§ Mr. ASQUITH(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether the attention of the Government has been called to a letter in the Press from Major-General Maurice, lately Director of Military Operations, in which the correctness is impugned of several statements of fact made by Ministers to this House and what steps the Government propose to take to enable the House to examine these allegations?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWGeneral Maurice's letter raises two questions—the question of military discipline involved in the writing of such a letter, and the question of the veracity of Ministerial statements.
As regards the first question, that is being dealt with by the Army Council in the ordinary way. 1982 As regards the second question, though it must be obvious to the House that government could not be carried on if an inquiry into the conduct of Ministers should be considered necessary whenever their action is challenged by a servant of the Government who has occupied a position of the highest confidence, yet, inasmuch as these allegations affect the honour of Ministers, the Government propose to invite two of His Majesty's judges to act as a court of honour, to inquire into the charge of misstatements alleged to have been made by Ministers, and to report as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. G. LAMBERTAs this is a question affecting the House of Commons, would not the right hon. Gentleman substitute for the two judges, three distinguished Members of the House of Commons, to verify these charges against Ministers?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe Government has considered the best method of doing what we consider necessary, and I certainly consider it necessary to satisfy the House that we have not wilfully made misleading statements. In our opinion, that can best be done by the course which I have suggested. I would remind the House that, in order to examine this question, the most secret documents have to be gone into, and it would obviously be a very difficult, and, I think, a very unsuitable tribunal to appoint a Select Committee of the House for that purpose.
§ Mr. ASQUITHThe right hon. Gentleman suggests that this matter should be submitted to two judges. Does he propose to introduce a Bill to enable the judges to take evidence upon oath?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWe did not consider that necessary, because I am sure everybody involved will be only too ready to place all the information at the disposal of the judges, and, if they are not given anything they want, they will certainly let us know that is so.
§ Mr. ASQUITHWill the Government bring forward a Motion upon which the matter can be discussed?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIf my right hon. Friend desires that it should be discussed, of course we shall give him an opportunity. Perhaps he might think it better to do so after the judges have reported.
§ Sir E. CARSONWill the proceedings before His Majesty's judges be public, or 1983 held in private, and can Cabinet and ex-Cabinet Ministers be examined upon the subject?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt must, I should think, obviously be held in private, for the reason I have given—that it involves examination of the most secret documents. As to who will be examined, I should have thought, if the House has confidence that the judges will properly perform their duty, they should be the best judges as to whom they desire to examine.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhat I desire to ask is, will Cabinet or ex-Cabinet Ministers be allowed to state before the judges what transpired in the Cabinet?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI should have thought that was a matter to be decided by the judges themselves, but I cannot for a moment believe that any judge would refuse to take the evidence of any Cabinet or ex-Cabinet Minister who desired to give it.
§ Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUXIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers given by him will be received with the greatest dissatisfaction by the whole of the Army and Navy? They are sick to death of the way things are going on in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to ask a question, and not to deliver a Hyde Park oration.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhat I desire to ask my right hon. Friend is how will a Cabinet or an ex-Cabinet Minister be able, unless he be absolved from the position of secrecy which he is bound to observe, without an Act of Parliament to give his testimony before the two judges.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThere really ought not to be any feeling in the House that we desire to burke examination of this question, and I think the fact that we propose to submit it to two judges—whom I shall be glad to allow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) to select if he desire it—is a proof of that. As to the point raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson), I do not know what steps are necessary, but any steps which are possible will gladly be taken by the Government in that direction.
§ Mr. ASQUITHIt must be clear to my right hon. Friend that this is a matter which, we ought to have an opportunity of 1984 discussing on some form of Motion. Will he give us a day for the purpose?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWCertainly, should my right hon. Friend desire it. Am I to understand that he would prefer that we should not proceed with setting up our Court until that discussion has taken place?
§ Mr. ASQUITHCertainly…
§ Mr. PRINGLECould the right hon. Gentleman say that all disciplinary proceedings against General Maurice will be suspended, pending any finding of the Court?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI shall certainly say nothing of the kind. Even if every statement were true, discipline in the Army would be impossible if such letters were permitted to be published.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAny further questions should be put on the Paper.