HL Deb 01 March 1911 vol 7 cc234-50

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the words attributed to the First Lord of the Admiralty in The Times of 22nd February. in reply to Lord Hugh Cecil, are correct: "If any member submits to me a document and I approve it, that document has the approval of the Board of Admiralty"; and, if so, whether the words "the approval of the Board of Admiralty" are meant to have the same force in this connection as "a decision of the Board of Admiralty" taken at a formal meeting of the Board and, if so, whether he will lay on the Table the Orders in Council or other official documents establishing this rule.

The noble Earl said: My Lords. I thought it would be more convenient if I postponed this Question from yesterday, when your Lordships' time was more fully occupied, until to-day, and I understood that the noble Earl the Leader of the House was not averse to that course. I have put down my Question in this form for two reasons. I want to have the opportunity, in asking it, of allaying what I think may be a public misapprehension arising from the answer of the First Lord of the Admiralty in the House of Commons, and I want to point out to His Majesty's Government the grave and serious inconvenience that I think has been caused by the precedent they have set up in connection with this document which had the approval of the First Lord.

The First Lord of the Admiralty said, in answer to a Question—and I assume that the answer has been correctly reported— If any member submits to me a document and I approve it, that document has the approval of the Board of Admiralty.

Now, that is quite true, and yet it is untrue. A quorum of the Board of Admiralty is technically two members and the secretary, and therefore if one member of the Board brings to the First Lord a document of which he approves, and it is countersigned by the secretary, that document may be said to have the approval of the Board of Admiralty. But that rule only exists for matters of convenience. In the great routine of business for which the Admiralty is responsible it would be most inconvenient if every document going out with the authority of the Board had to be signed by every member of the Board and countersigned by the secretary. But in my experience it never applies to any matter of real importance. Take the Estimates. What would the House of Commons say if the Estimates were laid on the Table signed by two members of the Board of Admiralty only Why, they would send them back at once, and say, Why have not the other members signed? That is only an indication of the truth of what I say. While it is very convenient that matters of routine and of comparative unimportance can be dealt with on the authority of two members of the Board of Admiralty, I altogether protest against that process being applied to a matter of importance.

Now I come to the question, Was this or was this not a matter of importance? Before I consider that, let me point out how delicate is the position in our Constitution of the Sea Lords. The duty of a sailor all through his career, whether his functions are administrative or executive, is to obey the orders of his superiors. But at the moment in his career when he becomes a Sea Lord his functions change. He becomes an adviser, one of the constitutional advisers of the Government of the day on all matters that affect the administration of the Admiralty. It is not an easy task to fulfil with complete satisfaction. Very often a Sea Lord must be content to find himself overruled by the Cabinet. He will give advice which is not followed. He will have a policy decided upon of which he does not altogether approve. But in nine cases out of ten—indeed, in many more than that—his constitutional function and his duty will have been satisfied by his having given the best advice in his power, and lie will remain a Sea Lord and carry out the policy although he does not entirely agree with it,. But I am not to be supposed to mean that a Sea Lord should, in my opinion, never resort to resignation. I think there are cases—happily they have not occurred within my own experience, but I can imagine them—when a Sea Lord would feel it incompatible with his duty and self-respect to continue any longer to occupy that position. I mention that to show how delicate the position of the Sea Lord is; how he never should be obtruded into politics; how lie never should take part in Party politics; how even he should conceal his opinion in the majority of cases when the Government of the day are not taking his advice; though I do not admit that there could not be circumstances in which I should think he was doing his duty best by his country by refusing to continue in the position of a Sea Lord. That is the position of the Sea Lord, and although I have no personal knowledge of the constitution of the Army Council, I imagine the position of the military members of the Army Council is much the same.

