HC Deb 01 August 1916 vol 85 cc77-90

(1) The following persons, namely

are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the origin, inception, and conduct of operations of war in the Dardanelles, including the supply of drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and equipment to the troops and Fleet, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.

(2) The following persons, namely,

are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the origin, inception, and conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia, including the supply of drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and equipment to the troops and Fleet, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.

Amendments made:

"In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "and" ["and Mr. Walter Roch, Member of Parliament"].

Leave out the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the Retired Lists," and insert instead thereof the words "Admiral of the Fleet Sir William Henry May, G.C.B., G,C.V.O., and Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson, G.C.B."—[The Prime Minister.]

Sir H. DALZIEL

I beg to move to leave out the word "origin" ["inquiring into the origin"].

I move this on behalf of the hon. Member (Mr. Peto), whose idea was that "origin" and "inception" are practically the same thing, and that "direction" would be better. For example, Sir John Nixon did not conduct the operations in Mesopotamia though he was responsible for them.

Sir J. D. REES

I beg to second the Amendment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)

If the House desires this alteration I have no particular objection. I agree that it is difficult to see any great difference between "origin" and "inception," but I think there is not much added by "direction." Direction of the campaign is, I think, covered by the conduct of the operations of the War, and my own impression is that whilst the Amendment could do no harm, it would not really affect the scope of the inquiry.

Sir E. CARSON

I do not suppose there is a great deal in it, but, as far as I am concerned, I prefer the wording of the Bill as already settled by this House. I think there is a difference between "origin" and "inception," and that "origin" refers to the policy, and "inception" is the way in which it was started. I do not think there is the slightest harm in keeping the two words in, and as a matter of drafting I prefer the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made:

After the word "Dardanelles" ["operations of war in the Dardanelles"], insert the words "and Gallipoli."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "and" ["and Mr. Josiah C. Wedgwood," Member of Parliament"].—[The Prime Minister.]

The PRIME MINISTER

I beg to move, to leave out the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists," and to insert instead thereof the words

  • "Admiral Sir Cyprian Arthur George Bridge, G.C.B., and
  • General the Eight Honourable Sir Neville Gerald Lyttelton, G.C.B."
The Committee passed an Amendment to add one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists. These two officers both belong to that category. One is a distinguished admiral, and the other is a general of very large experience in days gone by, who occupied the post of Chief of the General Staff two years ago.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX

I am in the rather invidious position of having to find fault with the name of Sir Cyprian Bridge, but I think I shall be able to show that I am speaking in his interest. I believe the House was astonished to hear that this distinguished admiral was to be appointed on this Committee. There is a great deal of difference between eleven and seventeen. A person of eleven is a boy while a person of seventeen is a man. Add on thirty years to each and between the ages of forty-one and forty-seven there is practically no difference at all. Again add on thirty years and you get to seventy-one and seventy-seven, when there is a very great difference. Seventy-seven is far too old to indulge in this sort of thing. It is a common delusion with men of that age that they are as good as ever they were. When I hear a man say that I know, he is on the down grade. This inquiry, if it is to be of any use at all, must be probed to the quick, and that will very likely imperil some high reputations in this country. Some may be in this House and some in the other—either naval or military people. It will be a very disagreeable task for those entrusted with it, and I do not think it is fair that a man of the age of seventy-seven should be entrusted with this duty. It is not fair to him, because his declining years ought to be years of peaceful contemplation. My belief is that before this business is over you will have killed two or three of your older members. I have known Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge for a great many years. He is a very distinguished officer, and has held high command. I was with him twenty-nine years ago, when he was a very senior captain and I was a very junior commander. We have been very good friends, and I am, sure he will be the very first man to recognise the justice of what I say. I was not here when the first Amendment was moved, but I should like to say that everybody will receive the nomination of Sir William May with unbounded approval. It will give absolute satisfaction to everybody in the Navy, either on the active or the retired list; but it will not be the same with regard to the nomination of Sir Cyprian Bridge. They will say that this man is too old. Admiral May is only sixty-seven, and there is an immense difference between the age of sixty-seven and seventy-seven. Sir Cyprian Bridge retired in 1904, and I do not think that anybody will imagine that a man's brain gets stronger when he is over seventy. The fact is, and experience shows it, that they are not quite the same. I do not know the actual reason why the Prime Minister has selected Sir Cyprian Bridge, but I would point out that at the age of seventy-two, five years ago, Sir Cyprian Bridge was a most strenuous advocate of that very unfortunate and now defunct Declaration of London, and, by so doing, he completely lost the confidence of the Navy in his judgment. I am afraid that if the Prime Minister persists in adding the name of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge to the list—I shall certainly not divide against it—it will not be acceptable with the Navy, and I do not think that the nation will regard the nomination as quite satisfactory.

