§ (1) The following persons, namely, are hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of operations of war in the Dardanelles, including the supply of equipment to the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the 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 conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia, including the supply of equipment to the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the Government whose 1897 duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war.
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "namely," to insert the words,
- "The Right Honourable Earl Cromer,
- The Right Honourable Andrew Fisher,
- The Honourable Sir Thomas Mackenzie,
- Sir Frederick Cawley, Baronet, Member of Parliament,
- Mr. James Avon Clyde, King's Counsel, Member of Parliament, and
- Captain Stephen Lucius Gwynn, Member, of Parliament."
Sir H. DALZIELI rise only to say, as one interested in these inquiries, that I think it would be ungracious for us not to recognise that the Prime Minister has sought very hard to meet the views which have been expressed in various parts of the House. Recognising that, as far as I am concerned, I do not propose to press any point in regard to the personnel except the Amendment standing in my name [to insert "Mr. Walter Roch"].
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. LYNCHI could not allow this Amendment to pass without uttering a protest. In the formation of all these Committees, and, indeed, in filling almost every public office of late, too much regard has been had to the House of Lords, and there has been a woeful lack of any kind of democratic principle. Whenever any public office is to be filled, or any Committee instituted, the first question asked apparently is, "Who are the Noble Lords to be nominated?" That is done quite irrespective of any particular ability or of any outstanding qualities of character. I mean to hammer on this point until it has its effect upon the Government, and until particularly this Government is brought back to those democratic principles with which they are losing contact more and more as this Parliament continues. Not only that, but there seems to be a superstitious respect for the House of Lords, and an impalpable but nevertheless real influence of what may be called society circles. These influences, however impalpable and intangible, are yet a very real force in the government of this country and are, I am certain, partly responsible for that extraordinary reluctance which we have seen exhibited from day to day to remove from the highest honours those who are now 1898 fighting against the forces of this country in the field. One would think that the present Coalition Government, and particularly the Liberal Members of it, had taken seriously to heart the feeling described by Byron in the words, "Little Tommy dearly loves a lord." Evidently they swing between the poles of the love of lords and the fear of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin, University. He waves his wand, and they obey, as if some secret instructions have been given to the Cabinet that the fear of Sir Edward Carson is the beginning of wisdom. My own duty, and my own study of character leads me occasionally to visit the House of Lords, where I always feel as if I were in.bonds. The impression given to me is something between an old curiosity shop and a cemetery.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid I hardly see the relevance of these observations.
§ Mr. LYNCHI will not proceed on those lines except simply to delay for one moment to explain the relevancy. My point is this: There is no reality whatever in this preference for lords; it is done simply in obedience to a vague tradition and superstition. That being so, before I sit down I would appeal to the Labour Members to consider this point seriously, to dispute the supremacy suggested, and the fact that a man, even of an illustrious name such as Lord Cromer bears should, as a sort of natural right, step at once into a position of command. There is one argument the Prime Minister puts forward and which is re—echoed on his side when any such objection as I have put forward is made, and that is that these men are men of great experience and have been long years in the administration of some high offices of the country. I should say that for such a Commission as the present these so-called qualifications ought to be regarded as disqualifications. Men of that frame of mind become bureaucratic to their very soul. They are unable to think outside Government lines and in the Government manner. This is, after all, a soldier's campaign. The sons of the working men have to pay for this campaign with their bodies, and these others are not even paying for it with their brains. The first have the premier right to sift to the very bottom all these faults and all these stupendous blunders and monstrous sacrifices for which their sons and relatives 1899 have suffered. I would far rather see some honest, intelligent man sitting on the Labour Benches placed as Chairman of this Commission than a man "soaked in the rum of bureaucracy." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am simply adapting a phrase of Carlyle in reference to Webster, the great American statesman, whom he said was "soaked in the rum of bureaucracy." Their tendency will be to resist every inclination and demand for the fullest flood of light into the secret recesses of this inquiry, and to assume what may be called the attitude of defenders of the Government.
Mr. HAZLETONI am very anxious to support the Amendment that has been moved by my right hon. Friend opposite.
Mr. HAZLETONI thought my right hon. Friend had moved his Amendment. However, there are only one or two words I should like to say in connection with the names proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. I do not quite share the objection taken by my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, because I think if the proposed Chairman of this Commission is himself a suitable person we need not bother very much whether or not he is a lord. But Lord Cromer is a man of very advanced age. I just want to ask the Prime Minister a question which I think he will consider of some importance in this connection. Lord Cromer is to be Chairman of this Commission. Lord Cromer, I understand, has recently been ill. In the case of a man of his advanced age we have no guarantee at all that in the next twelve or eighteen months he might not have a recurrence of that illness, and I want to know from the Prime Minister, if that unfortunately should be the case, would Lord Cromer's Chairmanship involve that the proceedings of the Commission would be indefinitely held up? Would the Commission have to adjourn until the Chairman was fully restored to health? Would they have to go on without their Chairman, or would they have to substitute for him some other member of the Commission as president of their body? While I have no objection to Lord Cromer or the other names that have been suggested, we ought to be satisfied, before we pass them, that there would be no interruption due to 1900 causes which might occur in this way, and, on the other hand, satisfied that we shall have a Report of this Commission at the earliest possible moment.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe hon. Member, by reference to the Bill, will see that that case is provided for. In regard to the suggestion that we have shown undue favouritism to the House of Lords, I may say that I really never heard a more misplaced criticism in the whole history of this House. As a matter of fact there are only two peers in the whole of these names. With respect to Lord Cromer, he was not born a peer, but he has distinguished himself as a public servant.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLHe is the son of a peer.
§ The PRIME MINISTERNever mind what he was. As a matter of fact, Lord Cromer has distinguished himself and won his present position entirely by his own efforts in every way. A more unfounded and improper charge could not be made than that the Government, in framing this Resolution, did so on the ground of family or social interest. Every one of the men whose names are down here to be put upon the Commission are there upon their own merits and for no other reason.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
Sir H. DALZIELI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "Captain Stephen Lucius Gwynn, Member of Parliament," to add the words "and Mr. Walter Roch."
