HC Deb 27 July 1915 vol 73 cc2230-46

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Colonel BOWDEN

I regret exceedingly to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War is not in his place.

Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

He is coming.

Colonel BOWDEN

I am glad to hear that. I regret also that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who began the Debate on this matter, is also not in his place.

Mr. BOOTH

He intends to be here.

Colonel BOWDEN

I am also glad to hear that. Hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty I have in talking on this subject at all, because I am in personal association with it, and doubly so, because in this inquiry a report appears in this paper before it was properly issued. Having been dealt with, it is doubly difficult for me to deal with the matter, because I am in uniform. It makes it a very difficult thing for me to deal with, but it becomes a very great question of vindicating my honour. Hon. Members will appreciate that, and that I should wish to be more vehement than I may be. This Report which comes out to-day is incomplete. This is the Report which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has been asking for for several days, and for which I have been waiting. This Report, I am sorry to say, is an incomplete one in one very serious respect. I have the Report here. A statement in the newspaper gives extracts from the Report, presumably complete, but the Report includes such statements as this which, with your permission, Sir, and distinctly in connection with this matter, I should like to read from the actual Report, the official document which I hold in my hand. It is omitted from the newspaper:— In forwarding our Report on certain matters connected with the British Empire Committee, which have been referred to us for investigation; we wish in the first place to record our appreciation of the admirable work carried out by that committee. They have spared neither time nor trouble, with the result that a fine battalion has been added to the military resources of the country. We have felt it our duty to comment unfavourably on certain of their actions, but we recognise the great services they have rendered to the country, and we are careful to point out that these services were rendered at a time of great stress, and under conditions of extreme pressure. Our decisions where they are adverse to the committee are to be received with the above qualification. There is no word whatever of the qualification of this Report in this newspaper, which, without the knowledge or sanction of the Under-Secretary for War, has been quoted with the result that without that preamble it has quite a different construction. It is not fair. It is not a right way of guiding the public that to a body of men who have been prompted solely and simply throughout the whole of their work by patriotic action—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)

May I ask the hon. and gallant Member if he contends that this paragraph is not in the Report? He has just read out the Report on the point.

Colonel BOWDEN

No; I complain that, by some extraordinary means, a Report has been published without that point.

Mr. TENNANT

Where has it been published?

Colonel BOWDEN

My complaint is that it has not been published, but that other things derogatory to the character of Sir Bindon Blood, my esteemed chairman, and myself, have been published. When this Report was published I was the only person, I believe, who was given a copy of that Report, because I am an officer on the strength. I wrote for the Report and got it. I was asked to make certain answers to questions of a purely military nature, which I answered. I submit that the Report in the form in which it has been published, whether by permission of the right hon Gentleman or not, should not have been published without my answer. It is not complete without that answer, because here is a statement made by the "Globe" correctly worded and quite in accordance with the copy I have in my possession, but in which the Court of Inquiry has itself unfortunately, using shorthand notes, made a distinct error. There is a sentence in the second column of the "Globe" with reference to an individual who called himself Major Bathurst, who had subscribed £100 to the committee in its earlier stages long before I had any connection with it, and the report says, and the "Globe" quotes: The witnesses called before us disagree as to the use which was to be made of the £100 so subscribed, and Lieutenant-Colonel Bowden says it was 'In his hands, as commanding officer, for the use of the men.' Elsewhere he suggests that it was a loan direct to the agency. The House will, I think, appreciate my point. As soon as I read this Report I realised that a serious error had been made by the Court. A statement supposed to be contradictory made by myself did not exist, and I am compelled to read out the extract of my answer to the Army Council, which, I think, will convince the House that without that answer the Report itself is incomplete. I say in that answer:— I observe in the Report (at page 9) the following statement: That is the statement I have just read, in which I am supposed to say that this £100 was in my hands, as commanding officer, for the use of the men, and that elsewhere I suggested it was a loan direct to the agency. This is the answer I gave with regard to the question and answer, on page 46:— Several of the counsel engaged in the case frequently mixed up the names of various persons mentioned on several occasions. The question to which the Report refers is as follows:— Question: What was done with the contribution of Major Bathurst? Answer: It was in my hands, as commanding officer, for the use of the men. This is an obvious mistake for 'What was done with, the contribution of Mr. Devereux'? (referring to the £400 contributed by him as representing 85 per cent. of the profits of the messing contract). All the immediately preceding and subsequent questions and answers referred to the contracts with Mr. Devereux and had nothing to do with Major Bathurst. It was a shorthand writer's error. The shorthand notes will show that for two or three pages before, and two or three after that question was asked. This paper is able to bring out, presumably, a contradictory statement made by myself. That statement has been made definitely clear in my answer to the Army Council, and it is not just that such a statement should reach, in any shape or form, the public Press, unless that answer had been published. That is one objection to the Report in that form having been allowed to come out. Hon. Members will be surprised to hear—I think it will be a matter of very much surprise to all to know—that included in other matters in that Court of Inquiry were suggestions of corruption against myself. Every effort had been made by myself to bring to the light of day the source from which they came, and the Court itself made every possible investigation to find any justification for it. On the fourth day of the proceedings the Court took upon itself immediately and unanimously to make a statement that there was not even a primâ facie case to justify my going into the witness-box to answer. Yet that Report contains not a word of that. I think, in asking the right hon. Gentleman to remedy that defect in the Report itself, which is now issued, I am putting it extremely mildly, but I do ask that. He will also appreciate that, having failed in that, a very favourite game of a certain class of individuals who want to attack public men is to attack their moral character. That also failed. The same paper, which had by some extraordinary means got hold of this, just because a witness said that he had heard a rumour that somebody had said this, or somebody had told him that, could bring out a bill with the words: "Grave charges against Colonel Bowden, M.P."

