§ 32. Lieut-Colonel RUDKINasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, delivered at the Royal Academy banquet, on 3rd May, in which he replied to criticisms of Army policy made by Members of this House, referring to some of them by name; whether it is in accordance with established practice for permanent officials to make controversial speeches on questions of policy; 1135 and, if not, whether instructions will be given that such officials shall henceforth abstain from usurping the functions of the Secretary of State?
§ Mr. WALSHIn answer to my hon. and gallant Friend I may say that I am aware of the speech referred to, but see no reason to take exception to any of the statements made by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, as they were in no sense controversial statements on matters of Government policy, nor were the names of any members of this House mentioned in his speech. It is not unusual for members of the Army Council, subject to the general approval of the Secretary of State, to speak in public on the declared military intentions of the Council.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff is responsible for the discipline of the Army, of which his action is subversive?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter of argument.
§ Captain BERKELEYWas the right hon. Gentleman aware in advance of what the Chief of the Imperial General Staff proposed to say?
§ Mr. WALSHYes, I was aware of every statement the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was going to make in my absence.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNHas the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the "Daily Telegraph," in which the name of Major-General Seely and Brigadier-General Spears, two Members of this House, are specifically mentioned in the speech of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff?
§ Mr. WALSHI have seen the speech in the "Times" and in various other papers. I have not seen the mention of any names specifically, and that is the reason I have given this answer. In respect of every statement made by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, there was a previous consultation with the General.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs it not your practice, Sir, to defend permanent officials of the Government from any criticism or attack in this 1136 House and, therefore, in that case should not these officials in their turn exercise reciprocal treatment to Members of this House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not a matter for my opinion.
§ At the end of Questions:
§ Captain BERKELEYArising out of the answer given to-day to question No. 32 by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin), addressed to the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the speech delivered by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff at the Royal Academy banquet, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night.