HC Deb 20 June 1905 vol 147 cc1102-13
MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

I have given private notice of a Question on this subject to the Secretary for War. A few moments ago I received a note from the right hon. Gentleman asking that the Question should be postponed till to-morrow, but I think that postponement need only apply to the third part of the Question, which asks what are the intentions of the Department with regard to further investigation. The first two parts of the Question relate to pure matters of fact, which must have been long within the knowledge of the Department. Therefore, I now ask the first two Questions, whether there are any contracts at present in force between the military authorities in South Africa and Meyer (Limited) or Wilson & Worthington, and on whose authority the Press censor in South Africa prevented the publication of criticisms on the contracts for sales and supplies.

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

The general Question should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Leader of the House. The other two Questions I ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone till to-morrow. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why?"] I only received them yesterday evening. I have no objection to answering them if the hon. Member will give me the ordinary notice. As I said, I only received the Questions last night, and I asked the hon. Member to postpone them, which I thought to had done. I can give an Answer to the first Question now. There are no contracts with this firm. [AN HON. MEMBER: Two firms.] Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to postpone the Answer to the other Question until to-morrow.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury three Questions, of which, for greater accuracy, I have provided myself with a copy. First, whether any punitive steps have been taken in the case of any officer or other person concerned in the transactions referred to Sir William Butler's Committee; secondly, what judicial action has been taken by His Majesty's Government with a view to the investigation of the whole subject of the dealings in military stores in South Africa or any part of that subject; and, thirdly, what opportunity the right hon. Gentleman proposes to afford the House of a discussion on this matter.

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

We placed the papers in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions as soon as we had them. He informs us that in those papers there does not appear to be any case for criminal action; that further investigation may produce evidence which would justify criminal action, but such evidence does not appear in the papers of which we are in possession. The censured officers have been relieved from duty. On the whole, I am disposed to think it would not be desirable to try them by way of Court-martial until a further investigation has taken place, and what form that investigation should take must be a matter on which I hope the House will allow me a few more hours for consideration, and an opportunity of consulting with my colleagues. We are only just met, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, after the holidays. There is a Cabinet to-morrow, and I shall be able to give a definite Answer at Question time. My own impression, I may say, distinctly is that we should more quickly—I will not suggest get at the bottom of the matter—but more quickly see what further steps should be taken if the matter is at once placed in the hands of a Committee of this House. All the officers incriminated are, I believe, in England, and they could be examined before a Committee of this House. Of course the proceedings could be open. I do not want this to be taken as a final Answer, but I believe myself that would be the most expeditious method of procedure and the most satisfactory to the House, who, I think, would like to be brought face to face with the scandals exposed by the Butler Departmental Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will renew his Question tomorrow, when I shall be able to answer with more authority.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I think it is reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should have twenty-four hours more for consideration, but let me point out that the course of appointing a Committee was urged on the Government six weeks ago by my hon. friend behind me the Member for Huddersfield (Sir J. Woodhouse) and refused. Further, I would ask particularly as to the first of my series of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman says that the officers who have been censured have been dealt with in a certain way; but we understood that he whole question was still sub judice, and that it was beyond the limits of propriety for any individual, and especially any newspaper, to pronounce an opinion on the conduct of any of the officers concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman appears, or those under him appear, to have already censured certain officers, notwithstanding that there has not been a complete inquiry.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be under a misapprehension. Perhaps the word "censured" was not felicitously chosen What I want the House to understand is that certain officers have been severely criticised in the Report. Those officers have been relieved of duty. That is all I meant. With regard to the other Question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me, I had forgotten that the hon. Gentleman opposite had asked for a Committee six weeks ago; I do not think he did actually ask that.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)

Yes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It escaped my memory at any rate; but in any case it would surely have been premature then. Surely we had to wait until the Report was in the hands of the Government and of the House.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon) Boroughs

I understood the Prime Minister to say that he had taken steps with regard to certain officers. May I ask whether he has considered whether any steps ought to be taken with regard to the members of the Government responsible?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I said was that we had laid the papers in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that he had reported that as far as he could judge from those papers there is no case for a criminal prosecution. I do not know whether the hon. Member suggests that any member of the Government is open to criminal prosecution.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I still ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any inquiry as to the responsibility of those members of the Government who are at the head of this Department and who are responsible to the House and to the country for the whole of these blunders.

[No Answer was returned.]