Mr. PRINGLE

Why not take an action against them?

Colonel BOWDEN

That is my business. The Report also was incomplete. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked a very pertinent question—quite correctly, so I think—when he brought up this whole matter in the House of Commons. I said at the time that he was perfectly justified in doing so. He has done so in a perfectly fair manner, and I think he is prepared to tell the House, as I am, that nobody was more surprised when that inquiry was found to be meant as an attack upon myself. In his speech he used these words, addressing the Under-Secretary of State for War: I should like my right hon. Friend at the same time to tell me if he has looked into the price that was given for that particular hutting contract. If he does he will probably rind that no higher price was paid by the War Office for any huts that had been built than for the huts built in connection with this contract."—[OFFICIAL RUPOUT, 11th March, 1915, col. 1611, Vol. LXX.] That was a perfectly justifiable question, and no doubt the hon. Member had information to justify that question, though he has had no answer to it. I presume he wants that answer. I have in my possession now the official report of Brigadier-General Baker Brown, Chief Engineer of the Eastern Command. Am I in order in reading extracts from that in answer to that point? It was asked for in that Report, but was omitted in the Report. If I may read it, it w ill interest the hon. Member. It is complete. It points out that the total cost of £15,584 for the accommodation of thirty officers and 1,080 men compares favourably with that of the larger hutments of the Eastern Command, and with that of several other special hutments which I have visited. The general arrangement and construction of the huts is good, but some of the details indicate a want of expert supervision. The House should realise, and the public should know, that there existed no other supervision than my own. I had no engineers there. I had not one to go down to supervise that camp. The alterations suggested concern joints of floor boards, position of stove pipes and other alterations, the cost of the whole of which the Chief Engineer suggests would be covered easily by an outlay of £40 or £50. I consider that absolutely satisfactory. He ends up his report by saying:— The roads are made of old sleepers and are good, but considerable work is required on the surface drainage in order to get rid of storm water. This is a defect which is present in nearly every camp, and I do not think the Empire Committee could have been expected to do more than they have done. I want that sentence to attract the attention of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. But I attach more importance to the letter from the General in charge of the administration of the Eastern Command when that report was sent to the War Office. He said:— I would point out that the principal defects in this camp, the officers mess and the lighting, appear to be mainly due to the efforts of this committee to keep the total expense within the limits of the amount allowed by the War Office. Other committees who have I produced better results in these respects have generally spent more money. I have already made a claim in this House that we are, perhaps, the only committee which was able to keep its cost within the amount allowed by the War Office. Speaking from memory, the report justified the action of Mr. McCandlish by saying that the results of the contracts were such as to justify it. It has totally failed by the report of the Chief Engineer. The same applies to the catering. An endeavour was made to show that the men were not well fed. General Woollcombe, the General Officer Commanding the Eastern Command, visited the camp several days. He saw the men at many of their meals, and his opinion was that no battalion was ever better fed. I think his actual words were that it was the best fed battalion in the English Army, and that was confirmed by numbers of general officers, though General Landon said the food was only ordinary, though he refused to say it was bad. But the Report would seem to justify Mr. McCandlish's action on that very simple bit of evidence. There is one incident here that relates also to this paper, which has got this Report in some way earlier than it should have. Officers gave evidence also on the quality of food. They criticised the food. They could not say it was not good, but they could not say it was not sufficient; and one officer, who was asked why the men did not complain, said:— Oh, if you had an old regiment where there were old soldiers you would have had plenty of complaints, hut these were young men and they were all keen. On the night of 9th or 10th