HC Deb 05 November 1912 vol 43 cc1006-8
21. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on 16th May, 1889, attention was directed by means of questions in the House of Commons to remarks of a political character made by Viscount Wolseley I in a speech at Oxford, delivered by him in a private and not in an official capacity, and that Mr. Edward Stanhope, who was then Secretary of State for War in a Unionist Administration, stated that he was unable to defend Lord Wolseley's language and had so informed him; and on what grounds has a similar course not been pursued in reference to the recent speech of Lord Roberts respecting the German Empire, which is on terms of amity with this country, having regard to Lord Roberts's official position as a salaried field marshal, the salaried colonel of the Irish Guards, and the salaried colonel commandant of the Royal Artillery, and to the effect liable to be produced by the condonation of a breach of military regulations in the case of a highly-placed offender and the severity of the punishment in similar cases of less distinguished persons?

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

On a point of Order. Before this question is answered may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the words "highly-placed offender" is a fit and proper expression to put on our Notice Paper in regard to Lord Roberts?

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I am sure that the word "offender" must have been put in owing, unfortunately, to my indistinct writing. It should have been "highly-placed officer," and I did not use the word "offender," If I had seen the question on the Paper I would have called attention to this point.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether that expression should have been allowed to appear on our Notice Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid my attention was not specially directed to it, otherwise I should not have allowed it. I think the explanation given by the hon. Member is obviously the right one.

Colonel SEELY

I assumed that the word was meant for "officer," and I had not noticed the word "offender" at all, and I think it did so appear when the question was first put. In regard to the first part of the question, the facts are as stated. As regards the second part of the question, the present case is dissimilar. The questions arising out of Lord Roberts's speech are diplomatic in character and were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Tuesday last, the 29th ultimo.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the effect of a speech of this kind by a gentleman of Lord Roberts's position is to vilify a foreign Power?

Colonel BURN

Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he or the Members on the Front Government Bench have ever read a book by General Von Bernhardi, entitled "Germany and the Next War?"

Mr. WATT

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if this speech had been made by an officer of lower rank or by a non-commissioned officer instead of by a general officer, it would have been dealt with by him as Secretary of State?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is a hypothetical question.