§ SIR HENRY TYLER (Great Yarmouth), who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To move, That it is expedient to appoint a Royal Commission, with full power to take evidence, to afford protection to witnesses, and to report on all matters that may be referred to them in connection with the charges which have been so constantly and so persistently brought forward against certain branches of the War Department,said, the powers which he now asked for had been conferred with great advantage upon previous Commissions, as, for example, various Election Petitions, and the Sheffield Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the infamous practices known as "rattening," which disgraced that town some years ago. There were cases, he contended, in which the powers conveyed by his Motion were absolutely necessary; and surely the case to inquire into the charges against the War Department was one in point. It was always desirable to possess such powers when an inquiry was being made into alleged official or other corruption. He was very far from suggesting that the charges of this nature which had been brought against the War Department were true; but he could imagine cases, such as those of contractors and others whose dealings were impugned, in which full and satisfactory inquiry could not be made unless those powers were conferred. It could not be expected that any contractor would come forward and give evidence without being first assured, under proper conditions, of protection. Therefore, for the sake of having a full inquiry, it was absolutely necessary that the Commission appointed to investigate the charges made against the War Department should be endowed with powers of this description. Again, everyone who had been engaged in such inquiries knew the enormous difficulty sometimes experienced in obtaining the truth without taking evidence on oath. It was not necessary at all times to administer the oath; but the fact that it could be administered when the necessity arose would greatly strengthen the hands of the Commission. He, therefore, contended that the Commission should be endowed with the power of 1295 taking evidence on oath if they deemed it necessary. He apprehended that the Secretary of State for War, in appointing the Commission, had absolute faith in the discretion and judgment of its Members. If that were so, why should the right hon. Gentleman object to conferring the powers asked for in the Resolution? An eminent Judge had been appointed to serve as Chairman of the Commission, and he (Sir Henry Tyler) thought that the refusal to give these powers would be thought to imply some distrust in that high functionary, and in the Commission itself. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was not afraid of the Commission possessing this discretionary power. If the powers to protect witnesses and to examine witnesses on oath were not given, would it not be possible to place it in the power of those who brought the charges to say, afterwards, that they had not had fair play on the Commission? Would they not say that they were unable to bring forward their charges, that and they had no opportunity of proving their case? Therefore, he held that it was desirable that if they had a case it should be inquired into fully and thoroughly. Though, of course, he did not know of his own knowledge what position those who made allegations were in with regard to proof, at all events he considered they should be afforded an opportunity of proving their case; and if they were unable to prove it, then let them be hanged upon the highest moral gibbet that could be provided for them. The charges made were twofold. First, it was alleged that the Government had provided inefficient warlike supplies and stores; and if this were the case, as there was too much reason to fear, it was only right that the attention of the Department should be called to the fact, so that the Administration might be improved. He was afraid that in the near future they might have wars of a serious nature. There were clouds arising in the East of a most threatening character. How could we expect our soldiers and sailors to fight to the best advantage without having trusty weapons, proper food, and suitable provision? How could we expect great results from our Navy if the guns with which it was armed were more dangerous to those standing at their side or behind them than they were to those in front of them? How could our soldiers 1296 make the best use of their weapons if the projectiles with which they were loaded "jammed" in action? How could our Cavalry be well mounted unless they were supplied with saddles or other equipment of good materials and approved pattern? He had no doubt most hon. Members had read the report of the scandalous neglect which had occurred during the Egyptian Campaign, when it was proved before a Parliamentary Committee that the hay supplied was rotten and useless, and was full of bricks, stones, old iron, and wisps of straw; the flour supplied would not make good bread; and out of £13,900 paid for flour there was a loss amounting to £5,476. Those were matters into which there should be a full and impartial inquiry; but that inquiry could not be satisfactory unless the Royal Commission which he asked for were endowed with the powers set forth in his Motion, and which he now asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to grant. He (Sir Henry Tyler) did not think that there could be a more unsatisfactory Report than that which emanated from so eminent a set of men as those who reported into the causes which led to the bursting of the Collingwood gun. A more unsatisfactory Report he had never read. Indeed, it was what might be called a reductio ad absurdum Report. If that Report were to be relied upon and depended upon, it would lead to the apprehension that there was not a gun now in the Navy which was suitable for the service. However, he thought he had shown cause enough why the complaints and charges which had been made should be thoroughly investigated and fully threshed out. He, for one, until the serious charges of corruption that had been made had been proved, would not believe them. He was much struck with the statement made the other night by the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to the effect that when he was in Office he had been pestered by the officers of the War Department to allow such an inquiry to be undertaken, and he could quite understand that any Department against which, such serious charges had been made ought to be willing and anxious