§ Mr. ASQUITHI understand that the Government are going to make a statement in regard to the action they propose to take on the Mesopotamia Report. I would ask my right hon. Friend at the same time whether he proposes the House should sit on Friday, and, if so, for what business?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is intended that the House shall sit on Friday, and if it is found that there is a desire to extend the Debate to-morrow, Friday will be allocated for that purpose; but even then possibly some smaller Bills will be taken. If not, we shall take on Friday the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill, the Irish Local Government (Public Health) Bill, and other minor matters.
As regards the Mesopotamia Report, I shall now read the statement:
On the receipt of the Mesopotamian Report it was at once considered by the Government, and their legal advisers were asked to examine it and report upon it to the Cabinet. This examination—which included not only the study of the Report, but of a great deal of the evidence—necessarily took up much time, and it was only this week that this Report was received.
The Government have been confronted with difficulties of a somewhat unusual character in deciding how to deal with the Report. They felt strongly that the matter could not be left where it is, and that further action was necessary in regard to the persons whose conduct has been impugned in the Report. This is necessary not only in the public interest, but in the interest of the persons themselves.
The difficulty which met the Government was that of finding a judicial body before which these persons—who include both soldiers and civilians—could be brought. It must be borne in mind that the Mesopotamia Commission itself was not a judicial body. Its proceedings were not conducted under any recognised code, and the Government are informed by their legal advisers that the rules of evidence were not in all cases observed. Further, by Article 4 of the Special Commissions (Dardanelles and Mesopotamia) Act, witnesses are fully indemni- 1918 fied against any use of their evidence in any subsequent proceedings against them. Any proceedings against the persons concerned, therefore, have to be commenced de novo, and to be based on evidence given entirely independently of the Commission. To act by any method of summary jurisdiction would be to condemn men who had not been tried, and in case of a protest it would be impossible to refuse a court-martial.
There were two objections to procedure by court-marital. The first was that civilians could not be brought before such a Court, and the Government are strongly of opinion that the conduct of the civilians involved should be dealt with as well as that of the military officers. The second objection is the serious but unavoidable delay arising from procedure by court-martial. Under the rules of procedure, before a court-martial can be convened, a case must be established, and a summary of evidence taken on oath. For reasons already given, the evidence taken before the Mesopotamia. Commission could not be used for this purpose. The Government were assured that the compilation of the summary of evidence alone might occupy many months, owing to the distances from which many of the witnesses would have to be brought. Before the summary of evidence could be completed, the Statute of Limitations—which in cases of this kind prescribes three years—would have expired, and no trial could take place. In these circumstances, the Government decided that a judicial inquiry into the conduct of all the persons concerned is necessary in the interests of justice, and that the machinery most suitable for this purpose is that provided by the Army (Courts of Inquiry) Act, 1916.
As regards the officers involved, the Army Council has determined to assemble a Court of Inquiry, pursuant to Section 70 of the Army Act. As the evidence before such Court necessarily brings under review the conduct of persons not subject to military law, it is proposed to provide for the inclusion as members of the Court, in pursuance of the Army (Courts of Inquiry) Act, 1916, of persons who are not officers. It is intended that the Court should consist of three officers and two persons who hold or have held high judicial office, one of whom shall be president. All parties interested will be entitled to be represented, the expenses being defrayed out of public funds. The 1919 case will be presented by the Law Officers of the Crown, or by counsel nominated by the Attorney-General.
The proceedings will be open to the public, except in so far as the public interest, in the opinion of the Court, may require that they should be conducted in private.
The Army Council cannot take disciplinary action on the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, because Parliament, in setting up the Mesopotamia Commission, expressly provided that the statements made by witnesses before it should not be used against them hereafter in any criminal proceedings or court-martial, and because the officers whose conduct is impugned were not afforded an opportunity of being present throughout the proceedings, when evidence affecting their military character or reputation was being given, or of cross-examining witnesses, or of making a statement or producing witnesses in their defence, after knowledge of the charges against them.
The Government, having considered the reference of the Army Council to the Court of Inquiry, have decided to request the same Court to inquire into and report upon persons not subject to military law who are affected by the Report.
