§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I have postponed, with the leave of the House, during the last few days several questions which have been addressed to me with regard to the presentation of Papers on the subject of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia. I propose now to answer those questions. In regard to the Dardanelles, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Bonar Law), I think in the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment for Easter, 851 undertook to present Papers on the subject, but in promising to lay those Papers my right hon. Friend made two limitations, namely: First, that there might be documents of so confidential a character that they ought not to be published; and, next, that it might be necessary to withhold some of the Papers which might give information useful to the enemy in regard to operations which are still in progress. My right hon. Friend made his statement after consultation with me, and with my full authority. Until the Papers were actually and carefully gone through from beginning to end, it was impossible to judge how far the observance of these limitations would detract from the comprehensiveness of the information to be published. Much time and trouble, which could with difficulty be spared from the business of the War, have been given to the task. The three Departments concerned, namely, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Foreign Office, were each asked in the first instance to make a compilation of its own Papers. The result of the examination of these documents in these Departments has been to enable the military and diplomatic advisers of the Government to inform the War Committee that they are unanimously of opinion that the publication at the present time of Papers could not be made, consistently with the reservations laid down by my right hon. Friend, without omissions so numerous and so important that the Papers actually presented would be incomplete and misleading. The Government, therefore, feel that the presentation of these Papers must be postponed, and they trust that the House will agree with them that the pledge to publish them cannot for the moment for those reasons be fulfilled.
In regard to Mesopotamia, the collection of Mesopotamian Papers was prepared in the India Office and circulated to the Departments concerned for examination. After carefully examining the Papers, the Army Council are strongly opposed to their immediate publication.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMFor a very good reason.
§ The PRIME MINISTEROn the ground that such publication would furnish the enemy with information which would be of value to him under existing conditions, and it is the opinion of the Military 852 General Staff that the publication would prejudice the success of the operations now going on in Mesopotamia, so that the Government feel bound to accept the advice, and trust that the House will see very good reason for doing so. I do not wish to leave the matter there. The operations in Mesopotamia have excited, and are exciting, widespread, and I think legitimate, interest and anxiety.
§ Sir E. CARSONWe never hear anything about them.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere are two main points which appear to be, and I think legitimately, subjects of comment and criticism. The first is the object and wisdom of the campaign itself, and particularly of the advance upon Bagdad; and the second is—and I think that much more immediately preoccupies people's minds—the manner in which the campaign was conducted.
In regard to the first point I would only for the moment say this, that, important from the political point of view as the campaign in that particular aspect undoubtedly was, from first to last, political has never been allowed to override military considerations. Every step that has been taken has been taken by the Government on the consentient advice of all its military authorities. With regard to the second point, the actual conduct of the campaign, there have undoubtedly been and are incidents which arouse anxiety and doubt as to whether the best means have been adopted to secure the end in view. In particular, I think the points which exercise public attention have been the medical provision for the sick and wounded, and to some extent perhaps the provision of proper food for the troops, and still more important the question of transport. All these points, I agree, are points which invite and deserve debate, and I am going, before I sit down, to make a proposition on the subject. I should like to say, without entering into any controversial matter in regard to the first point, perhaps the most important, that of medical provision for sickness and for wounded soldiers, that Sir John Nixon, the general who was still in command at the end of last November after the last action at Ctesiphon, in a Report made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India from Basra, said that in his opinion the medical arrangement had been quite satisfactory.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am speaking of what is reported.
