§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLI would like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the very serious state of affairs which has existed at the Royal Military Hospital at Parkhurst in the Isle of Wight, which has resulted in the lamentable suicide of two non-commissioned officers attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps stationed there. I would like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to what occurred at the inquest upon one of these unfortunate officers, Sergeant Stokes. This unfortunate noncommissioned officer committed suicide, and in a diary found upon his body there was a pathetic reference to the strain of overwork which caused him to commit this deplorable act. The coroner, at the inquest, pointed out to Lieutenant-Colonel Donegan, commanding the Military Hospital there, that the history of the staff seemed to be a very unfortunate one. The colonel said he had reported officially that he was under-staffed, and he had reason to believe the error would now be corrected, and that he gave the sergeant all the assistance he could. Asked by the coroner if the men were overworked, the colonel replied that he would like the question recorded, but preferred not to answer it. He also said that the widow of the sergeant had told him that her husband worked until 11.30 at night, starting early in the morning. Two non-commissioned officers of the Military Hospital attended as witnesses, and looked so thin and ill that the coroner commented upon their unhealthy appearance. They admitted, under examination, that they were 1101 in a chronic state of overwork at Parkhurst, working from seven in the morning until eleven o'clock at night seven days a week, and were then unable to cope with the work.
I maintain that it is a scandal in any department under the control of the War Office and maintained by public money that such a state of things should exist. The unfortunate sergeant who committed suicide has left a diary, in which he practically attributed his suicide to overwork and worry. Colonel Donegan has repeatedly asked for more assistance in his hospital work for his superior officers, and this has been pooh-poohed and denied to him. This officer has been absolutely exonerated in this matter by the coroner's jury. If Colonel Donegan is not to blame, I think it is a very invidious and cruel thing that a man like him should have been removed from his post before the inquiry had taken place. It has been insinuated that this was done because this officer gave adverse evidence against the War Office, but I trust that is not so. No doubt throughout the Army Medical Service, and especially in this particular district, there is great discontent, and it is notorious throughout the Service that the superior officers do not care to forward to the War Office recommendations regarding the better organisation of the Army Medical Corps or complaints, because they are immediately "shut down" and pigeon-holed at the War Office. Although we all know that a Government Department tied by red tape takes a lot of moving, I think two suicides ought to be sufficient to move them.
The first case was that of Sergeant Whipp, who committed suicide. At the inquiry held there after that sad event, the court advised the War Office that they should give more assistance in the hospital. What was done? Nothing was done in the matter, and evidently one suicide is not sufficient. Now they have appointed a Committee of Inquiry. This Committee was appointed six weeks ago, and up to now the War Office have not had time to digest the report of that Committee. Now that we are going to adjourn, I hope the War Office will be able to say what they intend to do to rectify this very serious state of affairs in the Army Medical Corps.
§ Colonel SEELYPerhaps the House will permit me to reply now to these criticisms. I will reply first to the question raised by the hon. Member for the 1102 Isle of Wight (Mr. Douglas Hall). We cannot clear that matter out of the way only for the moment, because much more remains to be done. It is unfortunately the case that two suicides have taken place at the Parkhurst Military Hospital during the last twelve months, one of them only six weeks ago. The hon. Member is in error in saying—so far as I have been able to gather from the papers, and I have carefully perused them—that both these suicides were due to overwork. The first was the sad case of the senior sergeant who committed suicide, but it was never alleged in his case that it was due to overwork. It was for other reasons, and for offences to which he confessed. The poor man is now dead, and the less said about the matter the better. He felt his position so much that presumably he decided to take his own life. There is no doubt from the evidence put before me by the responsible officers that all the officials in charge of the hospital were, to use a homely phrase, very much upset. Colonel Donegan had previously, according to the reports which I have seen, been lacking in sufficient power of control or direction of his staff. I admit that this officer has had a distinguished career, but it is possible to have that qualification and at the same time not to have that full power of direction of an organisation which is necessary.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLHe was a distinguished officer, and he was considered to have enough power of direction to have charge of the hospital at Ladysmith.