June that was reported by this very paper, which said:— Oh, the men would not complain because they were too desperately hungry. Do hon. Members appreciate the difference? That is a very fair sample of the kind of foundations which can be worked up, on which a rumour can be built. I am sorry to have to take part in this Debate at all. I had a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman, hoping that this paint of the absolute vindication of myself and Sir Bindon Blood as to the suggestion of corruption would be put clearly before the House, and had that been done there would have been nothing more for me to say. The courtesy of the Under-Secretary of State for War is well-known to hon. Members just as it is known to everybody outside the House who has had to come in contact with him, and I trust he will be able to assure me that he knows nothing of the incident which I am about to give. It will be incredible to hon. Members to realise that Sir Bindon Blood and myself, both personally affected by this Report, entered that Court without the slightest knowledge of the most serious suggestions that were going to be made against us. We had no knowledge of that at all. We asked for the names and the standing of the persons who were making these allegations against us, and what they were. I have in my possession the letter from the Army Council. In answer to our request to have that information, we were asked to sign a document which practically meant signing away the first rights of a British citizen to take action against those who dared to defame our honour. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the reference. Needless to say I refused to sign that document, with the result that Sir Bindon Blood and myself and other members of the Court entered the Court without the slightest knowledge on those points. I would like for a few moments to look at the broader side of the question. I was largely instrumental in raising this battalion, and I had little difficulty in finding recruits. I also took my share in the formation of two brigades of Artillery and a Signalling company, and I was solely responsible for the endeavour to bring them step by step under military discipline, which was not an enviable task. I was chiefly responsible for the feeding, clothing, housing, and equipment, and it has been given on high authority that this is one of the finest battalions in the Service, and I say to hon. Members, there is the result of my work.

Mr. BOOTH

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks, because I have my own nephew in his battalion. We are listening carefully to him because we have a Report in our hands in which the findings of an Inquiry Court practically challenges the hon. and gallant Member's honour as to the way he gave his evidence and as to whether he was speaking the truth, and I may say we are listening to him with a great deal of concern.

Colonel BOWDEN

I have already read out to the House the serious error and a contradiction, and I feel sure that the first to agree with my rendering of what occurred will be the gentlemen who formed that Court. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) must accept that from me here in this House. I have read the points on which the Court say it was contradictory, where it is purely an error in the reading of the shorthand notes. What I have read, shows that these points could not have applied because they come at different times and on different subjects. I hope the hon. Member opposite will appreciate that.

Mr. BOOTH

I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel BOWDEN

Then I am sorry, but I cannot put my point any clearer. Let me read to the House what I would have liked to have been the final word on this matter, because the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and others have been urging the taking over of this and other battalions, and this Report and leading article in the paper to-day talks about demanding the immediate dismissal of the committee. Let me read the letter from the Army Council dated the 15th July, which will have some bearing on the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract. Here is the letter:—

"War Office,

London, S.W.

15th July, 1915.

Sir,—I am commanded by the Army Council to offer you, and those associated with yon, their sincere thanks for having raised the 17th (Service) Battalion Royal Fusiliers (Empire), of which the administration has now been taken over by the military authorities.

The Council much appreciate the spirit which prompted your offer of assistance, and they are gratified at the successful results of the time and labour devoted to this object, which has added to the armed forces of the Crown the services of a fine body of men.