The PRIME MINISTER

As my hon. and gallant Friend recognises, it is a most invidious task either to impugn or even to defend the selection of a particular officer for a function of this kind. No one disputes that Sir Cyprian Bridge is an officer of the highest distinction. I had not the faintest idea that he had ever been connected with advocacy of the Declaration of London. At any rate, he was selected for this Commission simply on his naval record, which, I think, nobody can dispute. Really the whole gravamen of my hon. and gallant Friend's objection is to Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge's age, seventy-seven. When I first became a member of the Cabinet, now a very long time ago—twenty-four years—the Prime Minister of that day was eighty-three, and no one disputed his capacity to discharge in this House and out of it the duties of his office. His predecessor, Lord Beaconsfield, held the office of Prime Minister, and discharged the duties of that office with the very greatest distinction up to a time, I think, when he was seventy-five or seventy-six years of age.

Sir H. MEUX

And died directly afterwards.

The PRIME MINISTER

Within a year. He died prematurely, as I think, because he was suddenly released from the cares of office and had not enough to do to exercise his faculties. However, that is speculation. My hon. and gallant Friend says there are not many men of great age in this House. If he will go down the corridor, and look in another place, he will find that there are some of our most distinguished public men in full possession not only of their faculties, but of their critical acuteness, men of great experience, who are beyond the age of Sir Cyprian Bridge. There is no more fallacious test to apply to a man's ability than to ask him in what year he was born. The question is, is he still active and virile, and in possession of his intellect, and can he still exercise, with an expert knowledge, the duties which a member of this Commission has imposed upon him? As the only ground of objection is that this distinguished officer is seventy-six or seventy-seven years of age, I do not think the House ought to undertake the invidious task of rejecting a nomination, made after full consideration, to a post which the gallant Admiral himself is perfectly prepared to accept.

Sir H. MEUX

I, never!

The PRIME MINISTER

The hon. and gallant Admiral has evidently misunderstood me. I never suggested for a moment that he would accept it. The gallant Admiral we are now considering has expressed his willingness to serve on the Commission.

Sir E. CARSON

Has the Prime Minister ascertained in regard to Sir Cyprian Bridge whether he would like to go to Mesopotamia?

The PRIME MINISTER

I think under the Bill, if it is necessary to hold a local inquiry, it is not necessary for the whole of the Commission to go. Under an Amendment to be proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, the Commission may delegate the powers to two or three Commissioners to hold a local inquiry.

Mr. ASHLEY

I cannot say that I am quite convinced by the arguments of the Prime Minister. What I want to call his attention to is this, not that a man of seventy-seven may not be entirely in the full possession of his faculties—here I may point out that of the four gentlemen mentioned in the Amendment the youngest is sixty-seven—but whether we ought not to have some persons put on the Commission who have got some knowledge of modern war. The object of putting these naval and military officers on the Commission is that the Commissioners may have some expert advice to enable them to put pointed questions to the witnesses they examine, and also to weigh the value of the answers. I maintain that, at any rate, on each Commission there ought to be one younger man, because a younger man will possibly and probably have some knowledge of modern warfare—some knowledge of submarines, aircraft, and everything that is up-to-date. The objection to the officers named is that because of their age—they are either Field-Marshals, Generals or Admirals—they have gone out of active service before all these modern inventions of war came in.

Sir H. MEUX

made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. ASHLEY

My gallant Friend says that Admiral May is on the active list.

The PRIME MINISTER

I understand he has now retired.

Sir H. MEUX

No, I do not think so.

Mr. ASHLEY

I am only contending for a general principle, and that is that these naval and military officers who were put on at the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Meux) were to be a sort of military and naval advisers and assessors to the Commissioners, so that they might give due weight to the evidence coming before them. I am afraid that, however distinguished or able they are, owing to their age, and owing to their having been, except in one case, out of active service for some years, they will not be of very much use, and will not be able to tell the Commissioners what questions they ought to ask. They will be no more help than any ordinary member.