to submit to a full and satisfactory investigation in order to clear itself; and if this were fairly done it would have the effect, 1297 on disproof of the charges, of throwing obloquy upon those who had ventured to make statements which were proved untrue. Unless the Commission to be appointed were granted the full powers he asked for, he felt convinced that its limited powers and authority must deprive it of the great weight which it ought to have. He thought that the Minister for War should, for this reason, grant a full and searching inquiry; and if this were conceded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not be pestered to the extent he now was for complete and thorough investigation. It was necessary, in the interest of the country and of the Service and of the Department involved, that the inquiry should take place without delay, and that the Commission should not have to wait for another Session to ask for further powers. Let there be no desire whatever to conceal the truth; and in order to prevent all suspicion of this the Minister for War should make certain that the inquiry about to be held should be a full, fair, and impartial inquiry, so that it might be admitted afterwards with universal consent that justice had been done.
§ MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)said, he desired to add a few words to what had been said in support of a thorough inquiry by the Royal Commission on Military Administration. The real state of the matter did not appear to be thoroughly appreciated by those who had authority to deal with it. The Government were not at all meeting the case which had been brought before the public and the House by calling upon the gallant officer whose name had been mentioned to take upon himself the burden of making a public attack upon certain persons who he believed ought to be assailed. It was a task of the highest chivalry to attack what was believed to be an almost organized band of corruptors, and a man might very well be excused from undertaking such a task. He had never seen Colonel Hope till the other day, when he desired to find out the real charges that had been made. That distinguished officer had made public charges of corruption, conspiracy, and favouritism, and he had put them in the form of a statutory declaration. It was alleged to be the consequence of this corruption that we had cartridges jammed, bayonets that bent, 1298 and swords that broke and would not cut. It was vital to the public interests that we should get at the bottom of the matter. It was said the charges were not sufficiently definite; but nothing could be more definite than the charges of corruption, favouritism, and conspiracy. They were face to face with this. Charges of a grave character were made; and they were told by Colonel Hope that if a Commission were appointed, with power to grant certificates of indemnity, he would undertake to prove the facts from the mouths of unwilling witnesses. The answer which the Government gave to that was that they would give a Commission, but not a Commission with the necessary powers. That was a kind of thing that could not be allowed to go on. There would be plenty of time during the coming Vacation, short though it might be, to carry on the inquiry by a Commission having proper powers. Charges had been flung broadcast by Colonel Hope, which, if they could not be justified, ought to cause him to be held up, not merely to ridicule, but almost to public infamy. But to ask a private individual to fight single-handed with these charges against high-placed officials who were not made known to the country or the Government was to ask something which in these days even the most chivalrous might be excused from undertaking. If the Government did not give the Commission the necessary powers to investigate these charges they would be charged with burking the inquiry, though he was sure there was no such intention on their part. They would be charged with stifling an inquiry which was of the most vital importance to the country. What he appealed to the Government to do was to adopt the same machinery that had been adopted in the case of Sheffield, and that was still in force at the hearing of Election Petitions, in order to get at the bottom of these terrible charges—charges so vital to the country.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)asked the House to allow him, in a few words, to put before them a true statement of facts in this matter, and to point out how extraordinary and utterly unprecedented was the demand now made upon the Government in reference to the Royal Commission. The demand made 1299 was that powers should be given to this Royal Commission, in addition to the power of summoning witnesses, to indemnify the witnesses against their own misconduct which they might disclose. That power was only given in the rarest cases. It was only under the most exceptional circumstances and in the strongest possible case that any such powers ought to be given; and he would point out to the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken that he had failed absolutely to show the slightest ground for inducing the Government to give such powers to the Commission in this case. With regard to the precedent of the Sheffield Commission, the case was one where during 20 years outrages had been going on against working men, and both masters and workmen combined together to ask Parliament for these special powers, and they were only granted after strong protest in both Houses. They were granted not to protect misconduct in the past, but to prevent outrages in the future. In the case, also, of Election Petitions the powers were given for the purpose of insuring purity of election in the future in the particular towns concerned. He could say, without fear of contradiction, that there was no case in which such an indemnity had been asked for or granted, except where there had been sound and substantial grounds laid before Parliament of existing and known evils which could only be met and dealt with by the machinery of a Commission having such powers. He only wished that the hon. and learned Member had taken a little more pains to find out from Colonel Hope what the real gist of the case made by these three gentlemen was. Instead of there being before the Government any allegation showing that this wholesale corruption and conspiracy existed, or anything to justify them in putting men who had been 25 years in the Service upon their trial, three men, and three only—Mr. Armit, Colonel Hope, and Mr. Lynall Thomas—had, in