§ 32. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the statutory right of an officer in any inquiry affecting his character or military reputation to have full opportunity to be present throughout that inquiry and to make any statement, give any evidence he may wish to produce and cross-examine witnesses, he will arrange that Lieutenant Clendining shall be given this opportunity in any inquiry into the circumstances of his detention as an alleged lunatic?
§ 33 and 34. Mr. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if his attention has been called to the application 1991 made by Lieutenant C. H. Clendining, 3rd Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, on the 5th August, 1917, for copies of the statements made by Lieutenant McElwee, of that regiment, against him, which he alleges are false; and if he can explain why the military authorities in India refused to supply Lieutenant Clendining with copies of these statements;
(2) if his attention has been called to the fact that Lieutenant McElwee, of the Royal Irish Rifles, pleaded guilty to a charge of housebreaking and jewel theft before the Recorder at the Dublin City Sessions in May, 1921; and if he will make inquiries if this officer is identical with the Lieutenant McElwee, of the Royal Irish Rifles, accused by Lieutenant Clendining, of that regiment, with supplying false information with a view to getting him certified as insane?
§ Mr. WALSHAs I indicated in reply to the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on 6th May, I have just received a report from India on the case of Lieutenant Clendining, and I am now engaged in examining, under Section 42 of the Army Act, the complaint which this officer has made. As soon as my examination is complete I will inform the hon. Members of my conclusions, but in the meantime I am not in a position to deal piecemeal with details of a matter which is still sub judice. I will bear in mind the question of the identity of Lieutenant McElwee, should it prove relevant. With regard to question No. 32, I would point out that the statutory right in question relates to Courts of Inquiry, not to an examination into a complaint by the Army Council, under Section 42 of the Army Act.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKDoes my right hon. Friend contemplate that in his examination of this case Lieutenant Clendining is not to appear in his own defence and is not to be allowed to call witnesses in his own defence; and is such a one-sided examination to be considered satisfactory?
§ Mr. WALSHI stated a few days ago in this House emphatically that I was going into the whole details of this case by myself to begin with. I made a definite promise to the Noble Lord and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and 1992 Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to that effect, and I was cheered by both in doing so. I promised that examination would be undertaken by me under Section 42 of the Army Act. That course I intend to carry out, but I cannot at present say what later developments may take place.
§ Mr. PRINGLECould the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when his inquiry will be concluded?
§ Mr. WALSHI have repeatedly stated that under Section 42, witnesses of the kind indicated are not permissible. It is, first of all, an investigation by the Army Council; a report is then made by the Secretary of State to His Majesty, and His Majesty takes such action as he considers right thereon. That is the whole purport of Section 42 and that is the promise I have made.