Mr. CHURCHILL

My hon. Friend who has just spoken is certainly running counter to the decision which was come to in Committee. On the Amendment which was passed it was specifically stated that the officers, naval and military, to be added to the Commission should be on the retired list. If you are going to place naval and military officers on the Commission there is a good deal to be said for their being taken from the retired list and not from the active list. I think it would be putting an officer on the active list in a very invidious position—a serving officer whose whole future is at the disposal of the Government of the day or of successive Governments—if you ask him to sit in judgment upon the highest authorities in the State, in the Admiralty, and in the War Office, and to review their proceedings, and express an opinion upon them. That is not at all satisfactory, and it would be placing such officer in a very unfair position. I have always felt that Sir Cyprian Bridge is a man of commanding intelligence in naval matters, and, certainly, as far as age is concerned, if the Prime Minister had wished to add to the list he mentioned, he might have added the name of Lord Barham, who was over eighty when he issued the famous Concentration Order for Trafalgar. I would not have spoken on the subject if it had been on the personnel of the Dardanelles Commission, in which I am more particularly, interested. In regard to Mesopotamia I hope the Committee will not depart from what was decided at an earlier stage as to the appointment of naval and military officers from the retired list and not from the active list.

Commander BELLAIRS

The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) asked a very pertinent question whether this Commission would not have to go to Mesopotamia. I suppose the Prime Minister is familiar with what Plato said—no man is fit to travel after sixty.

The PRIME MINISTER

A very foolish remark.

Commander BELLAIRS

Perhaps the Prime Minister would also say it was a foolish remark on the part of Napoleon, that no general was fit to command after sixty. These fallacious tests, as the Prime Minister calls them, have always been applied. The Government apply them to retiring officers from the Army and Navy, and from the Civil Service. I quite agree that Sir Cyprian Bridge is, as the right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) says, a man of commanding intellect. No one who reads his books can doubt that he is a man of great judgment. The Government had an exceedingly hard task in selecting these officers. They were limited to the retired list—rightly, I think. I do consider that Sir Cyprian Bridge has passed the age when he has the qualifications for travelling and going through the large task with which this Committee will be faced in hot climes in Mesopotamia, and it would have been better for him to turn to the Prime Minister and to say, in words from Herodotus— I am too old, oh King, and slow to stir, so bid thou one of the younger men to do these things.

Sir J. D. REES

I know nothing about admirals, but I do know something about Mesopotamia. When this Bill was before the House on the previous occasion, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India waived aside my Amendment, on the ground that it was not necessary. Now we are told that if it is necessary that they should go, members of the Commission can go under the Bill. Speaking from memory, I think I am correct in saying that I have at Basra seen the thermometer at 133 in the shade. At any rate, Basra is one of the hottest places in the whole world, being surrounded by the greatest expanse of sand, north, south, east, and west, without the proximity of water, which moderates the temperature. The heat is so intense that I think the Prime Minister might very well consider what my hon. and gallant Friend has said about the capacity of even an admiral of the age of Sir Cyprian Bridge to stand a temperature of that character. It is solely on the point of climate that I speak. I am aware that a delegation might go, but in that case everybody over a certain age might be left at home, and only the young ones go out to Mesopotamia, so that you might have all the young and inexperienced in Mesopotamia, and the weighty officers left at home. I think this question of climate should be taken into account in regard to the fitness of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge. In any other respect it would be an impertinence for me to object to his qualifications.

Mr. HAZLETON

I am a little surprised to find the ground of objection taken by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway to the name of this admiral, because when this Bill was last before the House objection was taken to the name of Lord Cromer as Chairman of the Dardanelles Commission on the ground of age. Lord Cromer is seventy-five years old, and, as was pointed out on that occasion, he has been suffering recently from severe illness; but hon. Members who now object to the name of this admiral did not think that that was sufficient ground of objection to the name of Lord Cromer, and I cannot see why they should take exception in this case when they refused to do so in the other. I think that we are getting away from the subject, because when it was first proposed to put forward the names of distinguished officers of the Army and the Navy in connection with these Commissions, they were suggested not as members at all, but as assessors, and the reason was that these Commissions wanted some technical advice on Army and Navy matters. The Prime Minister accepted the suggestion that these representatives of the Services should be put on as assessors, and only yielded to further pressure from various quarters of the House that they might be placed in a somewhat invidious position if they had not the same rights as members of the Commission, and he agreed then that they should be made members with the same rights as the other gentlemen. The real test is not what is the age of this admiral, but whether, as has been argued, he is sufficiently acquainted with modern naval conditions to be of value to the Commission, and the test which you want to apply is that men who would be all right as assessors ought to be all right as members of the Commission. Therefore, unless hon. Members above the Gangway have got some objection to the name of this distinguished officer—this is a matter on which I am not myself in a position to judge—on the ground that he is not sufficiently acquainted with modern conditions, I do not think that it would be possible for them to press their objections to the name of this admiral.

