THE ARMY DEATH PENALTY

Hokitika Guardian, 19 April 1930, Page 6

THE ARMY DEATH PENALTY

PROVISIONS REINSTATED.

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS

(Official Wireless.)

RUGBY, April 15

The House of Lords passed by 4;> votes to 12, an amendment to the Army illK l Air Force. Annual Bill deleting the clause which abolishes the death pi n alty for cowardice in lace of the eneinv and for desertion. The amendment, which was moves hv Lord Eitzalan, wins supported by Field-Marshal Lord Plainer, who said that as a senior officer of the Ariuv he whole-heartedly supported it. The retention of the death penalty was necessary for the preservation of discipline while on active service. The success or failure of an operation depends for the most part on the morale of troops. Ho did not believe that penal servitude, which the Bill provided, instead of the death penalty, was an adequate substitute.

Fi ( dd Marshall Lord Allanby also supported the amendment. He said that an alteration in the existing law would tend to suggest to the minds of young soldiers that these offences were regarded as being less great than they were.

Lord Thomson, Secretary for ;Ail, said that the Government could not reconsider its decision in this matter. Tie juul himself with reluctance gone against the advice of the Air Council in giving approval of the abolition of the death penalty for cowardice and allied .offences. The difference between the men who sacked Badajoz and the men of to-day was such that one could not apply the same rides to them. The ordinary private soldier of to-day was ten times as civilised and sensitive human beings as those soldiers were. The Hohse of Lords could not disregard the result of the free voting in favour of abolition given in the House of Commons. If their Lordships sent the Bill hack to the Commons lie could assure them that it would come back to them with peccant sections reinstated.

The Committee stage of the Bill was completed and 1 the Bill passed the remaining stages.' It has now to return to the House of Commons for consideration of the amendment of the' House df Lords. The'House of Lords was to have adjourned to-night for the Faster recess, hut will now meet again on Thursday to receive the Bill back from the House' of Commons. ’

(Received tlbis day at 8 a.m.)' ‘hondon; April The House of Lords passed Lord Thomson’s motion not to. insist on the amendment deleting the death penalty. Lord Thomson said the authorities would carefully consider Lord Allien by’,s and Lord Pkiiiier’s request during the next twelve months.

(Otago ‘‘Daily Times.”)

The attitude of the Home Government in relation to the abolition,... of the death penalty in the British Army, except in the. cases of treachery and mutiny, indicates, the emergence of a more ImmanerAy'i'ew of the frailties of the soldier. The Great Warsaw many df the'. old army customs-Alis-plaeod, customs.that had stood for centuries. The. inpnediate further, changes,yand now we come to one which is probably the most" important of all. In the British Parliament heated discussions around this subject have taken place, isome of the militarists showing themselves unwilling to alter' very much the existing state of affairs, hut the majority of members being agreed that the time is ripe for placing the law on a more sensible footing. A brief outline of the old law may prove illuminating. In England there was no regular, standing army .until after Hie Restoration in lefiO. and the deed' nenc'ty was inflicted only hv the law o'' the laud. The Articles issued bv Janies If for d'seipline in tlie army ey-’re.H'-lv "• ; l>ited tlie infliction of ■-my mi’.' .I'incnt amounting to loss of life or limb. Jn 1(589 ' xlie Mutiny Act was passed, hastened by the fact that eight hundred mutineers enlisted by .Tames IT, who. had been ordered by William to embark for Holland, were marching to Ipswich. By this Act muliny and desertion were punished with death or such less penalty as was imposed hv tin* court-martial. Until 1.712 the Mutiny Act. which was passed annually up to 1878, did not extend to the dominions.

The death penalty was prescribed for three groans of offences, those committed on active .service and relating to our own troops, those in connection with the enemy., and those eomnr.tted at anv time while the. troops were uader martial law. In the first group there are such offences as going in search of plunder, striking a sentinel, ooing violence, to any person bringing -supplies. sleeping or being drunk while on guard, leaving a post without orders, making known Hie pass-ward, creating a falsi' alarm. Tlie offences committed in connection wRh ihe onomv were shamefully surrendering, sending a flag or truce, casting away arms, cowardice before t> o rm ny. and, as a prisoner, shamefully serving the enemy.

The two offences punislmd with math when committed at any time wle-o the soldier was subject to martial law were mutinv and insubordination, ami wdlvd disobedience of an order given nv a commanding officer. There can be no <lonl>t Hint, ns the law stood, it was harsh. Most of the offences mentioned above are eertainlv serious, but ■few of them merit the extreme penalty, The reasons for the change are sufficiently obvious. Tn tlie first place we can claim to have become more

civilised and to realise more fully the value of the human life. The British soldier is generally a different type from that in existence when the law was first framed. The army is no suitable home for the swashbucklei the renegade, and the vagabond. Previously, the law was on a pai with the unjust and strict civil code which meted out punishment out of all proportion to the offence.

"Weapons and methods of war have changed beyond recognition. The intensity of a modern engagement constitutes such a severe physical and mental strain as to break down rapidly the hardiest man. To shoot a soldier for falling asleep while on guard is to make no allowances for these conditions. To rule that men whom the long strain and misery of war may have completely broken up should be shot for so-called cowardice i,s likewise to ignore the contributory circumstances. Strict discipline is at all timi's necessary in an army, and .that which the British soldier had always been accustomed to was no doubt responsible for the fine fighting quality of the troops. One cannot imagine a. poorly disciplined body conducting such a masterly operation as the retreat from Mons. With the advent of the League or Nations war does not appear quite so imminent and the horrors of 1914 cataclysm have deprived it of moist' of its glamour. No sensible person can . ever wish to experience another war,' but if it should come the reasonable desire would bo that our fighting forces ■: be subject to strict discipline, tempered with cominoiiisense and the largest possible leaven of humanity consistent with tbe maintenance' by the troops of that high standard in morale and efficiency set by the countless heroes who before them trod so faithfully the path of dutv.