§ Sir E. CARSONWill that Report be published? Why the delay?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, it will be published in due time. It is a telegram to my right hon. Friend. In the months of December and January my right hon. Friend received, and so did other members of the Government, from various sources, statements of an unofficial character, which seemed to indicate a different state of things, and accordingly, early in the month of February, the Government of India appointed a Commission of Inquiry, consisting of gentlemen whom everybody admitted at the time to be highly competent persons—Sir William Vincent, General Bingley, and Mr. Redesdale, of the Red Cross here. They were dispatched to Mesopotamia, and were directed to investigate the whole of these aspects of the matter fully, with the object in particular of attaching responsibility to those, if there were any, who were answerable for the failure to make due provision in these respects. That Commission went to Mesopotamia in March, and spent something like two months in making an exhaustive examination on the spot, both at the base and at the front, of the condition of things, and their Report has now been received by the Government of India. It was made to them; we have not yet received it. The Government of India, before transmitting it here, asked, and, I think, reasonably asked, that General Sir Beauchamp Duff, then Commander-in-Chief in India, should be allowed to submit his observations upon it. In reply to a question put to them by the Viceroy, the Viceroy having asked if any immediate action was called for, on the conditions existing when they departed from Mesopotamia, their reply was that everything possible was now being done. We have not been satisfied with that. We also, at the instance of the War Office, dispatched from this country one of the most eminent of our medical officers in France, Surgeon-General O'Donnell, who went out, I think, in April. He has made a Report which shows that, in some respects, at that time there was still a shortage of necessaries, but every indication which he gave of a deficiency has peremptorily been required to be made good. Although you may accumulate stores of supplies and stores at the Base, they are of comparatively little use unless 854 they are sent to the front and made available for the persons actually engaged in the fighting campaign. There, again, we have had two inquiries made into the matter, the first by Sir George Buchanan, who is an expert in matters of river navigation and was dispatched early in the year by the Government of India, and I think twice has been there and has exhaustively reviewed the geographical conditions from the point of view of river transport, and the other by General Gillman, a distinguished staff officer, who was sent by the War Office here in March, and examined, not only the question of the river, but of the railway transport, and of the facilities for it and the means of accelerating its completion. The Government, I will not say they are satisfied, for they are not; but the Government are quite convinced, in consequence of these careful examinations from these different points of view on the spot, that the imperfections of transport are being largely remedied and will soon, so far as the local circumstances permit, completely disappear. It is only fair to remember in that connection that transport seems to me, if I may use the expression, the weak point, at any rate the pivot of all those various troubles that have taken place. It is only fair to remember that when this Expedition was first sent it consisted of two divisions. In consequence of what took place during the earlier months, the Expedition was brilliantly successful. I do not believe that there ever has been any military expedition which was more skilfully and ably conducted than this Expedition was during its earlier stages. But in consequence of the reverse which subsequently occurred and interrupted that success, and particularly the beleaguerment of General Townshend at Kut, the Expedition which originally consisted of two divisions was increased to seven divisions, and the urgency of relieving General Townshend was such that it was thought right—I am not sure it was at all an imprudent act—to push on the troops ahead, in advance of the transport, in the hope that his relief might be speedily, or, at any rate, timely effected. I believe it will be found, if the House examines the substance of the complaints of deficiencies connected with the transport that they are due to the fact that promptitude and rapidity of action and an enormous increase in the numbers 855 of men was thought necessary for the immediate purpose. I do not want in a statement of this kind to enter into controversial matter, but I thought it right to state so much in order that the House might realise that for months past this matter in all its aspects has been engaging the most careful—I may say daily—consideration of the Government of India and His Majesty's Government here at home. I agree it is desirable that an opportunity—an early opportunity—should be afforded to the House for reviewing the whole matter and of bringing out in detail, as many Members are well qualified to do, from the special information they have received or are in possession of, all the allegations that are made under the particular heads in regard to the conduct of this campaign. I would therefore suggest to the House that we might on Thursday—that is to say, the day after tomorrow—devote that day to a discussion of the matter. Of course, I am open to any suggestions that might be made on that point.
§ Sir E. CARSONIs that this Thursday?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, the day after tomorrow. I think the most convenient way is that the discussion should take place simply on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which I shall be prepared to make at the beginning of our proceedings, so as to give the fullest possible latitude to the discussion. I hope that that suggestion may meet with the general acceptance of the House.
§ Sir E. CARSONAs I understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, we are to have, as he said, a review of the whole matter without any Papers. May I suggest to him that we might, at all events, have the Reports from which he has quoted or to which he has referred, which might be afforded to Members tomorrow? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Why, when definite promises are made in this House of the laying of Papers on these matters, which are causing the gravest anxiety in the country—why those promises are made without taking beforehand the views of the military authorities as to whether or not the Papers can be given? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the 1st June the Secretary of State for the Colonies made this promise and that the House has ever since been under the impression that the Papers were being prepared and would be put before this House?
856 May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it will be open to us, as far as we have information, on the discussion of this terrible business in Mesopotamia—it can be called nothing else; I say so deliberately from the number of communications I have had from people who are interested and their relatives; probably every Member of the House has received just as many as I have—will it be open to us to raise the question of what was the provision for armament for these people and whether they were asked to fight these battles with obsolete guns, and questions of that kind? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: When he talks of the Reports that he has now received regarding stores and transports, whether he could not lay upon the Table of the House the information that the Government had beforehand of what would be necessary for stores and transports, because it occurs generally to the public that it is not after disaster, but before the operations that these reports upon the necessities of stores and transports ought to be made? I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there ought to have been estimates made of what would be required in these matters. May I, without wishing to go into details, say to the right hon. Gentleman—passing by the Dardanelles, which is a matter that is old and the reason why we cannot have the Papers is because it is so old a matter—that as regards this question of Mesopotamia and the way in which the operations were conducted, there are thousands of people in this country who have willingly given their sons and their relatives to fight our battles who think that the whole matter has been conducted with criminal negligence?
