LADY AND WAR OFFICE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3042, 31 March 1917, Page 8

LADY AND WAR OFFICE

7f A DECENT SCANDAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY MRS CORNWALLIS-WEST In August last, on the initiative of Mr. Lloyd George, then Secretary for War, a special Act of Parliament, the Army (Courts of Inquiry) Act,. was • passed for the purpose of an investigation of certain/matters concerning, in addition to officers, civilians, whose names were not disclosed. The report of the Court of Inquiry set up under this Act of Parliament, wliich was recently published (a cabled summary appeared in The Dominion) ' sets.but the opinion of the Court with regard to the conduct and discretion ,of each of the parties in the following order:— ■ 1. General Sir W. H.Mackinnoii. 2. Lieut.-Gencral Sir J. S. Cowans. "8. Lieut.-Colonel Delme-Eadcliffe. 4. Second Lieutenant P. Barrett. 5. Mrs. Cornwallis-West. 6. Mr. and Mts. Birch. The Court consisted of Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson, Major-General Lord; Cheylesmore, Mr. Justice Atkin, and Mr. Donald Maclean, M.P. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. OFFICIAL SUMMARY IN THE . REPORT. A summary of the case is set forth as a prefatory note to the report as follows :— The case is that of a young officer ■ named Second Lieutenant Patrick Barrett, of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. A, sergeant .in the regiment, he was stroiigly recommended bv his commandJug officer, LieutenantrColonel .Dclme- ■• "Radcliffo, and his military superiors for • a commission, and his claims were supported by friends outside official circles. On the strength of the rccommenda-. tion Mr. Barrett was gazetted to a commission on December 24, 1915. Representations were received hy Lieuten-ant-General Sir J. Cowans, thfe Quar-termaster-General of the Forces, from. Colonel and Mrs. J. Cornwallis-West, who were old friends of Sir J. Cowans, and Mrs. Birch, wife of the agent, to the West family, and to other landowners in North Wales, was also among those who pressed Mr. Barrett's claims. Probably before this time, and certainly later, Mrs. W,est began to tale a more than ordinary interest in Mr. Barrett, to which he consistently failed to respond, and eventually he wrote her, in February last, a letter _of remonstrance, which she ~placed in the • hands of his commanding officer, LieutenanWJolonel Delme-RadcHffe. This officer-took the matter up as ono of discipline, and decided to apply for Mr. Barrett's transfer to. another battalion, aritT so remove him from the locality. He 'made a recommendation to the .j War Office for his transfer, but gave 110. indication of any special reasons for such a request.'\ Tip to this, point the .' Commanding Officer made no investiga- • tion, nor did he call for any explana- ■■ tion from Mr. Barrett'as to his version of the circumstances in which the letter to Mrs. Cornwallis-West had been written. Before the reply to his re- \ commendation had been received from .the Wai» office, Colonel Delme-Rad-cliffe, hearing that 2nd Lieutenant Barrett was in the camp on some other business, called that officer before him • in the presence of the Adjutant of : the battalion and Mr. Barrett's company commander,' and on tho follbw- , ing day again summoned him. on both occasions censuring him. ;, Mr! Barrett': has complained that practically no' opportunity was given to him of explaining tho letter to Mrs. Corn-wallis-West to which she had taken exception. ' Meanwhile, this lady had learned that Mr. Barrett's friends were taking action on his behalf, and she appealed to Sir J. Cowans, but by the time he- received her appeal Mr. Barrett's posting to another battalion had been ordered, in ordinary official course. Tho only information on the subject-which was before the War; Office was that ■' Mr. Barrett was,not serving with the Battalion'to which he properly .belonged, and the transfer was sanctioned on this ground alone. Mr.' Barrett and his friends, however, not having full information as to th'c facts, took tho order to be an official en-%-dorsemcni/ of the. commanding officer's • ; censure. As a consequence o.f 'this treatment, Mr. Barrett's health, already impaired, became worse. The late Sir. Arthur Markham took up the-.case with a view to righting the wrong done to. him,' and the' present' Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd ■ George), when, as Secretary of State for War. ho became aware of Sir A. Markham's representations, proceeded to take 'the necessary steps to deal with the cafe by-Court of applying to Parliament for the requisite legislation, with the result that the Army. (Courts of Inquiry) Act was , -passed into law. . ■». ■ MRS. CORNWALLIS-WEST. • "■ "CONDUCT HAS BERN' HIGHLY. DISCREDITABLE." Dealing with the case of Mrs. Corn-wallis-West,the Court says:— ! 