HL Deb 03 August 1916 vol 22 cc1076-83

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)

My Lords, I think that I need not trouble your Lordships at any length in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill. We have so recently had full discussions in this House on one of the subjects with which the Bill is designed to deal that I do not propose now to trouble you with any disquisition on the merits of the case or the circumstances which have made the appointment of these two Commissions advisable. Your Lordships will see, in the first place, that the Commission to examine into the origin, inception, and conduct of the operations of war in the Dardanelles and Gallipoli is to be presided over by my noble friend Lord Cromer, who sits opposite. The second Commission, to make a similar inquiry into the operations of war in Mesopotamia, is to be presided over by a gentleman who is well known to all who have been engaged in or looked on at public life for the last forty years, and who is always regarded with the utmost respect by those who have disagreed with him on particular subjects as well as by those who have agreed—I mean Lord George Hamilton.

I do not propose to undertake what I will call the showman's task of going through the names of the respective Commissions and recommending them to your Lordships. The numbers were, in the case of both Commissions, considerably reinforced in another place over and above what was designed when the Bill was introduced. It was thought desirable to add certain elements—as, for instance, the naval and military elements—which had not been provided for in the first instance. I understand that when this Bill goes into Committee it is probable that a further addition to the Commission over which my noble friend opposite is to preside is likely to be suggested, but I will say nothing or that subject now. I propose that the Committee stage, if your Lordships agree, should be taken on Tuesday next, and t will be time enough then to make any observations about the personnel of the Commission.

One other important point in the Bill is the option which is given to the Commissioners in either case to sit either in private or in public. As your Lordships will comprehend, the subjects of inquiry are closely bound up with a good deal of confidential matter, and it will be for the Commissioners themselves to say—for it is quite impossible now to foretell—what degree of secrecy may be necessary in the conduct of the Inquiries. I have no doubt that those who compose the Commissions will desire to take the public into their confidence during the actual conduct of the Inquiries as far as possible, as well as in the Reports which they will ultimately issue, and I feel that this delicate business can be safely left to their discretion. The indemnity clauses are those which ordinarily appear in the case of such Inquiries as these, where a number of Service witnesses often have to be examined. I do not think there is any further point on which I need trouble your Lordships. I ask you to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

THE EARL OF CROMER

My Lords, my excuse for rising to address your Lordships on the present occasion is, as your Lordships have heard from the noble Marquess, that His Majesty's Government did me the honour to ask me to be president of the Commission which is about to inquire into recent events in the Dardanelles. In the circumstances I must ask you to excuse me if I indulge in the use of the personal pronoun to a greater extent than I should like, and if the few remarks which I am about to address to your Lordships partake in some degree of a personal statement. I observed that when this measure was under consideration in another place my appointment was objected to on the reasonable ground, in which I am myself very much inclined to agree, that I was too old to undertake the work. I need hardly say that had I consulted my own personal feelings and inclinations I should not have had the smallest hesitation in asking to be allowed to decline the honour which it was proposed to confer on me.

Although I did not expect when I left Egypt some years ago—neither did I wish—to get absolute rest, at the same time I must confess that towards the close of a rather strenuous life I had hoped that I should no longer be placed in a position where I had to take serious official responsibility. But when I saw before me so many examples, both inside and outside this House, of what I may call brisk young septuagenarians, who not only have put aside all personal considerations but have also done what is very much more difficult—left in abeyance their most cherished political convictions of a lifetime in order to secure national unity and to help in the present crisis—I felt that I should not be doing my duty if I did not at all events endeavour to follow their lead to the best of my ability. I am somewhat encouraged in what I have clone because I observe that one member of the other House, an Irish Member named Dr. Lynch—who I gather from the Parliamentary Guide is a joyous young adolescent of fifty-five summers, and who seems to possess an inexhaustible fund of sparkling Hibernian wit—said that I am not the only member of your Lordships' House who suffers from the irremediable effect of old age; in fact, he said he regarded your Lordships' House as something between an old curiosity shop and a mortuary.

