No Pressure From Army Chiefs

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21555, 18 January 1940, Page 7

No Pressure From Army Chiefs

WAR MINISTER’S RESIGNATION EXPLANATIONS IN HOUSE United Press Association— By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received January 16, 6.30 p.m.) LONDON, January 16. The Houac of Commons was crowded and a most anL* ated atmosphere prevailed in anticipation of statements by Mr HoreBelisha (former Secretary of State for War) and Mr CLamberHin. The House of Lords postponed their meeting half an hour in order to hear the opening speeches. Mr Oliver Stanley, the Secretary of State for War, sat beside Mr Chamberlain and was loudl. cheered when he rose to answer his first question. Mr Hore-Belisha was cheered when he entered and sat at the National Libc .al front bench. Mr Stanley left the Chamber before Mr Hore-Belisha arrived. In accordance with the custom of the House Mr Hore-Belisha made a statement to members as a retiring Minister. He was followed by the Prime Minister. Both statements emphasised the subordination of all personal considerations to the object of an early and successful conclusion of the war. Mr Hore-Belisha declared: “There has been, so far I know’, no confict of views or policy with any of my colleagues in the Government upon any point. We have worked in one relationship or anot' for many years, as Mr Chamberlain has testified, in a spirit of loyalty.” Recalling his two and a half busy and urgent years as Secretary of War, Mr Hore-Belisha said that the reorganisation and developmei;. of the Army in this period had been carried out with a degree of agreement contrasting remarkably with the stormy history of most reforms. Administration Defended “I did not select my collaborators because they were readily complaisant or supinely acquiescent,” he declared. “I selected the strongest men I could find.” He observed also that “it was not a dull or stagnant administration,” and he insisted that the achievem mts, and in particular, the so-called demot tisatior. of the Arm/ were the common achievements of the Army Council —neither the sole inspii. tion or exclusive realisation “of any o.a of us.” “As the Prime Minister will recognise, I relied on his support in the task cf preparing the Army for war, and I acknowledge that until Thursday vveel last it was readily forthcoming. T’e Prime Minister is free to exercise impartial judgments and to make appointments which may appear to him to be good. His reasons may or *. ay not commend themselves. I declined the Board of Trade appointment because I could not feel assurance that the considerations which persuaded the Prime Minister to make the change would al’ w of my energetic dischart of duties in the Board of Tr de in the national interests.” Mr Hore-Belisha offered his successor any help nd counsel which ’ e could give as a private member. Democratic Army Raising his fist in a dramatic gesture, Mr Hore-Belisha concluded: “War compels a unified effort by the nation. We shall have to j’ace the nation on a common level. I would have preferred to say no more than has already been announced in the published correspondence and my message to my c jnstituents, that I have no other thpught but to win the war. There may be 3,000,000 men under arms this year. I always had as an 1-eal that the Army should be part of the nation, not rpart from the naiton. (Labour cheers). It should be a career for every young man to enter, knowing he coul.’ rise by charact’ -a.id ability regardless of his status and means. (Hear, hear!). It did not

occur to me to consider we were making the Army too democratic to fight for democracy.” Mr Chamberlain said: “It Is natural that changes affecting personalities, particularly when those personalities are vigorous ar ’. well-known like Mr Hore-Belisha’s, should attract sympathies and interest to an exception?.! degree. No change ir Army policy could be expected as a result of the change in Ministers. There were no differences between the so-called ‘brass-hats’ and Mr Hore-Belisha over the system of promotion in the Army, It is pure invention to suggest that there has been pressure by the Army on thq Pri :e Minister to displace Mr Hore-BelLha. It is not true that I was faced with displa* j Mr HoreBelisha or recc'-ing resignations from high military officers, but I do not propose to give detailed reasons for the changes in the Cabinet. I became aware of difficulties arising ou„ of Mr Hore-Eelisha’s very great qualities which, in my view, made it desirable that a change should take place. While I am in office and while there is a war I will judge everything by one criterion—whether it would contribute to the most successful conclusion of the war.” He had never heard of any serious differences between Mr Hore-Belisha and the Army Council. Every Prime Minister had from time to time to consider whether his C ‘ inet allociticns were suitable, and it was not necessary for the man holding that office to make public all his reasons. “Mischievous ar.d Unfair” “I consider it most mischievous and unfair to suggest that military officers brought pressure on me to displace Mr Hore-Belisha. It is certainly not very complimentary to me to suggest that I allowed myself to be influenced by pressure of such an improper character. It is a scandalous asper-sion upon responsible officers who are unable to speak for themselves to suggest that they have so far forgotten their duties as to contemplate any action of the kind described. No officer ever discussed with me at any time any question of a change in t ie Secretary of State for War. I did want to lose Mr Hore-Belisha’s services and therefore I offered hi) . another important poet, but he cou’ I not see his way to accept. I vc y much regretted his decision. I deeply appreciate the tone and spirit of ■ hat Mr Hore-Belisha just said. He put before all personal considerations the object of service of his country for the purpose of winning the war.” Constant Interjections There were constant interjections from members during Mr Ch/.mberlain‘s speech. Cries of “Why don’t you change yourself” were heard from the Opposition when Mr Chamberlain said he did not propose to give reasons for the Cabinet change. Mr Chamberlain replied: “I myself hold by present office only by favour of the House. If at any time the House thinks a change is desirable I shall accept the position like Mr Hore-Belisha, without complaint.” The Liberal Leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, paid a tribute to Mr HoreBelisha’s reforms, de pointed („t that he was not the sole champion in this connection. Mr Chamberlain, replying to a question, hotly denied that the esignation was due any prejudice that M- Hore-Belisha was a Jew.