§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will agree to the appointment of a Committee of this House to inquire into the practices which have obtained in the Grenadier Guards in respect to mock Courts-martial by and on officers, and the punishments inflicted, with a view to elucidate what officers have been responsible for such practices; and whether anything of a like nature has existed in other regiments.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)The matters referred to have been dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief, and I cannot for a moment consent to interfere with his authority in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. I have no information in regard to mock Courts-martial in other regiments, with the exception of one case, which is now the subject of investigation.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREWill the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not agree to give this Committee, lay on the Table of the House the evidence before the Court of Inquiry, which he promised to do if he were asked for it? I ask for it.
§ MR. BRODRICKI went as far as to say that of course I should lay on the Table of the House, in any case, the evidence of Colonel Kinloch, which I quoted last night. I also said I would, if I were pressed for it, lay the whole of the evidence on the Table. But, at the same time, I would strongly appeal to the House not to insist on this very unusual course. I believe there is no precedent for laying on the Table the evidence of a regimental inquiry of this character; and, unless there is a belief that substantial injustice has been done, I do not think the House will press for it.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREWill the Prime Minister tell me whether he can give me a day to press the Secretary of State for War?
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E)The hon. 570 Gentleman can, of course, resort to the ballot in the ordinary way.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)On a point of order I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a Minister, having quoted from a document as to which he is not prepared to say it would be contrary to the public interest to lay it upon the Table of the House, is not bound, at the request of any hon. Member, to lay it on the Table.
§ MR. BRODRICKOn the point of order, I would submit to you, Sir, that I have proposed to, and shall, lay on the Table the document to which my hon. friend alludes—namely, the evidence which I quoted.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI have nothing to add to what I stated in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich yesterday evening. That was, I believe, a correct statement.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)Is it not the rule when a correspondence is referred to, to lay on the Table the whole of the correspondence. Are there not precedents which govern that the document from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted was part and parcel of the correspondence?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThere have been cases; and it is perfectly correct to say that when a Minister does quote part of a document he may be called upon to lay on the Table the whole of that document. I also stated last night that that was subject to this provision—that if the Minister stated that it was contrary to the public interest that the Paper should be disclosed, he is at liberty to say so, and he takes the responsibility upon himself.
§ MR. PIRIE (Aberdeenshire, N.)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the grave injury which will ensue to military discipline from the publication of the documents, he will reconsider his decision not to grant a Court-martial in this case?
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLOn the point of order, Sir, am I to understand that when you said document you meant 571 the whole of the correspondence germane to the question, and not merely a single document?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI never said anything so vague as that.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that he declines to lay on the Table the whole of this evidence on the, ground that it is contrary to the public interest?
§ MR. BRODRICKI cannot actually say that it will be contrary to the public interest, but I say it is contrary to precedent, that, in my opinion, it is also entirely subversive of the interests of discipline to lay details of discipline cases before the House. May I be allowed to explain '? My point is this. Nobody alleges that there was intention on the part of the Command;; r-in-Chief either not to protect these subalterns or to prevent the recurrence of the same chain of circumstances. Under these circumstances the mere revelation of a number of names and incidents, to which a great deal too much importance has been attached, would be, I think, highly undesirable. I have not the slightest desire to conceal anything. So far as the War Office is concerned there is nothing which cannot be published to-morrow; but I would appeal to the hon. Member and to the House not to press for a course which would be very unusual. In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen I can assure him that, the Commander-in-Chief having dealt with this matter of discipline fully, and no doubt effectively as an example to all, I shall certainly not accept the idea of a Court-martial.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI have to ask you, Sir, whether, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War says he is not prepared to say that it is contrary to the public interest that this evidence should be submitted to the House, he is not bound, by your explanation of the rule, to lay it before the House?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI hardly understood precisely what the right hon. Gentleman 572 did say on that point. I understood him to say he considered it would be subversive of military discipline: but whether he considers, in saying that, that it would not be in the public interest I do not know. The responsibility of whether it is contrary to the public interest or not must be on him and not on me.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI would call your attention to the fact that, unless I am very much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he could not say that it was contrary to the public interest.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI did not gather that those were his words. Of course, if that is so, I think he is bound to lay the document on the Table.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREAm I not right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said he could not say that it was not in the public interest?
§ MR. BRODRICKI certainly drew a distinction between what might be considered in the public interest and the interests of the discipline of the Army. I certainly think that anything which tends to interfere with the authority of the Commander-in Chief is contrary to the discipline of the Army, and in that sense, of course, t is contrary to the public interest. May I be allowed to say that the publication of the evidence of one officer, whose conduct has been brought before the House, does in no sense involve the publication of the evidence of a number of other officers whose conduct has not been brought before the House? It would be only similar to what has been done in many other cases—namely, to publish an individual letter or despatch without publishing the whole of the correspondence relating to it.