HC Deb 07 July 1902 vol 110 cc925-9
MR. GUEST (Plymouth)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent rustication of twenty-nine cadets from the Royal Military College for an offence for which no evidence of their complicity has been adduced, he will consider the advisability of returning them their fees for the term and of granting them or their parents some indemnity, and of taking steps to prevent any injury to their professional careers from this rustication.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

At the same time, may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, because of the outbreak of certain fires at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, the whole of the cadets have been punished for the purpose of securing the detection of the offender; will he say what reasons there were for supposing that all the cadets so penalised were accessory to the offence; by whose initiative this action was taken; and whether this punishment had the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief; and whether, in view of the fact that another fire has lately occurred, in consequence of which twenty-nine cadets have been punished, he will say what proof is forthcoming of their complicity, and on what principles these cadets were selected.

MR. BRODRICK

I will reply to both these Questions at the same time. The facts as to the punishments of cadets at the Royal Military College are as follow:—Two fires occurred, on 30th April and 7th May, in chests of drawers belonging to the cadets in "C" Company Block. In consequence, the Commander-in-Chief, on 10th June, restricted leave, pending the detection of the offenders. On 11th June, in consequence of this, the cadets broke bounds in the evening and created a disturbance, an offence which rendered all liable to rustication. The Commander-in-Chief, however, decided only to rusticate two corporals, who had been leaders in the disturbance, and restricted leave of the remaining cadets implicated. On 23rd June leave was restored. On 25th June a fresh fire was found in the same-block lit in the bed of a cadet, whose room had been entered by various cadets within half an hour before the fire was discovered, although an official had been specially set to watch the passage. The Commander-in-Chief, for the safety of the College, and to preserve discipline among the cadets, considered it necessary to take stringent measures to prevent the recurrence of these disorders. The action taken involves twenty-nine cadets in "C" Company, in whose block all the fires occurred, thirty-one others having been able to prove an alibi on the last occasion. The cadets now rusticated will lose a term's seniority. I much regret the necessity of taking such action, but I fully concur with the Commander-in Chief in the disciplinary measures taken. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, fees are never returned in cases of rustication, and I can make no exception in this case. Further, this rustication necessarily carries with it certain penalties in regard to the delay in commencing the professional career.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

What charge has been brought against the twenty-nine cadets who have been thus punished?

MR. BRODRICK

No charge has been brought against individual cadets, but the fact remains that this occurred within the same block, and in all probability within the knowledge—

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman say that?

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

It is like an Irish coercion case.

MR. BRODRICK

In all probability it was within the knowledge of many of those concerned, some of whom were seen to enter the actual room within twenty minutes or half an hour before the last event occurred. Therefore, there was absolute reason to suppose that several of the cadets who were rusticated were implicated in this unfortunate business. In addition to that, all the cadets mutinously broke bounds on the evening following the Commander-in-Chief's order-that leave was suspended and that bounds must not be broken. There was a mutinous outbreak, in which the very cadets implicated broke bounds and created a disturbance in the neighbouring village. In these circumstances all these cadets rendered themselves liable to rustication. The further outbreak of fire, seriously imperilling the building, made it absolutely necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to take action.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any independent military inquiry has been made into the circumstances, and, if so, whether he will lay the Report on the Table.

MR. BRODRICK

Yes. After the outbreak to which I have alluded, the Commander-in-Chief sent down a special officer, General Sir R. Grant, to make the fullest inquiry and report. Sir R. Grant made a Report to the Commander-in-Chief after going into the whole circumstances, and it was as the result of this Report that the Commander-in-Chief took the very lenient action he did, desiring to treat the whole matter as a school-boy freak; but when, after that leniency, and after leave had been again restored, it was found that a fresh outbreak took place, it was obviously necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to take further action.

LORD HUGH CECIL

Was the rustication confined to the cadets who were seen going into the room? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of them—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! The Question has been fully answered.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

Is it true or not that the insubordination was condoned by the right hon. Gentleman?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! That is arguing the question.

MR. GUEST

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Attorney General as to the legality of his action?

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Send some Irish resident magistrates to deal with them.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member for South Donegal must be more orderly. The hon. Member for Plymouth must put his Question on the Paper.

[Subsequently:]

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will put down Vote 11 of the Army Estimates as the first Order on an early Supply day, so that the recent incident at Sandhurst may be discussed.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I do not think I can give more than one day to the Army Estimates, and I understand that the first Vote on that day must be the salary of the Secretary for War.

LORD HUGH CECIL

Might not the Vote for military education be taken first, and the salary of the Secretary for War second, on that day?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am afraid that pledges have been entered into with regard to the salary of the Secretary for War; and I do not think the House at large would approve of altering that arrangement.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

Then, Sir, I desire to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the War Office in ordering twenty-nine gentlemen cadets, against whom no charge was brought, to forfeit six months seniority.

MR. SPEAKER

Since the hon. Member showed me, as he courteously did, what he proposed to move, my attention has been called to the fact that in the Order-book today there now stands a Motion in the name of an hon. Baronet— To call attention to the recent disturbance at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the action taken thereon by the military authorities, and to move a resolution. That has the effect of blocking the Motion of the hon. Member, so that I cannot entertain it.