§ 31. Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the request by the Vice-Admiral, Third Battle Squadron, to the Admiralty on the 20th March, now published, asking for four or eight field guns for His Majesty's Ship "King Edward VII." as they would be useful for exercising the men during the bad weather which might be expected on the coast of Ulster, and quoting, as a precedent, a similar embarkation of guns permitted by the Admiralty in 1912, was prompted by the First Lord himself?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, Sir. As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, he knew nothing of the Vice-Admiral's request until after it had been approved. He accepts, however, full responsibility.
§ Mr. E. CECILDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is any analogy between the present case and that of 11th October, 1912, when the Third Squadron was ordered out to the Mediterranean, at the time the Balkan war was imminent?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of the question.
§ 32. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state at what time and from what place the communication from the Vice-Admiral, Third Battle Squadron, numbered IX. in Part II. of Command Paper No. 7329, was des patched; and whether any special reason existed for anticipating bad weather after the spring equinox was passed?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe telegram was sent from Arosa Bay on 20th March. My right hon. Friend is not an expert on the climate of Arran, but it is a familiar anchorage to the Fleet, and he supposes they know what sort of weather is likely there in March.
§ Mr. GEORGE FABERIs the First Lord of the Admiralty an expert on the climate of Ireland?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHas it been customary to supply guns for exercise on shore to ships using that anchorage?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERDoes the right hon. Gentleman know the nature of the country behind Lamlash Bay?
§ 33. Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the orders to the Third Battle Fleet at Arosa to return home were transmitted by wireless; and, if not, by what means were these orders sent?
§ 58. Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if the messages, which are given on the White Paper, ordering the movements of the Third Battle Squadron were sent by wireless telegraphy, and if they were sent by code?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe orders were sent by land wire in code.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDWas there delay between the receipt of the order and the departure from Arosa Bay?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI cannot say. Perhaps the Noble Lord will put a question down.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDWas a telegram not sent to the Admiral at Arosa Bay?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
§ 34. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now explain why the Cabinet decided on the 11th March that a naval force should proceed to Lamlash, where they would be in close proximity to the coast of Ireland in case of serious disorder arising, looking to the fact that the movement of the British Squadron from Arosa Bay to Lamlash was never intended to be part of the precautionary measures to safe guard the ammunition depots; and whether he will inform the House what were the serious disorders anticipated by the Cabinet on the 11th March?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy right hon. Friend has nothing to add to what has already been made public on this subject.
35. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any naval commander to whom instructions were issued by the Admiralty, in connection with the recent movement of troops for the defence of stores in Ulster, questioned in any way the orders given to him; and if he had any personal interview with any of the commanders concerned with regard to the orders to the Fleet; and, if so, with whom and on what dates?
§ 107. Mr. BOYTONasked the Prime Minister if he will state why the Third Battle Squadron was ordered to Lamlash, whilst the Vice-Admiral commanding the Third Battle Squadron was to come to London and subsequently rejoin the squadron overland at Lamlash?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, Sir; no naval officer has questioned in any way the orders given him. My right hon. Friend saw the Vice-Admiral commanding the Third Battle Squadron on his return from Arosa Bay, as is apparent from the White Paper. He has not seen any of the other commanders concerned, but he would certainly have done so if it had been desirable.
§ 45. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether the First Lord of the Admiralty was present at the interview between the Secretary of State for War and General Gough on the morning of the 23rd March; and, if so, in what capacity?
§ Mr. HOGGEBefore this and subsequent questions are answered, I desire to ask your ruling with regard to the order in which the questions appear on the Paper. I take it that Question No. 45, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, and a large number of subsequent questions deal with matters arising out of the Department of the Secretary of State for War. Question No. 161, which is down in my name, was on the Order Paper of the House as far back as Wednesday last, and obviously before other questions which deal with the Department of the Secretary of State for War, and which are being addressed to the Prime Minister, and is shut out by those questions. Personally, I do not complain of it at all, but I want your ruling on the point as to whether we are entitled when we want a question answered—No. 45, which is the Prime Minister's—to ask the Prime Minister questions which do not come within his Department as Prime Minister at that part of the Paper, or whether we will take our places in the ordinary run, and, if that is so, why our questions are down so far to-day?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAs the hon. Member knows, all questions which are addressed to the Prime Minister come at Question No. 45. Any questions which are addressed to the Secretary of State for War vary on different days. Upon Mondays the War Office questions come last, upon Tuesdays they come after No. 45, upon Wednesdays they come also immediately after No. 45, upon Thursdays they come towards the end. Under present circumstances, it might probably be desirable to advance the position which the questions to the Secretary of State for War occupy. That is a matter which is generally arranged between the Whips of the two parties. I will inquire into the matter and see if we can give those questions a more advanced position.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe First Lord of the Admiralty was not present at the interview.