Memorials which he might, without disclosing anything, say were singularly alike, alleged in general terms that this corruption and this conspiracy existed. Acting on the advice of the Solicitor General and himself, the Secretary of State for War had stated to these gentlemen that if they would in confidence give name, date, and circumstance, he would 1300 undertake to investigate the matter himself. The Government required no one to push them on in this matter. What was the answer received? These gentlemen, who had been so willing at no risk to themselves to bandy about these kind of charges, had declined to do so, because the information was only communicated to them on condition that they would not disclose it except to a Royal Commission possessing the power to indemnify the witnesses. Would the House, for a moment, be justified in paying attention to charges so made against well-tried servants who had served under successive Secretaries of State for War? He thought that any Government would be justified in saying that they declined to take this extraordinary step—a step which was only justified under circumstances of the greatest necessity—without having before them that primâ facie case, that evidence which would justify any lawyer in framing a charge. There was nothing in any one of these allegations which could have enabled any charge to be framed, either civil or criminal, against the persons supposed to be implicated. Colonel Hope had the remedy in his own hands. That gentleman was able to put the people of this country in possession of what he had made known to the Secretary of State for War. He had, however, a shrewd suspicion that Colonel Hope, who had, through the hon. and learned Gentleman, stated that he was not prepared to carry on this fight single-handed, was desirous to get these statements made through a Government official, so that a plea of privilege could be set up, and that he dared not place his charges before his countrymen, though he had been willing enough to send them through secret channels, where they would not be made public. It was perfectly well known that some of the transactions referred to happened as far back as 25 years ago—transactions which, as was also known, had been inquired into at the time, and had been found to furnish no facts upon which the Government could proceed. Three gentlemen had made these charges. First, there was Mr. Armit. The House knew that at this moment there was an action for libel pending in which the firm of Sir William Armstrong were plaintiffs and Mr. Armit the defendant, and in which the sub- 1301 stantial matter of the charges was to be the subject of discussion. With regard to Mr. Lynall Thomas, it was well known to the House that he was a gentleman who had a grievance against the Government for a great many years, which he had made the subject of a petition of right before Chief Baron Kelly and a special jury, and the Courts of Law had decided against him. In the case of Colonel Hope, also, it was common knowledge that he was one of those gentlemen who considered that he had been hardly treated by the Department because it had not adopted his gun. He ventured to think that when this matter came to be inquired into there would not be much difficulty in the Royal Commission getting at the real truth. It had been stated that the proposed inquiry would be absolutely abortive unless the indemnity asked for was given. Why the hon. Members had made that assertion, and on what grounds, he was at a loss to conceive, because they both said that they had no knowledge of the charges. But if a tithe of what Colonel Hope put into general language—such as "wholesale conspiracy," "organized band of corruptors," and "conspiracy between the highest officials"—existed, the Royal Commission would have no difficulty whatever in finding the facts out. The Government had, moreover, provided against any possibility of a miscarriage of justice. By the terms of the Commission an express direction had been given that if the Commissioners found that they could not get at the truth and desired to have further powers they were to apply to the Government to give them. One of the ablest Judges on the Bench had charge of the matter; and if a case should arise in which a witness refused to give evidence which might incriminate him, there might be the colour of a foundation for granting the special powers asked for. Full powers could be given without an Act of Parliament, although, of course, a Royal Commission could not commit for contempt. He ventured to say that those responsible in the matter, and particularly the Secretary of State for War, had gone to the fullest extent, under the circumstances, having regard to the vague charges which had been made. The Government had not issued the Commission to Colonel Hope. It had issued the Commis- 1302 sion because the Government recognized the existence of a state of things which called for inquiry; it was certain that some guns burst and that some stores were not satisfactory. It had, therefore, been determined early in the Session that there should be the fullest investigation. He only wished that the hon. and gallant and the hon. and learned Members who had spoken had the same knowledge of the facts of the case as had the Government. He only hoped that the House and the country might have an opportunity of judging of the nature of the charges made, and of the language in which those charges were couched. He must say, what the Secretary of State for War had said more than once, that it would be very strange if Colonel Hope, having made it a condition that the document should be returned on the 10th of September, were to put it in his pocket and let nothing more be heard about it. If Colonel Hope made these charges he must bear the penalty. It was only fair that anyone who made such charges should bear the penalty. The outside that the Government could do was to give an opportunity to persons to bring forward their complaints before the Royal Commission; but they could not go out of their way to libel servants, against whom they knew nothing, for the purpose of protecting those who stabbed in the dark. It would be an abuse of their power, and, in fact, unprecedented, to grant the Commission power to indemnify witnesses. He was sure the hon. Gentlemen who had brought this subject forward had no other object in view than that it might be fully and fairly understood by the public; but he must repeat that no further steps could be taken as long as men declined to give names and circumstances connected with the charge.