What is the position of His Majesty's Government towards these Sea Lords? They have the right to ask for the personal opinion of the Sea Lords. I do not deny that, but I do deny that a Government have the right to publish their notes as the opinion of the Board of Admiralty. Why should they? They can always go to the Board of Admiralty and ask for their opinion, formally and constitutionally. The Government have a perfect right to ask for the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, and it is quite clear that it is the duty of the Board of Admiralty in its corporate capacity to give the best advice it can on any subject referred to it. It can only rest with the Government of the day whether that advice is to be published or not. They alone can at any moment be the judges of the public interest in the matter. But what I want to lay stress upon is this, that if on great matters of State the opinion of the Sea Lords or military members of the Army Council is to be made public, there is only one constitutional way in which that should be done, and that is by the Government of the day seeking the formal advice of the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council and then laying that opinion before Parliament. In this case I do not know what the opinion of the Army Council, on the one hand, or of the Board of Admiralty on the other may be. Surely nothing could have been easier than for the Government to get an expression of opinion on the subjects concerned and to publish them.

But what have the Government done? They have published the opinion of two individual very important Sea Lord, an officer for whom every one of your Lordships has the most profound respect, and an ex-Adjutant-General. I have no reason to assume that the opinions of these two officers do not reflect the corporate opinions of the bodies to which they belong, or recently belonged, but I am entitled to assume that it might not be so. I do assume, for the purposes of this question, that there may be a Sea Lord on the one hand who takes a different view, though I think it very unlikely, and I do assume that there may be a military member of the Army Council who takes a different view from the military view published in the pamphlet to which Sir Arthur Wilson's notes form an appendix. But if there are such, are the Government going to allow their views to he made known in a rival pamphlet? I can conceive no precedent more detrimental to the public service. But on what grounds would they refuse permission? That is the point which I earnestly want to lay before His Majesty's Government and ask them to consider. Have they not set a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent? It seems to me that what was done was lightly done, and that the ulterior consequences were not thought out. It would have been perfectly legitimate, as I have said, to lay the views of the Board of Admiralty or of the Army Council before Parliament. His Majesty's Government have a perfect right to do that, and it may sometimes be their duty to do so. But I do protest against the inevitable result of this unfortunate precedent which has been set—namely, the danger of dragging great expert naval and military advisers into the political arena. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the noble Earl has asked his Question in terms of great moderation, and we all recognise the authority with which he speaks as a former head of the Admiralty. Although I have never been in either of the Departments concerned, I will endeavour to the best of my ability to give an answer to the Question. The remarks of my right hon. friend the First Lord were made in another place in reply to a supplementary question, and, as I think the noble Earl clearly understood, were simply intended to refer to the established procedure of the Admiralty by which two of the Lords Commissioners executing the office of Lord High Admiral are empowered to act for the Board. As everybody knows, for the discussion of current business full meetings of the Board are held, and, so far as ordinary business is concerned, no departure has been made from the established practice in the matter.

But as regards the particular question of the Memorandum on which the noble Earl has founded his observations, there is this point to be considered, that in these matters the practice of the Admiralty and of the War Office is different. Memoranda issued by, the Admiralty always appear anonymously; Memoranda issued by the War Office habitually appear under the signature of one of the members of the Army Council; and in this instance this particular Memorandum was supplied for use in a debate in this House. It was intended to be for my use, in the first instance, in a debate which has not yet taken place, but which is to take place, I understand, later on, on the Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts. That Memorandum was supplied to the War Office, and in being issued was issued in the War Office manner with the initials of the First Sea Lord. I am not quite sure whether the noble Earl complains that the Memorandum was issued under initials, or that it was issued at all. He can hardly complain that it was issued under initials because that makes it clear that, although it was issued by the authority of the Board of Admiralty, it represents the stated views of the First Sea Lord.