§ Colonel SEELYI know he was a distinguished officer, but it is nevertheless a fact that he was somewhat lacking in the power to direct and control this hospital. A short time ago there was another case of suicide for quite different reasons than the first one already referred to. This sergeant had been suffering from neurasthenia, and there is no doubt that he ought not to have been appointed to that responsible post. There are two questions which the House will want answers to on this point. Admitting that this man was not fit for the work, and that he worked too hard when he was not fit, what steps are you going to take to see that it does not occur again? The second question is why has the colonel been removed to another command before the Court of Inquiry completed its work? I will take the former question first. Front the information I have here it, is quite clear that it is not necessary that these non-com- 1103 missioned officers and men should be over worked. I have here a table which I will send to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, or to anybody else interested—it would take too long for me to read—showing a comparison between the hospital at Parkhurst and the hospitals at Winchester and Portsmouth. This comparison shows that there are quite as many officials to do the work at Parkhurst as there are at Winchester and Portsmouth, and there have been no complaints from Winchester or Portsmouth. This is a very full report, and it shows conclusively that the overwork from which this poor man suffered was due to his own ill-health and the lack of sufficient organisation at the hospital, and not to any lack of staff. I have satisfied myself on that point. I think the overwork from which this officer suffered was entirely due to those two causes, namely, an insufficient control by the commanding officer, and a lack of power on his part to direct the work. It may be said that we are prejudging the issue of the Court of Inquiry, but I do not think that is so, and should it be found in the course of inquiry that these defects in the officers' characters had been remedied nothing has happened to prejudice his case.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLBut the Court of Inquiry has already reported.
§ 5.0 P.M
§ Colonel SEELYYes, I have been reading the Report, but it has not been fully considered yet in all its bearings, and I should be sorry to pronounce an opinion upon it without considerable opportunities for further study. This poor non-commissioned officer was suffering from neurasthenia when he was first appointed, and there is no doubt he ought not to have been sent to this hospital in such a state. All I can tell the House is we will take special efforts, by sending circulars round, to ensure that these non-commissioned officers who hold responsible pests in our military hospitals shall never be sent to do this work unless they are in perfectly good health. These things occur from a desire to avoid penalising a man for ill-health. Sometimes, with a desire to appoint a good man, you may send him to do work which he is really not fitted to do, and so, whilst trying to be kind, you may in fact be cruel. I think there are special matters which require attention at Parkhurst, and I propose to give my personal attention to the matter in the course of the next few days by a personal visit. I am told by the 1104 Director-General, who is also giving close attention to this matter, that the principal medical officer does not live near enough to the hospital, nor does the senior noncommissioned officer. I will undertake that steps shall be taken forthwith to make arrangements so that the senior medical officer shall be able to live quite close to the hospital, and so that the senior non-commissioned officer shall actually live within the precincts.
With regard to Colonel Donegan himself the point has been made that he was removed before the Court of Inquiry had concluded its findings and given its decision. After the fullest consideration, and after consultation with my military advisers, I may say at once I do not think the general officer commanding, in whose discretion it rested to remove this officer to another post or not, could have acted other than he did. Here was an officer of whom he had reports that, in spite of his excellent services in the past, he was lacking in that power of adequate control which is so necessary in a place like a hospital.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEIs it not a fact that Colonel Donegan was removed by order of the senior medical officer without the knowledge of the general officer commanding at all?
§ Colonel SEELYI do not think it would be wise or right to go into the question who is technically responsible for an administrative order of that kind. The general officer commanding is the officer who is responsible for taking action of this kind, and I do not think we should do wisely by going into the question which particular officer took the action. My information is that it was on the authority of the general officer commanding. The question is, was that authority wisely exercised? The hon. Gentleman himself said it is now six weeks since the inquiry began. Would he suggest, when there have been two suicides under circumstances tending to show there was inefficient management, that during the whole time of the inquiry and during the whole time of the subsequent investigation, which must necessarily take a little time, the same senior officer should be there? No, I think the proper course to take was to remove him elsewhere and to send there a man in whom you had absolute confidence that he would avoid the dangers which had led to these deplorable occurrences. At the same time, I gladly give this assurance to the House. If the Court 1105 of Inquiry should find and we should be satisfied from the evidence put before us, that Colonel Donegan was not at fault—on that distinct understanding—the fact that he has been removed will not prejudice his future in the least degree. He will stand exactly where lie stood before. I trust that public pledge which I now give to the House of Commons will satisfy the House that the reason for his transfer was purely to avoid further trouble in the event of it being true that Colonel Donegan had not sufficient control over his staff. If it is found to the contrary, he shall not suffer in any way whatever.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLCan you not tell us that now? You have had the report for a week.
§ Colonel SEELYI think it would be very unwise, when one has only received a report a few days, to come to a decision of that kind without full and careful inquiry. Once established that the officer shall not be prejudiced in any way by the ultimate decision, I think it is a case where full deliberation is wisest. I shall ha glad to give any further information on this matter. I am glad it has been raised, and I promise the hon. Gentleman it shall have full and careful attention. Now I turn to the ease of Colonel Morgan. One might have thought this was a very valuable plum in the Service offered to a political friend or to some person with a great hold on the Government. May I endeavour to dispel some of the illusions which have been created in the course of this Debate?
§ Captain CLIVEI do not think I ever made any such suggestion.