I recognise, as I said a few minutes ago, the spirit in which the Prime Minister has tried to meet the views of the different parts of the House, and I further remember that he stated that the Government proposals were put forward in the nature of suggestions. It has also been intimated by the right hon. Gentleman that if in the framing any particular Amendment he recognised a demand he would endeavour, if possible, to meet it. I suggest that the hon. Member I propose is a suitable member for this Committee, and for several reasons. In the first place, my hon. Friend was the first Member of this House to suggest to the Government that there might be an inquiry on the lines embodied in the Bill now before the Committee. He even placed it upon the Paper as far back as six or eight months ago, and he was supported in that by a very large number of 1901 Members sitting in this part of the House. Therefore, I say, if I may, that he was the original author of the proposition we are now carrying into law. That should count for something with the Prime Minister. Again, my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer. Perhaps that does not recommend itself in some parts of the House, but, at any rate, this is an occasion upon which, I think, it is an advantage to have a lawyer who is in the habit of weighing and considering the value of evidence. I would suggest that upon this occasion the fact of a man being a lawyer ought not to be a disqualification for membership of this Commission. There is the further reason which will probably appeal to hon. Members from Wales. They will have observed that upon this Commission Scotland is represented, the Labour party is represented, the Irish party is represented, but no interest whatever in Wales is represented. Although it is not my business to plead the cause of Wales, I do submit that it strengthens the demand I am now making, because we know that Welsh forces were employed in Gallipoli. It ought, therefore, to be a consideration as to whether Wales should be the only country which is not represented upon this particular Commission.
The only objection that can be made to my suggestion probably is that the Prime Minister is desirous that the Commissions should not be made too large. I certainly think he is right in that. I do not think he has made them too large. The numbers suggested are not too large a representation of the interests that ought to be represented in a very important matter of this kind, and I therefore suggest the addition of one member, which, I believe, if agreed to, will give great satisfaction to a large number of Members of this House. This would not delay the proceedings one bit. My right hon. Friend's idea is that the proceedings should not be unduly delayed. I do not think the addition of the one member will be regarded as in any way antagonistic to the views expressed by the Prime Minister that he did not require too large a Commission. If the Prime Minister cannot accept the name of my hon Friend, which I hope he may be able to do, I ask that, at any rate, he will leave this matter to the unfettered judgment of the House. It is a House matter even more than a Government matter.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is an invidious task to discuss the claim of a fellow Member to sit on a Commission of this kind. I see around me a great many Members eminently well qualified to sit, and I have in my mind others who are not present to-day. I do not in the least question the name, or any of the names, that have been mentioned. I do not know that there is any position in this House that the hon. Member whose name has been mentioned is not well fitted to occupy and to adorn. He is one of the ablest of our younger Members, and we always listen to him with great interest. I rather demur, however, to the notion that you must apportion positions of this kind on the principle of nationality. Commissions of this sort have never been arranged upon that footing.
§ The PRIME MINISTERCommissions of the kind, I can assure my right hon. Friend, have no reference either to English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish nationality. I attach very great importance to the Commissions being limited in number. If we add the name of the hon. Member suggested we may have to add other names. This Commission is already one member larger than the other. Then when the matter comes before the House of Lords, who have got to consider this Bill, they will probably think they ought to add somebody, and in that way it is possible that we may have an indefinite addition to the number of the Commission. I would much rather keep the Commission in the form it has been introduced into the House. There is an Amendment also on the Paper to add the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) ' to the other Commission. I am very much in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee want to add these names, by all means let them add them. I have no objection of any sort or kind, but I do warn the House of the danger of adding to the number, and, by so doing, inviting further addition when this Bill gets to another place.
Sir G. BARINGThere is one consideration, if I may say so with great respect, the Prime Minister did not touch upon, and that is in having as one member of the Commission a gentleman who does not owe his selection to the choice of the 1903 Government. It would be advisable at this time that one of these Commissioners should be a gentleman selected by the freewill and free volition of the House. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire, as the Prime Minister said, has extremely good qualifications. When this question was first raised in this House he dealt with the matter with great ability, and I certainly hope, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister will consent to accept his name, and I am sure it will give satisfaction in every quarter of the House.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI must say I hope the Prime Minister will not accept this Amendment, and I say so with the greatest possible freedom. While I believe that, if an addition were made, no better name could be selected than that proposed, it appears to me that the test we ought to apply is not whether any suggested name is that of a gentleman who is well qualified to serve, but whether or not the Commissioners already suggested by the Government are or are not an efficient Commission for the purposes we have in view. I entirely agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has said with regard to the hon. Member whom he proposed to add, but He has not suggested, and I do not think it can be suggested, that the names proposed by the Prime Minister do not form an efficient Commission for the purpose. Under those circumstances, I entirely share the view which was expressed by the Prime Minister, that if you once begin attempting to add to the Commission, suggestions will come from all sides, and all sorts of names might be suggested of those perfectly well qualified to have a share in this investigation. Under those circumstances, I hope the Prime Minister will not only refuse to accept the Amendment, but will distinctly use the powers of the Government in adhering to the names he has already suggested to the House.
§ Mr. THOMASThere can be no doubt that there is a feeling abroad.that the Government reluctantly consented to the Commission. It is useless to burke that fact, and it is equally true to say that not only lamentable, but, in my judgment, disgraceful statements are being made with regard to the general position. Therefore, from the standpoint of clearing the matter up, I welcome the Commission. On the other hand, if there is a suggestion, as Members in all parts of the 1904 House well know, that the Government was reluctant to act, nothing is so calculated to destroy the confidence in the Commission as not to meet a general desire for someone to be put on this Commission entirely independently of the Government. It appears to me that the Prime Minister stated the case fairly when he said that, if you were going to discuss the merits of individuals, not only would it be an unfortunate thing, but it would be something which the House of Commons itself ought to refuse to do, because if we are going to discuss individuals we get nowhere. I would support this proposal purely from the standpoint that, the House of Commons having pressed this matter upon the Government, the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire himself acted before very many Members paid attention to it. In the minds of the public he acted because he felt this was a necessary step in the public interest, and I do submit that it would give general public confidence, as the House of Commons has expressed the desire, if there were put on the Committee someone who was the first to move in the matter. I will not go into the qualifications of the hon. Gentleman, because they are generally admitted, but I would urge the Prime Minister to take into consideration that he is an independant nominee who has given consideration to the question, and I believe a nominee who would strengthen public confidence in the Commission.