Rather, I understand, the noble Earl objects to the First Sea Lord having issued a Memorandum at all. I do not find myself in any general agreement with the noble Earl opposite. There is a great deal to be said for preserving complete anonymity in these matters, and for leaving, so far as possible, individual opinions out of controversy. But I would ask the House to consider what happens with regard to these questions of national defence. On the opposite side you find that officers of both Services on the active list write, speak, and are freely quoted in support of particular views. No officer on the active list, be he Field-Marshal or anybody else, has any right to criticise the policy of the Government of the day. That is a rule which cannot in all its fulness be adhered to, but if it is going to be broken with the freedom with which it is habitually broken, it is not inadvisable, I think, that opinions of other officers of distinction who for the time being hold office under the Government should be placed before the country. To that extent, and to that extent only. I think in this one particular matter of national defence it is not unreasonable to depart from that rule of anonymity which we all agree in every department of the public service ought to be scrupulously maintained.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, there is one detail which appears to me to have been omitted from this discussion, and that is that any ordinary member of the public, on seeing that a document had been submitted to the Admiralty and approved, would think that it had received the approval of some, at any rate, of the Sea Lords of the Admiralty. Yet we understand that a document submitted by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to the First Lord, and without any seaman, either at the Admiralty or elsewhere, having been consulted at all, would pass to the general public as a document having received the approval of the Board of Admiralty. I think it is a misfortune that such a misconception should continue, and I think it ought to be made clear on what occasions the opinions receive the approval of the Sea Lords. At the present moment a document of that sort may be published without a single sailor of any experience having been consulted at all. The Sea Lords should not have that heavy additional burden placed on their shoulders.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I think this subject is one of rather more importance than the noble Earl the Leader of the House appeared to think in the remarks which he addressed to your Lordships. Every one who has had experience of the Admiralty knows perfectly well that the doctrine which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, laid down from his experience as First Lord of the Admiralty undoubtedly expresses the correct theory of what the Board of Admiralty is; but the noble Earl did not, I think, sufficiently go into the details of this matter.

This question arises in the following way. There has been laid on your Lordships' Table a Command Paper entitled "Notes supplied by the Admiralty"—not by a person who puts his initials to them, but by the Admiralty—"for the use of the War Office in a debate which was to have taken place in November, 1910." In the first instance, I ask your Lordships whether any of you remember a Paper put forward in such a form as that. There is no doubt of this, that Lord Roberts and a body known as the National Service League entertain very strong opinions on this matter, and His Majesty's Government entertain very strong opinions on the other side. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal intended to raise this matter in a debate. That was just at the close of last session and Parliament was about to prorogue, and therefore it was not convenient for the noble Earl at that time to raise the debate. Very likely he may be going to do so later; but surely the Government might have left their defence until they had heard what he had to say. Instead of that they print, not a posthumous, but an untimely-born Memorandum of this sort alluding to a debate which was to have taken place, and which, as the noble Earl tells us, is going to take place hereafter. In other words, they have given their answer to Lord Roberts before Lord Roberts has told them what he has to say.

The noble Earl said that this Memorandum was supplied in the first instance above the initials "A.K.W.," the initials of Sir Arthur K. Wilson, who, as we all know, is a very distinguished officer and one who enjoys very largely the confidence of the Navy. I have heard that one of the reasons why he enjoys the confidence of his brother officers and of the Service is that he is very much opposed to anything like publication or advertisement or anything of that kind. I wonder when he wrote this Minute whether he was told that this use as going to be made of it. The noble Earl has told us that there is no, objection to Sir Arthur Wilson's Minute because it was published with his initials. What I object to is that when it appears in this Paper his initials are not there. I have in my hand a book, and Sir Arthur Wilson's Memorandum is published at the end of the Book, and it is perfectly true that the initials "A.K.W." appear there.

I think I can show your Lordships the reasons which caused this Minute to be published. It was published for the purpose of aiding the defence of the War Office against Lord Roberts. The book that I hold in my hand originated with the Secretary of State for War, who is very much opposed to compulsory service, of which Lord Roberts, I believe, is in favour.