§ 49. Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the 3rd Battle Squadron was ordered to Lamlash last month by the authority of the Cabinet or solely on the authority of the Admiralty?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester on 23rd April last.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet were aware on the 19th of the orders given on that day?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI shall say nothing as to what the Cabinet were aware of.
§ 50. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether the sub-committee of the Cabinet appointed for the purpose of organising military movements against Ulster is still in existence; and, if so, who are the present members?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere was no Sub-committee of the Cabinet appointed for any such purpose.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a published letter of the Bishop of Down in which he pays the highest possible testimony to the moral benefit resulting from—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member ought to give notice.
§ 52, 53 and 54. Colonel CHALONERasked the Prime Minister (1) what was the nature of the duties in Ireland intended to be entrusted to Major-General Friend in March last; (2) what was the nature of the duties in Ireland intended to be entrusted to Major-General Pulteney; and (3) what was the nature of the duties in Ireland intended to be entrusted to Brigadier-General Doran?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn reply to this and the following two questions, the 1326 duties of subordinate officers are a matter for the decision of their superior officers, in this case General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Ireland. I have no knowledge, nor am I prepared to inquire, what Sir A. Paget's intentions were. Certain instructions which were given to Major General Friend will be found in the White Paper.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask whether any of these officers have been appointed magistrates?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat does not arise.
§ 55. Colonel CHALONERasked the Prime Minister whether he will state what were the reasons for the senior naval officer, Bantry, and the commanding officer of the Fourth Flotilla being ordered to land in plain clothes?
§ 68. Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked why the commanding officers of His Majesty's ship "Attentive" and His Majesty's ship "Firedrake" were specially directed to land in plain clothes at Bangor and Kingstown, respectively?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)The reasons were to avoid creating unnecessary irritation and alarm.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSON[Interruption and HON. MEMBERS: "Hats off."] May I ask if a similar object was intended to be attained by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at Bradford?
§ Mr. CHURCHILL[Interruption.] That question is quite irrelevant to the question on the Paper.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that plain clothes are not part of the officer's kit, and that it is expressly laid down in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions that they are always to be in uniform on duty?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf an hon. Member wants a reply as to the King's Regulations he ought to give notice.
§ Mr. REMNANTHe is supposed to know them.
§ 56. Colonel CHALONERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Sir A. Paget states in his memorandum on the 1st March that he had no intention of ascertaining the intention of subordinate officers, Sir A. Paget did not so inform the subordinate officers of the 5th Lancers whom he interviewed on the afternoon of the 20th March, and the subordinate officers of the Cavalry Brigade he interviewed at the Curragh on the 21st March, after he knew that the majority of officers of the third division and the officers of the third Cavalry Brigade had been given the alternative of being dismissed the Service or obeying orders which might even eventuate, and in the near future, in the taking of active operations against Ulster?
§ 67. Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received from General Sir Arthur Paget any report of his speech to the officers of the third Cavalry Brigade on the morning of Saturday, 21st March?
§ 165. Colonel BURNasked whether, at a meeting with his officers on the 21st March, General Paget stated that he would have a force of 20,000 to 25,000 men on the Boyne almost at once?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have no report from Sir A. Paget of what he actually said on the 21st, but I know from him that he denies the accuracy of much that has been attributed to him.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWill the right hon. Gentleman say what is the objection to supplying the House with the terms of the address given by Sir Arthur Paget to his officers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have said, I have no report from Sir Arthur Paget of what he said, nor, I imagine, was any record kept by him or anybody else.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWBut Sir Arthur Paget has given one report to the War Office. What is the objection to obtaining a similar report with regard to this matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSir Arthur Paget has a great deal to do, and I do not propose to ask him for any further information. [An HON. MEMBER: "Insult."]
§ Mr. AMERYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Arthur Paget promised to send a full telegraphic report of that particular interview?
§ 57. Mr. STEWARTasked whether the men of the howitzer battery stationed at Kildare or the Curragh received instructions on or about 21st March to prepare their guns for active service; and whether each man had his identification disc served out to him?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have received the following telegram from the Irish Commander:—
Instructions were issued by local Commander under a misapprehension."—
The PRIME MINISTER (continuing telegram)
They were not authorised, as no move of the howitzer batteries was contemplated and no orders for such a, move were issued by command headquarters.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILCan the right hon. Gentleman say how the misapprehension arose?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI cannot.
