman of the Labour Party should suggest that the Government should be armed with powers to conscript workers into the. Forces, and then use them for purposes entirely different from those which led to us passing the conscription laws in the first instance. I am astonished at this support for a Prime Minister who used soldiers in industrial disputes a long time ago in the most flagrant fashion. The Prime Minister is the most abandoned person in the use of the Armed Forces in industrial disputes. In that respect he has the worst record of any politician in this country, and I am amazed that an argument such as that which my hon. Friend has put forward should be advanced.

My hon. Friend said that there was no justification for strikes, because there were ample opportunities for getting grievances redressed. He knows that that is not true. These strikes occurred in many parts of the country because of the tardiness of the machinery which was set up to deal with disputes. The Minister of Labour, if he were here, would have to give evidence that most of the disputes which have occurred were settled by accepting the plea of the strikers. They were right. What was the result of the Yorkshire strike of last year? After the inquiry it was found that the men were amply justified in their action, that their grievances had not properly been attended to, that the ordinary machinery had fallen down, and that the only way in which they could call attention to their difficulties was to come out on strike. The same thing happened with the apprentices' strike at Newcastle. Arbitration amply justified their claims. But at first they could not get arbitration. The conciliation machinery of the trade union was so deeply interwoven into the apparatus of the State that it was not operating with sufficient facility to deal with grievances on the spot. So, the only thing left for the workers to do, in order to call attention to their difficulties, was to come out on strike.

I do not accept my hon. Friend's point of view; if I did, I would be condemning my own people. Does he suggest that miners and engineers come out on strike frivolously? Does he suggest that strikers are less susceptible to the argument he has advanced than the rest of the community? The fact is that the majority of such men have relatives in the Armed Forces. Some of them, indeed, have been in the Armed Forces, and have been discharged. One striker I met had served in Africa, and had been discharged only three weeks previously. Is my hon. Friend daring to suggest that such men are not patriotic? The argument that such men have behaved frivolously is one which I must reject. If men come out on strike in this war, when they have already decided that they must support the war and its purpose, then the fault lies in the tardiness of the machinery for the settlement of disputes. The Army ought not to send workers who are in uniform to blackleg their fellows and that is the reason why I support this Clause. If we take this coercive power away from the Government then all the authorities responsible for the settlement of industrial disputes will be very much more concerned about settling quickly, and will not leave grievances to boil up to the point of irritation.

3.15 p.m.

There is one further point. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Allied authorities were considering sending a message to the German people saying that the individual soldiers were not to be excused from punishment for crimes, merely because they had obeyed the orders of their superior officers. I agree with him. As a matter of fact in this country we have, so far, preserved the authority of the civilian as against the authority of the soldier. Under British law, no soldier can plead that he has obeyed the orders of his superior officer if he has committed a criminal offence. He can be taken to court and punished for the offence he has committed, and he cannot plead that he did it because his superior officer ordered him to do it.

The point is that if a soldier or any member of the Navy or Air Force is given any order, he need only obey it if it is a lawful order.

I can only reply that in this country, we impose upon the soldier himself, the obligation of determining whether it is a lawful order or not.

I reiterate that the soldier need not obey any unlawful order, although he may have difficulty in justifying himself. The situation mostly arises with senior officers. But the position remains that any unlawful order need not be obeyed.

And I repeat that the decision as to whether the order given is lawful or not, is imposed by the British law upon the individual who receives the order. It is in that way that we have the supremacy of the civilian authority as against the military. It is not, as I understand it, the position in most other parts of the world. Suppose I were called up into the Army and put into uniform and a strike occurred in a pit. Suppose I am sent down by the military to carry on the work of that pit because I am a soldier. Do you think I would do it? I would refuse the order. I would say "I was called up to the Army for other purposes. I was called up to fight against the Nazis." If it was said that the strike was interfering with the efficient conduct of the war against the Nazis; I would say that these miners are anti-Nazis too.

What has happened? What is wrong with the state of affairs which results in miners who are anti-Nazis coming out on strike for the purpose of preventing the war against the Nazis? Why are they behaving like this? Why do English men and women stop work on the docks, in the pits, in gas works and in the engineering shops? Why do ordinary simple, patriotic British men and women behave like that and so imperil the war effort? They do it because they have been stung into action by the failure on the part of the authorities to deal with their grievances. I say it is completely wrong to deal with them by giving authority to the State to use Armed Forces for the purpose of breaking strikes. That is the reason why I am going to support this Clause and if it goes to a Division I shall support it in the Lobby. I am convinced from my own experience during the war, which I consider is much more than that of most hon. Members on that side of the House, that if the State did not use these powers for strike-breaking purposes, they would deal much earlier with the cause of the strikes and the strikes would never happen.