The Minister for War asked Sir Ian Hamilton, of course knowing his opinions with regard to compulsory service perfectly well, to write what his opinions were. Sir Ian Hamilton did so. Mr. Haldane then says— I have thought it right to publish this Memorandum, written for me by one who has very recently been Adjutant-General. It is an unofficial document originally prepared for my private information. Up to this point Sir Ian Hamilton gives his private and unofficial opinion. Mr. Haldane then proceeds to give his private, and I do not know whether official or unofficial opinion, and publishes it in the form of this book. The first edition of the book appears not to have had a very large circulation. Then out comes the second edition, and at the end of the book as it then appeared is this Minute of Sir Arthur Wilson's, with Sir Arthur's initials at the bottom of it. But listen to how Mr. Haldane describes it— In Appendix V111, I have, with their permission, printed the notes supplied by the Board of Admiralty for the use of the War Office in a debate which was to have taken place last November. The Secretary of State says it was supplied "by the Board of Admiralty." He quotes it as an official Minute. Which is it? Is it official or is it unofficial? It cannot be both. In the form in which it is given to your Lordships it certainly appears to be an official Paper coming from the Board of Admiralty, because the initials "A.K.W." do not appear.

The noble Earl said, very truly. that it is not allowed to officers in high places to criticise the Government. Then does it come to this, that the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty may call upon an individual officer to write his opinions and may print them as official, and yet at the same time exercise his discretion and not call upon any officers who might not agree with him? At the Board of Admiralty and the War Office there are, no doubt, differences of opinion among various members. But the Secretary of State does not call upon any of those who disagree with him to write their opinions—not a bit. He then puts forward these views, and adds a Minute written by a member of the Board of Admiralty which he calls "the opinion of the Board of Admiralty" and publishes it in that form. I venture to think that that is a very unjustifiable method of procedure.

I object to the mode which the War Office has of defending its proceedings. When debates have been raised in this House we have listened to speeches which, though very able speeches, do not seem to some of us to relate very closely to the facts of the case. It really has come to this, that by a sort of system of question and answer, invented largely by the Duke of Bedford, we manage finally to extract certain figures which are by no means favourable to the Territorial Force or to the conditions at the War Office. But then what is the line which the War Office take? They do not go into the facts much in this House. The-Secretary of State makes speeches in the country; he writes books and quotes Minutes which are not official and yet calls-them official. The War Office prefer that mode of defending themselves. I must say I never heard of a Sea Lord writing a. Minute of this kind and printing it, or allowing it to be printed, as if it were the opinion of the Board of Admiralty.

The First Lord of the Admiralty appears to me to be rather inclined to treat his Board as a set of dummies. Only yesterday, in the House of Commons, Mr. McKenna was asked if the Board of Admiralty sits regularly or only occasionally; if it is still a consulting and deliberative body to which all important questions of naval policy and administration are submitted; and if the Board records agreement or disagreement with the questions submitted to the Board. Mr. McKenna replied— At the discretion of the First Lord, the Board of Admiralty meets from time to time to consult and deliberate on important questions of naval policy and administration. Is the whole question of the purpose of our Fleet an important question? Yet this Minute was dismissed without any meeting of the Board, and was published simply on the ipse dixit of one member of the Board. Then the following question was put to Mr. McKenna— Will the right hon. gentleman answer the first part of my question: Whether the Board of Admiralty sits regularly or only occasionally? Mr. McKenna replied— I said from time to time. It therefore appears that this procedure on the part of the Board of Admiralty, under which a Minute is signed by only two members of the Board, is by no means so exceptional as it used to be during the tenure of office of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I should like to know whether Mr. McKenna authorised the production of this matter, and whether he approved of the Minute being published in this book. I can hardly imagine that he can have been very much obliged to his colleague for printing this official or unofficial Minute in this sort of way.

