§ 9. Captain SHEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieutenant-Colonel MonteagleBrowne, D.S.O., served for thirty-two months continuously at the front during the present War; that he rose rapidly from the rank of captain and adjutant to that of battalion commander; that every step in his promotion was given as a reward for efficient and mostmeritorious service; that he several times temporarily commanded a brigade in the trenches in the absence of the brigadier-general, the last time being only a few weeks before he was adversely reported upon; that he was twice recommended for promotion to the rank of brigadier-general; that for over two years, and particularly whilst serving with the 16th (Irish) Division, he was repeatedly reported on for his efficiency, bravery, perseverance, and fertility of resource; and that he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order, the Order of Danilo, and several times mentioned in despatches for his handling of the three battalions of the Munsters which he, owing to his special capacity for quick training and leadership, was selected to command, two of them being mentioned by the Commander-in-Chief in France for their conspicuous gallantry; whether he is aware that all these distinctions and special mentions for himself and his battalions were secured by the express recommendations and reports of his brigadier-general, his divisional general, right up to the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and that the War Office was perfectly satisfied that he and the battalions under his command were justly and fully entitled to all these honours and awards; and whether, in view of this record of brave and devoted service, this officer's case will be reconsidered so that he may be honourably restored to the service of his country and that he may be allowed to continue to serve her as he is anxious to do?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave on this subject to my hon. 1808 and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow, on the 20th instant, to which I have nothing to add. I am afraid I can hold out no hope of the case being reconsidered?
§ Captain SHEEHANMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as I have raised a series of new issues in this question, he contradicts a single statement I have made here; whether the efficiency of this officer is not proved beyond question; and whether he does not deserve to be reinstated in his command?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI could not, of course, deal with the various facts brought to my notice in this question. My hon. and gallant Friend asks whether the case of Colonel Monteagle-Browne is to be reconsidered. It is not to be reconsidered so far as I know, and I have told the House that he has been called upon to resign on grounds of inefficiency.
§ Captain SHEEHANI ask whether a single issue which I have raised in my question can be contradicted or denied, and, if it cannot, will he see that this officer is reinstated and restored to his command?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONObviously, I cannot answer all these points. As the case stands, Colonel Monteagle-Browne was asked to leave the Service on grounds of inefficiency, and, as I have already told the House, inefficiency is a matter of opinion, and I have no doubt that the various officers who had the conduct of this case had all the facts—if they are facts —arising out of this case before them.
§ Mr. HOGGEWill my hon. Friend say whether, after the senior officers of this man have given him very complete testimonials of his efficiency, he should be removed from the Army, seeing that they did not know whether or not the man was inefficient?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt is quite clear that according to the rules, it is for the Commander and the Field-Marshal to decide if this officer is inefficient.
§ Major HUNTIn view of the fact that efficiency is a matter of opinion in the Army, and if the frequent and voluntarily expressed opinions of various generals are true about his thirty-two months of actual fighting—and they were very favourable indeed, as to the conduct of Colonel Monteagle Browne—can the hon. 1809 Gentleman say why those opinions do not weigh against opinions of one general, who only knew Colonel Monteagle-Browne for six weeks?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI should like to remind the House that it is not a matter of opinion only in the Army—
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt is also a matter of opinion in civil life, and that is why the decision was given that there was no further use for his services.
§ Captain SHEEHANIf this officer served 32 months, and if the officers and men of the three battalions of the Munsters, to which I belong myself, and my son serving under him, believe that he was a capable and efficient officer, as undoubtedly they do, is there not justifiable reason for the demand for a further inquiry?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs I have already said, no such Court of inquiry has been granted in any case of an officer. The Army Council are perfectly satisfied, and the distinguished generals who decided the case had all the facts before them. There will be no further inquiry.
§ Captain SHEEHANAs the reply has been so unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that, on the adjournment, I shall call attention to the subject, and I hope that Members will have a sufficient sense of the importance of this case, and sufficient chivalry, to keep a House.