§ Colonel SEELYI never said the hon. and gallant Gentleman made that suggestion. I said it might be thought, and I think it might be inferred by any one listening to the speeches. Let us go back to the fact. What is the appointment? It is an appointment of £300 a year, and no more. It is not a very large matter. Why was this appointment created It was created because it was found, while that some regiments and some units were exceedingly well fed with the rations provided for them, that the men were comfortable and that the most was made of the money to be expended, in some other units the management not being so good, the men were far less better fed. The committee, presided over by General Clayton, comprised several commanding officers of Infantry regiments, and they unanimously 1106 reported in favour of some officer, whom they called a messing officer, being appointed, and who should be an expert in these matters. Accordingly, the question was who should be appointed? We clear away the question why it should be done. It was done on the recommendation of a committee. The next question is why Colonel Morgan was appointed. "Why do you single him out?" says the hon. and gallant Gentleman. "Why was Colonel Morgan selected when there were other officers equally well qualified?" I took down while he was speaking some things lie said about Colonel Morgan. I thought they were very much to the point. It is quite true I was not at the War Office when this appointment was made, but I said, in the course of an interruption, I am absolutely responsible, and I do not wish for a moment to shirk my responsibility. If I thought Colonel Morgan's appointment was, as has been described by an hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Morrell),I should, of course, at once resign my office. What did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say He said he was a most capable and efficient officer. I took that down. He said he was a very clever man, and for sheer ability he was the best.
§ Captain CLIVEI do not recognise those words as mine, but I quite agree I said nobody denies the ability of Colonel Morgan.
§ Colonel SEELYI do not think anybody is likely to deny that, and I do not think it likely I should have written down those particular words unless they actually fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's lips at the moment. That is what he did say. If that is a correct description by an 'hon. and gallant Gentleman who is opposed to Colonel Morgan, and has been foremost in attacking the appointment—I fully appreciate, for reasons which he thinks are in the interest of the Public Service—if he says lie was a most capable and efficient officer, a most able organiser, a clever man, and a man of sheer ability, is it unreasonable to suppose other people who have no special view either way, looking round, would pick out the man with sheer ability, a most able organiser, and a clever man as the man for the post.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhy did he leave the Service?
§ Colonel SEELYI do not think the hon. Baronet has been present during the Debate, or at Question time on many occasions. It has been fully explained that 1107 Colonel Morgan left the Service because of a technical breach of Regulations. I wish to deal fully with this matter now in justice to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. Lord Haldane thought he was the best man. The question is: Was his past of such a character that he ought not to be appointed? That is the whole point. I think it would be well for the House to set aside the question whether he was or was not the best man, because, after all, Lord Haldane and his military advisers, and in a less degree myself, have a better opportunity of judging who is a good man and clever at this particular work than those who have not seen all the documents. We may be wrong, but there is the presumption, if so many officers thought he is the best man, that he is, if not the best, probably one of the best. Criticism, therefore, is not well directed towards his efficiency for the job. The question is: Has his past been such that he ought not to be appointed? In my judgment, what Lord Robson has said is conclusive proof that in the opinion of one perfectly impartial and fair-minded man—I think nobody will deny that—this officer has suffered a grave injury. Lord Robson's exact words at the close of his letter to me are:—
It is bare justice to a soldier on whose reputation there may still be some shadow that is not deserved.The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite devoted most of his speech, not to Colonel Morgan, but apparently to Colonel Morgan's brother. I put this to the House. If one and all of us in this House are, to use the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not fit to be re-employed in any capacity whatever because ten years ago not we ourselves but our brothers committed a fault, where should we all be? I am sure not one of us would be here if we were supposed to be unfit because of a fault we committed ourselves ten years ago. I know I should not.
§ Captain CLIVEI really cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman, quite unintentionally I know, to misrepresent me. I never said a word against Colonel Morgan's brother. He only came in incidentally as a man whom the Commission said had been very improperly put into a post. It is Colonel Morgan we are attacking, and not his brother.
§ Colonel SEELYI listened very carefully to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He made several points, and I am now trying to deal with them. I think, 1108 when he reads his speech, he will find a good deal of his criticism was directed to the employment of Colonel Morgan's brother, and I again repeat I do not think we ought to pursue any officer or any man vindictively unless we have reason to believe he has been guilty of such wrong that he is not fit for the society of decent men, especially as his character is likely to be permanently stained. I do not believe in this digging up of the past of any man in the Army. Those who know most about the Army know what a cruel thing it is. A bad mark against a soldier may last a lifetime. Something has been done to amend that, and I hope more will be done. I do not admit for a moment Colonel Morgan has been guilty of any moral wrong. One must admit he was guilty of a technical breach of regulations. I think it is in the interest of the public service to say that no officer is employed in any capacity when he has been convicted of a breach of the technical regulations. I turn now to the very remarkable speech made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), who was good enough to suggest that I intentionally misled the House—
§ Mr. MORRELLIf I did make that suggestion it is certainly a mistake.