§ Mr. HOUSTONI do hope the Prime Minister and the House will accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The point is, I think, that the House and the country would like to see an independent member on the Commission, and, therefore, knowing the hon. and learned Member as I do, and knowing the conspicuous ability he possesses, I think the Commission would be greatly strengthened by his presence on it. I therefore trust the Prime Minister will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir C. HENRY(indistinctly heard): I must confess I find myself in a difficulty. Admirable as I think are the qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire, there are other Members of the House who might consider others should be put on the Commission, and that, in order to balance the appointment, a Member should be added from the other side. I am quite certain the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. E. McNeill) would be quite 1905 ready to propose one. Although I support the addition of the name of the hon. Member, I would ask my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment if he cannot accept the Commission as suggested by the Government.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and many Friends of mine supporting the Amendment that they should withdraw it? After all, the suggestion they are making is to add an independent man to the Commission. Really that is a reflection on every one of those whom the Government propose to put on the Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it is. These men have been asked by the Prime Minister, the head of our Coalition Government, to act because they are independent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Prime Minister distinctly stated they had been asked because they had taken no part in the agitation regarding the Dardanelles, and they were selected purely because they were independent. To ask, therefore, for another hon. Member, however valuable he may be, and however important a part he took in the agitation with regard to this question, to be put on because he is independent, is to cast a slur on the other members. I want to go one step further, and I do it as one who worked with the hon. Member—I am not at all sure I was not prior to him with regard to the agitation as to the Dardanelles—and I say the very fact that he took part in this agitation should disqualify him from acting on this Commission.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Commission is being appointed to make an independent inquiry, and I do not think the Government could have selected names which commend themselves more to the House or country at large as independent men who will give independent judgment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI wish to press for the addition of my hon. Friend to this Commission. We all appreciate the spirit in which the Prime Minister met the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. On the Second Reading he intimated that the Government would be only too glad to receive any suggestion from the House on this matter. Twenty-four hours were given to the House to consider any independent suggestion. The result of this delay of twenty-four hours is only 1906 the single suggestion of the addition of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire. In view of the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday, and the spirit in which he is approaching the question, I think that on this occasion he might very well make a concession to the House. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has suggested that the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire is to some extent a partisan. It is quite true that the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire was the first to put down a Motion on the Paper for an inquiry. He also made a speech in favour of that proposal, but if' hon. Members take the trouble to look it up, they will find it was conceived in an entirely judicial spirit. There was no attempt to pre-judge any of the issues involved in the Dardanelles campaign. Reference was made to evidence which had been made public, and the sole claim he then made was that there was a prima facie case for the Government to grant an inquiry, so that the matter could be completely thrashed out. That is the spirit in which he brought the matter forward in the latter part of last year, and I think it would be in that spirit he would, act on this Commission. I do not desire to enter into his personal qualifications. I should possibly be accused of being excessively partial to him on the ground of my close association with him, but at least I can say this, that close association with him has enabled me to appreciate the very high powers he possesses for an inquiry of this kind. In view of all the circumstances, in view of my hon. Friend's special, association with this matter, I would ask the Prime Minister to consent to this Amendment.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think the Committee will agree it is very undesirable to continue this Debate. I hope, therefore, the Committee will come to a decision. The Government will leave it entirely in the hands of the Committee.
§ The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
§ Colonel AUBREY HERBERTI agree with what the Prime Minister said. I quite acknowledge that the hon. Member concerned has every possible qualification, but I think if one asked him what he himself thought about it he would admit 1907 there were other men who by accident, by fortune, had larger experience than he has had of military administration and of Eastern matters, and, if another member were to be added to this Commission, I should certainly feel inclined to press the names of those I mentioned yesterday.
§ Mr. HOGGEHad the House been operating in its usual form, obviously the Whips would have consulted the regular Opposition as to whom they should put on this Commission. Probably on this occasion the Whips of both sections of the Coalition have been consulted.
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, this is not a Parliamentary Committee at all. Two of the members are distinguished representatives of the Dominions. It is not in the least subject to the ordinary rules of selection.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe Irish party were consulted with regard to their representatives on this Commission, and the Labour party were also consulted. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] Deny it if it is not true. Of course it is true. These two parties in the House were consulted. There has been in the House a certain body of opinion representing criticism of this particular expedition, and the Prime Minister deliberately said that he would receive suggestions from the House. If hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate had other names in their mind they could have suggested them. Therefore, I think we are entitled to assume that they were not particularly keen that other specific names should be added. There is a body of opinion in this House keen to have an outside nomination independent from the Prime Minister's nomination. If you accept the names suggested by the Government the House of Commons loses all its power, because you are simply accepting names and not making suggestions. I hope, if we go to a Division, those who wish to preserve the independent criticism of the House of Commons will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Sir FRANCIS LOWENot a single name on this Commission has been objected to, and no alternative names have been proposed. I think that that shows that the House has confidence in the names that have been submitted, and I do not think any sufficient reason has been adduced why an additional name should 1908 be added. If an additional name is proposed from the other side, we shall have to propose an additional name from this side. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Meux) would be an admirable addition to the Commission, and if this Amendment is persisted in and carried we shall have other names to propose. Therefore, I think it better that the Commission should be accepted as it stands.
§ Mr. LYNCHI should not have intervened but for the remarks of the Prime Minister, who said, in a somewhat petulant tone, that this discussion is undesirable. The same may be said in regard to the tone of the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir F. Lowe) said that no names on this Commission had been objected to. I should feel happier in my mind that this Commission would pursue its work right to the very foundation if, instead of Lord Cromer, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) were the Chairman. This is not a question of official dignity, but of piercing to the bottom the reason why the lives of thousands of soldiers were needlessly sacrificed, and we want men on this inquiry who will not be deterred from continuing their researches by any reasons whatever, rather than men who by their very origin and qualifications will have the official mind. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support it.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSI appeal to the Prime Minister to accept this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) was one of the first to draw attention to this question of the Dardanelles Expedition, and I should have thought that that in itself was some claim for his inclusion. My second reason is a more cogent one. It is well known that in Suvla Bay in August last year the Welsh Division met with great disaster, and that is a matter which will have to be inquired into most closely, because it has caused great search—ings of heart in Wales in the parts from which those battalions were drawn. Therefore, I think that a Welsh Member ought to be included in this Commission. I notice that there is an Irish Member on this Commission and on the Mesopotamia Commission there is a Labour representative. I urge upon the Prime Minister that, having regard to the fact 1909 that there were tens of thousands of Welsh soldiers engaged in this expedition in Gallipoli, and especially having regard to what happened subsequently and the grave anxiety which has been felt all over Wales as to what transpired on that occasion, to add this name to the Commission.
§ Mr. JOHN HINDSI desire to thank the Prime Minister for leaving this matter open. This is a House of Commons question. I think this Commission should be made as effective as possible. My hon. Friend who has just spoken said something about the Welsh troops who fought in the Dardanelles, and for that reason I think we should be very glad to have my hon. Friend added to the Commission, because that would make the list more effective. I should be quite satisfied with the list as it is drawn, but as the Prime Minister
§ has no objection to leaving the matter to the House, I think the view I have expressed should be taken into account.
§ Commander BELLAIRSOn a point of Order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is an Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, suggesting that at least one naval and one military officer should be chosen from the retired lists. Will that Amendment be out of order if we pass this Amendment now?
§ The CHAIRMANNo.
§ Question put, "That the words 'and Mr. Walter Roch, Member of Parliament,' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 92.