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a very remarkable weakness in the case put before us by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He selected a particular strike as a test case in support of this new Clause. He tried to get the Committee to understand that the dockers in that case were striking for some vital issue. I challenged him on that and he tried to slip away by suggesting that at any rate it was something that the dockers considered to be vital. I challenged him again, and he then had to admit that he had not the least idea what the strike was about.

I say that it does not matter what the dispute was about. If the dockers came out on strike, I believe they did it because they considered it was vital to them. For that reason I think it is wrong to ask a soldier to "blackleg" his fellow workers.

The hon. Member now takes his case even further. He says it does not matter what the strike was about, how frivolous it was, so long as it was a strike. He does not care and he does not even take the trouble to find out what the dispute was about. He does not care whether it is important for the Government to ensure these vital services continuing, and apparently he does not care whether the men in the Forces get the ammunition or the food they want. It does not matter how frivolous the cause and I think—

The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth that I have not said. I have not said anything at all about keeping the vital services going. I did say that the strike at the time was not believed to be vital, and it is for that reason that I say these men were being used by the State in order to defeat the end of the workers.

The hon. Member has not even interested himself in ascertaining what the strike was about. All he says is that there was a strike, and therefore the Government are not entitled to put these men in for the express purpose of seeing that the work is carried on. Whatever the work was, I think the proposition that the Government should not take this action is one with which this Committee is not in the least likely to agree.

I hope the Committee is quite clear as to the limitations that are placed upon the officers of the Army by the terms of the proposed Clause. This Clause, as I read it, does not say the soldiers shall not be employed in this way. I hope that is clear to every Member of the Committee. That is a far more serious proposition than the proposal contained in this Clause. What the Clause says is that it shall not be an offence if a soldier, who may or may not have been a life-long trade unionist, refuses to carry out the instructions of his officer in taking the place of men on strike. There is a question of principle here. The National Service Act conscripted the youth of this country. Thousands of men who were conscripted were members of trade unions but they were conscripted for the purpose of fighting the war against the enemy. I put it to the opponents of this Clause whether it is not a breach of contract for these men, who have been conscripted for the purpose of serving as fighting men in the Army, to be directed by their officers to do the work of men who are out on strike.

The hon. Member says that these men were enlisted as fighting men. They were not. They were enlisted as men of the Pioneer Corps to carry out essential dock work in order to keep the fighting men at the Front supplied.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under the impression that my argument is concerned only with the Pioneer Corps he is mistaken. He would have to supply me with evidence to satisfy me that the men of this country were not conscripted for the purposes of the Army as a military machine. I have a lifelong experience of trade union activities. To the genuine trade unionist it is a crime, punishable almost to any extent, for a man to "blackleg" another man. I am sure my hon. Friends on this side will agree with me that nothing is more sacred to trade unionists than the right to take part in a strike or to refuse to "blackleg" other men who are engaged in a strike. If there are any soldiers who have no conscientious objection to taking the place of men who are on strike, surely that is a very strong argument in favour of the Clause, because it means that the Army officers are in a position to get all the men they want, provided the men have no conscientious objection. But in the case of the trade unionists who are soldiers, and were trade unionists before joining the Army, who will again become trade unionists and who possibly may in the meantime maintain their connection with their trade unions, it is a crime to make such men oppose their principles merely because they have come to the support of their country and joined the Army under the conscription law.

3.30 p.m.

I want to refer to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). He seemed to think that the whole question is whether a strike is justified or not, but that does not seem to me to arise on this Clause. We are not now discussing the propriety or otherwise of strike action as a means of bringing pressure to bear in industrial disputes. We are faced with the fact that the trade union movement has grown up in this country and throughout the whole of its life has used strike action as a legitimate means of pressure in the industrial field. Apart from war-time regulations, that is accepted; it may be hedged round with various restrictions, but it is a fact, and I think the vast majority of people desire it to be so. It is quite legitimate on occasion for a strike to take place, in just the same way as it is quite legitimate for a lock-out to take place. In other words, there is a class war within the State, in which one side takes one kind of action, a lock-out, and the other side takes a different sort of action, a strike. As long as this is legally possible, it is quite wrong for the community to compel any section of the population to take sides and assist one side. That is what this Clause seeks to avoid. If the Clause is not carried it will leave the situation as it is at present, and men who were conscripted into the Army, or joined tip voluntarily, for a completely different purpose, may be used against their natural friends and comrades in this quite legal class struggle on one side. I ask the Committee to accept the Clause.