§ 59. Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked why it was considered doubtful on the 19th March that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland would refuse to allow troop trains to travel North?
§ 102. Major HOPEasked on what grounds Major-General Friend on 19th March reported to Sir Arthur Paget that it was doubtful whether the Northern Railway would allow troop trains to travel northwards?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe opinion was based on the information at the disposal of the military authorities in the Irish Command.
§ 60. Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister when he was first informed, and by whom, of the decision of the Army Council to appoint Sir N. Mac-ready General Officer Commanding the Belfast district?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThis decision was taken on 18th March. I was a party to it.
§ 61. Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether the senior military officer at Belfast had, during the month of March, any instructions to seize or to employ the police to seize certain stores of the Ulster volunteers or the old town hall at Belfast?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir.
§ 62. Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he will state by whom and the occasion when the misunderstanding referred to in the Army Council memorandum of the 23rd March was first discovered?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWhen the officers arrived in London and discussed the matter with the Adjutant-General on 22nd March it became clear that a misunderstanding had arisen.
§ Mr. G. TERRELLWill the right hon. Gentleman say who first discovered that there had been a misunderstanding, and whether it was not due to his own inventive genius? [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheek:"]
§ 63. Sir REGINALD POLE - CAREWasked whether his resignation of the chief command in Ireland has yet been received from General Paget?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSir A. Paget has not resigned his command.
§ Sir R. POLE-CAREWIs the House to understand that General Paget is quite happy in his present position?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWho can say whether any man is happy?
§ 65. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider his decision not to publish the Reports received by the War-Office that attempts might be made to-seize Government stores in the North of Ireland, in view of the fact that the whole of the recent Army crisis and the events immediately preceding it were the direct outcome of these alleged Reports?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir. As I have already stated these Reports are confidential. They were received from the police.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that in the case of the Castle-dawson riot the Report of the constabulary-was produced, and whether he cannot see his way to follow that precedent in view of the very serious nature of this case?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe Reports are strictly confidential, and I cannot produce them.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONIn what way are they more confidential than the documents already published?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have already said, we have gone a long way in publishing documents.
§ 69. Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Prime Minister when instructions were issued from the Irish Office to the Commissioner of Police, Belfast, to take orders from the General Officer Commanding; whether such instructions were issued with his knowledge; and, if not, upon what date-he became aware of their issue?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs regards the first part of the question, the communication to the police authorities at Belfast referred to in the answer of the Chief Secretary to the question of the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 23rd instant was issued on the 19th March. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThey were stated by my right hon. Friend; there is nothing to publish.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONDo these instructions still hold good?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs far as I know, yes.
§ 70. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked why Sir Arthur Paget did not immediately communicate to the War Office the substance of General Gough's minute of 20th March, numbered XX. in Part I. of Command Paper No. 7329?
§ The PRIME MINISTEROn receipt of General Gough's minute, No. XX. in the White Paper, Sir Arthur Paget sent telegram No. 18, to which No. 19 was sent in reply. As the officers by this latter telegram were summoned to London, and were bringing the minute with them, Sir Arthur Paget considered a formal communication of the document unnecessary.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWas not the result that these unfortunate officers were kept in an agony of suspense?
§ Mr. AMERYWill the right hon. Gentleman explain how General Paget, on receipt of this document of General Gough's, had any information as to the War Office telegram, which did not reach him till some hours later? Was there any reason why General Paget should not have acted and answered that memorandum at the time?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is a matter for argument.
§ 72. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether Part III. of Command Paper No. 7329, of this year is the first or only written description supplied by Sir Arthur Paget to the War Office of the conferences between himself and officers serving in Ireland which were held on 20th and 21st March?
§ 81. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if he will issue a further White Paper giving a full account of the subject matter, orders, and remarks of General Sir Arthur Paget to the officers under his command at the second conference held at 2 p.m. on the 20th March?
§ 126. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister what officers were present at Sir A. Paget's second conference at 2 p.m. on 20th March; and whether he will publish Sir A. Paget's report of what was said at that conference?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI received from Sir A. Paget on 2nd April a document describing what happened at the conference on the 20th, which is in substance identical with that published in the White Paper. Two days later, Sir A. Paget wrote asking leave to substitute for this the document as published. The only material difference is the addition of the last paragraph but one. As regards the second conference, I have not yet received a full report from Sir A. Paget, but I expect to do so to-morrow morning, when I will consider the question of publication. As regards the interview on the 21st, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercrombie Division.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to put Members of the Opposition in possession of the Report of the further interview which he expects to receive tomorrow in time for them to consider it in view of to-morrow's Debate?