The Council will watch the future career of the battalion with interest, and they feel assured that when sent to the front it will maintain the high reputation of the distinguished regiment of which it forms part.

I am to add that its success on active service will largely depend on the result of your efforts to keep the depot companies constantly up to establishment with men in every way fit for service in the field.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed) B. B. CUBITT.

The Chairman,

British Empire Committee,

60, Victoria Street, S.W."

I consider that that letter from the Army Council is absolutely in opposition to the garbled Report which has been allowed to come out to-day. I had hoped that the Report would have been accompanied by a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for War, and it should have been accompanied with a complete answer that I am sure would have satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to have some explanation as to why this Report was not accompanied by a statement from the right hon. Gentleman which would have saved altogether the necessity for any debate or discussion. The matters which have been raised are totally immature points, and have nothing to do with the inquiry. They are simply side issues solely between myself and the military superiors, which have been fully answered, and the hon. Member who put forward those points cannot understand them unless they are accompanied by my explanation.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I was born in the constituency which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite represents, and I am associated with and was responsible in one way for the reason why the hon. Member came to this House by having a three-cornered contest. Like the hon. Member who has spoken, I have a nephew in this regiment, and so has another hon. Friend of mine. Therefore we can claim to have some interest in this particular regimental case. The hon. Member is aware that these are the findings of a judicial committee, the chairman of which was General Lyttelton, and the Solicitor-General was a legal member of the Court. Although we have only had this Report placed in our hands within the last three or four hours, the hon. and gallant Member is asking the House to go into all these details respecting this regiment. I am not going to deal with any of the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member. We have got a Report from the Court of Inquiry which directly calls into question the honour of the hon. and gallant Member for Nort-East Derbyshire, and therefore it is altogether out of place to discuss in any shape or form a report of a judicial committee which the House of Commons can only—

Colonel BOWDEN

That is entirely my point. The hon. Baronet has only got one side of the case, and I have in my possession a letter asking me to answer those points. The hon. Baronet cannot judge upon only one side of the question unless he considers my answer. My complaint is that this matter has been rushed prematurely before the House by getting into the hands of a newspaper before it could be put forward with my answer. The hon. Baronet cannot possibly judge without my answer, which is now in the hands of the War Office.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to recognise that the Report contains the findings of a judicial inquiry, and it is not possible for me as a Member of the House of Commons to go behind those findings, which have been arrived at by a judicial committee which has heard all the witnesses and their evidence. It is quite impossible for us now to review in detail the findings of that committee. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is very ill-advised in dealing with this question at the present moment. We can only now consider the Report, and it remains for the hon. Member to take such steps as he thinks necessary to defend his own honour in the House of Commons. I want to deal with a wholly different point. At Question Time to-day the Prime Minister stated that it was not his intention to move to-morrow the Motion, "That the House do now adjourn." He did say, however, that if there is any desire on the part of hon. Members that the sitting of the House should continue after eleven o'clock he would move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, and that this desire could be ascertained through the ordinary channels. I understand that there are a large number of hon. Members who have signed a request to the Chief Whip, and I wish to know if the Government have decided to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-morrow?

Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury)

Yes.

8.0 P.M.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I want to give notice that I intend to call attention to one of the most extraordinary things the Government has ever done in the history of this Parliament. They have actually placed in the Vote of Credit the salary of the Second Whip without giving any information to the House of Commons that the Vote of Credit included that salary. Naturally this is a matter which, had it been known, would have caused some discussion, and for the Government to treat the House of Commons in this way, without giving any indication whatever that this salary was included, is, I think, one of the most monstrous things that has ever come before my attention during the time I have been a Member of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract has discovered that the Vote includes payments to other Members of this House. I want to know if there are any other payments to Members of Parliament included in this Vote of Credit which we do not know of. My hon. Friend has found one. I want to know whether there are any more. I need not tell the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) that there is not, of course, the slightest personal attack upon him in any shape or way. My complaint is that the Government have not had the common honesty and courage to come down to the House and say that they were going to have two Whips, and that they were going to pay both of them salaries. They are, of course, entitled to do it. I should not and none of us would complain about that, but we do complain that they should bury these salaries in this way as a war measure. As a matter of fact, one Whip would have been amply sufficient for all purposes with a servile majority sitting behind the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has decided to adjourn the House, but I think it is very unfortunate now that the Pensions Bill has been thrown out by another place. It seems to me very unfair that Parliament should leave these soldiers and sailors in this position. I myself had several Amendments which I had handed in and which I withdrew because we were asked to let the Bill go through as the Government were anxious to place it on the Statute Book. Now, having given up the time to get the measure through, the House of Lords has thrown it out, and the soldiers and sailors will have to wait till the Government come back to the House and tell us what they want us to do. It is not treating the House of Commons fairly. If the House of Lords by a snap majority choose to throw the Bill out, it is open to the Government to reintroduce it, and they would no doubt be able to carry it through.

