HL Deb 18 March 1901 vol 91 cc201-11
LORD SANDHURST

My Lords. I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have come to any decision as to the inquiry into the operations in South Africa referred to in the speech of the Lord President on Tuesday. 5th March; and, if so, what form it will take, and into what subjects will investigation be held. My question is based on some remarks which fell from the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council in debate about a fortnight ago. The noble Duke said— The inquiry which has been suggested, and which has been promised by the Government, into the conduct of the war and operations in South Africa, and which, I trust, will take place when the war is con-eluded, will meet the case. If that statement had been made by any other Minister, with the exception of one or two, I am not quite certain that it would so much have attracted my attention, but combined with the office of Lord President the noble Duke holds the office of President of the Committee on National Defence, and I therefore considered that I had a right to assume that that sentence was spoken advisedly, and not dropped haphazard. But I have another authority to cite. Mr. Balfour was questioned in the other House, the principal part of the question referring to the scope and the time of such an inquiry into the conduct of the war. The First Lord of the Treasury replied— As the hon. Member is aware, we promised a general inquiry. The scope and duration of that inquiry must depend on the discretion and the competence of the body to whom the inquiry is entrusted. The Government can lay down no limitation. He did not discourage the idea that the inquiry contemplated would be general in its character. I cannot disguise the fact that I view a general inquiry of the nature which I understood to be in the mind of the noble Duke with the greatest possible apprehension. I do not understand from what point the investigations are to commence, what field those investigations are to cover, or how any reference to cover the whole ground is to be framed. It appears to me that it will most likely be a roving Commission of unlimited scope and indefinite duration. If any practical and useful results are to be reached the reference to the Commission should be precise, and if the inquiry is unduly protracted public interest in it will wane and cease. If there is to be a general inquiry into the conduct of the war, will it be made another battle-ground for those regrettable incidents of the past fortnight, on which every Member of the House must look back with considerable pain? Surely we have had enough of these differences.

Setting aside differences of opinion between Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief and differences which, no doubt, prevail between generals, there are episodes of the war which have deeply stirred the public mind. Are these to be paraded again before a. Committee of non-experts.' Are the names of gallant and historical regiments to be dragged through the mire, together with the names of irregular corps no less gallant? Are the reputations of gallant officers and men to be torn to shreds for the amusement of cynically delighted Europe? We must remember that, amid all this questioning and cross-questioning, the deeds of gallantry of which we are so proud will for the moment fall into the background. One result of such an inquiry must be to attribute blame somewhere, but it will be extremely difficult to get satisfactory evidence. I have heard it frequently stated that it is difficult to get junior officers to give evidence against senior officers, or even to give adverse criticism as to their action, and a reason that has been often urged is that these young men are afraid of prejudicing their prospects and careers. I admit that they may be true to a certain degree and in certain instances, but I think it is only a portion, and a very small portion, of the truth. The real reason why young men are averse to giving evidence against their seniors I believe to be this—they are too loyal in the first place, and, in the second, they are too brave. They are too loyal to the regiments to which they deem it a high honour to belong to give evidence which would incriminate their seniors, and they are too brave to do other than allow "blame to rest on their own shoulders rather than incriminate, as it were, the rank and file. Again, many of the officers who took part in the various operations, and who might have given valuable evidence, are beyond the reach of any Committee. In the last stands before surrenders have taken place many have yielded up their lives, and a great many more have fallen victims in hospital to wounds or disease which were the result of their heroism.