1911| Division No. 44.] | AYES. | [4.40 p.m. |
| Adamson, William | Herbert, Major-Gen. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Armitage, Robert | Hinds, John | O'Malley, William |
| Arnold, Sydney | Hogge, James Myles | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Beach, William F. H. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Partington, Oswald |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Jowett, Frederick William | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Billing, Pemberton | Joyce, Michael | Pratt, J. W. |
| Bliss, Joseph | Keating, Matthew | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Boland, John Pius | Kelly, Edward | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Kilbride, Denis | Radford, G. H. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | King, Joseph | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Reddy, Michael |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lundon, Thomas | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cosgrave, James | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Dillon, John | McGhee, Richard | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Doris, William | Martin, Joseph | Sutton, John E. |
| Duffy, William J. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Thomas, J. H. |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon Thomas Robinson | Meagher, Michael | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Field, William | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Wedgwood, Major Josiah C. |
| Finney, Samuel | Molloy, Michael | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fitzpatrick, John Lalor | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mooney, John J. | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Gilbert, J. D. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Graham, Edward John | Needham, Christopher T. | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Nolan, Joseph | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Hackett, John | Nugent, J. D. (College Green) | |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hazleton, Richard | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Sir Henry Dalziel and Mr. Llewelyn Williams. |
| Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Henry, Sir Charles | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir George William | Cochrane, Cecil Algernon | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Fell, Arthur |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Coote, William | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Galbraith, Samuel |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Gelder, Sir William Alfred |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Craig, Col. James (Down, E.) | Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Craik, Sir Henry | Grant, J. A. |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Crooks, Rt. Hon. William | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) |
| Bird, Alfred | Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Denniss, E. R. B. | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence |
| Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Hewins, William Herbert Samuel | Middlebrook, Sir William | Tickler, T. G. |
| Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Morgan, George Hay | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Hill, James | Newdegate, F. A. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Newman, John R. P. | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Horne, Edgar | Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Hudson, Walter | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Wardle, George J. |
| Hume-Williams, W. E. | Perkins, Walter F. | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Hunt, Major Rowland | Peto, Basil Edward | Watt, Henry A. |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Prothero, Rowland Edmund | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Rendall, Athelstan | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rowlands, James | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood) | Younger, Sir George |
| Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. (Falkirk Bghs.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. | |
| McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Stanton, Charles Butt | TELLERS FOR NOES.— |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Mr. Eugene Wason and Sir Francis Lowe. |
| Malcolm, Ian | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
Question, "That the words ' origin, inception, and' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUXI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists."
I hope that my Amendment has the same success as the last one. I am not in the least bit interested as to who is responsible for the initiation of the Dardanelles Expedition. Obviously, those who are responsible are the Government and the Government alone, and they may divide and apportion their responsibility according to their taste. It may perhaps interest the House to know that a proposal to force the Dardanelles forts was made some twenty years ago when the late Lord Salisbury was in office, and the only reason the country did not suffer probably losses of the same sort as the losses suffered last year was that the then First Sea Lord, the late Admiral Richards, absolutely and flatly refused to sanction it. It is a pity that there are not more men living like him to-day. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of that fact, but, if not, his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty is well aware of it. I wish to ensure that the officers whose conduct will be chiefly inquired into in these investigations, that is to say, the admirals and generals, shall be tried by men who understand something about modern military matters.
I quite agree with the Prime Minister and the House that as far as their ability, general knowledge, and integrity are concerned the members of the Commission are as good men as one could possibly come across. I have known both the Presidents. I have known Lord Cromer since the occupation of Egypt in 1882, and of course there is no better man in the world. But what does he know about modern battleships? 1912 Nothing whatever. Is there any other man on the Commission who knows anything whatever about a modern Navy? I would like the House to imagine this. There are seven gentlemen sitting round a table, and they propose to inquire into the loss of our ships in February or March in the first series of bombardments of the Dardanelles. Which amongst them has the knowledge or the power to ask a single question which is relevant? Not one. I see that the Prime Minister shakes his head. But which of the members knows anything about a modern navy?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe whole of them.
§ Sir H. MEUXThe whole of them?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI hope so.
§ Sir H. MEUXHow can they? What do they know about mines, stationary and floating? Do they know anything about the handling of submarines and the proper provisions to be made against them? Not one of them. The admirals of the Navy and generals of the Army are on their trial, as it were, and their honour is going to be impugned. I believe the whole of the Navy and Army want to see that the men who examine these questions have some knowledge of them. It is all very well talking, but we know what these Commissions really mean. They are meant to whitewash the Government. I should imagine that the Prime Minister himself had very little to do with the selection of these Commissions. He is much too busy. He is probably thinking more of Dublin than of the Dardanelles, and thinking more of conciliating the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) than of Mesopotamia. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister referred to some remarks of his blood- 1913 thirsty friend sitting behind about Admiral Byng. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Hexham!"] Never mind who it was. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a discreditable episode in the Navy. So it was. But has the Prime Minister studied the question of the loss of the Minorca? Probably not. If he had done so, he would know that it was far more disgraceful to the Government of the day. What did John Fortescue, talking of the British Army, put in his book? He put—
Byng was shot because Newcastle deserved to be hanged.Newcastle was the civilian Minister for War. The Prime Minister has given no reason whatever why there should not be a retired naval officer and a retired military officer on this Commission. The Prime Minister is one of my own friends, but I do not think that he has anything but kindly contempt for the intelligence of naval and military officers. Well, if you judge officers by their ability to talk, that is quite right. I do not suppose that many Members yesterday quite understood what I referred to when I said that if he had listened to the hundred retired naval officers he would not have got into the muddle about the Declaration of London. Perhaps there are some who did understand. They sent in a petition in 1911, and I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman even condescended to acknowledge it. Someone suggested that their pensions should be stopped. That was very noble. I forget who it was. I cannot treat this subject seriously. It is really so absurd to have a Commission to try the Army and Navy and to have on it no man who understands anything about modern fighting. I do not know how to describe it. I have not said much about the Army, but I hope that some military officer who has better powers of talking than I have will get up afterwards, though I have to remember that when the late Field-Marshal Lord Roberts gave advice it was scoffed at. Did not the Prime Minister allow one of his colleagues in the House of Lords to call him an " old man in a panic "? I do not know what he called him privately afterwards.
§ The CHAIRMANWe must not review all past and existing authorities in matters of this kind. We must really try and make a direct hit on the point.