Take the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill. That measure is going up to another place. We do not know what they are going to do with it. If they choose to amend it or to throw it out, there will be no opportunity to deal with it. I understand that there are certain Noble Lords, who formerly sat in this House, who are going to move very substantially to alter the Bill. If there is going to be any alteration it will be wholly impossible in the time we shall have at our disposal to-morrow to deal with any Lords Amendments. Therefore, I think it very improper, in view of the action of the House of Lords, that the House of Commons should adjourn to-morrow, and I think the Prime Minister ought to recognise that there is a very strong feeling on these benches, if not on the benches immediately behind him, that the House ought not to adjourn until we have got the Pensions Bill, not merely through this House, but placed upon the Statute Book

Mr. TENNANT

My hon. Friend he Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) does not often give me the pleasure of agreeing with him, but I have listened to his remarks upon the British Empire Committee, and I can say that I endorse everything he has said upon that subject. I am really not quite certain with what purpose the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Bowden) has brought this matter before the notice of the House of Commons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield quite truly said, the Report of the Committee has only been in the hands of hon. Gentlemen for a very few hours. I got it expedited with every possible speed, and I had hoped that hon. Gentlemen would have thought that it had been rather quickly done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite began by saying that a serious error had been made in the Report, but when he came to read out the paragraph in question I discovered that he was commenting, not upon some thing published in this Report, which is the document with which Parliament is concerned, but upon something in a report published by an evening newspaper. I do not really think that the House of Commons need take cognisance of what an evening newspaper chooses to publish, and I do not think that undue importance ought to be attached to it. I do not bring any charge against the newspaper in question. I have no doubt that it was in sufficiently informed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to ask me to remedy a defect in the Report. How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect me to introduce any matter of my own into the findings of a Military Court of Inquiry? No sane person would really—

Colonel BOWDEN

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to give proof to the House of my sanity on that point. I am asking him to confirm a letter which I have written. A point was made by the Court on the fourth day of the proceedings. It has been omitted for some reason from the Report, and it is a complete vindication on the charge of corruption. It is a just request, and it is not adding to the Report. The Court has already made that Report, but it is not contained in the document.

Mr. TENNANT

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to insert my own matter into a Report which is the findings of a Military Court of Inquiry. The statement which he has placed before the Army Council will be considered, and carefully considered, by the Army Council. He stated in his speech that he regretted that this Report had not been issued with a statement from myself. I beg leave to think that the House would have thought it very improper if I had made any statement, and I must really decline with firmness to place myself in a judicial capacity upon this matter. I, in common with my colleagues on the Army Council, will have to consider the observations which have been asked for from the hon. Gentleman, and which he has rendered to the Army Council on such part of the Report as concerns him. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division that he was only considering one side of the matter, he was really not using a proper expression, the one side to which he referred being the findings of this body of competent gentlemen upon the whole of the evidence taken upon oath and subject to examination and cross-examination by counsel learned in the law. The hon and gallant Gentleman himself was represented by counsel no doubt very competent, who could have put before the Court the points which he desires to put to the House of Commons, and who, no doubt, did put those points before the Court when it was sitting. I can only, say that to ask a Minister to comment upon the findings of this Judicial Court of Inquiry is to ask him really to engage upon what would not be a proper proceeding, and I must respectfully ask him not to expect me to do so.