If this be the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, pray what is the constitution of the Army Council? Are they a set of dummies? Sir Ian Hamilton is asked to give his opinion. It is well known what his opinion is. Well, but what is the opinion of the other members of the Army Council? I imagine we must look at this book as the private production of Mr. Haldane and Sir Ian Hamilton. What I object to is that in a case of this sort there should be appended a Minute which the publisher of the book says proceeds from the Board of Admiralty. I think this precedent is a most awkward one, and I hope it will never be repeated.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, after the speech of the noble Earl opposite and the admission which he made that he was not otherwise than generally in accord with the remarks made by my noble friend, it is rather difficult to pursue this matter. But certain points have arisen which seem to me so likely to discredit the whole belief in the statements of the Board of Admiralty and of the Army Council that I think we ought to clear them up before we leave the subject. The noble Earl told us that this special document, so far as it affected the Admiralty, simply conveyed the opinion of Sir Arthur Wilson. whose initials are at the bottom of it; but, as Lord Camper-down has just pointed out, that very opinion is in an official Paper laid before Parliament, headed "Views of the Admiralty." It must be one thing or the other. Either it conveys the views of Sir Arthur Wilson—and we have riot yet heard whether Sir Arthur Wilson consented to its publication—or it conveys the views of the Board of Admiralty, in which case it is, of course, at the option of the Board of Admiralty whether it shall be published or not.

The noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, asked earlier in the evening, When is a promise not a promise? I feel inclined to ask, When is the First Lord of the Admiralty the Board of Admiralty and when is he not the Board of Admiralty? and to go a little further and ask a similar question with regard to the Secretary of State for War. Nothing has been said as regards this important point—Why was this publication permitted at all, and has the Secretary of State the power to authorise the publication or has he not? All power, according to the King's Regulations, in such a matter rests with the Army Council except in matters which the Secretary of State for War specially reserves to himself, and it has always been customary to treat the King's Regulations as guiding every man, including the Secretary of State.

If the House will pardon me I will call attention to three of the Regulations which bear specially upon this matter. By Regulation 453 an officer or soldier is— forbidden to publish or communicate, either directly or indirectly, to the Press any military information or his views on any military subject without special authority. That special authority, we must assume, was given by the Secretary of State's prologue at the beginning of the book, but I very much doubt whether anything of the kind was contemplated by the Regulation, or whether there is any precedent for anything of the kind ever having been done before. Later on the same Regulation specially states that— an officer is not to prejudge questions which are under the consideration of his superior military authority by the publication, anonymously or otherwise, of his opinions, and he is not to take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations, or instructions issued by his superiors. It is impossible to write a book of the kind in question without discussing, in public, orders, regulations, and instructions issued by superiors. And that brings us at once to the question put by the noble Earl behind me—Would an officer who desired to write on the opposite side to Sir Ian Hamilton be allowed to do so? It is an important question. I do not say I would defend it, but I think we ought to be told whether this stretching of this regulation, which was obviously intended to be a deterrent, is only to be permitted when an officer is prepared to write on the side of the Secretary of State and is not to be allowed if he wishes to criticise the view which the Secretary of State has taken.

Then there is Regulation 443, which lays it down that discussions by officers or soldiers with the object of conveying praise, censure, or any mark of approbation in regard to their superiors or any others in His Majesty's Service are prohibited. How is it possible to write a book like this, teaming with remarks, I will not say derogatory to, but depreciating the conclusions of those who differ from the Secretary of State, and lauding one after another each of the expedients which the Secretary of State has put forward and which have been denounced by Lord Roberts, without using laudatory remarks about your superiors which is forbidden by the Regulations? I wish to say a word on the selection of one distinguished officer who had been only a few weeks before a member of the Army Council to convey opinions on which it is very probable there is disagreement in the Army Council. Let me say that I have not had any communication, directly or indirectly, either since this book was published or before, with any man in the War Office with regard to this or any other question. I do not deny Sir Ian Hamilton's very high qualifications for command, or the deserved approbation which he has obtained in all the commands he has held and in all the posts he has filled; but h deny Sir Ian Hamilton's right to be selected by the Secretary of State as a person of peculiar knowledge as Adjutant-General on this particular subject. There is hardly a soldier in a high position in the Army or of his eminence who has spent less time in the War Office and has less knowledge of the details of the subject of recruiting than Sir Ian Harnilton. And when I remember that there are present in the War Office at this moment officers like the Chief of the General Staff, Sir William Nicholson, who has written, I suppose, this book several times over in Minutes on this very question, I think the country has some right to complain that we are given the opinion of one distinguished officer unchecked by those with whom he was serving some time before. That is the inconvenience I see in this. I do not say that there has been any attempt to muzzle any one, but I do suggest that this is a most inconvenient precedent, and I hope the fact that this discussion has taken place and that public attention has been called to it. will prevent its ever being followed.

