18. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Chief Secretary if any communication on behalf of the Government was made to the police authorities in Belfast or elsewhere with reference to the military operations recently projected in Ulster; and, if so, whether he will give the tenor thereof?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe only communication on behalf of the Government made to the police authorities at Belfast was that the Commissioner of Police at Belfast was directed to assist Sir Nevil Macready in the duties attached to his appointment as General Officer Commanding the Belfast district.
Mr. F. HALLIs it not a fact that the War Office recently stated that, owing to a misapprehension, the police had been asked as to whether they would give their assistance in the quelling of any disturbances, and that that emanated from the military officers?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not know anything about that.
Mr. F. HALLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consult the Secretary of State for War on this question?
47. Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister which Cabinet Minister promised the help of the Navy in the late Ulster crisis, with its battleships, destroyers, and howitzer ammunition and landing parties?
§ 54. Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked whether the Prime Minister was aware on the 23rd March that orders had been given by the First Lord of the Admiralty, on the 19th and 20th March, sending seven vessels of the Third Battle Squadron and eight destroyers of the Fourth Flotilla and the collier "Salvus" to Lamlash?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo such promise as is suggested in Question 47 was ever made by any Cabinet Minister. The movement of the Battle Squadron with its attendant ships to Lamlash was decided on by the Cabinet on 11th March, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had full authority from the Cabinet and from me to make such a movement. The date and details of the orders were left to the discretion of the Admiralty. This movement of the Battle Squadron was not, and was never intended to be, a part of the precautionary measures to safeguard the ammunition depots, and in fact the Battle Squadron could no I have arrived at Lamlash at the earliest until two days after they were completed. The Admiral was not ordered to report himself to the Admiralty in London on his way North earlier than Monday, the 23rd. On the morning of the 21st, when I discussed 1109 the general position with my right hon. Friend, he told me that the Battle Squadron was on its way home from Arosa Bay, and in view of the prevalent excitement in this country, and the fact that the precautionary measures in Ireland had been peacefully carried out, I suggested to him that the movement of the ships should be delayed, and my right hon. Friend gave orders to defer it until the Easter leave was completed. I may add that my statement to the Press on the following day, in regard to the operations which had been carried out in Ulster, that the only naval movement connected with them was the assistance of the two cruisers—I ought to have added "and one destroyer"—was perfectly accurate.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSDoes the right hon. Gentleman's statement also refer to the eight destroyers of the Fourth Flotilla?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, it would.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSDoes the right hon. Gentleman intend to correct the OFFICIAL REPORT of his answer to my question on the 24th March, when he said that he knew nothing about eight destroyers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI should like to refresh my memory about that.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSIf the right hon. Gentleman finds that the words are exactly the words I quoted—"I know nothing about the eight destroyers "—will he follow the prevalent Government precedent?
§ 48. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister what explanation General Paget has given to the War Office on the subject of his mistake with regard to the verbal orders received from the late Secretary of State for War?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Member to Sir Arthur Paget's statement published in the White Paper.
§ 49 and 50. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister (1) whether private Members in moving suggested Amendments to the Government of 1110 Ireland Bill are, or will be, subject to the same restrictions as are at present imposed on them in moving Amendments in Committee on any Bill before the House; and (2) whether it will be competent for Ministers, in the case of the Government of Ireland Bill, to suggest Amendments involving any increased charge without a previous empowering Resolution passed by a Committee of the House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThese questions involve the procedure of the House, and, if and when they arise, must be settled by the authority responsible for that procedure.
§ 51. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether Sir Arthur Paget was debarred from explaining to the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, in reply to General Gough's communication of 20th March, that the duty ordered them consisted of the maintenance of order and the preservation of property, and did not involve the initiation of active military operations against Ulster?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have already stated, Sir Arthur Paget considered that the matter had passed out of his hands, as the officers had already been summoned to London before he had time to deal with their letter.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask whether, in fact, he was debarred, in the view of the War Office, from answering this question, or whether it was that he preferred that it should be answered by his superiors rather than by himself?
§ The PRIME MINISTERHe took the view that the matter had passed out of his hands.
§ 52. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister why the authorities of the War Office did not explain to the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade in Ireland on 21st March that the duty ordered them by Sir Arthur Paget on the 20th consisted of the maintenance of order and the preservation of property, and did not involve the initiation of active military operations against Ulster?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe officers were summoned to London, and the matter was discussed with them there.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman see from the telegram that was read by the First Lord of the Admiralty that these officers were in the greatest uncertainty and distress on this point up to a late hour on Saturday, 21st March, and would not an answer have relieved them?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThey had then been summoned to London. On Monday morning they went to the War Office, and there put themselves in communication with the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIf an answer would have relieved them, why did the Minister insist on their presence in London?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe letter of the 20th March had not been received then.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDid not General Paget report on the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe letter was brought over by the officers on that morning when they came.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIs the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say why Sir Arthur Paget made no attempt on the 21st March to correct the misapprehension which he knew existed in consequence of his speech on the 20th?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have already said that he considered the matter had passed out of his hands, the officers having been summoned to London.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONMy question is not in respect of these officers; it is intended to refer to all the officers of the Cavalry Brigade, except those of the 5th Lancers, then in Dublin.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe commanding officers and the brigadier were all summoned to London.
§ 55. Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether any written protest was made by any of the officers serving at the Curragh and lodged with Sir A. Paget on the 21st March last; 1112 if so, whether such protest was forwarded by Sir A. Paget to the Secretary of State for War; and what action has been taken upon it?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe only protest received as far as I am aware is that published in the While Paper.
56. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if he will undertake that, failing the submission of the questions at issue to the country in the meantime, no further effort shall be made to overcome by force the opposition of Ulster to separation from the United Kingdom, without affording Parliament an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the use of the Army and Navy for such a purpose?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have nothing to add to what I have already stated in the House on this subject.
§ 60. Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether identification tickets were issued to part of or all of the troops to be employed in the operations against Ulster; whether such tickets are issued only on active service to identify dead bodies in the field; and whether there is any instance of the issue of such tickets during peaceful manœuvres or when precautionary military measures alone were contemplated?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am informed by the Irish Command that, as far as can be ascertained, the reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The rest of the question does not arise.