§ 14. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the medical testimony as to the condition of a private soldier on trial by field-general court-martial for alleged cowardice or desertion is given on oath; whether he can produce a single case from the records at the War Office where such evidence has been sworn to at the court-martial proceedings; and whether he is prepared to state that a private soldier has any means of showing by cross-examination of the military doctor or by independent medical evidence that the alleged cowardice or desertion arose from his physical or mental condition due to shell-shock?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe medical testimony as to the condition of a private soldier on trial by field-general court-martial for any offence cannot legally be given otherwise than on oath or affirmation in lieu of an oath. If unsworn evidence were given at the trial the proceedings would thereby be invalidated. There are records of the character indicated in the question, but it is not in the public interest to produce them. I am not only prepared to state that a private soldier has the fullest right of showing by cross-examination of the military doctor or by independent medical evidence that the alleged cowardice or desertion arose from his physical or mental condition due to shell-shock, but I am advised that it would be contrary to the most elementary rules of procedure by which courts-martial are governed to deny this right to the 590 soldier, and that if this were done in any case the proceedings would thereby be invalidated and that they would not be confirmed, or if confirmed would be quashed.
§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGDoes not the very fact that these prisoners are suffering from shell-shock render it impossible for them to put up a reasonable defence, and would the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing them a prisoner's friend at these courts-martial?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have on more than one occasion stated that the most extreme care and caution are taken in every case of suspected shell-shock.
§ Mr. KINGIs care taken at the time to have the accused examined by a medical man to see what is his condition mentally and physically.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONEvery possible care is taken in that direction. I have already told the House and my hon. Friend that where there is the least suspicion of shell-shock every possible medical advice is obtained.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThen why have they been shot in such cases?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI strongly resent that statement. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that it is quite untrue.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEAs the hon. Member has misunderstood my question, may I ask him whether it is not the fact that one case has been brought to his notice where the sentence was executed on a soldier who in the past had been suffering from shell-shock, and whether his record does not show it? That is all that I said.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe hon. Gentleman must withdraw what he has said, and until he has done so I refuse to answer him.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI wish absolutely and unreservedly to withdraw anything that I said which gave a wrong impression.
§ General CROFTAnd withdraw yourself !
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI withdraw wholly any insinuation to which my remark was open, and I wish, with great respect, to repeat my question, and to say that was the only question I wished to put.