Mr. BOOTH

I regret exceedingly to have to say in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Bowden) that I think his speech this evening is trifling with the House. I hold in my hand a document. I do not apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I hope that this House would be faithful with me if I were in a similar position. May I attempt to draw his attention to the seriousness of the position? A Report is presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty. We, of course, should have taken it and read it very carefully, and I may say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we should have read it with the deepest pain, seeing that it reflects upon a Member of our own Assembly. We should have read it very carefully, and those of us who might have been inclined to make any suggestions would have taken a little time to consider it, and would probably have consulted some Minister in a responsible position, or some old Members of the House, or some of those serving in the Army, before we had dared to bring it up on the Motion for Adjournment. The hon. and gallant Member has himself rushed to the front and is inviting the opinion of the House upon something. I would ask him to remember what is on page 10 of the Report, because it is material to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman making any speech at all. It says:— The Court is of opinion that the evidence of Lieut.-Colonel Bowden is neither clear nor consistent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must excuse me. In these matters we must put all personalities on one side and be faithful to each other. This is the finding of a Court which, whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say, I am sure has the entire confidence of this Assembly. I hope that he will recognise that fact. The four names mentioned upon the front page I venture to say are names of gentlemen of experience who have the confidence of Members of the House. That is the opinion of the Court. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes and make an ex-parte statement, and wants to influence the House by it in face of that remark. The hon. and gallant Gentleman denies that he used the word "fee." I only take this as an illustration to show him the seriousness of the position. The Court itself says this:— There ram be little doubt that the word 'fee' was used by Lieut.-Colonel Bowden in his conversation with Captain Clark. Two officers heard it. Therefore, the finding is that the hon. and gallant Member was neither clear nor Consistent in his statement before the Court; and they further say on a definite point that they did not believe the hon. and gallant Member. They find, therefore, so far as I can see, that they cannot accept his word, and they find him guilty of not speaking the truth.

Colonel BOWDEN

No, no!

Mr. BOOTH

I only speak as a layman. I will read the words again:— He denies that he used the word 'fee.' The finding is:— There can be little doubt that the word 'fee' was used by Lieut.-Colonel Bowden in his conversation. They find that he did use that word. In the face of that statement just put into our hands, the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes and makes a speech to the House. That is my complaint. I am not going into the merits of the case. I think that the right hon. Gentleman took exactly the right line. Why should any of us seek to add our own paragraph or interpolation to a document like this1? The document is exceedingly painful reading. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all kindness, that any ex-parte statement of his cannot put the matter right in face of these findings.

Colonel BOWDEN

The hon. Member is in error there; it is not an ex-parte statement. It is a statement which I have been asked to make, carefully drawn up by my counsel, and the hon. Member would speak entirely different had he that statement in his hands.

Mr. BOOTH

I cannot accept that at all.

Colonel BOWDEN

It is so.

Mr. BOOTH

I put it in this way. The hon. and gallant Member is not treating the House with respect. We have here an official document and an official finding. One of the parties to the inquiry, who was severely examined, now informs the House that if we had before us some statement drawn up by his counsel we should hold a different view. If he wants to upset a finding of this character he must do it in a different way. If he is prepared to challenge the bona fides of the members of the Court, to say that it was not properly constituted, or that the members did not conduct themselves in a judicial manner then—

Colonel BOWDEN

I do not say that, but I have quoted a case in which there is a distinct error.

Mr. BOOTH

I am not wishing to reflect on this regiment. There are three of us sitting here who have relatives in it. I took the trouble to go down and make inquiries on the spot. I was very pleased with the men and with what I saw of the officers in an informal way. It was with my support and sanction that my nephew joined as a private. He is now a corporal. I wish the regiment every success. One paragraph in the Report pleases me. It is that in which the Court attempts, and rightfully attempts, to free the regiment from any stigma in consequence of the transactions of the hon. and gallant Member and his committee. I do not know what the intentions of the War Office are with regard to the Report. I am sure there will be no lack of sympathy with the officers and men because of the tragedy of this inquiry. I can only say if my name were concerned in a Report in this way I should immediately apply for the Chiltern Hundreds.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

My hon. Friend opposite has been criticised for bringing on this matter to-night. I feel I am responsible. The hon. and gallant Member approached me as to the best time and opportunity for doing so. I told him that, in my opinion, provided the Report was in the Vote Office, he would be well advised if he did it to-night, as it was doubtful whether he would find time and opportunity to-morrow.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eight o'clock.