§ 7. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether Sir William Meyer, the finance member of the Governor-General's Council, made any and, if so, what report or gave any and, if so, what advice in respect of the construction of a transport railway in Mesopotamia demanded by General Nixon for strategic reasons which were not endorsed by General Sir Beauchamp Duff, then Commander-in-Chief in India?
§ The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to reserve what I have to say on this subject till Thursday's Debate.
§ 8. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of Lord Hardinge's statement in his letter dated 21st July, 1916, to Sir George Buchanan respecting Bratiano, he will state whether this refers to M. Bratiano, Prime Minister of Roumania; and, if so, whether Lord Hardinge has been, or will be, asked to apologise to the Roumanian Minister in London for this indiscretion?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour)I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member on the 28th ultimo.
§ Mr. KINGAre we to understand them that humble people may make an indiscretion and suffer severely, while a great man and distinguished official makes an indiscretion nothing is to happen and no notice is to be taken of it?
§ Mr. BALFOURI do not know to what humble individual the hon. Member refers.
§ 50. Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the provision in Section 6 of the Special Commissions Act, 1916, enacting that any Report shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament; will he say on what day the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission was received; and, seeing that the Report was signed on 17th May and was on 14th June laid upon the Table of this House, why was so much time allowed to elapse between these two dates?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Report was received by the Government on 17th May, and as I have already explained, we thought it necessary that it should be considered by the Government before it was presented to the House of Commons.
§ Mr. KINGIs there anything in the Act of Parliament which justifies the Government an keeping it back when there is an express provision that it should be presented to this House?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have answered the same question many times.
§ 52. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, following the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, any changes in the Cabinet can be announced?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe answer is in the negative
§ Mr. LYNCHIs the Government a sort of limited liability company for the preservation of titled incompetence?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI hope not. That question can best be discussed in debate.
§ 67. Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in view of the advisability of proceeding to appropriate sanctions in regard to Meso- 1585 potamia, and considering also that the Government acts as a kind of Court of final appeal in the matter, he will announce the resignation from office of all members of the Government implicated and of all officials whose administration has been censured but who are in a position to influence the Government by advice?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe answer is in the negative.
§ Mr. LYNCHHow can the Government be a judge in this matter when so many of its members are people in the position of being implicated?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIn that case the House of Commons must determine, and they will be in a better position to form a judgment after the Debate.
§ 68. Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in order that the matter may be sifted, he will give two days for the Debate on the Mesopotamia question?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAs I have already stated, if it is found there is a desire to continue the discussion the Government will at once agree to do so.
§ Mr. LYNCHDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that the situation will be obviated by a number of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench getting up and speaking while those hon. Members who are really in earnest will be excluded?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have no reason to suppose that Members of the two Front Benches are less in earnest than other hon. Members with the exception of the hon. Gentleman.
§ 70. Sir J. D. REESasked on what Motion the Debate on the Mesopotamia Commission will be taken; and whether full opportunity will be given for the discussion of such Amendments as hon. Members may desire to move?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe Government propose to take the same course as in the case of the Dardanelles Report, and the Debate will take place on the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
§ 71 and 72. Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Prime Minister (1) with reference to the Report of the Commission, appointed by Act of Parliament to inquire into the operations of war in Mesopotamia, at page 102 that a large number of telegrams sent from here to the Viceroy about the 1586 advance on Bagdad are marked private, and that one of the most important of these private telegrams conveying new and serious information as to the possible concentration of 60,000 Turkish troops near Bagdad was, in consequence of it being marked private, not filed in the military department, and was not transmitted to Sir John Nixon in Mesopotamia, if he can state the date of this telegram, the names and offices of the officials who caused it to be sent, whether it ever reached India, and what became of it; and (2) with reference to the reflections contained in the Mesopotamia Commission Report on the procedure by private telegrams and private letters from the Secretary of State for India in matters of importance to the Mesopotamia Expedition, whether the Law Officers of the Crown or the counsel at the India Office have been consulted as to the limitations arising from the provisions of the Act of Parliament that business shall be conducted by the Council or India at weekly meetings?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI will deal with these questions in Debate on Thursday. I think I ought to say at once that the telegram referred to in question 71 was sent by me personally.