ARMY COUNCIL SUED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 111, 12 May 1909, Page 4

ARMY COUNCIL SUED.

, ACTION BY EX-LIEUTENANT ..-■;. WOODS. 6I<AIM FOR £75,000 DAMAGES. Jw (From Our Own Correspondent.) „, ' LONDON, 2nd April. Fresh interest is given to tbe action witch ex-Lieutenant Woods formerly of ttje' ( Grenadier Guards^ is bringing against the War Secretary and 'the Army Council by the sensational announcement;, made on Saturday that damages t<*. $h& amount of £75,000, with £2500 special, damages, are being claimed. It- will be recollected that after a piiblio enquiry the Army Council called forfj^e Resignation of Lieutenant Woods, ' wh6;* l^ad..been unfavourably reported upon^by^iCplpnel Cavendish and Major GathoPHe-JBfardy, . his superior officers, to the- effect .'that, he was incapable of commanding , in. the field or in barracks. As a. consequence, Mr. Woods has instituted an action, and from the statement of claim which has just been lodged, it appears that he is claim jig the sums named against Mr. Haldane, General Sir Neville Lyttelton, General Sir Charles Douglas, Colonel Hadden, A*r. £.. R. Buchanan, M.P., Sir Edward Ward, in fact every member of the Army, Council- at the time of his removal. He also asks for a declaration that *the defendants had no authority to-, deprive him of his position as an officer in the Army. SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS. Simultaneously with the appearance of the above statement on Saturday, publicity was given to allegations seriously reflecting upon His Majesty's .Goveiuiment in connection therewith. These were to the following effect: — (1) That in the Army Annual Bill the Government have inserted a clause- to transfer 'the powers of the Secretary of State and_ the Commander-in-Chief and Adjutant-General to the Army Council, and to indemnify .the members of the Council for action taken 'in. the interim since their appointment. - (2) That this is regarded by a- number of members on both sides of the House as an attempt to non-suit Lieutenant Woods, whose chief ground of action is that the Army Council acted ultra vires. ' The question (it was added) will be raised in the House ot Commons on Tuesday next, when the Army Annual Bill goes ' into committee. A demand will be- put forward for the deletion or such amendment of the clause as will not make it retrospective. (3) That it is rumoured that the Bill, as originally drafted, did not contain the clause mentioned, and that its insertion led to the delay referred to by Mr. Asquith in reply to Mr. Balfour -last Thursday, when the Premier, alluded to "circumstances which occmred after the- Bill left our hands." !- ' AUTHORISED DENIALS. To these allegations the following contradictions have been authorised : — (1) It is wholly untrue that the Army (Annual) Bill prejudices or in anyw ay affects the case of -Lieutenant Woods. (2) It is wholly untrue that there is any clause in the Bill -which indemnifies the members of the Army Council for any action which they have taken with re- ' gard to Lieutenant Woods.. (3) It is wholly untrue that the powers transferred from the Secretary of State have any relation to the case of Lieutenant Woods or any other case of the kind, and it is wholly untrue that the delay in the introduction of the Bill had anything to do with any , alteration in it, or any reference 'to r the case of Lieutenant Woods.