The Duke of Cambridge on Military Law.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3041, 13 November 1878, Page 1

The Duke of Cambridge on Military Law.

His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief gave evidence before • Select Committee of the House of Commons : now encaged in inquiring into the operation of the Mutiny Acts, and the best means of consolidating the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act. He stated that if the consolidation of the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act could be effected without placing any restriction upon the present system of government in the army he would not in any way object to it. About 64 per cent, of tbe offences committed by soldiers were desertions. The deserters were principally young men. The letter which appeared in The, Times 11th of February,. 1876, from Deputy Adjutant • General Armstrong fully represented his views. ,It was addressed tothecommandingoficers throughout the army. It was, as follows:— " The attention of the Field - Marshal Commanding\in-Chief : having been called to the prevalence of acts of insubordination committed chiefly by very young soldiers, I hare it in command to request that the subject may be seriously considered by all officers commanding corps in your district. It appears to his Royal Highness that in many instances young soldiers of good character have been tried by Court-martial for this eriine who might with greater advantage to tbe service have been dealt with summarily by their commanding officer. In dealing with cases of insubordination it is essential to take into careful consideration the circumstances under which they were committed and to discriminate between those committed under aggravation from those done deliberately. 'The former are frequently the result of a hot and hasty temper, the latter spring from confirmed wilfulness and bad spirit. A soldier iv the first year or two of his service has not always been able to shake himself, free from the effects of his early training in civil life, and frequently does not realise the consequences attendant upon acts of insubordination in the army. His Royal Highness is of opinion that in many instances the want of tact and proper manner on the part of non-com-missioned officers gives rise to theet acts of violence on the part of young soldiers, who are frequently very sorry for their conduct when they have had time to reflect.' In cases. wbere a commanding officer is of opinion that an act of insubordination is attributable to this cause His Royal Highness considers that a serious admonition (joined, perhaps, to a slight punishment) and an ample apology to the non • commissioned officer concerned, together with an expression of regret for his improper conduct by the prisoner, might meet the ease. Commanding officers in their daily intercourse' with their non-commissioned officers should impress upon them the necessity of especial discretion in their dealings with young soldiers, warning them against all harshness of tone or manner in the delivery of orders or instructions. Inexperienced non-commis-sioned officers are sometimes, too prone to confine men for trifling faults of temper that non commissioned officers of standing would have dealt with by bringing the offender before the officer commanding his company. As a general rule, His Hoy a I Highness does not wish soldiers to be confined for trivial offences by noncommissioned officers when the case can be inquired into by the officer commanding the offender's company, or, in his absence, by the adjutant, or by the officer on regimental duty shoßld the adjutant not ,be in barracks. His Royal Highness does not wish to lay down any very positive regulation, but desires me to express his views generally on the subject for the consideration of officers commanding corps in your district. He still adhered to the views expressed in that letter." He approved in certain cases of the appointment of a preliminary court of enquiry before a case was sent to a Court-martial, but such a court should not be subject to special regulations, because it was seldom they had two cases alike. Courts of, preliminary inquiry would, he thought, be more practicable in a time of peace than in time of war. Everything connected with military law should*be made clear and simple. So long as the soldiers had only to deal with the Articles of War there was no difficulty, as they thoroughly understood them. He hud no objection to the Bill on army discipline, which had been drafted so long, as no rights were given up and none of the powers of the army authorities were taken away. He thought the elasticity of the existing army regulations should be allowed to remain. The soldiers were .- not likely to take much interest in the proposed Bill. They understood the bare principles of the Articles of War, but did not care to so into tbe details of the matter.—Times.