§ 47. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister when he intends officially to notify General Gough of the fact that the assurance conveyed to him in the War Office Memorandum on 23rd March has been repudiated?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have already stated, I do not consider any further notification necessary.
§ Mr. AMERYAre we then to understand that the repudiation of 25th March was a pure piece of Parliamentary stage management?
Captain WILSONAre we to understand that General Gough and his officers serving under him may now be employed to crush political opposition to Home Rule?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of the answer that has been given.
§ 48. Mr. AMERYasked whether officers of the Army are in future to interpret any official instructions or memoranda 919 which they may receive from the Army Council in the light of such speeches as may subsequently be made in Parliament by Cabinet Ministers, and, if so, by the speeches of which Ministers; and if they are to regard such speeches as superseding the instructions received by them through the proper official channels?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir. The circumstances of the case were obviously exceptional, and cannot be taken as a precedent.
49. Captain WILSONasked under which paragraph in the King's Regulations authority is given to officers commanding units to allow officers or men to go on leave when the unit to which they belong is ordered to a district to assist the civil authority in which such officers and men are domiciled?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSuch occasions are exceptional, and have each to be considered on their merits. It is therefore impossible to cover them by Regulations.
Captain WILSONIn view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself alluded to this option as a Regulation, does not he think it desirable that it should be embodied in the Regulations which govern the conduct and discipline of the Army?
§ 51. Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Irish Commander-in-Chief, on the 20th March, informed certain of his officers that the Belfast police would have orders to seize some concealed depots of arms belonging to the Ulster Volunteers and to take forcible possession of the old town hall at Belfast; and whether any and, if any, what orders were given to the police in regard to the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSir Arthur Paget denies that he made any such statement; no orders of the kind were ever given to the police.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that, in justice to the great body of 920 loyal soldiers, steps should be taken to ascertain who were the informers who supplied these fantastic stories to the Opposition?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWould not the simplest way to obtain the information be to have a judicial inquiry?
§ 53. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister if the battalion of the Dorset Regiment which was marched out from Belfast to Holywood on the 20th March with its stores and ammunition is now back in Victoria Barracks, Belfast; and, if so, on what date the move back was begun and by what date it was completed?
§ 63. Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister, considering that no howitzer batteries were under orders to be ready to move in Ireland between the 14th and 23rd March, why it was that no less than thirty tons of howitzer ammunition was rushed up North from Dublin on Thursday, 19th March, or Friday, 20th March, by passenger train; what was the cause of this howitzer ammunition being so urgently required that it had to be dispatched by passenger train; what was the extra cost involved; and under what Vote will this be shown?
§ 82. Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the only howitzers in Ireland were at the Curragh between 14th and 23rd March of this year, and that between those dates the officers of the howitzer batteries were given orders to be ready to move at short notice, and that the mobilisation equipment was actually drawn from the Curragh and the men confined to barracks, he can say for what purpose it was intended to use howitzers in Ireland?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI received the following telegram this morning from the Irish Command:—
Number 16623, reply to your telegram this date: Firstly, the battalion of the Dorset Regiment is still at Holywood and no orders have been issued for its return to Belfast. Part of this regiment will probably proceed to Bally Kinlar Camp in May, temporarily for musketry practice. Secondly, the only howitzer batteries in Ireland are at Kildare, Fethard, Clonmel and Kilkenny. None of them have been ordered to be ready to move at short notice this year; no mobilisation 921 equipment has been drawn nor have the men been confined to barracks by any order from headquarters. Thirdly, no howitzer ammunition was moved north on the dates named nor on any other date this year. Generally, nothing whatever is known at the Irish Command headquarters of any movement of troops or stores as is suggested in these questions.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHWhen is it proposed again to occupy the barracks in Belfast?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI must have notice of that question.
§ Mr. HUNTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have direct evidence from officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]— that the statements made in question number 82 are true that the officers of the howitzer batteries were given orders to be ready to move at short notice, and that the mobilisation equipment was actually drawn from the Curragh, and that the men were confined to barracks? In view of that will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have inquired, and I have given the answer which I have received from the commanding officer.
§ Mr. HAMAR GREENWOODIf any officer has communicated any military information as suggested by the hon. Member, is not such military officer liable to be tried by court-martial?
§ Mr. HUNTIf the Minister will not give correct information is not that all the more reason that British officers should?
§ Mr. JAMES HOGGEIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition stated in the House the other day that neither he nor any of his Friends had received that kind of information?
§ Mr. CROFTIf the hon. Gentleman is making inquiries into this matter will he also consider any communications made to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to any other of his colleagues?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThis is a purely military matter.
§ 54. Mr. AMERYasked if any decision of the Army Council has been taken rescinding the Memorandum of the 23rd 922 March containing the assurance to General Gough; and, if so, whether he will publish the Minute or Memorandum containing the decision in question?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir.
§ Mr. AMERYAre we to understand, if no decision has been taken by the Army Council, that the assurance of 23rd March still holds good in its entirety?