Colonel YATE

I apologise for troubling the House, but I have only just seen these names, and I must ask the Prime Minister to tell me whether Sir Neville Lyttelton has had any Indian experience, and, if so, what has been his Indian experience? Lord Nicholson, we know, has had large Indian experience, but he is to go to the Dardanelles, and I desire to know something of the Indian experience of Sir Neville Lyttelton.

Sir J. D. REES

He was Military Secretary for five years to the Governor of Bombay.

Colonel YATE

It is very necessary that officers going to Mesopotamia should have full acquaintance with the question of the supplies of the Indian Army; and if the Prime Minister has any knowledge at all of Sir Neville Lyttelton's experience I should be glad to hear what it is.

The PRIME MINISTER

Sir Neville Lyttelton, who later on in his career was Chief of the General Staff here, as the House knows, had a distinguished career in South Africa. Earlier in life he was Secretary to the Governor of Bombay, and prior to that he had served with the Rifle Brigade in India.

Mr. BRYCE

I think that it would have been very difficult to have chosen two officers, on the whole better qualified than these two gentlemen. It is impossible to find officers on the retired list who have experience of modern conditions. That is unfortunate, because undoubtedly the question of aircraft will come up very largely in connection with this Mesopotamia Expedition. I believe that the Aircraft Service was exceedingly badly done, and that actually, when detachments were sent out, they were forbidden to take their machines with them. Altogether it will be found that one of the great handicaps of that expedition, and one of the reasons why the relief force failed, was that the aircraft force was so badly organised. However, I believe that it was quite impossible for the Government to have found two better men for the Mesopotamia Commission than the two distinguished officers who have been proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. D. REES

I beg to move to leave out the word "origin" ["origin, inception and conduct"].

It appears to me that while the word "inception" may properly be left in, because it refers to the actual special beginning of this particular campaign which is the subject of inquiry, the word "origin" is sufficiently wide to include a great deal more than this. If you take the origin of these operations, it might bring in the Balkans. I suppose it would be considered as taking in the advance from Basra northwards, which was the fatal step, all the arrangements having been perfectly good up to the taking of Basra. If this is to be considered very likely it will be an extremely relevant fact. The point on which the inquiry turns will be—what was the cause then for sending this expedition away up from Basra, where it sat in safety, more than five hundred miles through sandy desert and along shoal river into the heart of Turkish Arabia? Then the answer probably will be that it was to create a diversion with reference to Balkan politics. That would open up Balkan politics, and then I do not know why we should not get in Austria and then Germany, and so on up to the very beginning of the whole War. I do not know why the word "origin" was put into the Bill. Whatever may be its origin, it is far better now to leave it out. The very last thing that is wanted is to have a very extensive inquiry. I deplore the whole inquiry myself. I believe that if—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must point out that an Amendment was moved on the Clause relating to the other Commission to leave out the word "origin" and that that Amendment was withdrawn. The present Amendment is only allowable on the principle that there is some special point in this second inquiry.

Sir J. D. REES

The Amendment to the same effect on the earlier Clause was submitted but not discussed. The hon. Gentleman got up to move it, and then withdrew it before it was discussed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It was discussed.

Sir J. D. REES

To-day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes.

Sir J. D. REES

If it was discussed, it was the most attenuated discussion that I ever heard in my life. It was such a discussion as not to be worthy of the term discussion, which is a sufficiently comprehensive one. I am quite aware that it is not permissible to discuss the policy of the inquiry, and I only made a partial reference to it, and was unfortunate in having trespassed to that extent. I submit that if we are to go into "origin," reference will have to be made to dispatches which will have to be published, and one result will be that in future whenever an officer in command of an expedition receives an order to carry out something which he thinks may be unsuccessful, he will very likely register a protest that he ought not to do it, but will do it in obedience to orders. All these subjects come in again under "origin." They open an immense vista, which would include every conceivable subject. The more this inquiry is limited and the more limited the words which are used in connection with each reference, the better it will be for all concerned. I am quite aware of the importance of the point to which, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have called my attention, but I submit that the case of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia are quite different. The Dardanelles is a dead and gone expedition, but the Mesopotamia Expedition is alive, and what matters in regard to that is of the utmost importance, whereas what happened in regard to the Dardanelles matters to nobody except to the reputation of certain higher officers concerned. Here we are dealing with an expedition in which the lives and fortunes of men are still at, stake. For this reason I submit not only that I am in order, but that I am right in moving the omission of the word "origin," that there is a complete difference between the two cases, that injury may be done by overstepping the limits in Mesopotamia, and that there is an absence of any such consideration in regard to the Dardanelles.