§ The PRIME MINISTERFirst I shall have to consider whether it ought to be published at all. If I think it ought to be, in courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I will consider his suggestion.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to remind him, we have asked from the very beginning for an account of this interview, but hitherto we have not been able to get it. It will be rather hard, if I may be permitted to say so, that an account should be sprung upon us in the middle of the Debate.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI suspect that it will be found to be very immaterial; but, if and when I receive it, if I think it ought to be published, I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDIf the right hon. Gentleman is willing to consider the publication of the remarks by Sir Arthur Paget on the 20th March, is there any real reason why he should not consider the publication of the remarks on the subsequent day?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have said, there is no Report of the remarks made by Sir Arthur Paget.
§ Mr. HAMAR GREENWOODIf the right hon. Gentleman publishes any documents, will he publish them for the information of the whole House?
§ 73. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether he can say why written orders were posted on the 20th March, or following days, at the headquarters of each unit of the Fifth Division in Ireland to the effect that all regiments and units with medical and surgical appliances and stores should be ready to move at short notice; and why, at the same time, mobilisation stores were requisitioned, superfluous kit packed, and leave stopped?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAny such orders were on the initiative of the local commanding officers. No authority for such action was given by Command headquarters in Ireland.
§ 71. Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister if he will explain what is meant by the statement in the telegram from Sir A. Paget to the Secretary of State for War, dated 20th March, 1914, that all arrangements for general situation have been made and commencement of all movements started successfully; and whether the arrangements for the general situation included co-operation between the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Army, and the Navy in protecting Government arms and stores, or whether the arrangements for the general situation included active operations against Ulster?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe language is perfectly clear, and the hon. Member can draw his own conclusions from the published correspondence and what has been stated in the House.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no difference between the commencement of war movements and arrangements for the general situation?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not say anything of the kind. That is a matter for argument.
§ 75. Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister why the instructions given by the Chief Secretary for Ire land to the Commissioner of Police, Belfast, are not included in the White Paper, Cd. 7329; and whether he will state what instructions were given?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chief Secretary to the question addressed to him on this subject by the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 23rd instant.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSWill the right hon. Gentleman publish the instructions given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir, certainly not.
§ 76. Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister why it was pro posed to appoint the General Officer Commanding the Belfast district a divisional magistrate; and when and by what document Major-General Friend was appointed resident magistrate in the counties of Antrim and Down?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt was proposed to appoint the General Officer Commanding the Belfast district a resident magistrate for several Ulster counties to ensure that a person with the authority of a justice of the peace should be available if and when it became necessary to requisition the military to act in aid of the Civil power in the suppression of riots and other disturbances of the peace. I understand that Major-General Friend was not, in fact, appointed a resident magistrate for the counties of Antrim and Down.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this officer supersedes General Count Gleichen in his command?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir; that has nothing whatever to do with the question. This appointment is that of a resident magistrate for civil purposes.
§ Mr. ASHLEYWas there any disturbance when this appointment was made?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNot so far as I am aware.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWhy is General Macready called a divisional magistrate in the White Paper?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not know-that he was. I am told it is an obsolete term.
§ 77. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister who gave him the information on the morning of the 21st March, that the 3rd Battle Squadron had been ordered to Lamlash; and if he will state to the House at what time in the morning he received this information?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI received from the First Lord of the Admiralty the information on the morning of the 21st March, but I cannot state the precise time.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of what has occurred recently, it is nearly time the Fleet did go there?
§ 78. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if the orders given verbally to General Sir Arthur Paget by the late Secretary of State for War on the 19th March were given on the Secretary of State's own responsibility without reference to the Army Council; and, if so, would such proceeding be usual?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
§ 79. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether orders to military commanders-in-chief should be given in writing, as emanating from the Army Council, and signed by the Secretary?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir. Instructions may quite properly be given 1336 either verbally or in writing as the circumstances of each individual case demand.
§ 80. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if the Cabinet are of opinion that General Sir Arthur Paget exceeded the verbal instructions given him by the Secretary of State for War on the 19th March?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not feel, that it is right that I should reply to this question.
83. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the reports received by the Government to the effect that raids were apprehended on Government stores in the North of Ireland were verbal or in writing?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe reports received were confidential.