It was not, however, any question of personal convenience or inclination which made me hesitate to accept this work. I must confess that in the first instance I felt very great doubt as to whether I could undertake it in a manner which would do justice to the subject and command the confidence both of Parliament and of my countrymen outside Parliament. Although my doubts on this point are not altogether removed, all I can say is that I will do my best, and I can assure your Lordships and the Government that if I find after a trial that the strain, whether mental or physical, is too much for me and that I cannot do the work in a manner which would satisfy myself, or the Government, or the country, I shall not hesitate to place my resignation in the hands of His Majesty's Government and ask them to appoint some one else. I feel, however, that I shall have to appeal for the utmost indulgence on the part of my colleagues, on whom a great portion of the work will necessarily fall, and on the part of Parliament and of the outside public; and if I do not make any special appeal for your Lordships' indulgence, it is because I know, from experience now of more than a quarter of a century, that that indulgence is always accorded with the utmost generosity to all those, whether they are members of your Lordships' House or not, who endeavour to do their public duty to the best of their ability.

I turn from these general considerations to say a word or two about the Bill itself. As the noble Marquess has explained, it was originally intended that the Commission—I speak only of the Dardanelles Commission—was to be composed of six members, but that number has now been increased to nine. I confess that I should have preferred, for very obvious reasons, a smaller number; but I fully recognise the strength of the arguments which induced the other House to add three more members. It is both just and natural, considering the splendid behaviour of our overseas kinsmen at Gallipoli and elsewhere, that their interests should be represented. The same may be said of the Irish, whose gallantry has been quite equal to that of any other of His Majesty's subjects. I therefore welcome on the Commission the presence of an Australian, a New Zealand, and an Irish member. The addition of the name of a distinguished military officer, Lord Nicholson, and of a distinguished Admiral, Sir William May, really needs no explanation. Their presence will be of the utmost use in dealing with a number of subjects which must necessarily partake of a somewhat technical character.

After having criticised the numbers of the Commission, it may seem rather strange that I should advocate yet another addition, but I am going to be guilty of that inconsistency. When that matter was first broached to me, I did venture to remark that it would be desirable that another member of your Lordships' House should be added, and I did so for two reasons. One is that I thought it was compatible with the dignity of your Lordships' House that there should be another Peer; the other is that I think the subjects with which the Commission will have to deal will not so much require expert knowledge as a judicial mind and a habit acquired during a lifetime of balancing conflicting evidence. I therefore thought it would be advisable to draw upon that judicial and legal talent in which your Lordships' House is so rich. I hope, therefore, that before the Bill issues from the Committee stage some other member of your Lordships' House will be added who represents those particular qualities to which I allude.

I should like to say a word on another point which is even more important than that of the composition of the Commission—I mean its functions. It cannot be doubted that when the Bill was first introduced there was a general feeling outside Parliament, and I think it was reflected to some extent within Parliament, that the intention of His Majesty's Government was to conduct a partial Inquiry and not to go into the whole matter thoroughly from its origin. I never believed that those suspicions were in any degree well founded, and I convinced myself, by conversation with the Prime Minister and with the noble Marquess who leads this House, that, equally with myself, the Government were desirous that the Inquiry should be thorough and complete. And I may say, my Lords, that I made it clear from the first that I could have no part or lot in any Inquiry which did not come up to that definition. But whatever may have been the intentions of the Government, I think it must be admitted that the clause dealing with this subject in the Bill as it was originally drafted—which perhaps some of your Lordships may not have seen—was ambiguous; and there are very obvious objections to allowing any great divergence to occur between the intentions of the Legislature and the actual text of the law. I am therefore very glad that in another place, when the matter was under discussion, some words were introduced—which your Lordships will find in the early clauses of the Bill—which remove all doubt on this subject, and make it quite clear that not merely the operations, but the genesis of those operations, will come within the scope of the inquiries of the Commission.

