§ 2.36 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the recently published Official History of the War at Sea shows that—in connection with the Dakar expedition of 1940—Admiral Sir Dudley North had no responsibility for permitting the passage of the French cruiser squadron through the Straits of Gibraltar on 11th September, they will state the reasons why Admiral North was relieved of his command following that event and was subsequently placed on the retired list, and why his request for a court-martial or a court of inquiry to investigate his case was refused; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now afford Sir Dudley North an opportunity of publicly clearing his name of an unjust stigma before a tribunal appointed by the Admiralty.]
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, in view of the wording of the noble Viscount's Question, I should make it clear that Admiral North was not relieved on the grounds that he allowed the French ships to pass through the Straits, nor is there any question of him having been made a scapegoat for Dakar. He was relieved because the 1122 Admiralty had lost confidence in him. There is no doubt whatever that he had forfeited the confidence of the First Lord and of the First Sea Lord of the day. The noble Viscount will also be aware that the Official History reveals that the confidence of Ministers in Admiral North had already been shaken at an earlier date.
Admiral North's request for a court-martial or a board of inquiry was refused because, whatever report might have been made by such a tribunal, this could not then have affected the Admiralty's loss of confidence. That remains true. I must also stress very strongly that it would be contrary to all established practice—a practice which has been especially preserved by Parliament—that the Service Ministers should be unable to relieve senior officers in whom they have lost confidence without setting up an inquiry, either at the time or later.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I desire to thank the noble Marquess for his answer to my question, a great deal of which I will deal with at a later date. May I now ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that it seems astounding—indeed, incredible—that anyone who has read pages 309 to 314 of Volume I of the Official History of the War at Sea, and also the memorandum of the five Admirals of the Fleet which appeared in The Times of June 8, could still hold the view that Admiral North, who was accused of a definite offence, declared guilty without a trial and severely punished, is not as a matter of fair play and justice entitled to a court of inquiry in public? Further, may I ask the noble Marquess this question: Is he aware that the necessity for such an inquiry has become a matter of paramount importance, by reason of the inaccurate and misleading statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Thomas, in another place on June 2?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, first of all, I would not for one moment accept the last statement of the noble Viscount, which I think is a singularly improper one to make in this House. With regard to the other questions which he has asked, it is perfectly true that certain statements were made and a certain story was told in the Official History of the War at Sea. I am not in the least questioning the account which is given; 1123 but the conclusions which were drawn were the conclusions of the author and must not be regarded as Holy Writ.
In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I think it only fair to the House that I should state exactly what did happen, and what were the grounds for the Admiralty's loss of confidence. The reasons for the Admiralty's loss of confidence were that Admiral North—and here I quote the views of the Admiralty at that time:
did not, in an emergency, take all prudent precautions without waiting for Admiralty instructions.On July 12, a signal had been sent to him, reserving the right to take action in regard to French warships proceeding to enemy-controlled ports. At eight minutes after midnight on September 11, 1940, Admiral North received a signal from the naval attaché at Madrid stating that French cruisers had left Toulon and were making for the Straits of Gibraltar. The naval attaché specifically added that the destination of these ships was not known—that is, they might have been making for French Colonial ports or they might have been making for enemy-controlled ports. In spite of this message, Admiral North took no action to get his ships into a state of readiness, although he must have known that time was short and that he might at any moment receive instructions from the Admiralty which involved immediate action. Nor did he inform Admiral Somerville, in command of H Force, of the receipt of the signal till 8 a.m. on the 11th—eight hours after he had received it and when the French ships were already entering the Straits. In fact, Admiral Somerville did receive independent information of the approach of the French ships, at 5.10 a.m. and, very properly, put the "Renown" under one hour's notice for steam. But this was not due to any action taken by Admiral North. These facts were the final cause of the Admiralty's loss of confidence in him. I think the House ought to know that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMay I ask the noble Marquess whether the statement that he has just made is not only part of what happened, and that the statement which he made was, in fact, answered by 1124 the memorandum of the five Admirals of the Fleet? And, if the noble Marquess says that it is improper for me to say that the statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty were inaccurate and misleading, may I ask him whether those statements ought not to have been made? I have proof that they were inaccurate and misleading.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat I meant by saying that it was improper for the noble Viscount to say that, was that he made a statement about a Minister who is in another place and cannot answer for himself in this House.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, perhaps noble Lords will be aware that I am the person who at that time was the Minister at the head of the Admiralty. The decisions taken then were the decisions of the Board of Admiralty for whom, in a Parliamentary sense, I was then responsible. I fully agree with the answer which the noble Marquess has given. The Admiralty came at that time to a final conclusion on their lack of confidence in the officer in that particular appointment. There should not be a new precedent established regarding a change of officer in those circumstances; and if an inquiry of this sort were now to be granted I do not know how many more requests of a similar kind the Government might receive.