LORD BRASSEY

My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the discussion on questions of official rule and precedent. The observations I shall venture to offer will be directed to general considerations. In the circumstances of the hour the publication of Sir Arthur Wilson's Minute was not, I would submit, ill-timed. Public confidence has been rudely shaken. It has been contended that our naval supremacy is gone or going, that we are open to invasion, that we are unable to assure the safety of our communications across the seas. All this has been discouraging to the burdened taxpayer.

Parliament has been liberal in votes for the Navy. In the ten years, 1901–10, our expenditure exceeded £338,000,000, as against £134,000,000 for Germany. Vindication of Admiralty policy was needed. It has been given by Sir Arthur Wilson. He speaks with authority. As he shows—and it is well that it should be shown—our expenditure in the past has not been misapplied. We are assured—and it is good to have the assurance—that if there were danger, and surely there never was a more imaginary danger, of an invasion from the other side of the North Sea, the Admiralty has somewhere within wireless call nearly double the number of battleships and cruisers that the officer leading the attack could muster. It is well to know that as an inner line of defence we have our destroyers and submarines stationed along the coast. It has been our policy to push the construction of submarines and to improve the type.

Once more, my Lords, our naval administration has not been inefficient. Other Powers may strengthen their battle line more rapidly in proportion to the sums voted. The conditions are not identical. The charge for manning the British Navy necessarily shows an excess as compared with foreign countries. We man our ships with volunteers, and we have a large preponderance in the number of permanent men. If Parliament votes men, ships must be commissioned. Our naval training is on a scale not approached elsewhere. With us expenditure on construction cannot be concentrated on battleships. Half the world's tonnage is under our national flag. The Admiralty is responsible for its protection. Our strength in first-class cruisers measured by dis- placement is equal to the combined cruiser force of the United States, France, Germany, and Japan. Works involve a heavy charge. The extensions in our home yards constitute a burden which we have to bear in common with other countries. In addition, we have our vast expenditure on distant yards in foreign stations. No similar charge lies on foreign administrations. We should have an advantage in time of war. When we take into view all the responsibilities of the British Admiralty, it cannot be contended that any of our defensive preparations have been uncalled for or their cost excessive.

My Lords, if we are strong to-day, we have to maintain our position. In new construction, as the Returns laid before Parliament have shown, we had in recent years been falling behind. The instinct of self-preservation has compelled us to renewed exertions. For a time—and we hope for a short time only—they must be sustained. We must be prepared for increased Estimates for the Navy. Encouraged by the assurances lately given, Parliament will not refuse the needful supplies, and if in any degree the Paper which has been under criticism should discourage the ill-timed movement for cutting down the Estimates, its publication will not have been in vain.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)

