§ 1. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the members of the Council of the Governor-General recorded any minutes of dissent regarding action taken by the Government of India during the Viceroyalty of Lord Hardinge of Penshurst for dispatch to the Secretary of State for India in Council; and, if so, whether any objection exists to making available for the information of the House any such minutes as relate to matters dealt with in the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)I am not aware of the existence of any such minutes as those mentioned in the last part of the question. Two members of the Council of the late Governor-General were examined by the Committee, in addition to the late Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, and I can find nothing in the Report to support the suggestion that any such minutes were even recorded.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is not a suggestion, but that the question is asked as being a relevant one—whether any such minutes were recorded, because if they had been they would necessarily have been sent to him?
§ 2. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for India whether, in view of the fact that the Mesopotamia Commission proposes the introduction of legislation relating to the constitution of the Government of India, its relations with the Secretary of State in Council, and the extent to which the Governor-General may act without his Council, he proposes to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses, similar to that which dealt with the consolidation of the Statutes) relating to India, to advise what form such legislation should take?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend is not quite accurate in stating that the Mesopotamia Commission recommend legislation. Legislation, they say, would be necessary if certain methods of transacting business, which they consider are not consistent with the provisions of the existing Act, are maintained. I have no intention of regulating my relations with ray Council otherwise than in accordance with those provisions; and I can say the same for the Viceroy as regards his relations with his Council. But if it is desired to discuss these questions, they will be better dealt with in Debate than by question and answer.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINECan the right hon. Gentleman place before the House the opinions of the Law Officers on this point about private correspondence and the exclusion of the members of his Council and the Council of the Governor-General of India from consultation and discussion on important matters?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have not thought it necessary to consult the Law Officers, and I have no opinion from them to present.
§ Sir J. JARDINEDoes the right hon. Gentleman notice that Lord Hardinge bases his defence upon the Statute?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat can properly be raised in Debate
§ 3. Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary for India if he can explain why a large proportion of his orders referring to the advance on Bagdad and quoted in 1071 the Mesopotamia Commission Report are marked private; and what became of the private telegram, which the Report describes as one of the most important, conveying new and serious information as to the possible concentration of 60,000 Turkish troops near Bagdad and which was, in consequence of its being marked private, not filed in the military Department and was not transmitted to Sir John Nixon in Mesopotamia?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIt is impossible for me to deal fully with this subject by question and answer. I presume that it will be raised in the Debate, and I can then reply, if the House wishes. But I should state at once that no orders for the advance on Bagdad or for any other military operation were sent by me by private telegrams.
§ 5. Sir J. D. REESasked whether the evidence taken by the Mesopotamia Commission will be published; and, if not, whether it is proposed to introduce legislation relating to the Constitution Government of India upon the Report as presented to the House?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe answer to both questions is in the negative.
§ Mr. HOGGEDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that the House is not to have the evidence taken before this Commission in order to come to a definite conclusion on the same facts as have been produced to the Commissioners?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINOn every personal ground—and I think in saying so I can speak for all those who are named in the Report—we should desire that the whole of the evidence should be published; but in the opinion of His Majesty's Government—an opinion in which I concur—it is impossible that this evidence should be published at the present time. I am not sure that the full evidence, and the papers connected with it, could ever be published.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs it not the case that Parliament is the ultimate judge of the conduct of the officers arraigned, and is it not the ease that what is now before Parliament is merely the opinion of a Commission, and can Parliament exercise its function without seeing the evidence?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI hope the House will not attempt to anticipate the Debate which will take place next week by a series of questions.
§ Mr. HOGGECan the right hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says that the evidence could never be published? Does he mean that the evidence is of such a kind that it is impossible for decent people to read it?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI think the hon. Member is not entitled to make suggestions or allegations of that kind. The hon. Member and the House know perfectly well what I mean. I mean that every scrap of confidential information relating to these matters was laid before the Commission, and it is not in the public interest that it should be published at the present time or anywhere in the near future.
§ 6. Sir J. JARDINEasked whether the attention of the War Office has been drawn to the statement in page 81 of the Mesopotamia Commission Report that Major Carter, of the Indian Medical Service, was the first to disclose the medical débâcle after Ctesiphon and endeavoured to bring to the notice of the authorities in Mesopotamia the real condition of the wounded, and on this account was treated with great rudeness, and that General Cowper, then Deputy Adjutant and Quartermaster-General, told the Commission that he threatened to put him under arrest and said that he could get his hospital ship taken away from him for a meddlesome, interfering faddist; and whether any injury, direct or indirect, has happened to the career of this medical officer on account of his letter of 14th December, 1915, to Surgeon-General MacNeece describing the sufferings of 600 sick and wounded crowded into a small river steamer from the 24th November to the 6th December, 1916?
§ 28. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Undersecretary of State for War on what date Lieutenant-Colonel Carter, Indian Medical Service, was promoted from the rank of major to that of lieutenant-colonel; for what period he held the rank of major; what was his position in India before he joined the Army; whether it is intended to give him further promotion; and whether full use is being made of his knowledge and experience as a professor of tropical diseases?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir. Major Carter has; suffered no injury, and will suffer none in his career on account of the efforts which he made to bring to notice and to secure a remedy for the deplorable defects in the medical arrangements 1073 in Mesopotamia. I am only waiting till copies of the Report of the Commission can reach India to bring his conduct to the notice of the Government of India with a view to his services receiving suitable recognition. Meanwhile, I may say that on account of his special knowledge and experience he was sent home in May, 1916, to advise as to the fitting out of hospital ships, etc., building in this country for Mesopotamia, and he has been engaged on this and similar work at the War Office ever since. Far from desiring to penalise him the Government of India have more than once applied for his services, but on each occasion the War Office replied that he could not be spared from the valuable work he is now doing.