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, may I make just one observation, in respect of what the noble Marquess said at the end of his reply in animadverting on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Elibank: that it was improper for anyone in this House to comment upon, or criticise, a statement made by a Minister in the other House, since he is not here to reply for himself? That, I venture to submit, is a very proper rule, so far as it applies to non-Ministers, but it is always in order in this House to treat any official statement in the other House as a proper subject for discussion or debate; and such a statement may, indeed, be quoted textually in this House. That does not apply to observations made by private Members in another place, and since the doctrine of ministerial responsibility requires that any Minister in this House is responsible for 1125 what is said officially by a colleague in the other House, I do not think the noble Viscount behind me should have been subjected to that rebuke.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAnything that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, says will, of course, be received with the greatest respect by us here, but I would submit respectfully that for a noble Lord in this House to say that a statement of a Minister was inaccurate and misleading, in a supplementary question, when the whole subject could not be debated, is not a very ordinary procedure. Of course it is true that a subject can be discussed in one House or another, and quotations, or replies to what is said in one Chamber, can be repeated in another; but a personal criticism like that, involving a Minister, was, I should have thought, very unusual.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELThat, of course, is a question of taste and propriety; but if the noble Marquess says that those observations are not to be made because the Minister is not in this House to defend himself, with that I must disagree.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI shall be very happy to accept the noble Viscount's emendation with regard to taste and propriety.
§ LORD AILWYNAre Her Majesty's Government aware that there is a very considerable disquiet existing in the public mind at this moment? Do they not consider that this is an unhappy and unhealthy state of affairs? Is it wise to depart from that cardinal principle, that justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done. Would they not agree, therefore, that the best and, indeed, the only way of allaying anxiety, and of dispelling this disquiet, is to hold the inquiry which has been urged upon them.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI would say that this decision was reached by the Admiralty with full knowledge of the facts at the time. At the present time, nearly all the chief actors in this event are unhappily dead. Admiral Sir Dudley Pound is dead; Admiral Phillips is dead, and others. Is it really to be supposed that an inquiry now could conceivably produce results which were not attainable at that time? Moreover, in any case, I believe that in this particular instance an inquiry would not have been 1126 desirable—for this reason. The facts are not in doubt. I have stated them. I have given them to the House. I am not concealing anything.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo, I think not. I gave all the relevant facts. The only thing which I may be said to have omitted, because I thought it was too early—I am quite ready to give it to the House—is the Admiralty's signal of July 4. Is that what the noble Viscount has in mind?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYFrom midnight on September 11? But that was after the event, after the facts which I gave to the House. Those were; the time of the receipt of the signal from Madrid which I gave; the time when the information was passed on by Admiral North; and the fact that he took no steps to put his own ships at one or two hours' steaming orders. Those facts are not in dispute. I do not think, therefore, that any inquiry which could take place now could add anything to what is known. There may be differences of opinion, which will persist, as to the propriety of the action taken, but that will not be because of unknown facts. The facts have been given fully. Therefore I do not believe—and I know this to be the view of Her Majesty's Government—that any further purpose would be served by additional inquiries.
§ LORD WINSTERI do not wish to associate myself with any animadversions upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, if I may say so, this is far too complicated a matter to be satisfactorily dealt with by question and answer. I think it must be dealt with at greater length and at another time.
§ LORD WINSTERMay I point out that the noble Marquess, in his statement, omitted to mention three very important points? The first is that Force H, Admiral Somerville's force, was a squadron operated independently by the Admiralty. The second is that the Admiralty had this information for a period of at least fourteen hours before they issued any instructions at all although they had been—
§ VISCOUNT BUCKMASTERIs the noble Lord in order in making a speech on a Starred Question? I have been twenty years in the House, and I have never known it done before.
§ LORD WINSTERI think I am making a very much shorter remark than those which have already been made. I have only one further point to make. The Admiralty had been in possession of this information for fourteen hours without issuing any instructions, and, as a matter of fact, Force H was ready to go to sea at 7.15, whereas the French cruisers did not pass through the Straits until 8.45.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not complain that the noble Lord should have asked this question. Force H, it is quite true, had semi-independent status, but not entirely independent status—Admiral North was the senior officer in the area. Moreover, it is on record that when Admiral Somerville wished, after the passage of the ships, to put Force H back to two hours' notice, he reported to Admiral North, and Admiral North approved—thereby indicating that he certainly felt that he had some responsibility. The point that the Admiralty had information and did not act on it seems to me completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. The suggestion is that there was no responsibility on Admiral North. That is not so. There was a direct responsibility on Admiral North, which was to get his ships ready in case any signal was received from the Admiralty. Supposing the Admiralty had sent a signal ordering immediate action, Admiral North's forces would not have been prepared for it, because he had given no instructions. That was a main reason why the Admiralty had lost confidence in him. I think there was another point mentioned by Lord Winster.