§ 58. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister if he will state from whom the reports were received by the Government to the effect that attempts were apprehended to raid Government stores in Ireland?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe Government were kept informed on this matter by confidential reports from the police.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONIn what way are those reports more confidential than the documents which have been already published?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think that we have already gone very far in the way of publishing documents.
§ 59. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister if the Army Council is collectively responsible for any order issued in the name of the Army Council over the signatures of any three members of the Army Council?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Member to the Letters Patent constituting the first Army Council, and to the Orders in Council (Cd. 2251) of 10th August, 1904.
§ 60. Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House on what date and at what time on that date he was informed that a strong force of battleships and destroyers would be used to take extra pre cautions for the purpose of guarding military stores in Ulster; and whether he will inform the House on what date and at what time on that date he was informed that all strategical positions around Belfast were to be occupied by military forces for the purpose of guarding military stores in Ulster?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere was never any intention of using the battleships and destroyers for the purpose of guarding military stores in Ulster, nor of occupying all strategical positions around Belfast.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would remind the hon. Member that time is getting on and there are a number of questions on the Paper to be asked.
§ 61. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister why the instructions issued to General Paget with reference to the movement of troops in Ireland were given verbally and not in writing?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe written instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget in the letter of the 14th March were orally supplemented by directions to safeguard Dundalk, where there were three batteries without escort, and by the authority given to him by my right hon. Friend to grant exemption to domiciled officers.
§ Mr. SANDYSDoes not the right hon. Gentleman now think that it would have been far better if his instructions had been given in writing?
62. Mr. HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state fully upon what statement of General Gough's the Army Council came to the conclusion that there had been a misunderstanding; whether he has now ascertained how it was that General Gough and other officers were under the impression that active operations were to be undertaken against Ulster; whether he has called for reports from General Gough and the other officers concerned as to who gave them this impression, when, and in what words; and whether, if he has not called for such re ports, he will now do so, with a view of laying them before the House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have no further information than has already been given, and, in my opinion, no good purpose would be served by prosecuting further inquiries.
§ Mr. GEORGE TERRELLCan the right hon. Gentleman, state who first discovered the misunderstanding?
§ 65. Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he will state on what date he first became aware of the telegram from the Admiralty to the Vice Admiral commanding the Third Battle Squadron, dated the 19th March, and the telegram from the Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleets, dated the 20th March?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI became aware that these orders had been given on the morning of the 21st, and at my suggestion they were countermanded.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Member for Birmingham (South) not to shout out offensive remarks.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEChurchill used the word "hellish" the other day, but I got him yesterday.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Gentleman wants to say offensive things, he had better go out into the Lobby.
§ 66. Mr. GRANTasked the Prime Minister if the detachments of Royal Engineers which were recently sent to Holywood have returned to their former stations in Ireland?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am informed that one section of a signal company from Carlow and one section of a field company Royal Engineers from Curragh (or a total of two officers and fifty men) were sent to Holywood on 21st March for technical work, and returned to their permanent stations on completion of this duty on 8th April.
§ 67. Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lord Shaftesbury has been present at various reviews and inspections of a body styled the Ulster Volunteer Force, brought into existence to resist the enforcement of laws passed or to be passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom; whether Lord Shaftes- 925 bury has granted the use of his grounds at or near Belfast for the training or drilling of this force; whether this training and drilling is contrary to the existing laws of Ireland; and whether, seeing that Lord Shaftesbury holds an appointment at Court, the Government intends to take any action in the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not aware that Lord Shaftesbury has been present at various reviews and inspections of the Ulster Volunteers. I have seen a statement in the Press that Lord Shaftesbury lent a training ground at Belfast Castle to the Ulster Volunteers, and I am informed that on the 5th instant a number of these Volunteers entered Lord Shaftesbury's demesne, but the police did not enter the grounds, and there is no evidence to show that any illegal drilling took place, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
§ 74. Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary for War if General Sir Arthur Pagt said what he did say to the commanding officers in Dublin and at the Curragh on 20th March with the sanction of the then Secretary of State for War or without his sanction?
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy right hon. Friend explained the substance of the verbal instruction on 25th March, and this was all that was sanctioned by him.
§ Sir C. HUNTERHas the right hon. Gentleman seen General Paget during the last few days, and is he now able to state what General Paget did say to the troops?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have seen General Paget. I think the hon. Member had better wait until the White Paper is issued.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYWas anything more sanctioned by any other Member of the Cabinet arising out of that?
79. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked when the extra precautions referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for War in a recent speech at Coventry for the protection of military stores in Ulster were recommended by Sir Arthur Paget; if he 926 will lay upon the Table a copy of the letter or report containing Sir Arthur Paget's first recommendations on the subject and the reply sent thereto; if the steps taken for naval co-operation in connection with the military advance on Ulster were taken on Sir Arthur Paget's advice; and, if so, when, to whom, and in what manner, whether by written communication or orally, such advice was given?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Member to the speeches made by my right hon. Friends on 25th March. All relevant Papers on the subjects referred to will appear in the White Paper.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI hope about dinner-time to-night.