§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the non-commissioned officers who have been dismissed the Army on the Report of the South African Stores Commission were first placed upon their trial, and afforded an opportunity of defending themselves; if they were warned by the Royal Commissioners that their answers would be used against them; if they have been deprived of the medals awarded them for service in the field; and, in such case, what authority there is for such procedure.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,) HaddingtonshireThis Question appears to rest on a misapprehension. The Question is one of discipline in which the Army Council have a large measure of discretion. As a matter of fact the utmost pains were taken not only to investigate fully each case, but to secure that the persons concerned had full opportunity of giving their own explanation. In every instance the officer, commissioned or non-commissioned, had placed before him by the Army Council the portion of the Report of the Royal Commission relating to his case for purposes of enabling him to make such statement as he desired as regards the questions in which he was involved. The merits of these statements were 404 carefully weighed in connection with the evidence before any decision was come to. The procedure by court-martial, oven if it had been appropriate, would have been inapplicable, because under Section 161 of the Army Act nearly all the offences were not cognisable by court-martial, as they were alleged to have taken place more than three years ago. The Act, in appointing the Royal Commission, did not excuse a witness from answering any question on the ground that the answer might incriminate him, nor on the other hand did it provide that cognisance should not be taken of the nature of his reply when his superior officer was estimating his conduct. No one has been dismissed the Army or otherwise dealt with excepting on evidence which appeared to the Secretary of State and the Army Council clear and distinct, and I am satisfied that what has been done has been done in accordance with the principles of justice, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt has been given in every case. Art. 1256 (c) Pay Warrant prescribes that soldiers discharged the service for misconduct shall forfeit their medals.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTWill not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the cases of men who have shown meritorious conduct in face of the enemy in the field? [Cries of "No."]
§ MR. HALDANEWhen the charge is one of taking money and where that has been established, it is our duty to proceed with severity in the interests of the Army and the nation. I may say that I have divided the cases into three categories—those where money was alleged to have been taken; those in which there was incompetence; and those where there was an honest mistake in judgment. The cases in the first category have been dealt with strictly. The persons coming in the second class have been relieved of their positions; but we felt that we ought to treat them leniently in other respects. As to the third class, where an honest mistake has been made in difficult circumstances, we have proceeded quite differently.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)Why was a distinction made between officers and privates—the officers being 405 allowed retiring allowances and the men being refused deferred pay?
§ MR. HALDANENo such distinction was made. Wherever an officer was found to have received money, he was dismissed from the Army without retired pay. The only officers who have not forfeited what they had earned in the shape of deferred pay are those against whom no charge of corruption was proved.
§ MR. DALZIELHave not officers been asked to retire and been allowed a retiring allowance?
§ MR. HALDANEYes, where there was no allegation of corruption, but only a breach of regulations or incompetence. In no case has an officer touching money been allowed to keep his retiring allowance.
§ MR. DALZIELDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that all the privates dismissed were guilty of corruption?
§ MR. HALDANEEvery one of them.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the Royal Commission granted any certificates of indemnity in eases whore the witnesses gave full answers.
§ MR. HALDANENo doubt they did, but such certificates protect against criminal proceedings and have nothing to do with the duty of the Army Council to see that improper persons do not remain in the service of the Crown.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)asked whether any proceedings had been taken against the South African firms who engaged in this bribery.
§ MR. HALDANEWithin a few hours of the issue of the Report I read it through, and within a few more hours I had mastered the evidence and communicated with the Treasury Solicitor. The whole of the papers were with the Treasury Solicitor in two days, with instructions from me to proceed with the utmost diligence. The Treasury Solicitor has the matter in hand, and the case is before the Law Officers of 406 the Crown both here and in South Africa. Every stop has been taken that could be taken. I can say no more than that I have done everything to bring everyone to justice, without dealing with the matter in a vindictive spirit on the one hand or with undue leniency on the other.
§ In Answer to VISCOUNT VALENTIA (Oxford),
§ MR. HALDANEsaid that any officer discharged for misconduct forfeited his pension. A court-martial was not possible in these cases because of the interval that had elapsed.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTWill the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in the case of the men who have shown gallantry in the field? [Loud cries of "No, no."]