I am sorry I shall not be able to give the information for which my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) asked with regard to a particular case. He will appreciate that I was not given previous notice of this, and although I have asked for the information I am afraid it is not available in so short a time. The acceptance of this Clause would produce an impossible situation. It would mean that a soldier who was given a lawful command by his officer would be entitled to refuse to obey it. I can well understand the claim being made that soldiers should not be utilised for the purposes referred to in the Clause, but I cannot understand how it would be possible to maintain discipline if soldiers were allowed to refuse to obey a lawful order. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says that if the Clause were accepted the order would become unlawful. Nothing of the kind. The order is lawful under another Section of the law, and would still continue to be lawful. The only difference would be that it would not be possible to impose a sanction upon soldiers who refused to obey a lawful order.

I can assure hon. Members that there is no question of troops being required during the war to take sides in an industrial dispute. Their services have not been used for the purpose of breaking strikes. The only occasion on which they have been called upon to undertake work affected by an industrial dispute was where services essential to the war effort were endangered through a stoppage of work. The initiative for requesting military labour, incidentally, lies not with the War Office but with the Minister responsible for the essential service. Each case requires the concurrence of the Minister of Labour. It is obvious that high national interest in the present circumstances over-rides all other considerations, and I believe the policy of the Government in this connection meets with the approval of the Committee.

I cannot quite follow the Financial Secretary's reasoning. The Clause reads:

"Provided that a soldier shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence. …"

In other words, if this Clause were carried and an officer ordered a man to "blackleg," that man could refuse, and he would not have committed an offence. Whatever it might be technically, it would not be lawful for an officer to order a person to do something which this Clause would entitle him to refuse to obey.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to explain this matter. Anyone who has served in the Forces knows how it would work. The officer would go on parade, and perhaps there would be 50 men there. He would be entitled to give a lawful order that all the men on parade were detailed to go to Swansea, or wherever it might be, to replace men on strike in an essential service. I say that that order, when he gives it, is a lawful order, and when one of the 50 says, "I am not going," he is refusing to obey a lawful order. The effect of accepting the Clause would be that he would be protected in refusing to obey a lawful order.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 83.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 44.)

In Section 44 of the Army Act (which provides for scale of punishments by courts-martial) paragraphs ( a ) ( b ) ( h ) and ( j ), shall be deleted.—[ Mr. McGovern. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The paragraphs referred to in the new Clause relate to sentences of death and penal servitude. On principle we are against the imposition of the death penalty either in civil or in military life. I sometimes find it much harder to defend the death penalty in military than in civil life because, after having conscripted men and inflamed their minds into doing all sorts of murderous things, even in defence, we seek to punish them if they exercise the same means on their own behalf. I am far from satisfied in my own mind with the way courts-martial are conducted, and the secrecy surrounding them, and I believe that the sentences that they impose are much too heavy in many cases. To support that view I would cite a Question, which is headed in the OFFICIAL REPORT "Disobedience to Orders (Salerno)," which I asked on Tuesday: was no doubt about the desire of the men to continue the fight. After having been assured that they were to go to their own units, they were suddenly switched to other units and they refused to obey the order to pick up their kits on the parade ground. The whole of the typewritten evidence in the case has been in my hands for some weeks, having been given to me by the father of one of the boys. He also gave me all the documents showing the names and number of every man concerned and the regiments. It is disturbing to know that nobody in this country seems to know publicly what happened in regard to the mutiny or to the men themselves. I was asked to raise the matter with regard to the boys who had been imprisoned. I could not understand the Secretary of State saying that, except in two cases, sentences had been suspended. On Thursday this week I received this letter from the father of one of the boys:

Grosvenor House,

Westwood,

Beverley,

E. Yorks.

"Dear Mr. McGOVERN,

I saw an article in the 'News Chronicle' (18th April, 1945) referring to the Salerno 'mutiny.'