Sir H. DALZIELAre we to understand that this proposed new judicial Commission will have power to examine into the action of the members of the War Cabinet? Is there any precedent for a judicial Commission having that power?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not know that there is any precedent. They will have that power.
§ Mr. CROOKSWill they have any power to punish?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThey will not have any power to punish, but they will have power to report to the Army Council, which in the case of soldiers can inflict any punishment under court-martial. In the same way, as regards civilians employed by the Government, the Report would be binding and the Government would take action in consequence.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether officers and civilians who are implicated, and who are bound to appear before this Court, will 1920 in the meantime be suspended from the operation of their existing functions?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI would prefer that any examination of this in detail should be deferred until to-morrow, but I understand that all the officers concerned have already ceased to exercise any functions in connection with the Government.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSECan the right hon. Gentleman say whether persons incriminated, who are in such a position as that of Surgeon-General Hathaway, will have the expense of their defence paid out of public funds?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWYes; I have said in the statement which I have made that the Government considered that that was only fair.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether he cannot make a statement to-morrow that the same law should be meted out to civilians as to officers, and that if military officers have already been suspended from their functions it is only right that civilians should be suspended also?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is clearly a question which this House has a right to ask, but it is only for the convenience of the House that I have made this statement to-day, and we did not intend that questions of that kind should be answered until to-morrow.
§ Mr. BILLINGMay I ask by what instrument the Government can punish civilians?
§ Mr. S. MacNEILLI beg to give notice of the following Resolution: "That the holding by Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, who is a peer of the Realm and a Member of the Houses of Parliament, of the position of permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is without precedent a departure from the tradition of the permanent Civil Service of upwards of 200 years' standing, and a wanton rupture of an old-established and inviolable constitutional practice of the greatest importance to the good conduct of the public affairs of this country."
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo; it so happens that the Act which was passed last year seems to us to afford very good machinery. Proceedings can be taken under that Act.
§ Mr. ASQUITHCan the Act of last year or any other Act empower an Army tribunal to summon before it civilians and to adjudicate upon their conduct?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWMy right hon. Friend is probably aware that this is what was done in what was called the Barrett case last year.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWas not this a special Act?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo; it was a general Act.
§ Mr. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of the Irish Local Government Vote being taken. Under what arrangement was that decided?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo; it was the Irish Local Government Bill—a small Bill.
§ Mr. S. MacNEILLAs military officers are under suspension from their offices, though these offices may not be connected with Mesopotamia, is Lord Hardinge still to remain a permanent member of the Civil Service?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of that question.
Mr. RUNCIMANMay I ask the Leader of the House whether, if he is going to proceed with the Motion suspending the 11 o'clock rule to-night, he will give us some indication as to what hour he would expect us to sit, and what progress he expects to be made?
§ Mr. MOLTENOBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, might I ask him whether he will desist from suspending the 11 o'clock rule to-night, in view of the fact that we have been promised a most important Amendment in regard to Clause 1, which we are still discussing, and as the Amendment is not on the Paper this morning we are without any knowledge of what it is. It is quite a fundamental Amendment. The whole basis of the Grant is to be changed and we do not know what it may be.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThis Motion is going to be put to the House upon the same ground as that on which it has been put on many occasions. There is no intention to sit late. The idea is that possibly a short time might make the difference of getting through some particular business, and we hope to get Part I.
Mr. RUNCIMANSurely the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to ask the House to sit until Part I. is completed?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not say so. There is no intention to sit very late, and if it is found that we cannot get Part I. without sitting late, we do not intend to press it.
§ Sir J. JARDINEMay I ask whether the reference to the Court includes those officers whose conduct has been recommended by the Commission to the particular notice of Parliament?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAs I understand, it includes the bringing under review of the conduct of anyone referred to in the Report, which in the opinion of the Court should be so brought under review.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLMay I ask whether the Government still intend to take the Mesopotamia Debate on the mere Motion for Adjournment, or whether they will reconsider the matter, so as to enable the Debate to be taken on a Resolution or Resolutions?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWe have considered it, and we came to the conclusion that the precedent of the procedure in reference to the Dardanelles Commission was the best, and we still think so.