My Lords, I do not rise to say anything upon the matter which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, directly raised in his notice on the Paper—namely, the Admiralty Memorandum—but rather for the purpose of answering one or two remarks on the question as affecting the War Office and the Army Council. First of all, I think a certain amount of confusion of thought exists with regard to the position of Sir Ian Hamilton in writing for my right hon. friend the Memorandum which is published in this book. Sir Ian Hamilton was not a member of the Army Council when he wrote it, nor, if he had been, does it necessarily follow that he wrote it in his capacity as a member of the Army Council. He wrote it in his position as ex-Adjutant General who, by virtue of that position, was in close touch with the most practical sides of the questions involved in the subject under discussion; and it was not written, as is plainly stated, in any sense as an Army Council's Memorandum, nor does it purport in any way to represent the views of the Army Council. Therefore, the question of the responsibility of the Army Council with regard to it does not come in under that head. The responsibility, if the Army Council comes in at all, arises in regard to the publication of the document. I do not know that that point has been raised. But I would only say that the propriety of authorising publication is completely covered by the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the. Order in Council issued when noble Lords opposite were in power—the Letters Patent and the Order in Council which brought the Army Council into existence.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I should like to ask the noble Lord this practical question. If at this moment an officer on full pay were to reply to Mr. Haldane's book, would that matter be dealt with by the Secretary of State alone, or would not the Adjutant-General be the person who would be forced to give the Secretary of State his advice before the Secretary of State dealt with it?

LORD LUCAS

I will deal with that in a moment. The noble Viscount commented on Sir Ian Hamilton's capacity for writing on this subject. On that I would sooner leave the Memorandum to speak for itself. My own view is that the Memorandum will take a great deal of answering, and that Sir Ian Hamilton's career specially fits him in an all-round way for dealing with the complex questions, which must be to a great extent theoretical, as to what the effect of the proposed alterations is going to be. I come now to the question of the advisability of the policy of permitting publication, in view of the general prohibition, which the noble Viscount has quoted, in the King's Regulations against publishing views on military subjects without authority. To that I would reply that if we have erred at all in this matter, we have been too lenient in permitting the publication by officers on the active list of views which we did not ourselves hold. The noble Viscount asked whether any officer who conies under the terms of the Regulation which he quoted had been permitted to publish views which are not held by us. I would refer, as the most obvious case, to the case of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, who is, by virtue of being a Field-Marshal, an officer on the active list. We have never interfered, and should not dream of interfering, with his publishing the views he holds. Nevertheless, the fact that Lord Roberts does speak and write in favour of national service is an infringement of Article 453 of the Royal Warrant. But, as I say, we do not for a moment attempt to prevent his doing it. We do not attempt to prevent other people in his position from doing it; but had we exercised the full powers which we undoubtedly have under the King's Regulations, the necessity for publishing this book would not have arisen. It is due to the fact, that. these publications have already taken place that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State thought that the time had come when sonic sort of rejoinder should be made, and undoubtedly when you are going to make a rejoinder the best thing to do on a subject of this kind is to take the opinions of people who can give you actual official experience on the matter.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I put the question with regard to an officer attacking the view of the Secretary of State, and I am replied to by the noble Lord citing the case of Lord Roberts. But the noble and gallant Field-Marshal writes as a private individual, although he is still on the active list. Does the noble Lord contend that Sir Ian Hamilton wrote as a private individual when he wrote not Merely under the œgis of the Secretary of State, but quoted an official document of the Admiralty which is not known to the public and which is only made known to the public through this book

LORD LUCAS

I was not attempting to reply upon anything the noble Viscount said with regard to the Admiralty Memorandum, as I thought that the whole of that ground had been sufficiently covered by my noble friend the Leader of the House. What I was attempting to answer was the point which the noble Viscount raised as to how far it is either expedient or legal for officers on the active list to be allowed to make publications on a subject of this kind.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I have only one word to say in reply. I certainly do not regret having brought forward this subject. It seems to me that the question can be put in a nutshell. If Sir Ian Hamilton's Memorandum embodies the views of the Army Council, why could not the Army Council endorse it and have it published as their opinion in the form of a Parliamentary Paper? In the same way, if Sir Arthur Wilson's views are those of the Board of Admiralty, the proper and only Constitutional course was to have them communicated to Parliament as the views of the Board of Admiralty in a Parliamentary Paper.

House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.