I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that a large Committee composed of Members of both Houses, with expert Members added, would be the body best calculated to obtain the information desired. I do not pretend to claim any monopoly of the desire to uphold the honour of the Army generally. Noble Lords opposite are as jealous of that honour as we on this side are. But I fear that a long general inquiry will bring about very undesirable results with no corresponding advantage. I quite agree that there should be an inquiry or series of inquiries, each with a definite reference. On first taking office the present Secretary of State for War created an extremely important Committee to examine into the internal working of the War Office, and he put at the head of that Committee probably the very best man he could have found for the purpose. That was a very wise step to have taken. In the course of his recent speech, which I am sure your Lordships have read with great admiration. Mr. Brodrick pointed out that he had already instituted inquiries into certain departments of the War Office, such as artillery and guns, transport, education of officers, commissariat, and the purchase of stores, and I think inquiries of this nature would be better than putting the whole of these subjects into a general reference. At any! rate, there would be finality in their proceedings, and they would be less likely to be the hunting-grounds of theorists and faddists. With regard to hospitals, we have had no information, as to the further inquiry which was suggested in Part IV. of the Hospital Commission's Report. Perhaps the noble Duke, when he replies, will make some statement on that point.

What we require is an inquiry into the system of administration, and not into incidents. If, on the one hand, officers have been known to have misconducted themselves, either in the field or elsewhere, there is an authority to deal with them; if, on the other hand, there has been rascality or fraud in connection with the purchase of stores, the Secretary of State can find some means of bringing the offenders to justice, or of re-organising his Department so that in future such objectionable practices may be prevented. I have given some reasons why I object to the general roving inquiry which appears to be in the mind of His Majesty's Government. The Roebuck Committee, which was appointed to inquire into the Crimean War, in the last paragraph but one of its-Report, said— The complicated nature of the inquiry, the variety of subjects investigated, the frequent inconsistency and contrariety of the evidence render it no easy task to present a clear, definite, and just exposition of the matters submitted to your Committee. The difficulty of the task has been enhanced by the impossibility of summoning some persons as witnesses who might have furnished important information. From the same cause some persons are left under imputations in regard to which your Committee regret that they can pronounce no conclusive opinion. The fulness of the inquiry has been restricted by considerations of State, so that at the outset of this Report your Committee must admit that they have been compelled to end an. inquiry which they have been unable satisfactorily to complete. If there is a roving inquiry into the conduct of the South African War it is probable that some similar paragraph will adorn the conclusion of its Report. I should very much regret if the Government have definitely determined on this roving inquiry; if, on the other hand, they have not done so, perhaps it is not too late to reconsider the matter.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)

My Lords, I. was not aware that the noble Lord in putting this question would enter so fully into the character of and the possible objections to the promised inquiry. The subject has been referred to several times in the other House, and I do not think I have much to add to what has been said by the representatives of the Government in that House. It has, no doubt, been promised on more than one occasion that, at the conclusion of the war, an inquiry would be held. This was promised by the Government at the instance, of several prominent members of the Opposition. The only definite thing which up to the present time has been said on the subject of this inquiry is, that it cannot be held until the conclusion of the war—at all events, until the war has substantially concluded—and that it is desirable that it should be held as soon as possible sifter that time. It has also been said that the inquiry, if held at all, must necessarily be a wide one, and must include not only preparations for the war by the War Office and other Government Departments, but to some extent the conduct of the war. Bearing in mind the statements which have been thus made in answer to inquiries from the Opposition, I certainly referred, in the speech the other night to which the noble Lord called attention, to the inquiry as one which would probably enable such questions as have been raised here in the course of certain discussions last week to form part of the subject of inquiry by a Commission.

I do not feel at all disposed to deny that there is a good deal of force in some of the criticisms which have been made by the noble Lord upon the probable effects of the inquiry, which has been contemplated as a very wide one. But until the time has arrived which has been indicated—namely, the conclusion of the war—I do not think it is possible to discuss with advantage what is to be the form which this inquiry will take or to state definitely into what subjects investigation will be held. The noble Lord will probably remember that on one of those occasions when the subject was discussed in another place an interesting discussion took place on certain words which were used either by the Secretary for War or the First Lord of the Treasury—namely, that the Government had promised an inquiry if it should be asked for. A discussion ensued upon the question of what was the binding force of the promise if its fulfilment should not be asked for; and it appears to me the first thing which the noble Lord opposite has to do is to impress upon his own friends the undesirable nature of the inquiry which we, at all events, were under the impression they desired to press for. All I can say at present is that, whatever in the nature of an inquiry we have promised or pledged ourselves to, we feel bound to grant it unless it should appear that the Opposition as well as ourselves are convinced that such an inquiry would not be in the public interests. It is extremely probable that there may be great advantage in some limitation of the inquiry in the direction suggested. But until the time has come which we have indicated as the earliest stage at which an inquiry can be commenced, I feel it impossible for us to state definitely the form the inquiry will take, or the subjects which it will embrace. The suggestions that the noble Lord made to the House in the course of his very temperate remarks, are most worthy of consideration. We are not at all desirous of entering upon a large roving and random inquiry, which probably might end with no more satisfactory results than the Committee to which the noble Lord called attention just now. I do not wish to enter further into the subject except to say that, before the Committee or Commission is appointed and the scope of its investigations is decided upon, both this House and the other House of Parliament will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject.