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The Report was printed, published, and circulated with a most remarkable preface by the Secretary of State for War, in which he warned all the world that this was an incomplete and partial inquiry, that the evidence had not been taken on oath, and that for many other reasons it was undesirable that people should discuss it or pronounce an opinion on the conduct of any one concerned. He used the term sub judice. I should like to hear from the Prime Minister how he justifies that preface to the Report, and what the circumstances are on which that preface may be supposed to be founded.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Perhaps I can explain the matter to the House. The circumstances are these. The Report was one of a Departmental Committee which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been concluded and furnished to the head of the Department. The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons was sitting concurrently and contemporaneously with the Departmental Committee, and they desired that an interim Report of the Departmental Committee should be furnished to them on six specific cases before the whole of the inquiry had been concluded. That Report was presented and is incomplete, and is stated to be so by the Committee.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE

Not incomplete as to the six cases.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

It is perfectly obvious that a great many persons are concerned in these transactions, and they have a right to be heard, and I believe it is in consonance with the sense of justice of the whole House that such an observation should be made. I wanted to explain that this Report, in so, far as it concerns the reputation and honour of a number of individuals, is not complete, and that they have not had the opportunity which we desire they should have of stating their case. It was for that reason that I stated, as is the fact, that the inquiry is incomplete. I cannot imagine that any cause could be injured by that statement, and I am certain the cause of fairness will be served by it.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)

Why, then, may I ask, have these officers been relieved of their duties?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I can explain that very simply. We have a Departmental Report which tends to throw suspicion, and more than suspicion, on a number of officers who were discharging duties connected with the administration of public funds. We have thought it reasonable, pending further inquiry, which we think necessary, that these officers should be relieved of their duties. We have pronounced no censure and inflicted no penalty on these officers. We shall be most careful to do neither until these officers have had full opportunity of being tried by whatever tribunal is appointed to try them.

An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION side

More hanging up.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I do not know whether the hon. Member proposes that we should punish them without trial. We have done what we believe to be in the public interest.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

At the risk of the appearance of pertinacity, may I ask what is the position of a Select Committee of this House, if appointed? Will it be appointed to examine this case, which has already been incompletely and partially examined? Is the Report of General Butler's Committee to be submitted to the Select Committee, or is the Select Committee to take the place of the Departmental Committee and continue the inquiry in its stead?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should be glad to leave it to the Select Committee to take the course it may think most desirable, and I shall have no desire to restrict the reference to that Committee. But I think if the reference is made very wide, we should put in words to provide, as far as possible, that they should make an interim Report. All I am anxious for is that the thing should not be hung up under the guise of inquiry. On the other hand, I think it is quite clear that there must be an inquiry.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The right hon. Gentleman will give a more explicit answer to-morrow?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

Will it be possible to have such an exhaustive inquiry as is necessary in the public interest without bringing witnesses from South Africa or examining them there?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think it is possible that the Committee will find that, if they want to get at the contractors in South Africa, the machinery of a Parliamentary Committee may be insufficient. But the machinery will certainly be sufficient to examine the officers who are primarily responsible, and I think we should be guided by the Committee as to what further steps should be taken and as to whether it is desirable to see if they could not get the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions in South Africa to say whether or not there is material for prosecution there. But from such information as has reached me I do not think that that is practicable.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

May I ask whether, in addition to the officers named by the Butler Committee who have been relieved from duty, the Government has also relieved from duty the officer who is responsible for all of them?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir. I have explained to the House exactly the position.

MR. TENNANT (Berwickshire)

Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he answers to-morrow, recollect that my right hon. friend asked him a three-headed Question, the last part of which had reference to the question of an opportunity for discussion. Will he consider what course he will take, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield has a Motion on the Paper?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, Sir; I shall be glad to consider such a question; but I hope the House will remember that a debate before we have an inquiry would be rather putting the cart before the horse. What I desire is that there should be an inquiry by a House of Commons Committee, conducted as regards the leading points of the case with sufficient expedition to enable us to debate the subject in the House on adequate information, which I think it is admitted on all sides we have not got at present.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possible difficulty which he may have in obtaining the evidence in South Africa which may be necessary to complete the Report?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have by implication answered that Question. The military witnesses are in this country and can give such information as may be necessary for the immediate inquiry.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

What does the Secretary of State for War mean by an interim Report? Does he mean that the Butler Committee is still sitting and is expected to make a further Report?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

That must depend on what is resolved upon by the House of Commons. It would be obviously undesirable to continue its proceedings if any other form of inquiry were embarked upon. In the ordinary course it would have been proper to carry on this Committee to the end. I believe the form of inquiry suggested by the Prime Minister would be much more satisfactory. It would be a comprehensive inquiry, and would give, what the Butler Committee has not given, an opportunity to the persons concerned to cross-examine with regard to the charges made against them.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