§ Sir H. MEUXWell. I have consumed my allotted time. But, as I am convinced that this "inquiry will be a farce and fiasco 1914 and will be written down almost as a failure, I hope hon. Members who share my view, and wish to be regarded both in the' Army and Navy as having some thought for them and not only for civilians, will take the opportunity of following me into the Lobby.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Commander BELLAIRSI have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend, especially when he is out of order. There is legitimate ground for a difference of opinion as to the constitution of this Commission and the relative merits of civilians and of soldiers and sailors, to be on the Commission. There always will be those differences of opinion. We know perfectly well the opinion once held of the Duke of Wellington by the statesman Lord Wellesley, who thus expressed it: "My brother Arthur is a fool." I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the members of this Commission will not have the requisite knowledge. I doubt whether any of them could read a military map or could even study a chart intelligently without assistance. We know perfectly well, whenever there is an inquiry into the loss of a merchant ship, that the judge, as in the case of the "Lusitania," has naval assessors to advise him. Even if the Prime Minister is indisposed to have naval and military members on the Commssion, he would be well advised to have naval and military retired officers of independent judgment to advise the Commission, and I put that suggestion to him. To show how people can go wrong over these technical matters, I remember, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) was quitting the Cabinet and making his apologia in this House, he referred to the Antwerp Expedition—it bears largely on this question—and said that he was impressed by the execution which the 15—inch howitzers had done, and he argued from howitzers with high—angle fire to naval guns with low trajectory. If he did that with his exceedingly acute intelligence—everyone recognises his great ability—and with his possibilities of naval advice, which he could not have accurately understood, I am certain that a Commission which has not got naval and military advisers at hand is sure to go wrong. I know when I happen to be on a railway Bill and there is some technical point which I do not understand, instead of 1915 shouting my question across to the witness, I prefer to turn to someone with technical knowledge and ask my question quietly and privately. I feel exceedingly diffident, and I think anyone does, of interrupting the course of a cross-examination for the sake of having some technical point explained. If the Commissioners have naval and military assessors at their elbows they will have no hesitation what—ever in going to th'em for any point to be explained, and for advice on any question they want to ask witnesses. For that reason, though I support the Amendment, I should be satisfied if the Commissioners have their naval and military assessors.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe only reason why the Government did not suggest to the House naval and military officers in this case—and it is the same in the other case—was that they desired not to make the Commissions unduly large. In addition to that, there is the difficulty—the extreme difficulty, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will acknowledge—that so many, in fact the whole, of our distinguished naval and military officers are now engaged in active operations in the field.
§ Sir H. MEUXOfficers on the retired list. There are a hundred men between sixty and seventy, at least.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am very glad to hear it. At any rate, those on the active list are engaged in the field; but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that the Government are most anxious to avail themselves of naval and military expert advice, and I am rather disposed to accept the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) to make not Commissioners but Assessors of naval and military officers on retired pay. I think that would meet the whole case, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be disposed to accept that.
Mr. HEALYIt is far better to put these men on as members of the Commission. If you appoint them as assessors it may well be that this tribunal will think itself bound by their expert advice, whereas sitting round the table on an equality I think the case would be very different. The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member is most reasonable and I trust it will be accepted, but I would like to put forward our view. We do not share the 1916 apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Commission will be unsuccessful or that it will be a farce. On the contrary, I for my part regard it as one of the most serious steps that have ever been taken by the House of Commons, and it is because of the seriousness of the step that I should think it would be unjust both to the Army and to the Navy if in the course of these researches there was nobody representing the Services on the Commission. I think there would be a most invidious feeling on the subject, especially—this is a point on which the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister) might take occasion to yield—as. the House itself has to-day asserted its right to put one of its Members upon the Commission. I think that makes an enormous difference. What will be the feeling to-morrow, or afterwards, in the Navy or Army if it can be said that the House of Commons insisted on having what is called an independent member on this tribunal, but that it refused the request of a. gallant admiral to put on a member of this great and glorious Service? I think we ought not to subject ourselves to criticism of this kind, especially if, as a result of this inquiry—and I trust it may be—the question of the Straits of Messina is examined, and especially as it may lead, not to any reflection, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, on the honour of the Service, because there is no question of the honour of any officer as I understand it here, but as there is a question of their judgment and their discretion. That being so, the Government will make a great mistake in any inquiry that may have such large consequences if they refuse the request from the source from which it comes for the appointment of Army and Navy Commissioners.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not attach very much importance to the difference between Commissioners and Assessors. In any case, as has been pointed out, there is a considerable majority of laymen on the Commission, which has been added to by the action of the House in appointing one of its own members, a decision with which I do not want to quarrel. I do not attach very much importance to the distinction, as I have said, but it seems to me that it might be more convenient in the working of the Commission if these expert advisers sat as assessors rather than as Commissioners. I shall be quite content, however, to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view.
§ Sir H. MEUXThere is a very, very great difference, because an assessor may only speak when he is asked. He cannot interfere. He sits round a table, and unless they say, "What do you think?" he cannot say a word. He has no power whatever. He is only an assessor. That is the case, and any legal gentleman will tell you so. Let it be remembered that in these Commissions half the work is done when they are not sitting—when they are lunching, and talking. We all know that——
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that, I will accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word " the " ["the conduct of operations"], to insert the words " circumstances in which and the authority upon which the naval and military expeditions to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli were undertaken."
The Government have met the House fairly and frankly in all the matters connected with the appointment of this Commission, and the sole desire in every portion of the House is that the inquiry should be searching, practical, and swift. It is, therefore, very necessary that it should be specifically directed to the real points on which a broad, general opinion can be given. It seems to me that there are only two risks, two main dangers', to which the utility of the Commission is now liable to be exposed. The first is that it should be overladen with unnecessary detail, and so led to prolong its labours to an indefinite period; and the second is that it should be entangled in what may be called the purely strategic and tactical technicalities. After all, there are certain simple, salient facts which they should have a right to know, which can be easily established without long delay or indiscreet publication, and I venture to think that it is to this that the reference should more specifically guide the Commission, without, of course, confining them in any inconvenient manner. In this matter there are really two sets of responsibilities being examined. There are, first of all, the decisions of Ministers, and the expert advice on which those decisions were taken. The investigation of that may or may not disclose negligence, carelessness, irregularity, or incompetence. On this the Commission is well qualified to pronounce and Parliament capable of acting. But there is also the conduct of 1918 commanders in the field and afloat—a separate set of responsibilities. On this it does seem to me—I almost thought some of my remarks might have been relevant to the discussion that has just taken place, but they are equally relevant to what I am now urging—that the Commission cannot usefully pronounce a final decision. My argument is directed to—showing the importance of the precise and definite reference which I am putting: forward. It seems to me quite impossible that a Commission of laymen, or a Commission which contains a single representative of the military or naval professions, could pronounce finally upon the—conduct of naval or military officers in regard to their professional action or advice. Professional men on professional matters have a right to be judged by their peers, not merely by one representative of the Army or of the Navy, but by properly constituted expert courts; and while I think that this reference which is before us covers the ground in general terms, I feel that there is a great danger that the Commissioners may be drawn1 unduly away from the salient points in the strategic and tactical matters, and I feel that on the strategic and tactical' matters involved the most that can be expected from this Commission, whether lay or hybrid, is that they shall assemble the facts, and say whether occasion is disclosed for disciplinary action or inquiry by military or naval courts. I am, therefore, inclined to—think that the reference should be more precise and detailed than the one the Government have embodied in the Bill. First of all, the reference which is taken for the Dardanelles Commission in the Bill is one which is largely founded' upon the Motion for a Select Committee, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). That reference was drawn up, I" think I am right in saying, mainly with the—idea of the Mesopotamian operations in.' mind, and it is to that that the great prominence of the equipment of the troops: and the provision for the sick and wounded is due, and I think it is very appropriate to that Commission. But, after all, although there were questions connected with the sick and wounded in regard to the Dardanelles, those are not the grave questions at all on which Parliament and' the country wish to be informed.
