HC Deb 10 July 1902 vol 110 cc1367-9
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many of the twenty-nine cadets who have been rusticated from Sandhurst in consequence of the recent incendiary fires had been previously punished for disorder on the occasion of the Camberley Fair.

MR. BRODRICK

Of the cadets under punishment at the College for the serious breach of discipline on the 11th June which followed the Commander-in-Chief's action on the 10th June seven out of twenty cadets were among the twenty-nine in "C" Company now rusticated. The numbers punished were only a small proportion of those who took part in the disturbance.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

Is there any reason to suppose that the whole twenty-nine were guilty?

MR. BRODKICK

I cannot say the exact number.

LORD HUGH CECIL

Has the smallest inquiry been made as to their guilt?

MR. BRODRICK

A large number of cadets, more than 100, were engaged in the disturbance, so that a very small proportion has been penalised. It is impossible to state the exact numbers or the names of those who were engaged in the disturbance.

LORD HUGH CECIL

Can the right hon. Gentleman say that those who were penalised were present at the time of the disturbance?

MR. BRODRICK

They were not penalised at that time in consequence of the disturbance, but the general state of indiscipline at Sandhurst has been such during the last few weeks that it was necessary for the Commander in-Chief to take serious action.

*MR. ROBERT SPENCER (Northamptonshire, Mid)

Did not the right hon. Gentleman state the other day that there was no charge—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to refer to an answer given to a previous Question.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government proposes to give facilities for the discussion of the Motion concerning the recent proceedings at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Henley Division of Oxford.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As my hon. friend is aware, the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for War undoubtedly has precedence over other War Office Votes. I think, if my hon. friend were looking for an opportunity on the Estimates for discussing the question, in which I know he is interested, I could not, as at present advised, with the small remaining time at our disposal before the adjournment for the holidays, give special facilities for discussing it.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the presence of this Motion on the Paper has the effect of preventing a Motion for the adjournment of the House?

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing an obvious matter.

LORD HUGH CECIL

Has not the right hon. Gentleman given a promise that blocking Motions shall not be used, as the Motion on the Paper has been used, with the consent of the Government?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR'S

reply was inaudible.

LORD HUGH CECIL

again rose.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, is it not a fact that when the new Rule was passed, making two days notice of starred Questions necessary instead of one, the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member must surely know that that does not arise out of the Question.

LORD HUGH CECIL

again rose.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I must remind the noble Lord and the hon. Member that they have not the privilege of disregarding the ruling of the Chair.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

Let us have some order.

MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give two days for the debate on the Secretary for War's Vote?

*MR. SPEAKER

That does not arise out of the Question.