DEATH PENALTY

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 3 April 1925, Page 5

DEATH PENALTY

IN BRITISH ARMY

ABOLITION DEFEATED

AUSTRALIA’S EXAMPLE QUOTED

BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT. LONDON, April 1.

In the House of Commons, while Sir L. Wor thi ngton-E va n s (Minister ior War) was replying to a debate, Mr. Thurtle (Labour) intervened, saying: “In view of the fact that the Australian Government' refused to put on its troops the painful duty of executing their colleagues, does not the Minister for War think he might accord similar treatment to British soldiers ?” Sir L. Worthingion-Evans: “The member is not quite right in regard to the conditions under which the Australians served. The death penalty was not entirely abrogated. There was a death penalty for mutiny, treachery and desertion to the enemy. I think a comparison between a the Australians and the British troops is likely to make mischief so I do not propose to answer Mr. Thurtle’s question.” In the committee stage of the Army Annual Bill Mr. Thurtle moved an amendment to the death penalty. Be argued that there, was no difference between what the army called a nervous breawdown. It was an insult to the whole British army to hold the threat of the death penalty ove r them. Not a single Australian had been executed in war .time because the A ustralians said that their soldiers should not bo executed. The fact that the death penalty had not operated against, the Australians did not mean that they fought less determinedly or courageously than other troops. He demanded in the name of the Labour Party that the British Government should apply the Australian condition to their own troops. Colonel G. D. White (Conservative) said that in the Australian camps in France, while 999 out of a thousand Avere magificent men, the residue were not nervous, trembling, shrinking lads as Mr. Thurtle described, but big, burly fellows, who deserted the line, bid in the woods and played crown and anchor. They openly boasted that it was a better' way‘to make money than being in tne line. Mr. H. Snell (Labour) said the Australian example was valuable as showing that the modern nation, knowing its own sons, trusted them to hold its honour in good repute without holding over them the dreadful penalty of capital punishment. Sir L. Worthington-Evnns, in replying, said the question had been thrashed out from every point of view. Oii first-hand evidence two-committees had reported against the abolition of the death penalty in serious cases. A latercommittee favoured certain alterations, which he accepted and incorporated in the Bill before the House. The death penalty was intended as a deterrent rather than as a,punishment, and its retention was in-the interests of the army. He had no intention of entering upon any mischievous and invidious compaTisons between the Australian and British armies. The amendment was defeated by 320 votes to 136.

IN VIDIOUS COMPARISONRESENTED IN CANADA.

OTTAWA, April 1. Sir Arthur Currie, Commander-in Chief of the Canadian Forces Overseas, commenting on the statement made in the British House of Commons by the Secretary for War that 25 Canadians and five New Zealanders but no Australians had been executed during xhe Great War, declared: “I't is hard to understand why such a question was asked or answered in the British House of Commons without reference to Canada. The matter concerned Canada alone, and it is hard to see what conceivable good could be derived from the information.” Sir Arthur Currie says the answer given by the Minister makes a most unfair comparison between the Canadians and the Australians. He says the Governments of the Dorpinions never gave up authority over their own troops, but so far as discipline was concerned this authority was delegated more or less completely to the Com-mander-in-Chief of the British Armies in France. This principle was definitely stated in the agreement between the War Office and the Minister for the Overseas Military Forces of Canada. Australia delegated authority on this point less completely than did Canada. For one thing no court-martial on an Australian soldier could take place without one or.more Australian officers being on the court'. In the same way it was generally known that no death sentences on Australian soldiers were ever to be approved. This, while never published in orders, was perfectly well: known and realised.

“I do not,” he said, “wish to make any reflections on the conduct of the Australians, but the fact that none were executed while 25 Canadians were proved nothing. If the facts of the case as reported are correct, I consider the British Government committed another stupid blunder and struck a dangerous blow at Imperial friendship.”