I have put on the Paper an Amendment in my name to make sure that specific 1919 attention is directed to the inception and initiation of these military and naval expeditions, and I propose to move that; but I am inclined to think, and I offer this counsel in all sincerity to the House, that the general reference of the Commission might be expressed in more precise terms, and it seems to me in more searching terms, and that there would then be more chance of a definite pronouncement by the Commission within a reasonable limit of time, while at the same time not fettering them in any matter into which they think it necessary to go. In moving my Amendment, therefore, I would venture, if I may, to extend it to cover the whole reference as an alternative reference, and to make the reference read as follows: It follows naturally on my Amendment:
To inquire into the circumstances in which, and the authority upon which, the naval and military expeditions were sent to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli; into the measures taken to sustain the Army after its landing in the Gallipoli Peninsula, with special reference to the supply of the drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, the equipment of the troops and the selection of commanders; into the conduct of the battle of Suvla-Bay; into the reasons which led to the retention of the Army on the Gallipoli Peninsula until January, 1915, and till the final evacuation; and into such further matters as are incidental to the above.I am quite certain that that is a far more searching and direct reference than any which has yet been placed on the Paper, and if the House is really seeking relentlessly to probe this matter, and to place the country at the earliest possible date in possession of the main and salient facts which have led to this great disaster, I am confident that this, or something on these lines, is more likely to yield an effective and fruitful result than a general reference about the equipment of the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the Government whose duty it was to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war. At any rate, I will take the sense of the Committee on the first portion of my Amendment which appears on the Paper, And, if I see any prospect of the Committee adopting the extension of the Amendment, I will venture to ask your permission to move that additional Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI could not say on the spur of the moment whether I could accept such a comprehensive Amendment, which is not on the Paper. It seems to torpedo all the Amendments of other hon. Members. If the right hon. Gentleman 1920 takes the sense of the Committee on the present one, it might be withdrawn and the other substituted for it.
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I said yesterday, the Government are very anxious that the scope of this inquiry should be as wide and comprehensive as possible. I am a little afraid that my right hon. Friend, in the Amendment he has foreshadowed to the Committee, has forgotten the legal principle that guides us in the Courts of law
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.I am sure he follows me.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to translate it?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am sure that is quite unnecessary. He knows generally what I mean. I have looked, through all these Amendments on the Paper with the object of choosing the one which seems to me to give the most comprehensive scope to the inquiry. I am not sure that the' best one for that purpose is not that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) who proposes to insert the words " origin, inception, and." That is a little more than "initiation." "Initiation" is quite a good word, and I am prepared to accept it, but I think if we accept the Amendment I have suggested we shall cover the whole ground my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) desires. Choosing, as I should like to choose, the words which are most comprehensive and the least open to the dangers suggested by specific enumeration without the generality of the reference being hampered, I do not think w^e can do better than accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras.
Sir H. DALZIELI am very glad the Prime Minister has made this announcement. I tried to catch your eye, Sir, when he got up, in order to say almost the same thing. It is quite clear that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) were accepted it would be acted upon and the inquiry would be limited to the " circumstances and authority." There are many things outside "circumstances and authority" into which the Commissions ought properly to inquire. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for North St. Pancras is a little wider and 1921 stronger from our point of view than "initiation," and for my part I shall strongly support it.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) will withdraw his Amendment, I think the whole of his object will be served.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am quite willing to withdraw it if it is the general sense of the Committee. My own desire was to enable the Commission to apply its activities with the utmost possible dispatch.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANI take it that the sense of the Committee is that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras to move his Amendment.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "the" ["purpose of inquiring into the conduct"], insert the words "origin, inception and".—[Mr. Dickinson.]
§ The CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments on the Paper to insert the words "control and" and the words "policy and" are covered, I think, by what we have done.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLOn a point of Order. Does that affect my Amendment to insert words in line 8?
§ The CHAIRMANWe have not reached that point. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).
§ Commander BELLAIRSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Dardanelles," to insert the words " and such Mediterranean naval operations as may have influenced Turkish action."
My object in moving this Amendment is to have an inquiry in which the public have confidence, as we are having these inquiries, into a matter upon which the public has been and is still greatly exercised. An hon. Friend behind me pointed out in Debate yesterday that the escape of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" was the cause of the Turks entering the War. It also had a very powerful influence on the Dardanelles operations, which the Commission are to investigate.
§ The CHAIRMANNow that we have passed the previous Amendment, is not that point really covered?
§ Commander BELLAIRSIf the Prime Minister says so, I shall be quite satisfied.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI could not say anything of the kind. No doubt it is a very important—a most important incident of the War, but the escape of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" had nothing to do with the Dardanelles Expedition at all. If the Government were to agree to that matter being inquired into, the inquiry might be directed to something; which is quite extraneous to the Dardanelles operations, and might even also include the battle of the Falkland Islands.
§ The CHAIRMANI must point out that that would be going beyond the scope of the Bill altogether.
§ Commander BELLAIRSMay I put my point, that it very powerfully influenced, the scope of the Dardanelles operations, because it brought Turkey into the War, and these two ships being inside the Sea of Marmora prevented our own ships from ever attempting to rush the Dardanelles, which is an operation upon which they might have engaged but for the presence, of a very modern ship, the "Goeben."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYOn a point of Order. May I point out that Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday that it was competent for us, in case we enlarged the Bill, to alter the Title. This Amendment depends upon the fact that the Title of the Bill does not extend to it. I understood Mr. Speaker to rule that the extension of the Bill could be made and the Title afterwards amended. It is a matter upon which there is the keenest feeling everywhere. This is an incident which, although it was only an incident, was a rather important one, and it should come within the general inquiry, especially as it is a matter of record. I respectfully suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should be allowed to proceed.
§ Mr. BRYCEWhat Mr. Speaker said yesterday referred to the introduction of the word "initiation." What Mr. Speaker said was this:
If the alteration is made it might necessitate a change in the Title. That is quite possible, but I do not give any decision upon that point at the present moment. I think, however, that it is clear that the House may, if it so desires, insert the word 'initiation.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1916, col. 1725]There the Speaker evidently thought the Title might be changed.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is so, undoubtedly, and no doubt an Amendment 1923 could be made in the Title to bring it into accord with the Amendment made in the Bill. That is quite different from the point with which I am now dealing. If I were to—accept the Amendment of this wide character, it would be open to hon. Members to extend these inquiries to altogether different operations. The best course would be for the hon. and gallant Member, if he is not satisfied that the words already inserted, namely, "origin, inception and conduct," do not cover his point, to bring in, if he can, some words there to make it plainer. The words already inserted include his proposal, in so far as it is relevant to the inquiry of the Commission.
