HC Deb 05 June 1905 vol 147 cc696-9
SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the suspension of two colonels, as a result of the Report of Sir William Butler's inquiry into the waste of public money in the disposal of war stores in South Africa, is to be accompanied by any action or statement as to the responsibility of any superior military officers, or whether no such responsibility in fact exists; and what further action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.

Certain officers have been named in the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee as being, in the opinion of the Committee, directly connected with the transactions which are impugned. These officers have been relieved of their duty by the Army Council. They include two officers holding the rank of colonel. The Report itself has been referred to the Treasury Solicitor, and is being considered by him. The Report and evidence will also be referred to the Judge Advocate-General, who will advise as to the nature of the offence, if any, of the persons named in it; whether any further inquiry is necessary; and, if so, before what tribunal such an inquiry can appropriately take place; and what charges, if any, can be preferred against the persons named. The evidence on which the Report is based has not yet reached the Army Council, and has, consequently, not yet been communicated to the Treasury Solicitor and the Judge Advocate-General. It is obvious, therefore, that these officials will not be in a position to advise the Army Council until they have received, and have had an opportunity of considering, the evidence. If it should appear that any other officers are concerned in, or are responsible for, any acts or omissions which an examination of the evidence shows to be irregular, those officers will also be relieved of duty pending further inquiry. There is undoubtedly a responsibility attaching to the general officer commanding with respect to all expenditure incurred by officers under his command. In some cases this responsibility is technical only, in others it may be substantial. What was the actual nature of the responsibility in this case will be ascertained by the further inquiry which will be necessary. I must, however, remind the House that the Report of the Departmental Committee is, not, and cannot be regarded as, a judicial finding; that the evidence on which it is based is not yet in the possession of the War Office; and that the evidence has not been taken upon oath. Under these circumstances, I must deprecate any expression of opinion with regard to any; of the persons connected directly or by implication with the transactions which have been condemned by the Committee. An ample opportunity will be given to all persons concerned to state their own case. Meanwhile, until I have received the evidence, and the reports of the Treasury Solicitor and the Judge Advocate-General thereon, I must regard the whole matter as being sub judice, and I am unable to make any statement as to what further steps the Army Council may think it necessary to take. I can assure the right hon. Baronet that everything will be done to secure a full and searching inquiry, and, above all, to afford to all persons directly or indirectly incriminated ample opportunity of clearing their characters from an imputation which the Report of the Committee may seem to suggest.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

Who is the Judge Advocate-General?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

The Deputy Judge Advocate-General will act in this case.

COLONEL NOLAN

Is there any Judge Advocate-General?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

There is no Judge Advocate-General at present. The appointment is pending, and I hope it will be made very shortly.

SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

When will this Report be in the possession of the House? It was promised a week ago.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I said every effort should be made to issue it. It is entirely a matter of printing. And may I add I can find no foundation for the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Longford that there was any delay on the part of the War Office in regard to the printing of the evidence. It will be presented the moment it is received from the printers. I can give no other pledge.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

I merely said that representations were made to the War Office that the evidence should be printed from day to day, and added that if that had been done there was no reason why it should not be ready.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

Will the evidence be given to The Times before the Members get it?

SIR HENRY FOWLER

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representations regarding this extraordinary delay to Mr. Speaker, who has control of the printing for the House?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I do not admit there has been extraordinary delay. I cannot trace the correspondence with the, War Office to which the hon. Member for South Longford alludes.

MR. BLAKE

The right hon. Gentleman again misunderstands me. I never said there had been any correspondence. I said representations were made to the representative of the War Office.

MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

With regard to the two colonels relieved from duty—are they dismissed or suspended?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Neither.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

May we hope to have the Report and evidence before the Motion is made for the adjournment for the holidays?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I will make further inquiries this afternoon.

MR. MACVEAGH

What is the meaning of "relieved from duty"—does it not mean suspended?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

No; there is a material difference.