Thank God someone is taking this case up. The reply by Sir James Grigg is a deliberate lie. The men have been in prison the whole time and are still there. I have a summary of the evidence, etc., also the names of the regiments and men, their rank and regimental numbers.

All these men were recovering from sickness, some not fully recovered, including my son suffering from malaria and Private Merrikin of Hull who was so ill he had to be carried back to hospital on a stretcher.

They were told they were to join their units and on disembarking at Salerno were ordered to join a different unit altogether. They were ordered to pick up their kit and join the 46th Division. The men did not move and the order was repeated. You can have the papers to see for yourself what actually happened.

My son was sent to Liverpool prison last November after being in prisons in Africa and has now been moved to Wormwood Scrubs. Other prisoners are with him and some are still in prison in the Middle East. One Hull boy whose parents lost their home in an air raid and was the main support of the home is still abroad, but we can put you in touch with his parents.

What does Sir James Grigg mean when he says the sentence was suspended and they were sent to the 8th Army? They are in prison and have been all the time—decent brave lads who would have fought anywhere with their old unit. We are going to get in touch with Mr. Muff and perhaps between you you can do something for these boys. I shall be pleased to give you any information I can.

My son's name is Archie Newmarch at present at Wormwood Scrubs and not, as Sir James Grigg says, with the 8th Army.

I remain,

yours sincerely,

E. NEWMARCH.

P.S.—My son was 20 years of age when this happened. He had fought in N. Africa and Sicily and offered his services with the paratroops.

The regiments named in the case are:

Durham Light Infantry.

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders.

East Yorkshire Regiment.

Gordon Highlanders.

Seaforth Highlanders.

Two men of the Black Watch.

One of the Royal Engineers.

Devon Regiment.

Two of the Cameronian Scottish Rifles.

One of the Dorset Regiment.

The sergeants were sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude."

In view of this letter and the fact that I have particulars of a case from Tolcross in my own division, and another from Uddington, some of us were rather disturbed by the Secretary of State's answer. I received another letter this morning from Mr. R. E. Jowett, 20, Royston Grove, Barnsley Street, Hull. The writer said he was pleased to see in the "Daily Herald" a report of my question, and he makes the same allegations regarding his son who was imprisoned. There is surely something wrong in this case. I have been told since that there is an answer from the Department, that certain things were concealed and that some of these men had mutinied later on. The fact is that the men were paraded and a Scottish officer read the Army Act, explained the law of mutiny, and appealed to them to pick up their kits, but they refused. There were 191 of them at first. There has been a complete "black-out" regarding these men, and the parents cannot get proper information about those who are reported to be in various prisons in this country and outside. I am sure that from what I have heard and know of this case there is a first-class case for some form of Parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances.

On a new Clause, the hon. Member cannot go into the question of setting up a committee of inquiry into a particular case.

I was only saying that in passing. We are moving this Clause because we are not satisfied with the way punishments are inflicted, and I gave this as a typical example of things that are happening. Heaven knows what other things that we know nothing about are happening in the Services. This happened two and a half years ago, in 1943, and it is now April, 1945. There has been no information concerning it, and in view of this "black-out" we wonder how many other cases are being hidden under the guise of national interest. When a question was asked, the Secretary of State refused to give the information regarding certain aspects. Therefore, we move this Clause because we are so dissatisfied both with the heavy penalties imposed and the method of concealment after the men were sent to prison. Complete information should be given to the wives and parents, and they should be alive to everything that has taken place on all issues. I take it that we are not yet in that totalitarian State to which we will move if some forces in this country have an opportunity. Because of the lateness in the day I do not intend to go further except to say that at this time, when a citizen Army is fighting the battles of this country, the death penalty should be abolished and penal servitude drastically reduced in order to conform to the wishes of the people.

My hon. Friend has referred to the special case which he called the case of the Salerno mutiny. I think he has rendered something of a disservice to the people concerned by raising it, because, having given certain particulars which are not completely accurate, I see no alternative but to give a little more information so that the matter can be put on a proper basis. At the same time, I have not all the details here, but I want to give all the information I have, and I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if it is not complete.