Colonel AUBREY HERBERT

I quite agree with everything which my hon. Friend has said. I take the opportunity of saying that, while it is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has said, that this Clause was discussed in regard to the Gallipoli question, is was so rushed that none of us here made out what happened. We really had no opportunity of saying a word upon it, and I think that that is the most important thing almost in the Bill. These are my reasons. First, you have got two Committees, whose composition seems to me to be admirable, but if you are going to go into the whole of the question, as my hon. Friend has said, then you are going to occupy the time of a number of very valuable men, because there is absolutely no end to this question. As he says, you might just as well discuss the whole of this War as to go into the question of policy. We shall want to know what everybody thought about the whole thing, from King Ferdinand of Bulgaria down to the chorus girls in Athens. I am not going into the Gallipoli matter, but we know what the live people in Australia think now. They want to get on with the work, and they do not want to go back on their past mistakes, and we know what the Australians, who are dead, and the New Zealanders thought.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

We are limited here solely to the Mesopotamia Inquiry. The other matter is past and decided.

Colonel HERBERT

Perhaps we shall have a chance on the Third Reading. Finally, on this particular point, I will say this: There is a number of groups inside and outside this House who are interested in this question, and who are actuated by different motives. There are some people who want to vindicate themselves, and other people who are desirous of attacking the Government. There is a third class, and the hon. Member for Mayo I think is one, who are anxious to raise questions with regard to the mention or the non-mention of troops in various parts of the world; and, finally, there is a last class of people who are anxious to do as much as possible for the men who are now fighting. In the interests of our fighting men I should like to see all these questions of strategy, policy and all the rest relegated to the background, and one clear issue presented for inquiry.

Mr. HAZLETON

Again I find it a very hard thing to understand why this Amendment has been moved by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. It is quite true that we did not spend, the last day on which the Bill was before the House, a great deal of time in discussing this particular Amendment, but I think that the principle behind this Amendment was very fully discussed. It seemed to me to be as to whether the reference to the Commissions should be a wide one or a narrow one. There was no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House that the reference should be as wide in each case as it could possibly be made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee was anxious to move an Amendment that stood in his name on that occasion, and, although it covered a very wide ground, objection was taken to it, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman himself agreed, that words such as he proposed were rather limited than otherwise, and that those which have been put into the Bill were considered the very best words, giving the widest scope possible to the work of this Commission. I do not think that on the Report stage we ought to depart from that. I think the considerations which applied to the Dardanelles Commission apply with equal force to that for Mesopotamia, and the fact that the campaign in Mesopotamia is still going on is, to my mind, no ground whatever why there should be an alteration in the reference to the Commission in that case. I do not agree with the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment, that the origin of matters connected with the campaign in Mesopotamia is one with which the public or the House is not concerned I think that all these matters ought to be gone into, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not give way on this very important point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The House will, perhaps, permit me to observe how difficult is the position of the Government when trying to follow the wishes of the House as regards the scope of the inquiries; and, in reference to the Bill, the Government are very much in the hands of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed great readiness to adopt suggestions from all quarters of the House. But I cannot help noticing that no sooner do we do something to please Members of the House than another section of it expresses displeasure at the change, and it is very difficult to arrive at a settled opinion I venture to say that we ought to stand by the wording as it is now, that is, the wording which was chosen by the House, the wording deliberately adopted in Committee, in preference to the wording that has been put down by the Government. The wording put down by the Government was the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College, Dublin. But that appeared not to be wide or precise enough for some Members of the House, and we took the present wording, which we consider the best wording as regards one Commission, and I do not think that it will be wise or desirable to alter it in respect of the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) complained that this question has been inadequately discussed, and perhaps I may understand that to mean that he had not participated in the discussion. Now that he has raised a discussion, I hope that he will not think it necessary to spend further time, and that he will allow us to get on with the other Amendments.

Sir J. D. REES

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that I referred to the discussion to-day on the word "origin"? I did not refer to the discussion on the previous occasion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.