'lf discretion alone had to be considcredj ..we think .that .whatever influence Mrs. Cornwallis-West ' may have had over Sir John Cowans, the lady exaggerated it. We have' no doubt that her injudicious boasting of the power she wielded at the War Office, wliich was,, however, confirmed to an appreciable extent hy the wording of some of Sir John Cowans's letters, was calculated to bring him and the administration at the War Office into disrepute. ■ "But, unfortunately, wo have not had to consider onfy a question of discretion, and wc feel obliged to record our opinion that this lady's conduct, as revealed in this case, has been highly discreditable, both in her behaviour towards Second Lieutenant Barrett before his. letter of February 14, in her vindictive attempt- to injure him afterwards, and in. the untruthful evidence she gave before us.>. _ . "It appeared in "evidence before us that this lady holds positions of somoimportance in the county of Denbighshire in various associations of a public character for assisting in war work. In our opinion it is ' to be regretted that she should hold such positions." SIR W. H. MACKINNON. "SHOWED A WANT OF JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION." - As to Sir'W. H. -Mackinnon,' it is found that no' criticism can be directed against him. as to the granting of si commission to Mr. Barrett, and that he 'has no responsibility for the trans- ' fer, since General 'MacKinnon had then relinquished the Western Command. The report, however, goes on': — "Wc understand that when a general . officer vacates his command it is an established rule of the Service that ho should abstain from any subsequent interference with'.tho affairs of that command. Wo think that for Sir Henry Mackinnon to have entered into a private correspondence with BrigadierGeneral Owen, Thomas about SecondLieutenant. case was injudicious. According to his own evidence. Sir Henry Mackinnon bad dono nothing in that case with which to reproach himself, and it would have been mucli ' better had he advised Brigadier-Gen-eral Owen Thomas to communicate tc

Lieutenant-General Sir Pitcairn, Campbell the opinion which Brigadier-Gen-eral Owen Thomas had formed after, reading Mrs. Cornwallis-West's letters to Second-Lieutenant Barrett. Briga-dier-General Owen Thomas's warning about kn eminent K.C. and a contemplated libel action might well have been ignored by Sir Henry Mackinnon. "The correspondence with BrigadierGeneral 'Thomas led to the interview with Mr. and Mrs. Birch, by granting which, and requesting Sir John Cowans to grant a similar interview, Sir Henry Mackinnon placed himself in quite a false position. It must have been obvious to Sir Henry Mackinnon that Mr. and Mrs. Birch wanted to see him on Second-Lieutenant Barrett's _ behalf, and knowing that the question involved was one oT discipline, affecting not only' Second-Lieutenant Barrett but Lieuten-ant-Colonel Delme-Radcliffe and ultimately perhaps Sir Pitcairn Campbell, he ought to havo recognised that it was entirely outside the scope of his duty to deal with it. At any rate, before consenting to see Mr. and Mrs. Birch on the subject Sir Henry Mackinnon ought to havo consulted and obtained the approval of the AdjutantGeneral. ; "While we give General Sir Henry Mackinnon the credit of being actuated by good intentions, we are of opinion that he showed a want of judgment and discretion in intervening in a disciplinary matter which had ceased to | concern him as General Officer Com-' manding-in-Chief. Western Command, on his vacating that post on March 8. ■ and which in no way concerned him in his new appointment as Director of Recruiting." Sir John Cowans. "In considering this crorespondence it must be remembered that Sir John Cowans had,., undoubtedly heard—in what way not very material—that Mrs. Cornwallis-West had complained of 2n'dVLieutenant Barrett's conduct, that the' complaint had been referred to his commanding officer, Lieut.Colonel Delme-Radcliffe, for investiga- ' tion, and. such disciplinary action (if any) as the circumstances of the case, might >flail 'fori and tha;t Lieut.Colonel Delme-Radcliffe, on hearing the complaint, had decided that the best' way. of*dealing with it was, among other things, to transfer Lieut. Barrett to Litherlarid, ■ and, further, that the immediate transfer of 2nd Lieutenant Barrett was desired by Mrs. Cornwallis-West. "Sir John Cowans must havo known, that the'-'jbase was one of discipline With which he had nothing to do„juid that the proper War Office official to deal with' such matters was the Director of Personal Services, under the orders of the Adjutant-General. "In spite of. this, Sir John Cowans thought fit to intervene by addressing Lieut.