I think my hon. and gallant friend Sir Hedworth Meux, when this matter was under discussion in another place, was a little hard both upon His Majesty's Government and upon the Commissioners. My hon. and gallant friend said they knew that the Commissions were meant to whitewash the Government, and he added that he was convinced that the Inquiry was a farce, would be a fiasco, and would always be written down as a failure. I am convinced that those words very inaccurately convey the intention of His Majesty's Government. And as regards myself, had that gallant and distinguished Peer, who is a member of Sir Hedworth Meux's Service, my old friend Lord Beresford, whom I have known for at least half a century—had be been in his place to-day I am sure he would have been able to give me a very clean certificate, and to say that. I was not likely to associate myself with any proceedings that were likely to be a farce or a fiasco. I feel certain that my colleagues, although I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting them, share these views.

I should now like to touch slightly on a subject to which the noble Marquess alluded—I mean the very important question of publicity. Here I should like to mention that, with one exception, I have not yet had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues. Therefore I can only represent my personal opinions, and even these I state with a certain amount of reserve. It appears to me that the question of publicity will present itself in three different forms. In the first place, there will be the question of what is to be communicated by the Government to the two Commissions. On that point the Bill is pretty plain. I hope there will not be, and I do not believe there will be, any reticence of any kind, sort, or description. I think everything must be revealed. And let me say that I trust that, as we shall have to call both Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers before us, steps will be taken which will enable them to be relieved of the Privy Councillors' oath, and thus allow of their telling us what happened at Cabinet meetings. That is a point pi very great importance. Then there is the question of what evidence is to be taken in public and what in secret session. That is an extremely difficult question, and I should like to reserve my opinion about it until I have had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues on the subject.

There is a third aspect of this question, namely, what we are eventually to embody in our Report. There, of course, I speak under correction, but I think that two or three general principles may even now be laid down. In the first place, I do not think that anything should be withheld from the public unless very strong reasons can be alleged that publication would be detrimental to the public interests. I approach this question, my Lords—and I think my colleagues will approach, it also—with a strong predisposition in favour of ensuring a maximum amount of publicity and a minimum amount of secrecy. There is another point as to which I think all will be agreed—namely, that we cannot publish anything which will be at all likely to be of any help to our present enemies. But in connection with this subject, I should like to say that I think, if the naval and military witnesses in dealing with naval and military questions plead for secrecy, they will have in each case, which must be examined on its own merits, to give good grounds for showing that publicity would be of real disadvantage to ourselves and of advantage to our enemies.

Then there is the further question—where I, perhaps, from long diplomatic experience may be of some little use—of what is to be published in connection with diplomatic secrets. I am no very great, believer in diplomatic secrets, and I think there has been a good deal of rather wild and inaccurate talk about secret diplomacy during the last few months. At the same time it has to be remembered that there has been for a long while an unwritten custom, if not law, that communications from foreign Governments—by which, of course, I mean in the present instance friendly foreign Governments—are not to be published without the consent of those Governments. If that unwritten custom were in any degree violated, it would be very naturally considered by foreign Governments a breach of faith, and it would destroy, I am afraid, all confidence in the discretion of the British Government for ever afterwards. Therefore considerable care will have to be taken in dealing with that aspect of the question. More than that I cannot at present say.

In conclusion, I should like to add that I feel convinced that my colleagues, equally with myself, enter upon this extremely arduous and difficult task without any preconceived notions whatsoever, and without any sort of desire either to blame or to exonerate any individual or any set of individuals. When the hon. and gallant Admiral, Sir Hedworth Meux, talks about a desire to whitewash the Government, it may afford him some consolation if I say that the very last thing, for my own part, which I shall consider throughout this Inquiry is whether the Government comes out of it white as driven snow or black as Erebus. That is no part of the business of the Commissioners. What we shall do will be to approach the subject with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and to give to the country an accurate account of all that has happened; and I am not altogether without hope that we may possibly be able to indicate some defects in our naval, military, and political systems which will enable us in the future to avoid such mistakes as have been made in the past.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.