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, I do not wish to enter at length into this sub- ject, but the noble Duke has made some remarks which I should like to make a comment or two upon. The noble Duke said he believed that the promise of an inquiry was made at the request of the Opposition.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

Under pressure from them.

EARL SPENCER

I am not sure that it was not the noble Marquess himself who originally promised the inquiry.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should be very glad to have a reference to the occasion when I promised it.

EARL SPENCER

That has certainly been stated. Apparently the noble Marquess denies it. At any rate, on more than one occasion during the unfortunate discussions on the hustings when inquiries were made by some who had every knowledge of the subject the answer was, "We cannot answer that now because an inquiry is to take place." No less a person than the present Secretary of State for War, speaking at Bramley, on 20th August, in answer to some criticisms made by a very gallant friend of mine. Captain Lambton. who was at that time standing for a constituency, apparently shielded himself behind the promise of an inquiry. Captain Lamb-ton had criticised pretty severely the armaments of the artillery in the field, and this is what Mr. Brodrick said— Captain Lambton knew that the responsibility of a Ministry for ordering and sending out certain types of guns must be weighed by the advice they received from their military advisers; and, pending the inquiry which had been promised into the conduct of the war, his hands were tied in arguing the question with Captain Lambton. I am glad to hear that the Government intend to hold an inquiry, but I think there is a great deal in what my noble friend has said as to the danger of having a roving inquiry, which may introduce great procrastination. We all hope that many of the topics of inquiry have been already taken in hand by the War Office and are being dealt with. I could instance several cases that have come before me where a great lapse has taken place in dealing with such matters as-the arming of the Volunteers who went out to the war, and so on. We had the other night a discussion on hospital administration, but we do not know whether any active steps have been taken. I sincerely hope that the inquiry will be made in the form most likely to-lead to practical results, and that it will not be made an excuse for procrastination in dealing with many matters which call for immediate improvement.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