§ LORD WINSTERForce H was in a position to go to sea at 7.15 whereas the French squadron did not pass through the Straits till 8.45.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYForce H was in a position to go to sea at 7.15, because, independently, Admiral Somerville received a "sighting" message at 5.10. He received no information of the naval attaché's message from Admiral North until 8 o'clock.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKI do not agree. Is it now suggested that Admiral North ought to have gone into action against the French cruiser squadron?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI never said or suggested such a thing. I said—and this is the view of the Admiralty which I am giving—that Admiral North ought to have been ready to take action on any signal he received from the Admiralty after he had received the message from the naval attaché. In fact he did not take any step to put his ships in a proper condition to take action.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, may I ask how in this House we can keep order and prevent speeches from being made in Question Time if we do not get some assistance from our own Front Bench? I have listened with great care to Lord Winster, but in spite of the noble Marquess's tact I could not discern any interrogative at all in what Lord Winster said.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI deferred to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, because I felt that this was a rather special occasion, and on such occasions we in this House are always ready to allow as much latitude as possible.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMay I ask the noble Marquess whether his attention has been drawn to a leading article in The Times of June 3, 1954, headed "Justice Deferred"? The article says:
Unless he—that is Admiral North—is given an inquiry, the Admiralty—and the Government which control it—will be widely held guilty of one of those exhibitions of official obstinacy which are never in the public interest and which never, in the long run of history, succeed in keeping dark the truth.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have the highest respect for The Times newspaper; but I think that Governments must come to their own decisions.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMay I give the noble Marquess notice that at a very early date I shall revive this subject and see that the whole of the facts of the case are put on record in Hansard.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, may I put a question, arising out of what has been said? I am trying to be as interrogative as I can. I happened to be in Gibraltar just after this 1129 had occurred. The position to my mind was perfectly clear then, that Admiral Somerville considered himself as under the direct orders of the Admiralty and did not acknowledge that Admiral North was responsible for his squadron in any way. It is true, of course, that the senior officer on the spot could make a signal to Admiral Somerville. There was no discord between the two Admirals. The third party who also agreed with what had happened was the Governor, who naturally had close consultation with the Admirals. It was felt there and in the squadron—and I was there at the inquiry and I saw a great number of the captains—that the Admiral had been unjustly treated. The five Admirals of the Fleet who went to the Admiralty the other day did not go with the slightest intention of questioning in any way the Admiralty's authority to change an officer in whom they had lost confidence. What we tried to represent was that there was a feeling in the mind of every one of us that one of our senior officers had not been justly treated. Our object was to obtain an inquiry. We were perfectly impartial as to the result. We wanted an inquiry which would go into the facts and so reassure officers that justice was done to a senior officer.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble and gallant Earl said he would put his question interrogatively. It seemed to me that he put one sentence of interrogation and then answered his question himself.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYThen I will put another. Would it not be fair and just to give an officer a fair trial to see whether he was treated properly or not?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat really is a question which I have tried to the best of my ability to answer. I do not complain in the least of its being asked.
The question of an inquiry was considered very carefully at the time, when there were all the senior officers at the Admiralty who were in full cognisance of the facts; and, with that cognisance of the facts they did not think there was a case—and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would agree—for an inquiry. I cannot feel that now, when these vital witnesses have unfortunately died, and so there is 1130 no chance of getting their evidence, an inquiry would do anything for Admiral North's reputation one way or another. But let me make this quite clear. There has never at any moment been the faintest suggestion against Admiral North's honour. Everyone knows that he is a gallant and patriotic officer. The question is, knowing what they did and taking the view that they did in the middle of a war, were the Admiralty justified in leaving him in the post which he held. They thought they were not justified, and I do not believe that anyone but they could come to their decision.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKIs the noble Marquess aware that there was no general feeling at the time of the Archer Shee case that an inquiry was necessary, but when an inquiry was held Major Archer Shee's son was acquitted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not think that the noble Viscount can regard that as an exact analogy—it is not an analogy at all.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I have been trying to observe the rules of order on Starred Questions, although I am rather centrally positioned in this matter. Is the noble Marquess aware that probably the greatest amount of loss of confidence occurred prior to this particular incident, and that those who still live and who shared the responsibility are certainly not afraid of any challenge to the decision then made? But they are very jealous, in the interests of our country, if ever—which God forbid!—it should be at war again, of creating a precedent in this case which would be exceedingly dangerous.