§ 8. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. John Henry Armstrong, 52, Worcester Villas, Hove, Sussex, was on the outbreak of the present War given a commission as lieutenant and quartermaster in the South Staffordshire Regiment, with whom he had served with an unblemished record since 1874; that he served in this capacity without any complaint until 1st April, 1917; that on this date a new commanding officer was posted to his battalion, who shortly after his appointment put in some adverse reports relating to the keeping of the battalion stores concerning him; that on the 19th April, 1917, his commanding officer stated to him that it had been reported to him that he had a great quantity of surplus articles in his stores; that he was placed under arrest and ordered to appear before a garrison Court of Inquiry on 23rd April, 1917, when he proved the figures of the stock-taking board to be incorrect; that no charge was preferred against him; that no explanation was offered as to why he was held under arrest from 19th April to 15th May, 1917, on which date he was ordered in a War Office telegram to be released; that subsequent charges were made against him by the commanding officer; that he was gazetted out of the Army on 25th September, 1917; that his. appeal against this decision was not-acknowledged; and whether, in view of this ex-officer's length of service in various parts of the Empire, his patriotism in 651 giving up his business at the outbreak of the present War and rejoining the Colours, and his untarnished record in the Service, he will cause an inquiry to be held into the charges which were made against this ex-officer, and which have never been proved, with a view to his name being cleared and his reinstatement in his rank?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs a result of the inquiry of the Stock-taking Board in April, 1917, referred to in the question, gross incompetence in the performance of his duties by Lieutenant Armstrong was disclosed. Lieutenant Armstrong was in attendance at the Board throughout the proceedings. A new commanding officer was appointed on the 1st April, but the Stock-taking Board had been assembled by the previous commanding officer. I have no knowledge of the statement said to have been made by the commanding officer on the 19th April, but, under date 14th June last, he recorded a very adverse report, which was based on the record of the Stock taking Board, and showed not only a large quantity of surplus articles, but also many deficiencies. In consequence Lieutenant Armstrong was called upon to resign his commission under Article 527 of the Royal Warrant. He appealed to the Army Council against this decision, which was acknowledged, and he was granted an interview. The appeal was very carefully considered by the Council, but they came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for varying their previous decision, and this was conveyed to Lieutenant Armstrong by a letter in November last. There is no record at the War Office as to the Garrison Court of Inquiry which, it is stated, assembled on the 23rd April and disproved the figures of the Stock-taking Board, but I would point out that Lieutenant Armstrong endorsed the adverse report of his commanding officer without making any protest. In view of all the circumstances, and the careful consideration already given to the case, I am afraid the matter cannot be reopened.
§ Colonel ASHLEYWould the hon. Gentleman allow Lieutenant Armstrong to interview a member of the Army Council under the new Regulation?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo. This case would be a retrospective one, and would not come under the Regulation at all.
§ Colonel ASHLEYDoes the hon. Gentleman consider that no injustice at all has been done?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman would carefully read my reply, I think he would see that Lieutenant Armstrong has been treated very justly.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEAre we to understand that the new Regulation is not retrospective?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes.