HC Deb 23 June 1921 vol 143 cc1527-9
60. Major M. WOOD

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the affidavit of Major Wake, of the Auxiliary Division, summarised in the Press of 24th May, to the effect that immediately prior to his dismissal an inquiry was held by him into the Trim looting case; and whether it is to be understood that no such inquiry was in fact carried out by this officer?

Mr. HENRY

I have nothing to add to the reply given last Thursday to the hon. and gallant Member.

Major WOOD

Is not an inquiry going to be made into the very serious statements made by this officer?

Mr. HENRY

The trial of these men has taken place, a number having been convicted and a number acquitted. The court before which it took place could call for any documents it wished, arid they were supplied to it.

Major WOOD

That is not the question I asked. My question is about Major Wake and not about anyone who is under trial.

Mr. HENRY

The question I am asked is with reference to Major Wake in connection with the Trim looting case. It was the Trim looting case that was tried before a court martial and very fully investigated. Major Wake did not tender himself as a witness and the court did not call for any statement from him.

61. Major WOOD

asked the Chief Secretary how many of the five cadets arrested by General Crozier to stand trial in connection with the looting near Trim have now been released and how many of the 26 whose services were dispensed with by him have now been reinstated; and whether sentence has yet been promulgated on any of those who were tried?

Mr. HENRY

The five cadets who were originally placed under close arrest have now been tried. One of them was acquitted and released and the other four are awaiting promulgation of sentence. Eighteen of the cadets whose services were dispensed with by General Crozier have been reinstated. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

62. Major WOOD

asked the Chief Secretary whether on 23rd March, at an investigation into the looting at Trim, a statement was signed by General Crozier to the effect that certain documents and exhibits collected by him at his first investigation were then missing, in particular a declaration extracted at the point of the revolver from one of the victims of the looting; whether this statement of General Crozier's is still in existence; and, if not, whether he will have searching investigations made into its loss?

Mr. HENRY

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a similar question by him on Thursday last. I cannot undertake to discuss the details of that evidence or to add anything to what he has already said on the subject.

Major WOOD

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer I got last Thursday did not deal with this question at all and that is why I have repeated it to-day? May I not have an answer?

Mr. HENRY

I have informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the case has already been disposed of by the Court. A subpoena was served on General Crozier to attend, but he sent a medical certificate that he was unable to attend.

Major WOOD

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the serious allegation contained in this question, that certain material evidence was destroyed?

Mr. HENRY

No material evidence was destroyed and no such allegation was made.

Captain W. BENN

How can the right hon. Gentleman make that statement when he refuses to examine General Crozier on the point?

Mr. HENRY

There was no refusal to examine General Crozier. It was General Crozier's own refusal.

Major WOOD

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say General Crozier's statement was never in existence?

Mr. HENRY

As far as my information extends, it was not.