HL Deb 12 December 1902 vol 116 cc978-82
LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War under what circumstances Albert Tucker, a Militia volunteer, who served in South Africa, lost an arm during the war, and has been discharged as unfit for service with a good character, was deprived by a Court of Inquiry of a provisional pension of eighteenpence a day; and whether he was given an opportunity of appearing before the Court, and on what evidence the decision of the Court was based; and whether Albert Tucker is now, and has not been for more than a year, an inmate of the workhouse at Whiston. I regret extremely that I should consider it my duty to ask this question, because, of all things in the world, I do not wish to advertise the fact that a volunteer who served in South Africa, lost an arm, and was discharged with a good character, is now, and has been for some time past, an inmate of a workhouse. I wrote three letters to the noble Earl the Under Secretary, endeavouring to obtain information, but I was unable to ascertain anything excent what I already knew. What the noble Earl said—and it is perfectly true—was that this man had written to the War Office about his case, and had received an answer from the secretary to the Commander-in -Chief, saying that his case had been considered and that the decision could not be altered. I desire to know what the evidence was on which the Court of Inquiry based their decision, and as it was impossible to get it in any other way I am obliged to call attention to the matter in your Lordships' House. It does seem to me, according to the man's letter, that there has probably been a miscarriage of justice in this case. It seems that the decision of the Court of Inquiry, as communicater to this man, was that he met with his accident while absent without leave, and while attempting to enter a train when in motion, when under the influence of drink, and his name was accordingly struck off the pension list. There may be differences of opinion as to whether a man is drunk or not, and he mentions a fact which, if true, would make it certain that the Court of Inquiry had not gone carefully into his case. His story is that he did get into the train while it was in motion, but that he was not injured in getting into the train, the accident occurring some time afterwards when the engine jerked turning a curve and he was thrown out. The man's statement as to the facts of his case is as follows— I was stationed at Rensburg, and was dismissed from duty at 9.30 a. m. I had only been discharged from hospital one week, where I was confined to bad for seven weeks with dysentery. I could not eat the garrison's rations, so another private and I went to Colesburg to buy some eatables. We had purchased about 30s. worth, and were returning at 6.30 p.m. perfectly sober. Afraid of being late for roll-call we got on to a passing train and had been riding about two miles when the engine jerked in turning a curve and we were thrown out. I had my arm amputated and head injured. The complainant goes on to say—and I think there is a great deal in his contention— that—

I think he might have added that if he had been hurt in a railway accident at home, quite independently of following his employment, he would have been entitled to compensation. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.

*THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE)

The noble Lord has referred in his opening remarks to private correspondence which has passed between us, and has implied that I did not treat him with perhaps the courtesy that he expected.

LORD MONKSWELL

I only stated that you considered it your duty not to make any inquiry at all until I brought the matter before Parliament. You said the letter from the secretary of the Commander-in-Chief absolutely precluded you form making any inquiry unless I brought the matter before Parliament.

*THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

I do not dispute the statement of the noble Lord The noble Lord did not write and ask me to make inquiries into the case, but he stated that the Commander-in-Chief had already been asked to inquire into it, had done so, and had written that there was no reason to consider that the ex-soldier Tucker had met with anything but absolute justice. I thereupon wrote to the noble Lord that it would be presumption in me to go to the Commander-in-Chief and say, "I know you have inquired into this case, but still the noble Lord is not satisfied, and expects me to act as a Court of Appeal from your decision."

LORD MONKSWELL

I wanted some information.

*THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

That was the gist of my answer. In further correspondence the noble Lord mentioned to me that it me that it was hard no him to have to ask questions in the dark. I understand the questions are asked in order to gain information. If all the details were known there would be no necessity to ask the question. I afterwards wrote saying I was prepared to defend the decision of the Commander-in-Chief, and that if the noble Lord brought the question up I should give him all the information possible. I consider the matter hardly sufficiently important to be brought before the attention of this House. As regards the facts of the case, the noble Lord is absolutely wrong in almost every statement he has made. The circumstances are these: Ex-soldier Tucker returned from South Africa as unfit for duty early in 1901. He Commissioners at Chelsea, and applied for a pension. He had no evidence to offer of inability to earn a livelihood except the fact that he had lost an arm. The Commissioners acted under Regulation number 1169, which relates to the case of men injured on duty. They assumed from his statement that he had been injured on duty, and granted him a provisional pension. The same day (February 19th, 1901) they wrote to the officer commanding the Depot to which this soldier's regiment belonged, and asked him to make inquiries as to the truth of the man's statement that he had lost his arm in the execution of his duty. Tucker was called upon at the Depot to write a statement of his case, and he wrote practically what the noble Lord has stated to the House. His statement, shortly, was that he got into a train, and, owing to the badly constructed line, was thrown out, with the result that his arm was broken and his head injured. That statement was forwarded to the officer commanding the regiment in South Africa, and that officer was asked to return the statement with such comments as he chose to make, together with any further evidence concerning the injury this man had received. Two months afterwards the statement was returned by the officer commanding the regiment, accompanied by another very important document—namely, the Report of a Court of Inquiry held at Arundel in June, 1900, a few days after the accident which we arc now discussing occurred. That Report disclosed the fact that Tucker and two other soldiers left their camp at Arundel in June, 1900, without leave, and proceeded to Colesburg. They started to return to camp the same afternoon, and on reaching a siding on the railway sat down to rest. One of the trio said he should "go home," but Tucker and the other man said they would remain. The man went back to the camp and reported to the sergeant that he had left Tucker and another man on the railway. The sergeant proceeded along the line and found Tucker on the railway with his hand crushed and his head injured. The other man was also injured, but not seriously. A passing train was stopped and they were put into it and taken to the hospital. I may mention that when the sergeant picked these two men up he found with them three empty whiskey bottles, and a fourth which was partly empty. The report of the Doctor at the hospital was to the effect that Tucker was obviously suffering from an excess of alcohol. When Tucker was sufficiently recovered, a Court of Inquiry was held, and the statement he made before the Court was absolutely contrary in every respect to the statement he made to the Commissioners at Chelsea. He did state that he was sober. He also stated that the train was passing slowly, that he was late, and that, wishing to get back to camp, he tried to jump into the train and remembered nothing more till he found himself in the hospital. The Court of Inquiry heard the evidence of Tucker, of the doctor, and of the sergeant. I think your Lordships will admit that the Com- missioners at Chelsea, on receiving this information were perfectly entitled to say that the man had received his pension under false pretences, and that it was to cease on that day.

LORD MOXKSWELL

I am not prepared to deny the conclusion at which the noble Earl has arrived. If he had only told me one-half of what he has told the House. I should not have troubled your Lordships with the matter.