HC Deb 12 July 1900 vol 85 cc1309-11
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Professor Cunningham, who is to have a seat on the South African Commission to inquire into the charges brought against the administration of the Army Medical Department, has for many years acted as examiner in anatomy at the examinations of candidates for the Army Medical Department, for which service he received remuneration from the Army Medical service; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision to appoint this gentleman as a member of the inquiry into the Department with which he was formerly connected.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the hon. gentleman has asked this question under a misapprehension. He seems to think that because a gentleman is an examiner of medical candidates for the Army Medical Department he is associated in some way with the Department and is connected thereby with the administration of the War Office. That, Sir, is an entire misapprehension.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

Who appointed him?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot say; nor do I think that that question is at all material. I understand that those examiners are appointed for four years at a fixed salary, and have nothing to hope or fear from the War Office. They are not in the remotest way connected with the War Office administration, and the suggestion that a man who examines ✶ Refer to The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxvii. p. 515. figures—because he only knows the candidates by numbers—is a person whose judgment is likely to be influenced is altogether preposterous. It might as well be suggested that men like the late Professor Huxley or Matthew Arnold, or the present Bishop of London, or any other of the distinguished men who have been sometimes called in to examine candidates, would be incapable of acting on a Commission dealing with administrative points which never came under their notice.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state whether these examiners are to be reappointed?

MR. WARNER

Who pays these examiners? Is it the War Office?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think that these questions are very inopportune. I do not believe it is the practice, as a matter of fact, to reappoint them. I shall next expect a question as to whether Dr. Church, as he is not an examiner, may not be corruptly influenced by the hope of becoming one.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Is it not a fact that Professor Cunningham was appointed to this post by the head of the Army Medical Department, on which he is called upon to sit in judgment?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is not so.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I want to know not whether Professor Cunningham has been appointed in his official and administrative capacity by the Secretary of State for War, but whether the Secretary of State for War did not appoint him ministerially on the advice of the head of the Army Medical Department, who is Dr. Jameson?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I believe that the Secretary of State for War did appoint him.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

Do I understand that he will sit in judgment on Dr. Jameson, who has appointed him?

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

What is the salary paid to this gentleman?

CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.)

Is it in the power of the War Office to remove or retain Professor Cunningham in his appointment?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I believe not.