§ 14. Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the fact that the charge of cribbing against Lieutenant - Colonel Monteagle - Browne eighteen years ago was denied, and that 'General Abadie, after seeing Lieutenant-Colonel Monteagle-Browne and hearing his explanation, said that he understood all 1414 about it and that nothing more would be heard of it, and that as to the charge of the dishonoured cheque twelve years ago that it was only not known to have been honoured in time to prevent all the trouble because a telegram was delayed, and that the colonel of the regiment stated that he considered Lieutenant-Colonel M. Browne had no dishonourable intentions, and that Lieutenant-Colonel M. Browne was about twenty-five months in the fighting line, besides six months on transport service in France, and that the War Office must have known who Lieutenant-Colonel MonteagleBrowne was, as he was gazetted on 30th September, 1914, as late Princess Victoria's Royal Irish Fusiliers, he can see his way either to have a full inquiry into this case or have this officer reinstated?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.
§ Major HUNTIn view of the fact that the action taken by the War Office in raking up against Colonel Monteagl-Browne his private character of years ago has completely broken down, that he is compelled by the Regulations to wear a gold stripe, and that his efficiency has been proved in actual war, are we to understand that the seven minutes' interview with his superior officer is to rub out altogether his previous years of good service?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would remind the House that I dealt with this matter in a speech recently, and I think hon. Members who heard that speech or who will read it will agree that I have not raked up anything in regard to Colonel Monteagle-Browne's private character. I dealt with him as an officer, and I have nothing to add to what I have said.
§ Mr. PRINGLECannot my hon. Friend state whether it is the case that when he was gazetted at the beginning of the War reference was made in the "Gazette" to his previous service, and that the War Office must have been aware then as to his record?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe House will remember that at the beginning of the War the War Office had very great difficulty in procuring officers of experience; but I have stated before that if we had known that Lieutenant E. Monteagle-Browne who was gazetted to that particular regiment was the same as Lieutenant Edgar Brown he would not have been accepted.
§ Mr. PRINGLEDid not the "Gazette" refer to his previous service, so that they would know all about him?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThey did not know at the time. I have given a reasonable explanation, and I hope the House will accept it—that at the time the War Office was anxious to get Regular officers who had served before.
§ Major HUNTI beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night
§ Mr. HOGGEWill the hon. Gentleman tell the House, for its guidance, when the War Office is willing to give an inquiry into any such similar cases?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe War Office has consistently refused to give inquiries to any soldier who has any complaint whilst serving in France. The House will realise that these inquiries take men away from work which is of greater importance in the national interest.