9. Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for India in what particulars General Shaw failed to act up to his full responsibility in connection with the Karachi troop-train incident?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 9th instant.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSIs it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has never dealt with this question at all? Did not the India Office condemn this gallant officer without waiting for the Report of any Court of Inquiry, and has not the right hon. Gentleman, equally without waiting for any fresh Report, said that the officer did not act up to his responsibilities, and as it is therefore clearly a matter of Parliamentary action and not a Court of Inquiry, ought not the right hon. Gentleman, in common fairness, to say in what respect this officer is to blame for not acting up to his responsibilities?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI really think I have done everything I can for this gallant officer. An inquiry was held, as a result of which my predecessor made a statement about him on the authority of a telegram from India. As I thought there were 353 irregularities about the inquiry, I offered him, more than eighteen months ago, a new inquiry. He has not accepted it. If he does not want to leave the matter where it stands now he can get it put right, or, at any rate, he can get these matters inquired into by a new Court of Inquiry. I leave that offer open for another week from now, but if after that it is not accepted, I really must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to let the matter drop.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs it not a fact that the information quoted in this House by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor arose out of an inquiry in which officers junior to this officer came to certain conclusions, and ought not the whole case to be reopened?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIt was because I thought the inquiry was irregular, and because I thought the gallant officer had a case that I offered him a new inquiry. I cannot do anything more, because he has not accepted it.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSHas not the right hon. Gentleman prejudged the whole issue by saying the officer did not act up to his full responsibilites? Does not that show that it is useless, from his point of view, to have an inquiry? If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws, the inquiry stands on a different basis.
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me to withdraw an opinion based on one inquiry I can only offer another inquiry into the question. Unless that offer is accepted the first inquiry must stand.
§ Major McMICKINGHow can hon. Members satisfy themselves that the information upon which the right hon. Gentleman has based his opinion is more accurate than the information which was supplied to the Secretary of State in July, 1916, by the Government of India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not think the House of Commons is a suitable tribunal to inquire into a matter of this kind. If the papers are to be re-examined it must be by an ordinary military inquiry.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREWill not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and publish the correspondence and details of the former inquiry in order that the House may have an opportunity of judging?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe papers are very voluminous, and I do not think they are of sufficient general public interest to publish them. They are available for the only proper tribunal to re-examine the matter—an inquiry under the Military Acts.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSHas not the right hon. Gentleman set himself up as a tribunal above the Court by prejudging the issue?
§ Mr. MONTAGUHow can that be said when I have offered another inquiry?
§ Major McMICKINGIs any case too insignificant which will serve to show that the administration of the Government of India is based upon truth and justice?