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDMay I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention that on Thursday the question of the Dardanelles should be discussed as well as that of Mesopotamia, because it seems to me that it would be as easy to have a satisfactory discussion on rumours and on private information about the Dardanelles as it would be on the question of Mesopotamia? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of several inquiries or investigations which are being made with regard to the Mesopotamia scandal. I should like to ask him has any investigation been made with regard to the Dardanelles scandal? He told us some time ago that there could not be a proper investigation of the Dardanelles scandal because all the persons 857 chiefly concerned in the transaction were at the other side of the world. They are all in this country now. I believe I am right in saying that every one of them is in this country now. Why should there not also be an investigation into the Dardanelles question? Finally, let me ask him, does he think, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down think, or does the House think that any satisfactory discussion can be held in the absence of authentic information and Papers?
Sir H. DALZIELAt this stage I desire only to ask one question of the Prime Minister, that is the question of which I gave him notice a week ago, and which is repeated again on the Paper today, No. 47—namely, whether in regard to the Dardanelles the Papers in question, which it was pledged would be given to the House, were fully examined before such pledge was given and all necessary authorities consulted; and whether it was in his mind, when he made that statement, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that the Dardanelles book was now closed, and Papers might with safety be given to the public?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is rather a controversial question which had better be dealt with in the Debate.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIn regard to the Dardanelles, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Lord Kitchener was consulted as to the propriety and convenience of laying these Papers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI had many conversations with Lord Kitchener on the subject. One of the great difficulties, since my right hon. Friend has introduced his name in connection with the presentation of Papers, is that the publication of these Papers is rendered difficult by the death of Lord Kitchener.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. May I press him for an answer to my question, which is a perfectly simple one—Was Lord Kitchener consulted by him before the pledge was given to the House as to the publication of the Papers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes; I said I had repeated consultations with Lord Kitchener on the subject.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMay we understand that Lord Kitchener agreed to and ap- 858 proved of the declaration of the Prime Minister that the Papers should be published?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not consult him on that particular occasion. I am sure he would have done so. I spoke to him afterwards on the subject.
§ Commander BELLAIRSMay we have the Naval Dispatches in regard to the naval bombardments of 18th March, 1915, which are now sixteen months old, or do these confidential reasons also apply to the Naval Dispatches?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere again comes in the difficulty. We cannot deal with this matter in a fragmentary way.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMCan the right hon. Gentleman say why all letters sent to Members of Parliament from Mesopotamia have been severely censored, and why in some cases the letters have been almost entirely wiped out? I can show him some.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI was not aware of anything of the kind.
§ Colonel AUBREY HERBERTI only desire to ask one question of the Prime Minister. While it is obviously undesirable that, when a campaign is in progress, Papers should be published, will he consider the possibility and advisability of publishing the Medical Papers in regard to the Mesopotamia Campaign?
§ The PRIME MINISTERDoes the hon. Member mean the Vincent Report?
§ Colonel HERBERTYes.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe have not got it. It is still in India.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not the case that the contents of that Report are public property in India, and are the subject of letters from India, and why is it not possible that a summary of the Report should be published here?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend put that question to me yesterday, and I then stated that if the facts were as suggested by him, and a Report still confidential was public property in India, it ought not to be so.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIt is so.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have no knowledge to confirm the statement made by 859 the hon. Gentleman. I think it is not unreasonable that before we come to a decision about publishing a document we should see it, and also give the Government of India and the military authorities in India an opportunity of examining and commenting upon it.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not the case that this Report was presented after a twomonths' inquiry, which began in March? Has there not been time for remarks to be made by the Government in India?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, there has not. The inquiry itself took a long time, and the Report has not been in the hands of the Government of India long enough for them to communicate their comments upon it to me.
§ Sir E. CARSONMight I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the question of moving the Adjournment. He might make his speech and allow us, if necessary, to make a Motion. If we have a Motion for the Adjournment, for all I know the whole time may be taken up with conscientious objectors or other individuals of that kind. I think he will agree it is not unreasonable that we should have some other way of raising the question than on a Motion for the Adjournment.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf my right hon. Friend, or any of his Friends, will put down a Motion, I will give facilities for it.
§ Sir E. CARSONI will undertake to do so.
§ The PRIME MINISTERBut I cannot start until I know how I am going to be attacked. When I know that, I will reply to the best of my ability.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion regarding the desirability of having a secret inquiry into the Dardanelles operations?
§ Mr. J. REDMONDDo I understand that the Motion, if one is put down, will be of such a character that it will not preclude a discussion of the Dardanelles and Suvla Bay?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat must be left to those who frame the Motion.
§ Mr. LYNCHWould it not be preferable to hold a Secret Session, so that the whole matter could be discussed with more thoroughness and with more candour than in a public discussion?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, we have had one experiment, and I do not think it has been a great success.