§ 87. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that General Sir Arthur Paget on the 17th March expressed his opinion that any movement of troops in the present state of the country might precipitate a crisis, such movement was decided on; and whether it was the object of the Government to precipitate a crisis?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe Government did not share the apprehensions of Sir Arthur Paget. They thought it was their duty to take precautions to safeguard depots and other places where arms and stores were kept.
§ 88. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the Commissioner of Police, Belfast, requiring him to take instructions from the new general officer commanding?
111. Mr. JOHN EDWARD GORDONasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table the communication made on behalf of the Government to the police authorities at Belfast with reference to their assistance to the general officer commanding the Belfast district in the duties attaching to his appointment?
§ 125. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the instructions given by the Irish Secretary to the Commissioner of Police, Belfast, with reference to his taking orders from the officer appointed General Officer Commanding the Belfast district?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe substance of the communication to the police authorities in Belfast has already been stated in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 23rd instant.
§ 90. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the alteration which has been made in the concluding paragraph of the memorandum of the interview between the Secretary of State for War and the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, 16th December, 1013, in the new White Paper, and to the fact that the expression contained in the original White Paper issued to the House, which order he would obey, has been altered to which order he should obey; and, as this changes the sense of the paragraph, if he will state why the alteration has been made and which was the word contained in the original document?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe alteration is due to a printer's error. The correct word is "would."
§ 91. Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Prime Minister whether he will state what were the general instructions issued and avail able steps taken by General Sir Arthur Paget and referred to in his telegram of 16th March?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe general instructions are contained in No. 2 of the White Paper, and the steps taken in No. 6.
§ 92. Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Prime Minister when General Sir Arthur Paget was first informed of the intention of appointing Major-General Sir Nevil Mac-ready as General Officer Commanding the Belfast district?
§ The PRIME MINISTEROn 18th March.
§ 93. Mr. BARNSTONasked the Prime Minister whether Major-General Friend on his arrival at Holywood Barracks, Belfast, on 21st March, issued any instructions to the Commissioner of Police, Belfast, and, if so, what was the nature of those instructions?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir.
§ 94. Mr. BARNSTONasked the Prime Minister what was the wire of last night, referred to in telegram No. 29 of the 21st March, from the Secretary of State for War to Sir Arthur Paget?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo. XIX. of the White Paper.
§ 95. Mr. BARNSTONasked the Prime Minister when he became aware of the appointment of Colonel Sir Phillip Chetwode to the Command of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI cannot say the exact date when the arrangements made for Colonel Sir Phillip Chetwode to take over the command were brought to my notice, but this was clearly a matter to be dealt with by the authorities of the War Office in the ordinary way.
§ 96. Mr. HOAREasked the Prime Minister why it was decided to appoint an officer as General Officer Commanding a new Belfast district?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn case disorders should arise, it was thought advisable to appoint an officer who had previous experience of civil disturbances.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNIs this gentleman the same officer who in 1911 drew up the Government plan of campaign for the railway strike?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI should like to refresh my memory, but I think it is the same.
§ 97. Mr. HOAREasked the Prime Minister which were the places to which it had been decided the Bedford Regiment should be moved and referred to in the telegram from Sir Arthur Paget to Major-General Friend?
§ The PRIME MINISTERArmagh, Omagh, and Enniskillen.
§ 93. Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Prime Minister what was the purpose of the Cabinet in deciding on 11th March that the Third Battle Squadron should be moved to Lamlash?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe purpose was fully explained by my right hon. Friend in his speech on 25th March.
100. EARL of KERRYasked the Prime Minister whether it is a universal rule that, in dealing with military or naval assistance to the Civil power, officers domiciled in the area of disturbance ought to be excused from taking part in any necessary operations; whether instructions were particularly given to the General Officer Commanding in Ireland to this effect as far back as December last; and, if so, why Sir Arthur Paget was only able to obtain from the late Secretary of State for War the exemption promised for such an eventuality at a late hour and by the help of Sir John French?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not aware that any instructions such as those indicated in the question were given to Sir Arthur Paget in December last. I have already stated that the accepted practice referred to is a good one and should be observed as far as possible, but it is obvious that cases of civil disturbance are exceptional, and as they are not covered by regulation, each must be considered on its own merits.
Earl of KERRYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he himself stated on 23rd March that these instructions had been specially given to Sir Arthur Paget?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI shall be glad if the Noble Lord would supply me with the reference.
§ Mr. HAMAR GREENWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Question 100 on the Paper refers only to officers domiciled, whereas the answer included also privates and non-commissioned officers domiciled in the area?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think, Sir, that has been made clear by previous answers.