My Lords, I confess I was rather puzzled, from the speech of the noble Earl, to exactly understand his point. I only rise to express my hearty concurrence in what has fallen from the noble Lord who originated the discussion. It is very desirable to consider the matter carefully and earnestly before any general inquiry into what the noble Duke called the conduct of the war is entered upon. All the teaching of history is that where there is an inquiry there must be a definite aim without which all such inquiries have been absolutely futile and in many cases dangerous and injurious.-Is it proposed to inquire into every incident of the war? Would it not be well for the noble Duke to ask the Commander-in-Chief what in his opinion would be the effect on the Army of such an inquiry? Is it likely that the incidents will be fairly and adequately reported upon by a Commission or.' Committee, which must consist of a large number of unprofessional men who have not the knowledge which would render them competent to consider questions in all their bearings? On. such questions as the provision of adequate artillery, transport, or hospitals, an inquiry is not merely useful, but essential. I deprecate, however, in the strongest manner such a general inquiry as the noble Duke seems to foreshadow.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords. I think the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees was a little hard on my noble friend behind me. I listened carefully to Lord Spencer's speech, and I am confident his meaning was this—that he was anxious that an inquiry should! take place. He did not wish the Government to avoid an inquiry, but I think he showed most clearly that his desire was that the inquiry should be directed to special objects. Lord Spencer thoroughly agrees that it is most undesirable that questions of military jealousy should be raked up before such a Committee. What we want is an inquiry into those particular matters from which real lessons can be learned. There is no doubt that stores, men, and guns were conveyed from this country in abundance to South Africa, but after they got there there was congestion, and too often they did not get to the front to be used against the enemy when they were required. That is a matter which could be inquired into. Again, there is the question of the hospitals, and also the question of the treatment of our horses in South Africa. The point we insist upon is that the Government is bound to hold an inquiry, and that it should he so contracted and so limited as to produce the greatest amount of service.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl opposite referred to me in a passing observation which makes it desirable that I should say one or two words. I think he is mistaken in thinking that I have ever promised an inquiry. All I have done has been to point out that inquiry had been already promised and that anything that has to be considered had better be reserved for that inquiry. I think we are deceiving ourselves in the matter of this inquiry. The Government have never been in favour of it. but in the position they have held they could not. without exposing the Army to undue suspicion. refuse an inquiry if it was demanded. If an inquiry is demanded, undoubtedly it must be held; but do not imagine that it can be an anodyne, an impersonal inquiry. The things in which people are interested are precisely the personal matters. They wish to know distinctly for each disaster or each shortcoming in the war who is to blame. I do not think myself that it is desirable to know who is to blame. I would rather leave that buried in obscurity. If anything at all is to be examined into fully, you cannot try to shove off disagreeable suspicion by allowing the blame to rest on one man or one organi- sation or one set of officers, because you have not ventured to go deeply into the merits of the case, which you are aware would bring very different revelations to light. It is impossible that you can enter into a just, full, and equitable inquiry without a renewal of that species of discussion of which we have had some examples in this House. I do not think we any of us desire that it should be raised again. We regret very much that it was raised, and we think a mistake was committed in doing so. But once it is raised, naturally you must do justice to the people involved; you must fearlessly face the truth and record everything that you may find. I do not look forward with complacency to such an inquiry. I think it was forced upon us by observations made during a critical period of the war; and with the example before us of the Crimean War inquiry, which produced in its inception such grave results, and which issued in the most ridiculous fiasco, I think we should take warning and should not, without very imperious considerations, expose the working of the Army to unjust and unsympathetic criticism from enemies all over the world.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I have come down with a perfectly open mind to listen to this discussion. I thought from the tone of the question of my noble friend behind me that he was about to impress upon the Government the necessity of fulfilling the pledge given by the noble Duke opposite to hold a general inquiry into the war. But my noble friend turned out to be a Balaam, he spoke on totally different lines, solemnly warning the Government of the injury that would be inflicted upon the Army and the country by an inquiry which I think he must have known the Government were not too anxious to carry out. Then we come to the noble Duke. He certainly showed a very limited enthusiasm for the inquiry he is supposed to have promised.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I did not promise it. I only referred to it as promised.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Yours was the last promise.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I did not promise it. I only referred to an inquiry which by common knowledge was promised.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

No; it is not a matter of common knowledge. My noble friend behind me made a promise by the noble Duke, or the reiteration of a promise by the noble Duke, or the citation of a promise by the noble Duke, the ground of putting this question. The noble Duke denies he made a promise and quotes a previous promise. Then who come to the noble Marquess opposite. He also denies that he ever made a promise. Then we come to Earl Spencer, who has traced the promise back as far as a speech made by the then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs at a rural meeting in the Parliamentary recess, and the Under Secretary then treated it a s a binding promise on the Government. All I want to know is this, When was the promise given, and by whom? The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council and the Chairman of the National Defence Committee washes his hands of it. The Prime Minister knows nothing about it. He seems to suggest that it was given some day in the Dark Ages. The eminent men on both front benches seem to be ignorant of the promise. And the only question I have to risen to ask is, When and by whom was the promise given?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps we may have a preliminary Commission to inquire when the promise was given.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

So long as I am not asked to serve on it, I do not mind.†