But what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by describing the Report as an interim Report? Is not this the final Report as far as the Committee is concerned?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

No, Sir; that Report was made at my instance—originally at the instance of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee desired to have a Report from the Committee before they concluded their labours on the branch of the subject which they were investigating. If it had not been for that desire, the Committee would have been sitting now and would have postponed its Report till the whole of the evidence had been received.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken it into consideration that it will be almost impossible to report before the end of the session, and that therefore the matter will have to go over till next year?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is very much more expeditious than any other form of inquiry.

MR. WHITLEY

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, in considering any inquiry, that it is really the War Office and not the officers who are arraigned by this Report?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. No doubt the organisation dealing with these great contracts was the old organisation. There is now a new organisation, which I hope and believe, in the unfortunate event of a great war again, will be able to deal satisfactorily with these matters. The old organisation was imperfectly adapted to deal with them; but that does not mean that the War Office is arraigned. Those who are arraigned are those who are alleged rightly or wrongly to have been guilty of something which amounts to fraud.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Is it suggested that the War Office ought not to be expected to exercise a general supervision over matters involving six or seven millions of money?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course it should. What I said was that the machinery for the supervision that existed up to a very recent time has prove, under the strain of the largest land war which we have ever conducted, to be imperfect.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

This was after the war was over.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The machinery in operation was the ancient and traditional machinery, which was imperfect. It was inadequate. It has been changed. What the question before the House now is, as I understand it, is another question involving a suggestion of fraud.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

What I asked the Prime Minister on that point—a truly important point for the House of Commons—was whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the machinery, imperfect as it was, was properly handled by the men who were in charge of it at the War Office. Will lie inquire into that?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That may be a very proper question for the Committee to inquire into.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

I wish to ask whether, having regard to the public feeling in this matter, a Select Committee, if appointed, will report, say, within six months; and whether it will be within the purview of this particular Committee to impeach Ministers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Ministers cannot be impeached except on a vote of the Houses of Parliament.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)

There is a blocking notice which would prevent that.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

However deserved an impeachment might be, the machinery for carrying it into effect is rather clumsy and antiquated. I hope the Report for our guidance will be given not within six months, but long before the present session terminates.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question on the point raised by my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon. It appears that a financial agent for the War Office visited South Africa twice or three times, and it would ease the public mind, independently of any action taken in the direction of appointing a Select Committee, if the reports made by that financial agent of the War Office were made public.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Does the right hon. Gentleman ask me a specific Question on that?

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Yes.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I do not know what the exact form of these reports may be; but I am most anxious that all the details shall be laid before the House, and if the reports could in the ordinary course be laid, I should be desirous to put them before the House. But all the reports were laid before the Committee itself, and the gentleman to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers was himself examined at great length by Sir William Butler's Committee, and it will be obvious that nothing he has brought back from South Africa by way of information or report has been withheld in the inquiry into this matter.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I did not mean to charge the right hon. Gentleman for a moment with withholding anything that he thought might be useful in the inquiry; but it would be of great interest to all of us if we knew what view was taken at the War Office by their own officer who twice or three times visited South Africa and investigated these transactions.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no reluctance on my part to give any information that can be given; but it would be better if this matter were gone into as a whole. I will inquire whether these reports are in such a form that they can be produced, but I think it would probably be seen that all the particulars from his documents were furnished with reference to the whole transaction. I will endeavour to do everything necessary to inform the House.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

I should like to ask whether the stores operations dealt with in the Report of the Butler Committee were carried out by a new department appointed jointly by the War Office and by Lord Kitchener.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

Will the Prime Minister tell us to-morrow what Cabinet Minister is responsible for the authorisation of sales and making of contracts in South Africa?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not suppose it is possible for any Cabinet Minister to look into the details of contracts.

MR. LOUGH (interrupting)

I do not refer to details, but to the extraordinary principle of making sales and contracts in South Africa. What Cabinet Minister is responsible for authorising them?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not quite sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's Question. If he means what Department has got to deal with these matters, it is, of course, the War Office; and I presume the head of the War Office is responsible for the contracts in the same way as Mr. Gladstone's Secretary for War was responsible for the bent bayonets at Abu Klea.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

repeated his Question whether the Department conducting the stores operations was entirely a new one.

MR. A. J. BALKOUR

I think if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me Questions about the details of War Office arrangements he had better give me notice.