§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, By whose authority a full Report of the Army Medical Inquiry was sent to the newspapers before that Report had been communicated to the House; and, if sent without authority, if steps have been taken to find out the person who furnished to the papers a copy of the Report? He wished to add the further Question whether the noble Marquess was aware that the Report was not even yet in the hands of Members, although it was published in the newspapers on Saturday last?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, I extremely regret what has occurred in this matter, and I will state to the House exactly what has taken place. For some time past The Times newspaper has devoted considerably more space and attention to the discussion of military matters than any other morning paper has done. Having regard to this circumstance, and also to the fact that from time to time unauthorized and incorrect statements have, somehow or other, got out from the War Office, and considering also that it was desirable that questions of this kind, if discussed elaborately in newspapers, should be discussed in a deliberate and careful manner, and not in a hurried manner, it has been for some time past the practice to allow gentlemen connected with The Times newspaper to have an early proof of the Papers which it is intended to present to Parliament and to publish. I ought to add that the Department, which had, or was supposed to have, with regard to the gentlemen to whom the documents were committed, satisfactory proof of their good faith and discretion as to the manner in which the documents should be used, obtained a distinct understanding from those gentlemen that nothing should be published on the subject until the Papers were in the hands of Members. Acting on that practice, my noble Friend the Earl of Morley, the Chairman of the Committee on the subject, gave to two gentlemen 761 connected with The Times immediately before the Whitsuntide Holidays his own proofs of the Report and of the Evidence taken before the Committee, in the expectation that the Papers themselves would be in the hands of Members by the time Parliament re-assembled, and that they would not be published until they were distributed. My noble Friend was extremely surprised to find that the Report and extracts from the Evidence were published at great length in The Times of Saturday and subsequent days, and he has communicated with the editor of The Times, who has expressed his regret at the premature publication of the articles; but I must say that, looking to the want of care, to say the least of it, that has been exhibited in this case, it appears to me the practice had better be altogether abandoned. No blame whatever rests on any person in the Department. In reply to the additional part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I am sorry to say that I have been informed by the Stationery Department the Evidence is so voluminous that it will not be in the hands of Members until Tuesday next. Under these circumstances, I propose to postpone Vote 4 of the Medical Vote until the House has had time to read and carefully consider the Report. I may also add that on the Army Estimates I will postpone Vote 9, which contains the Vote for the constabulary employed under the Contagious Diseases Acts, because the House will probably like to have the Bill, which is to be introduced on the subject, in their hands before they discuss the Vote which raises the question.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he believed that the Prime Minister gave the House an assurance, through the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that no publication should take place until Papers were in the hands of Members; but, not with standing this, they found a full and authentic Report of a Committee that sat at the War Office appearing in the newspapers before it had been distributed to Members.
MR. GLADSTONEAs this, Sir, is a matter in which I am concerned, I am bound to say that, without at all going into the merits of the matter, the promise to which my hon. Friend refers was a Departmental promise, and had no relation to this particular matter.
§ MR. PULESTONasked when the Bill referred to by the noble Marquess would be laid on the Table?
DR. CAMERONsaid, that, as there was a great deal of dissatisfaction felt throughout the Medical Profession at the very unfair nature of the extracts published, he should to-morrow ask the noble Marquess sundry Questions as to the correctness and accuracy of various statements, and whether they had not been contradicted by other evidence which had been suppressed?
§ MR. CALLANgave Notice that tomorrow he would ask the Secretary of State for War whether the action of the Earl of Morley had not been in consequence of the bad example of the late Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who communicated the Report of the Land Commission to The Times several days in advance?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONWith reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), I may say that one of the reasons why I regret the publication is that the Papers have been published, not only without any authority, but, in my opinion, in a manner altogether calculated to mislead the public.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that there was no pledge that such a thing would not occur again. Perhaps the Prime Minister would now give the House some promise which should not be Departmental.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not intend a taunt.
MR. GLADSTONEIf the hon. Member did not intend a taunt, he has an unfortunate mode of expressing himself, or I have become more obtuse. It was merely that the House might not be misled on matters of fact that I referred to what happened on a former occasion when a promise was given on behalf of the War Department. I am not aware that this objectionable practice prevails in other Departments, but I entirely concur with the noble Marquess in the letter and spirit of his reply.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURwished to repeat that he had intended no taunt to the Prime Minister.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, If he would inquire whether the understanding on which early copies of documents were furnished to The Times was an understanding that the review of them should, on the whole, be favourable to the Government of the day? If so, he would ask the noble Lord, with regard to the understanding that the publication of a review in The Times should not precede the distribution of the Papers to Members; whether its object was to conceal from the public the fact that The Times was in possession of those documents some days before they were in the possession of the House? If the Question was not answered now, he would repeat it to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONAs far as I am aware, Sir, the practice arose as stated by me in answer to the Question of the hon, and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). I know no other object intended or thought to be gained by it. As to the question whether the reviews were to be of a favourable character to the Government, any hon. Member could see that if such an object had been sought in the present instance, it certainly had not been attained.