§ Mr. HEALYSurely there is this point: Supposing the Title is not altered and nobody here moves to inquire into the Falkland Islands battle or any other matter of that kind, that would not be included. The fact that the Government bring in a proposal to limit it to two points of operations does exclude the power of an hon. Member of this House to say that this inquiry should be extended to a third point.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. and learned Member were in my place he would not take that view. We should have no limit. I am obliged to look at the general scope of the Bill. I do not do that too narrowly, but I must look at the general scope of the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. Am I not right in thinking that the Second Reading confirms the principle, and that it is not in order in Committee to introduce something which entirely changes the scope of the Bill and does away with the principle upon which the Second Reading was carried?
§ The CHAIRMANThat point does not arise here.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move in Subsection (1), after the word "of" ["including the supply of equipment"], to insert the words " drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and."
This Amendment is a very obvious one. It is necessary because the main lines of reference really have much more application to Mesopotamia than they have to the Dardanelles, The question of the sick and wounded at the Dardanelles is really a small question, whereas the question of 1924 the supply of drafts, reinforcements and ammunition were vital matters affecting the fortunes of the Army.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not object to the words, although I do not think they really add to the scope of the inquiry.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "troops" ["equipment to the troops"], to insert the words "and Fleet." It is obvious that what applies to the Army should apply equally to the Fleet.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "the" ["Departments of the Government"].
This looks a very insidious Amendment, but it is not so really. The reason is that there is some technical doubt—it does not arise so much on this branch of the Clause as upon the other—whether the Government of India is a Department of the Government. It is a Department of Government, but it might be held that it was not a Department of the Government. In order to prevent any ambiguity on that point I propose to omit the word "the."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "namely" ["the following persons, namely'], to insert the words,
- "The Right Honourable Lord George Francis Hamilton,
- The Earl of Donoughmore,
- Lord Hugh Cecil, Member of Parliament,
- Sir Archibald Williamson, Baronet, Member of Parliament, and
- Mr. John Hodge, Member of Parliament."
Sir H. DALZIELIt is not my intention, after the way the Government has met us, to press any views I might have on the membership of this Committee any further. My reference yesterday to Lord George Hamilton was in no way intended to be of a personal character. I had the honour of sitting in this House for ten or fifteen years with the Noble Lord, and I never found a more courteous Minister in the House during the time he was in office. He is an industrious man and a man of great impartiality of mind. I never 1925 made any objection from that point of view. What I hold is that it would be more satisfactory if we had a non-official member as chairman. An ex-Secretary of State for India is going to sit on a successor of his in that office. Probably the Indian (Government as well as the Home Government will come under review. At the same time I do not wish to make any factious opposition, and I accept the chairmanship of this Noble Lord.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir A. MONDI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Mr. J. C. Wedgwood, Member of Parliament."
Personal discussion in this matter is somewhat invidious, but, able as the members of this Commission are, there is not one of them who has seen any kind of active service or, to my knowledge, has had any special experience of recent campaigns. We all know that my hon and gallant Friend has seen service in the Dardanelles, in East Africa, and in France. I emphasise the Dardanelles and East Africa because it seems to me that a great many points on these campaigns must turn on what I call more or less tropical conditions and what is and what is not possible under tropical conditions. Therefore, I have felt that it would be a very great advantage to the Commission—I am sure no one will question the ability of my hon. and gallant Friend as a member of the Commission—to have one member who—has seen recent warfare in similar conditions and in similar climates to those in which the campaign in Mesopotamia took place. Eurther, as originally arranged, the Mesopotamia Committee only had five names, compared with six for the Dardanelles Committee. The Mesopotamia Committee is quite as important as the Dardanelles Committee, and I do not know why, originally, a smaller number of members was put on that Committee than on the other. Now, of course, the Dardanelles Committee has seven members and the Mesopotamia Committee has only five. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to maintain a balance. I hope the Prime Minister will accept this name, so as to avoid the necessity of going again to a Division.
§ The PRIME MINISTEROn the last occasion I took no exception whatever to the qualifications of my hon. Friend, and I was very careful that the Government 1926 should take no part in the Division. The only objection, it seems to me, was that it was adding to the size of the Commission. Here the Commissioners consist of fewer names, and that objection, therefore, does not apply with the same force. As regards the personal qualifications of my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think there is anyone in the House better fitted to take part in an inquiry of this kind. We occasionally have little breezes and troubles with him, but there is no more popular Member in any quarter of the House or one who has distinguished himself more in this War—intheDardanelles, in East Africa, or in France. He has seen all the various theatres of war and all the different varieties of operations.
Mr. HAZLETONDoes the Prime Minister propose, in the case of this Commission as well as in the other, to add the name of a military representative?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: After the words last added, to insert the words "and at least one naval and one military officer chosen from the retired lists."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ Mr. DICKINSONI beg to move, after the word "the" ["inquiry into the conduct"], to insert the words "origin, inception, and."
§ Sir J. JARDINEI have given notice of an Amendment to insert the words "direction and," and I should like to state one reason for that Amendment. Although announced in this House on 18th January last in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Lambert), that the advance to Bagdad was undertaken with the concurrence of the military advisers of the Home Government, it happens that this has not been under stood in some quarters. The "Times of India," a well-known journal, for in stance, in an able article, demands a statement about the responsibility for the sudden decision to push on to Bagdad, showing by whom it was put forward and what arguments were used to overcome the strong and reasoned opposition of all good military critics. To include such important inquiry I have thought the word "direction" should be used, as it is not clearly covered by the words origin, inception, and conduct."
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)There is absolutely no difference between my hon. Friend and the Government as to the desirability of having an inquiry into such circumstances as he mentioned in the earlier part of his speech. The question by whom and under what circumstances the orders for the advance to Bagdad were given must clearly be one of the subjects investigated by the Commission. It would be a farce to exclude a matter of that importance from its purview. But I submit that the Amendment my hon. Friend suggests adds nothing to the powers of the Commission. The Commission is directed to inquire in the same terms as those which the Committee has already agreed for the Gallipoli Commission, and the Dardanelles Commission will undoubtedly have the power and the duty of considering such a point as that. My hon. Friend referred also to the general military organisation in India. It must be a matter for the Commission themselves to consider how far they desire to go into that, and how far, for the purpose of their inquiry in arriving at a judgment on the reference which is made to them, it is necessary for them to do it. There will be no objection raised by the Government to their making their inquiry as complete and as searching as they can, though we hope they will not make it more prolonged than necessary.