-Colonel Delme-ltadcliffe by telegram and letter. He disclosed official i information to Mrs. Cornwallis-West, and he implicated the War Office by i informing' Mrs. ( Cornwallis-West that . we (i.e., the War Office) had done all ; that could he dono officially, the War . Office, apart from Sir John Cowans, bring at that time entirely ignorant of Mrs. C'ornwallis-Wcst's complaint, and having sanctioned 2nd Lieutenant , Barrett's immediate transfer on the disingenuous pretext, nut forward by Lieut.-Colonel Delme-Radcliffe. Sir John Cowans depicted his. frame of , mind by telling Mrs. Cornwallis-TVest . that he .would fight for her if he had time. •' In our opinion this corref '. spondence indicates on the part of Sir l John Cowans not merely indiscretion, . but a departure from official pror priety." ■ Lieut.-Colonel Delme-Radcliffe. • With regard to Lieutenant.-Colonel Delme-Radcliffe, the Court thinks ho ■ treated Lieutenant Barrett unjustly by ■ censuring him without sivine him full ■ opportunity of justifying his conduct, l that'Mr; Barrett and his friends, how- • over, wiofc'.'; having full information as ' 'to "the'facts, took the order to bo an : official endorsement of the commanding ■ officer's censure. . i Tho document adds that in conse- ; quencc of this treatment Mr. Barrett's ■ health became worse. ■ Tho late Sir ArI thur Markhain took up the case, with ■ the result that the court of inquiry was ' held, , • ■" ■' : ' i / Mr. and Mrs. Birch. [ As regards Mr. and Mrs. Birch, the , Court thinks that, taking their conduct . as -a. whole, they have rendered the '. public a notable service by their. !ac-tiori-in defence of a. friendless young officer.: •' At the same" time it considers them guilty of indiscretion in regard to some of the allegations contained in a "synopsis" circulated .by ' them. '■'-,'• | LIEUTENANT BARRETT. ' "CENSURE PASSED UPON HIM . WHOLLY UNDESERVED." ; Tho report on Second Lieutenant ■ Barrett is brief:— ■ , ■■>';./ 1 "We have already expressed our s opinion in regard to this officer's con- . duct in our, Interim Report, forwarded 1 to the Army Council' on September 29, 1 1916 (and made public in the Houso if - Commons on November 21). We have 3 nothing further to add, except to re- ; iterate our opinion that Second Licu--3 tenant* Barrett entirely merited the grant of the commission made to him in December, 1915, that there has been .. nothing in his conduct since that date which has been in any way unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; and that any censure which has been ' passed - upon him in connection'with the circumstances of this case has been . wholly undeserved." y THE SECOND CASE. ?• LIEUTENANT-COLONEL OWEN f ■ THOMAS. With regard to the second case, it o may*be observed that in the very.early ? stages of the war special efforts were i. made to stimulate recruiting in Wales, c and advantage was taken of tho great 0 influence in the Principality and previous military experience of Brigadiert General Owen Thomas for the purpose. :- He ■ was given command ■ of a AVelsh & Brigade which he was told to raise. ;, Subsequently he commanded a reserve i- brigade, of which he was relieved on r June 21, 1916. >- The Court finds that Brigadicr-Gen-r eral Owen Thomas's suspicion that his •- removal from the command had ,been e recommended! in order to meet the wishes of Mrs. Cornwallis-West and Sir s John Cowans was quite unfounded. He c is,. however, held to. have had good i- reason for thinking that hie military i- reputation has been disparaged, and :. that his services have been depreciated, d This is found to be due to an unfortunate sequence of events and to' tht ambiguous or inaccurate oi certain official letters. . ■ • ji Colonel J. A. Wynns-Edwards. Colonel T. A. Wynne-Edward's is held to have committed a serious erroi 1 of judgment in reflecting on his Brigade Commander (in a letter addressed k V Mrs. Cornwallis-West) with the appar- ' cut object of exalting' his own qualili- " cations for a post of the sumo nature i This letter was forwarded by Mrs ' Cornwallis-West to Sir John Cowanf I with a short postcript, and' Sir Join „ Cowans forwarded both letter and post cript to Sir Pitcairn Campbell, \advis !t ing- that officer to keep his eye oil Colli onel Wynne-Edwards, of whom Sii 'y John expressed a high opinion.- , '- sir Pitcairn Campbell. i" There is held to be no foundatioi for the allegation that Sir Pitoairi Campbell was in any way influenced b; ' Sir John Cowans or Mrs. Cornwallis .{. West. . - ;j Lord French. ii- Regret is expressed that a letter sen x> by Lord French to the War Office bi

May 22 was 'so' ambiguously worded as to be capable of misconstruction. In any case, a portion of the letter was of the nature of an .adverse report on Brigadier-General Owen Thomas, and the letter should have been communicated to that officer at tho time. It is also regarded as unfortunate that Lord French should havo concurred in the terms of a War Office letter of July 29 to Brigadier-General . Owen Thomas, which letter must have confirmed the lattor's suspicion of sinister influence.