52 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



Few desire to obtain this knowledge through an experience 

 of trial and imprisonment, and yet somewhere or other, either 

 directly or by implication, the region of safe criticism must 

 be outlined, dimly perhaps, or else discussion of matters of 

 the gravest import must be pretermitted. 



In the presence of difficulty in determining what is justifiable 

 and what culpable, appeal must be made to law, so that the 

 matter at the outset becomes an affair for the lawyer. And 

 this leads naturally to a consideration of the powers conferred 

 upon the military authorities by the Defence of the Realm 

 Acts, and by Regulations made thereunder. 



Stated shortly, these powers are well-nigh absolute. The 

 Court of Appeal in the Zadig case (The Times, February 10, 

 19 1 6) seems even to have decided that when a person is sub- 

 jected to non-punitive detention, the writ of habeas corpus may 

 be withheld. The only deduction from absolutism is to be 

 found in a pair of notable safeguards. In the first place, an 

 Act of March 191 5 gives a civilian the right to demand for 

 alleged major offences a trial by jury before a civil court. 

 Despotic exercise of power is therefore excluded. A further 

 restraint upon the unfettered jurisdiction of an army tribunal 

 is the existence of a democratic Government whereby at any 

 time the powers it has conferred may easily be abridged or 

 suspended or any officer guilty of harsh or arbitrary conduct 

 removed. In the case of " press offences," the definition of 

 which is wide, regulations provide for a reference to a law 

 officer of the Crown before proceedings are taken. 



Although a civilian, a British subject, has the right to trial 

 by jury for major offences — unless by proclamation the right 

 is withdrawn — the trial may be in camera, when, of course, no 

 publication of the proceedings takes place. Even when the 

 trial is not in camera, publication of details may be interdicted. 



The result is that the average citizen has little or no prece- 

 dent to guide him ; nor indeed has the lawyer, for he is in no 

 better position. In the words of the great Duke of Wellington, 

 " Martial law is neither more nor less than the will of the 

 general who commands the army. In fact, martial law means 

 no law at all." Criticism issues at the risk of the writer and 

 publisher. True there is the Censor to whom drafts may be 

 submitted ; but it by no means follows that all which passes 

 the censorial sieve may be scattered broadcast. Although an 