§ Mr. PETOIf the words are as already passed, in respect of the Dardanelles Inquiry, they leave a possible hiatus. "Origin" and "inception" appear to me to be almost a duplication. They both refer to the same matter. Conduct is distinctly limited, and may well be held to leave out such a question as my hon. Friend has referred to specifically, namely, the absolute responsibility for, not the inception of the whole campaign in Mesopotamia, but that vital detail, the advance from Basra to Kut, and then again from Kut to Bagdad. And if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there is absolutely no difference between the Government and the hon. Member in this matter, I would suggest that he might just as well put in this word "direction," and we could insert it in the case of the Dardanelles Commission on the Report stage. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his intention of withdrawing the word, and I would ask the Secretary of State if there is any possible objection to their being put in, as some of us are extremely anxious, whatever else may be 1928 left out of the inquiry, that the finding of the Commission should be perfectly clear, as to the responsibility for the advance' from Kut to Bagdad. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow these words, to. go into the Bill.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am entirely in the hands of the House. The last thing that I want to do is to give even the appearance of deprecating a complete and searching inquiry. On the contrary, so far as I am concerned, and I have a certain measure of responsibility, the more complete the inquiry the better I should be pleased, and I can say the same for all concerned. If the hon. Member or the Committee think that any value attaches, to the insertion of these words, I will accept them. I think it is desirable to keep the two Commissions as much on the same lines as possible, otherwise hon. Members, will see what would happen. If any question of the interpretation of the Reference occurred the attention of the chairman would at once be drawn to the fact that one Commission had a different reference, and it would be assumed that it was intended for that Commission to inquire into something which the other could exclude. That is very undesirable. I do not think that these words suggested by the hon. Member (Sir J. Jardine) are necessary, or that they add anything to the present terms of reference, but if the Committee feels uncomfortable, and wishes the words to be put in, I offer no objection.
§ The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Colonet YATE: Leave out the words from the word "the" ["inquiring into the"], and to insert instead thereof the words "initiation, direction, and conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia, including the responsibility for the advance on Ctesiphon, the failure of the night march on Kut, the supply of equipment, guns, munitions, and rations for the troops, the provision for and transport of the sick and wounded, and also the responsibility of those officers, Departments, and Governments, whose duty is was to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that, theatre of war."
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and 1929 gallant Member (Colonel Yate) seems to cover a good deal of what is now in the Bill.
§ Colonel YATEI put down my Amendment with a view particularly to carrying out what the Prime Minister told us yesterday he was willing to agree to. He said:
The Government has not the least objection to insert 'initiation' or anything you like, because we challenge inquiry over the whole field.I gave certain instances which I specially hoped the inquiry would go into, and I give them in my Amendment. I do not want to particularise them, but if we could get an assurance that the inquiry will cover these points, I should be satisfied. There is the question of the advance on Ctesiphon, and there is the case of the great night march across the desert, where the troops were kept waiting from dawn until four o'clock in the afternoon, and had to return. I want to know what the reason was. There is also the case——
§ The CHAIRMANIf we are to have a catalogue of the operations from beginning to end put into the Bill, I do not know where we shall end. I think the hon. and gallant Member must bring up words to cover his points, if the words in the Bill do not do so. We clearly cannot put into an Act of Parliament all the operations covered by his Amendment.
§ Colonel YATEMay I ask one question in regard to the final part of my Amendment, as to the responsibility of those officers, Departments, and Governments, whose duty it was to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war. I want to know whether the words "Departments of Government" cover such things as the responsibilities of the Government of India, or, say, the responsibilities of certain officers from India? I should like to have an assurance on that.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill would give the hon. and gallant Member his opportunity.
§ Further Amendments made:
§ After the word "of" ["the supply of"] insert the words " drafts, reinforcements, ammunition, and."
§ After the word "troops" ["equipment for the troops"] insert the words "and ifleet."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
1930§ Sir J. JARDINEI beg to move, after the word "those" ["responsibility of those"], to insert the words "officers and."
My object in moving this Amendment is to fix responsibility more accurately on particular officers in order to prevent other officers being wrongly assailed. We have heard from time to time that it is the Financial Department of the Government of India that has done some of the harm. Sometimes it is said it is the Government of India, and it is forgotten that there are two Departments, and it may be that the responsibility belongs to one, possibly to both, and possibly to neither. Therefore, I would like to fix the responsibility on officers as well as Departments. In the present phraseology, there seems to be some doubt as to what is meant by the words "Governments whose duty it has been." It may be argued that you are to find out whether it is the Government here or the Government in India that has been at fault. I note that the Prime Minister in dealing with the matter as regards the Dardanelles struck out the word "the." That would help me. I think we ought to get at the responsibility of high officers as well as the responsibility of Governments, and that would remove the ambiguity that lies in the present phrase. I do not wish to say that anybody has been at fault, or to prejudice the matter in the least, but as rumours and statements get about, I would like to get a full chance of getting at the officers responsible as well as the Government responsible.
§ Mr. MALCOLMI think we all know what is meant when you inquire into an actual Department. We know that it means the officers. It does not mean the walls, or the tables. We know it means the officers, and we do not want the officers specially specified. I think it is quite unnecessary to waste the time of the Committee on a point of that kind. I do want an assurance, however, if I may have it from the right hon. Gentleman—although it is almost unnecessary to ask for it, I should like it put on record—that when we say the responsibility of the Departments may be inquired into, that includes such responsibility as might attach to the Viceroy, the Commander-in-Chief, or' the Finance Minister.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINOr a Secretary of State.
§ Mr. MALCOLMThat is extremely satisfactory. I want also to be assured that under no Official Secrets Act or anything like that, will the Commission be debarred from getting all the information it wants?
§ Sir J. D. REESI would appeal to my hon. Friend not to proceed with his Amendment. I think it is unnecessary, and I am rather surprised that it comes from him, because I think it is a well recognised principle of Indian administration that the head officer in every department is "the" department. I do not think this Amendment is at all called for. The word "department" is quite sufficient.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I am sure it is not necessary for the purpose he desires to serve. I interrupted my hon. Friend (Mr. Malcolm) because it must be perfectly clear that the proposal of the Government is not that the Commission should inquire merely into the responsibilities of the Government of India, or of the Commander-in-Chief of India, but, equally, responsibility in other directions can be inquired into, and they stand, we stand, and I stand exactly on the same footing before this inquiry as any other officer of either Government whose action may be impugned.
§ Sir J. JARDINEAfter what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "the" ["of the Government whose duty it has been"].—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sir H. DALZIELI have only one suggestion to make. The Clause says that the Commission is to inquire into the sending of a military expedition to the Dardanelles. To that I think might be added Gallipoli. You cannot send a military expedition actually to the Dardanelles. I mention this matter in order that the right hon. Gentleman may consider the point before the Report stage.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe right hon. Gentleman said that the words would cover him. I doubt if the words do cover a Secretary of State. The words are, "the responsibility of those Departments of Government whose duty it has been," etc. I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman is 1932 the exception that I should have thought did not come within these words, but if he is satisfied that he does, it is not for me to gainsay.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand, part of the Bill.