The answer to the further inquiries made by the hon. Member for West Tox-teth are that Major Carter was granted the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel on 8th August, 1916. He held the rank of major for three years previous to that date. He joined the Indian Medical Service from this country in 1902 at the age of twenty-six.
§ Mr. HOUSTONCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the great service which this gentleman has rendered to the nation and the treatment which he has received at the hands of his superiors, the British Government will show their appreciation of his services and their condemnation of his treatment by granting him immediately superior rank?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have nothing to add to the perfectly explicit statement which I have already made.
§ Sir J. JARDINEWill the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the Government of India the remarks about amende honourable, in the ease of the friendless subaltern, in Ecclesiastes ix. 15?
§ 8. Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are over 140 British officers now stationed at Abbottabad, North-West Frontier Province, and that there are from sixty to seventy British officers there in peace time; whether he is aware that there is no hospital within 85 miles, and that the only hospital accommodation locally available is one room taken from the native troops' hospital; and whether, in view of this and other facts exposed in the Mesopotamia Report, he will order an inquiry to be made into the 1074 hospital accommodation for British troops and officers in India and into the efficiency of the Indian Military Medical Service?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have no later report than that for April, which states that thirty-three British officers are stationed at Abbottabad. The number may be temporarily exceeded during the summer months owing to the good climate of the place.
Abbottabad is a station for Indian troops only, and I am advised that it would not be possible to nave there a fully equipped British military hospital But I will make inquiries as to the adequacy of the local arrangements for treating British officers.
As regards the latter part of the question I some time ago formed the opinion that the standard of comfort and accommodation in the hospitals for British and Indian troops must be improved. Some progress had already been made in this respect before the Commission's Report was received. That Report has not yet reached India, but its recommendations will be carefully studied and the necessary action taken.
§ Sir J. D. REESDoes the right hon. Gentleman endorse the remarkably severe strictures of Sir Alfred Keogh on the whole system of hospital accommodation in India?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI beg hon. Members not to anticipate the Debate, but as my hon. Friend has put the question I may say that long before I saw the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission I had come to the conclusion, and had expressed it, that the standard of comfort in the hospitals in India was altogether too low.
§ 22. Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission regarding a telegram drawn up in January, 1916, by General Cowper, Adjutant-General and Assistant Quartermaster-General of the Mesopotamia Force, in consultation with General Money, Chief of the General Staff, in which they stated that unless they got adequate shipping transport, and personnel to man such transport, Sir Percy Lake, who had recently assumed command of that Force, would have to abandon the idea of relieving Kut, which telegram was approved by Sir Percy Lake after careful considera- 1075 tion and some alteration, and to the Report of the reply made by the Commander-in-Chief at Simla severely rebuking Sir Percy Lake and ordering him to inform General Cowper that if he sent any more petulant or querulous demands for shipping he would at once be removed from the Force and refused any further employment of any kind; and whether the War Office will consider the propriety of amending the King's Regulations so as to prevent severe censures of high general officers who, in matters entirely within the scope of their duties, deliver their honest opinions?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)The whole of this question is now under consideration by the Army Council, and will possibly form the subject of future action. Perhaps my hon. Friend will therefore excuse me from answering this and similar questions whilst the whole subject is sub judice?
§ Sir J. D. REESWill the result of the deliberations of the Army Council be made known to those who may desire to participate in the Debate on the Mesopotamia Report with which it is so closely connected?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI will consider that point.
§ 46 and 47. J. JARDINEasked the Prime Minister (1), with reference to the frequent use of private instead of official telegrams and letters to and from the Secretary of State for India and the Governor-General discussed by the Mesopotamia Commission, whether he can see his way to having laid upon the Table of the House so much of the evidence as relates to the constitutional relations established by Acts of Parliament between the two authorities; (2) with reference to the censures in the Mesopotamia Commissioners' Report on the relations between the Secretary of State for India and the Governor-General and their respective councils, especially as to the use of private letters and telegrams to and from these two individual officers of the Crown on matters of the gravest consequence instead of official letters and telegrams coming under consideration also of their councils, and the suggestion that this question should come before Parliament, he will order that so much of the evidence taken on these and other kindred questions as to powers and procedure 1076 under the existing Acts of Parliament shall be printed and laid upon the Table of the House?
52. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to publish the evidence in connection with the Mesopotamia Report?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law)The answer to these questions is in the negative.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I ask whether Parliament are judges in this matter, and, if so, whether we are to act on opinions, however weighty, without the evidence concerned?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWParliament is, of course, the final judge, but the Government must be the first judge as to the responsibility of publishing the evidence.
§ Sir J. D. REESWill the judgment of the Government be given before the Debate by the House?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThere is nothing to prevent the judgment being altered by the Debate in the House.
§ Mr. HOGGEMay I ask if the Government will consider the advisability of publishing that part of the evidence which does not involve special telegrams which they consider ought not to be published in the public interest?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAs at present advised, the Government do not think it would be right to publish the evidence, and I believe that is the view of the members of the Mesopotamia Commission.
§ Sir J. JARDINEMay I ask if that also applies to the evidence given on purely constitutional matters, such as the relations of the great officials and their respective Governments, and other matters of a legal character?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think if you once began to publish part of the evidence it would be difficult to stop. My present view is that it is not advisable to publish the evidence.