I do know sufficient to say this: There were 193 men involved and it is true to say that, broadly speaking, the difficulty arose because of their disinclination to be sent in a draft to a regiment other than the regiments to which they belonged. It is only right to say that 191 out of the 193 men had their sentences suspended. The remaining two were held on other charges, quite unconnected with the Salerno incident. The 191 men whose sentences were suspended, thereby came into the same position as anyone who is released on his own recognizances by a civil court. He is released forthwith, conditional upon being of good behaviour. I am glad to say that a very large proportion of the 191 men who were released have returned to the line, and have rendered splendid service in carrying out their duties as fighting soldiers. Unfortunately, a proportion of those who were released on suspended sentence committed a second offence and I am sure those are the cases to which my hon. Friend was referring, because they were tried, not on the old charge, but on a new charge of absence without leave, or whatever the offence was, and were court martialled, convicted and sentenced to whatever period of sentence was applicable to each individual case. That puts an entirely different complexion upon the picture as represented before the Committee.

4.0 p.m.

If that is the case, will the hon. and learned Gentleman state how it is that the information was not given and why the parents received no information?

Why cannot we have all the circumstances connected with other cases on the same lines?

I should have thought the less publicity given to such cases the better from the point of view of the relatives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has nothing to hide in this matter, and, in so far as he was guilty of not giving too much information, he was actuated by a desire to give a minimum amount of information in order to avoid pain to the families and relatives. I would say this, that the cases of those men who committed second offences and who are now under detention are under constant review, and they are at the moment under review by my right hon. Friend.

Is the first sentence of seven years' penal servitude operative?

I would not like to be dogmatic, but I would say "Yes," because they would be released conditionally upon good behaviour, but when they committed the second offence I imagine the first offence would be resuscitated.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know whether they committed mutiny twice?

No, I am not suggesting that for one moment. I said "other offences," and I think absence without leave would apply to some of them, but so far as I know there was certainly not a repetition of the first offence.

I turn to the Clause moved by my hon. Friend. I must state that it is impossible to accept it. We have large numbers of troops who are stationed in foreign countries, especially during war-time. It is impossible to bring the accused and all the witnesses say from Persia, India or Burma in order that the accused may be tried for murder, say at the Central Criminal Court in London; therefore, the Army Act gives courts-martial power to deal with charges of murder and serious offences of that nature such as manslaughter, and if necessary to impose the death sentence when a soldier is convicted of murder. The proposed Clause would be unworkable in the present circumstances, and the Government therefore cannot accept it.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that the wife and parents of every man will receive information on how these men are placed, because that is one of the greatest grievances of the lot?

I will examine that, but I ought to point out that there is nothing to prevent these soldiers from writing to their families. There is no bar on correspondence with their families, and they are able to keep their families informed of their condition.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is not the case that many of these men do not want their wives and parents to know?

That is going beyond this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 48.)

In Section forty-eight of the Army Act the following words shall be added at the end of Sub-section (3):

"And the members of a court-martial for the trial of an officer shall be of an equal, if not superior, rank unless, in the opinion of the convening officer, to be stated in the order convening the court and be conclusive, officers of that rank are not available."—[ Sir W. Allen. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the short notice I have given him in relation to this amendment of the Army Act. While I think that some English Member should have been responsible for an Amendment of this kind, I do not apologise for being an Ulsterman, in moving this Clause, as we are part of the big family of the United Kingdom. My principal idea in moving this Clause is to do away with the inconsistency between the Army Act and the Rules of Procedure. This is a very important point. Page 40 of the Army Act says, in Article 70, which deals with articles of war and rules of procedure: find on page 25, where this matter is dealt with, is this:

It is very important that the Financial Secretary should look at this. I think he will agree that there ought to be consistency between the Army Act and the Rules of Procedure. The Rules are made according to the Army Act and they ought not to be made with lack of consistency. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can show me the consistency between the Army Act and the Rules of Procedure, I shall be satisfied and will withdraw the proposed new Clause. In my opinion and that of many legal luminaries in this country there is inconsistency. When the Rules of Procedure were being considered, surely there was the impression that those responsible were making Rules consistent with the Army Act. Officer responsible for the Rules of Procedure would not have transgressed the Army Act by inconsistency, because that would have made the Rules of Procedure null and void.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will give me an assurance with regard to this important matter. It is important in the minds of those responsible for calling courts-martial, and who are given the Manual of Military Law for their guidance. They read there a rule which says that no officer under the rank of captain shall sit on a court-martial, but the Army Act does not say anything of the kind. I hope the Minister will be prepared to consider the matter, when I shall be quite satisfied.