§ Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the three officers who reported unfavourably of Major Sir Francis Vane were removed from their commands; that Sir Francis Vane was entrusted by his general with the general military instruction of young officers of the brigade for four months (October, 1914, to January, 1915), and that it was not till six months subsequently, when Sir Francis Vane in a recruiting speech had declared himself a Nationalist, that his general reported unfavourably; whether he will inquire of the officers in London trained under Sir Francis Vane who are prepared to bear testimony; and, as there now is evidence that Sir Francis Vane was recommended by the brigadier of the 178th Brigade for distinguished service at the South Dublin Union to General Maxwell, for these reasons, whether the Court of Inquiry repeatedly asked for will now be granted?
687W
§ Mr. FORSTERThe three officers referred to were unfitted for active service in the field, but this purely physical disability in no way invalidates the opinion they formed and expressed on the military efficiency of Sir Francis Vane. It is the case that it was not until Sir Francis Vane had been tried in more than one regimental capacity that the adverse opinion was formed, but the Army Council cannot blame the officers referred to for avoiding precipitancy in forming their judgment. It is not possible to refer matters of military efficiency to subordinate officers. Courts of Inquiry are not granted in cases where an officer's military efficiency is in question.