§ Colonel SEELYOf course I say nothing more on that point. The hon. Member also said that he deprecated personal vindictiveness; but that came rather strangely from him, because yesterday he made the statement that this officer went to South Africa a poor man, and came back to this country a very rich man, and on that one could only place one interpretation, and that was that that officer had robbed the State of large sums of money. Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate that statement?
§ Mr. MORRELLI simply asked the question.
§ Colonel SEELYIt is not often such statements are made in this House by hon. Members, who would be liable to action if they made them outside. I want to know what ground the hon. Gentleman has for making such an extraordinarily bitter attack on the honour of an officer of the Army. Can he now say one word in support of it? He cannot. I say the statement ought never to have been made, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to take the very first opportunity of absolutely withdrawing such a disgraceful allegation, made without a shadow of foundation, on the honour of an unfortunate man. Had it 1109 not been believed that this was the case, would it have been possible for Lord Haldane, for members of the Army Council, and still less for myself to be defending Colonel Morgan? We have satisfied ourselves that his honour is absolutely clear. We have satisfied ourselves that he is an able man, and that he can fill this office better than any other man.
The question of directorships was raised by the hon. Member opposite, and one or two of my hon. Friends, who take a strong view on this subject, will be glad to have that point cleared up. The rule of the Service is that an officer on the Active List may only hold directorships by leave of the Secretary of State. Such consent is occasionally given, and it has been given especially in cases where officers hold directorships under wills, and find it difficult to get rid of the obligation. But with regard to retired officers, we do not even inquire what directorships they hold. I do not say whether that is a good or a bad policy, but it is the rule of the Service. We employ an immense number of retired officers on these terms. There are remount officers, recruiting officers, and many other categories, numbering possibly hundreds, and we never ask them what directorships they hold. But in the case of Colonel Morgan, Lord Haldane did make that inquiry. This officer is, I am informed, quite a poor man. He has considerable ability and, not having a large capital, he has endeavoured to earn some income as a director of companies. We laid it down that he must not continue to hold any directorships which in any way interfere with his duties. I cannot say how many directorships he retains, but whichever they are, they can have no relation whatever to his duty as adviser to the War Office. In this respect I wish the House to understand that Colonel Morgan has been far more stringently dealt with than is normally the case with retired officers. I think I have said enough to satisfy the House that we have given careful attention to this matter and have convinced ourselves that Colonel Morgan is well qualified to discharge the duties of this office.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should like to say one or two, words—
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe hon. Baronet was not in his place when I rose. On a point of Order. May I ask if it is in order to call upon an hon. Member who is not in his place when another hon. Member has already risen?
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe did not raise the question as to the salary Colonel Morgan is to receive. That is not the point at all. The point is that Colonel Morgan was requested to retire from the Army as a result of certain investigations which were made by the South African Commission, whose report came before the Public Accounts Committee. I am well aware that the Commission reported that there were no charges made against the honesty of Colonel Morgan, but it was stated that he had been inept in his manner of dealing with large business transactions. I think if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would only look at the report of what took place before the Public Accounts Committee, he will not deny that there was a great want of business judgment shown by Colonel Morgan. I do not want to go into the question of the relationship of Colonel Morgan with any other Morgan, but there cannot be the slightest doubt that Colonel Morgan entered into large contracts in a very foolish and unbusinesslike manner. He having left the Army, why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to put him back in a place which requires those very attributes which he failed to exercise when he was in the Army before. Notwithstanding the fact he may have been foolish, the right hon. Gentleman is going to put him in a similar position to that which he originally occupied. I cannot see any possible justification even in Colonel Morgan's own interest for such a course. The argument advanced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the salary is only £300 a year does not carry weight with it. It would be all the same if the salary were only £50 a year. Personally, I have never seen Colonel Morgan, I do not doubt his personal capacity. He may be an extremely excellent man, but I sat on the Public Accounts Committee, and I venture to say that the evidence we had showed that he did not display business ability. The last people we want to have in our Army are people who have shown in the past that they have no business ability. The present Government came into office pledged to economy, but can it be suggested, especially when one looks into the history of the hay contract, that there was economy shown. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider, is it worth while for the sake of giving Colonel Morgan £300 a year to arouse this feeling in the country. Would it not be 1111 much better in Colonel Morgan's own interest—the Royal Commission having passed no strictures on his honesty—that he should be allowed to occupy his time in looking after the ten directorships he now holds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.