§ Mr. BONAR LAWMay I ask the Prime Minister whether Sir John French and Sir Spencer Ewart have withdrawn their resignations?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI regret to say that Field-Marshal Sir John French and General Sir Spencer Ewart have felt it their duty to persist in their desire to be relieved of their offices. They wish me to make it clear that they are in entire accord with the statement which I made to the House on Friday, and which, perhaps, I may repeat. They intimated their wish to retire, not because of any difference between their view and that of the Government as to the conditions under which the Army serves or should be employed in aid of the civil power, but because, having initialled the Memorandum which has been published, and which, as the House knows, has been handed to General Gough, they 841 thought that course incumbent upon them. That is the ground, and the sole ground, of their retirement.
I quite understand, while it is deeply to be deplored in the public interest, the decision at which these gallant officers have arrived, I cannot speak too warmly or too greatly of the nobility, loyalty, and devotion to duty with which they have served, and, I hope, will continue to serve the Army and the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has, to my infinite regret, informed me that he thinks it right to take the same course. He will, as is customary with a retiring Minister, make his own statement to the House. In the circumstances, after much consideration, and with not a little reluctance, I have felt it my duty, for the time at any rate, to assume the office of Secretary of State for War. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to intimate his approval. I shall therefore, as I am advised in accordance with law, retire from this House until, if it please them, my Constituents sanction my return.
§ Colonel SEELYThe Prime Minister has told the House that I have tendered my resignation as Secretary of State for War, and perhaps I may be permitted, in only one or two words, to make a personal statement on the matter, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case. When a Minister leaves his colleagues, it is, as a rule, on a difference of policy or of principle. There is no difference, as the House knows, between me and my colleagues on any point of policy or of principle. But the circumstances are these: It did appear, although I did not wish it to appear, as Secretary of State for War, and, although it was not my intention, that a bargain had been made between His Majesty's Government on one side, and an officer or group of officers on the other, as to the services which they would render to the Crown. Such qualified services could never be accepted, irrespective of any particular issue, and although, as I have said, it was not my intention, nor indeed the intention of Sir John French or the Adjutant-General, who initialled 842 this particular document with me, it did so appear, and I do not wonder that this House, irrespective of party, resented that there should be any such bargain in appearance indeed, if not in fact.
It was for that reason I pressed upon the Prime Minister—and when I say that I pressed it upon the Prime Minister, I ask the House, irrespective of whatever has been said elsewhere, to believe me that I did press it, and I do press it, and desire it to be carried out—that I might he permitted to resign my office, in order that it might not ever appear that any Minister of the Crown had made a bargain with any of the Crown's servants as to the terms of service under which they should serve. But I was not alone in this matter, and I had to consider whether it would not be possible that the Army should retain the services of our most brilliant living soldier, Sir John French, and of the Adjutant-General, who has served the Army so well. Sir John French has thought it his duty in these exceptional circumstances—peculiar and indeed ironic as they are—to resign his position, and, although the position may be difficult to defend logically, it seems to me quite clear that, when those who worked with me so loyally and so well surrender their place and its emoluments, the Secretary of State for War should surrender his place too.
It seems to me that there was no other possible course, and I have, therefore, insisted to the Prime Minister that I may be permitted to resign my appointment; and in the course of a very short time I shall have returned the seals of office which were handed to me nearly two years ago. I made a statement in the House last week, and it would ill become me to go over that ground again; but, before I finally relinquish the office which it has been my honour to hold, I feel bound to say this: Great issues, perhaps, are raised at the present time—great issues which it may well be must be faced. It may be that our whole Army system may have to be recast, but on that I do not wish now to say anything. I do not wish to deal with the present situation. It would not be proper for me to do so. But 1 want to say this— 843 and I may be permitted to say it, as one who has been the spokesman of the Army in this House, and the head of the Army under His Majesty for the last two years—that I do not forget, and that I think the House of Commons does not forget that, apart from the present issues involved, the Army has served us loyally and well in all climes, in good times and in bad times, and has suffered and fought in our cause. Beyond this I only want to say this one thing: I resign my office as Secretary of State, but I retain my position, which I value even more, as a Member of the House of Commons, and I hope that it may be possible for me in the time to come to support the Prime Minister, to whom I owe so much, and the causes for which he stands, and especially the cause of Ireland, while at the same time I shall have the Knowledge that I have tried—and I hope the House will believe me when I say I have tried—to serve faithfully with those with whom I have associated, and to see fair play to the British Army in a difficult time.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI wish to ask a question which arises from the statement made by the Prime Minister. He must 4.0 P.M. agree with me that it would be impossible to take the Home Rule Bill in his absence, and, I assume, therefore, that he will either delay taking the Seals of Office until after the Debate is over, or that he will postpone the Home Rule Bill?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question of taking the Seals of Office is immaterial. I have already accepted the office, and I am no longer entitled to sit in this House.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWDoes the right hon. Gentleman really mean that, at a time like this, the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill is to be taken when he is not here to give his assistance to the House in the discussion that will take place?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not think I would be of very much assistance to the House. I have already made my speech on the Second Reading, but I shall be close at hand and in communication with 844 my Friends. I have taken this step with the greatest reluctance, and only in deference to what I believe to be a great public emergency.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not deny the advantage of the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, but I am quite sure that it is in the highest degree wrong, at a time like this, when we are depending upon the Prime Minister himself for an explanation of the proposals which he has made in regard to Home Rule, and I can only say that nothing could be more improper than that the Bill should be discussed in his absence.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs the right hon. Gentleman's decision that he must resign in accordance with the decision of Mr. Gladstone when he assumed the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have taken the best advice.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that when, in 1873, Mr. Gladstone, as Prime Minister, assumed the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and they gave very favourable opinions, all of which are recorded in Lord Morley's book, and that Mr. Gladstone had no hesitation in retaining both offices?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe Law Officers of to-day differ very much from the Law Officers of that time. They are all of one opinion now.