HC Deb 06 November 1918 vol 110 cc2122-5
Mr. MACPHERSON

I hope that I may be allowed to make a personal explanation which I intended to make yesterday. In the course of the Debate on Prisoners of War last week, while my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christ-church (Brigadier-General Croft) was speaking, I appeared, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT to have "nodded my head." I did this after my hon. and gallant Friend had made this statement—a statement which was published by my hon. and gallant Friend in a bowdlerised form in yesterday's "Morning Post." This was the statement he made: The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us— he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary— has had a great mass of evidence before it. We have heard a few cases this evening, but they are only a few cases out of thousands, and the Government has had this evidence all the time; but not only have they kept the truth from the people, but I believe I am right in saying that the War Office, or some other authority, has compelled escapers and exchanged prisoners to promise that they will not tell the truth about this question on the platform or in the newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have been told that by at least a score. Sir E. Carson: Is it true or not? Mr. Macpherson: I am informed it is not true. The Wittemberg Report— For example, I believe I added, was published two years ago. 4.0 P.M.

Now, there are two grave charges—(1) that the Government had abundant evidence of cruelty, which they deliberately hid from the people, and (2) that the War Office had compelled escaped and exchanged prisoners of war to promise that they would not tell the truth about this question, on the platform or in the newspapers. What are the facts? The collection of evidence is not under my Department. It is obviously important that this evidence should be taken from prisoners of war and others and carefully sifted. This has been done by a Government Committee under Mr. Justice Younger. When that Committee is thoroughly satisfied of the truth of the evidence, of which there has been a great mass, the evidence is published in a White Paper. This Committee has been unremitting in its careful and laborious work and the House knows that a number of these documents, with accurate and responsible charges of cruelty against the German Government have been published. No case mentioned in last week's Debate was more cruel than some of the cases which have been thus published. But the Press itself has been unrestricted in practice in its comments and in its letters and in its descriptions of the life of prisoners of war. So much for that charge.

Now let me take the second definite charge—that the War Office compelled prisoners of war to promise that they would not tell the truth about the question on the platform or in the newspapers. I said that I was informed that this charge was also not true, and at the end of my speech I said, "I will try to get what particulars I can about the statement which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend, and if I am wrong I shall confess that I am wrong." I venture to say that I am not wrong. Long before I took office there was an order, of which I had no knowledge, issued by Lord Kitchener which has been materially altered and is now, I understand, handed to repatriated prisoners of war prohibiting communications to the Press by prisoners of war in Germany. It was issued shortly after an agreement was reached with the German Government for the repatriation of severely incapacitated prisoners of war. He feared that should Germany learn that we used as propagandists to her detriment those whom she returned to this country she would be disinclined to send others back, and thus our officers and men in her hands would be the sufferers. Some time after, as I said, this order was altered, upon representations made, I understand, by the Intelligence Department. These instructions are headed "For the Guidance of Escaped and Repatriated Prisoners of War" Paragraph (1) of the instructions reads as follows: It has been brought to the notice of the Army Council that in some instances officers and other ranks who have been prisoners of war but who subsequently have escaped or have been repatriated have delivered public lectures treating of their experiences whilst detained in enemy territories, and in doing so have given publicity to information of military import acquired during the period of their detention. I need hardly ask the House to realise how important it is to remember that even a small item of no importance in the mind of one man may have enormous national importance. For example, I know of one man who had escaped who gave us the most useful information about Zeppelin sheds, and if this had been published the raids which were effected upon those sheds would have been impossible. Much has been said about this instruction, and the inequity of handing it to a returned prisoner of war as if it were in substance specially made for him. But it is merely a recapitulation of Section 453, King's Regulations, which has been in force in war and in peace for many many years, and is applicable to all officers and to all men. I would draw the attention of the House to Section 2 of the instructions referred to. It is there made clear that if an officer or a soldier wishes to deliver lectures in any way dealing with military subjects, or on matters connected with the War, he can do so with the express permission of the Army Council, which maybe sought by application through the proper official channels. It is obvious that if an officer or soldier wishes to deliver lectures in any way dealing with military subjects, or on matters connected with the War, he can do so, and he is not compelled to hide the truth; he can do so with the express permission of the Army Council, and I believe that even now returned prisoners of war are actually doing this for the War Aims Committee. It is, therefore, clear that the statement that the War Office compelled repatriated prisoners to promise that they would not tell the truth—a terrible allegation to be made—about this question, as was stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, is not, I venture to say, after the closest inquiry, true in substance or in fact. This is the first opportunity I have had after completing the inquiries which I have made of making a statement. I indicated to my hon. Friend that I would make this inquiry. I indicated also that I would make confession if I were wrong, which the House, I believe, would trust me to do, and I am, therefore, astonished that my hon. and gallant Friend, without his usual courtesy, and certainly without the traditional courtesy of the House, should have rushed this morning to the public Press without any reference to me on a question which was, in the main, one of personal accuracy and personal honour, which should, in the first instance, have been settled on the floor of this House. I thank the House for the indulgence it has accorded to me.

Brigadier-General CROFT

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that every single officer and man is given this definite order in a printed sheet, of which I have had numerous copies sent me during the last few days, telling them that they were not to communicate in any way either privately Or in the Press or to lecture; whether I did not make that charge in the House; and whether it is not inaccurate to say that what I stated was untrue, although the right hon. Gentleman always pointed out he was informed that it was?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I do not think the House will expect me to add anything to the very full statement I have made. The charge made against me was that the War Office compelled escaped and repatriated prisoners of war to promise that they would not tell the truth.

General CROFT

May I ask whether there is any difference between "compelling" and "ordering"?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member had better postpone that wrangle until next week.