§ 101. Major HOPEasked the Prime Minister why, according to line 18, page 16, of the new White Paper, Sir Arthur Paget considered it necessary to inform officers of the penalty for refusal to obey orders; and whether he was laying down a new penalty for the offence other than that contained in Section 9 of the Army Act?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe penalty laid down in Section 9 of the Army Act is one which it is competent only for a court-martial to inflict. I suppose that Sir A. Paget was anxious to make it clear to officers that the extreme measure of bringing them to trial by court-martial would not be adopted. It is competent for His Majesty at any time to dispense with the services of any officer without court-martial.
§ Major HOPEDoes this involve the loss of pension automatically?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI should like notice of that.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDid Sir Arthur Paget give the officers to understand that they would be dismissed directly without the intervention of court-martial?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think so. I think that is what he intended to convey, but I really do not know.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSHad Sir Arthur Paget the authority of the War Office for saying that to the officers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNot so far as I am aware. He was instructed by the-Secretary for War to give officers domiciled in Ulster a chance of exemption.
§ 103. Mr. CAMPIONasked the Prime Minister what were the duties attaching to the appointment of the General Officer Commanding the Belfast district in which the commissioner of police at Belfast was asked to assist?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper and to the replies which I gave on the 2nd and 6th instant on this subject.
§ 106. Mr. CAMPIONasked the Prime Minister the circumstances under which the General Officer Commanding, Dublin, was to embark on a destroyer of the Fourth Flotilla at Kingstown; and to what destination it was intended that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief should proceed in that vessel?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe ship was to be at his disposal for use if required.
§ 108. Mr. BOYTONasked the Prime Minister why the First Lord of the Admiralty on 25th March officially stated that the Cabinet decided that a Battle Squadron should be stationed at Lamlash, where it would be in proximity to the coasts of Ireland in the case of serious disorders occurring, whilst the Prime Minister on 23rd April stated that the movement of the Battle Squadron was not and never was intended to be a part of the precautionary measures in Ireland?
§ 109. Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, South)asked the Prime Minister why, if the movement of the Battle Squadron to Lamlash was not part of the precautionary measures, he stated that on 23rd April that one of the reasons why the movement of the ships was delayed on 21st March was because the precautionary measures in Ireland had been carried out?
112. Mr. JOHN GORDONasked the Prime Minister why the First Lord of the Admiralty on 25th March officially stated that it was decided that the movements of the Fleet could be suspended owing to the fact that the precautionary movements of the military in Ireland had been carried out, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister on 23rd April stated that the movement of the Fleet was not and was never intended to be part of the precautionary measures?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's speech on 25th March, which explains fully the point raised in the question. The two statements are perfectly consistent.
§ 89. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the orders sent to the Admiral Superintendent, Devonport, and referred 1342 to in Section 11, Part II., of the new White Paper?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe text of the telegram sent from the Admiralty to the Admiral Superintendent, Devonport, on 21st March, is as follows:—
Approved for Third Battle Squadron to draw four field guns together with ammunition on arrival of 'King Edward VII.' at Devonport to-morrow. Register numbers of mountings issued to be reported.
§ Mr. ASHLEYCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether all large ships carry guns, and whether those guns were extra?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, they do not.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean four guns to each battleship, or only four guns for one?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt apparently means, I think, four guns for one.
§ 104. Mr. CAMPIONasked whether telegram No. 1, Part II., of the White Paper was dispatched by the Admiralty as a result of the decision of the Cabinet on 11th March?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes, Sir.
§ 105. Mr. CAMPIONasked the times at which the various telegrams contained in Part II. of the new White Paper were dispatched?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir, I am not prepared to add to the full information which has already been given.
§ 113. Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister what were the eventualities anticipated in telegram No. 2 of 19th March which were to lead to the co-operation of the naval forces with the military?
§ The PRIME MINISTERActive opposition to the movements of the troops sent to safeguard the depots and other places where arms or stores were kept.
§ 115. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister why the instructions issued to Sir Arthur Paget from the War Office, numbered II. in Part I. of Command Paper No. 7329, contained no reference to the exemption of officers domiciled in Ulster from service in connection with the contemplated precautionary measures?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe exemption was arranged with Sir Arthur Paget on 19th March, while the letter referred to was written on the 14th.
§ 116. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister why the general instructions issued by Sir Arthur Paget, referred to in his telegram of the 16th of March, are not included in the White Paper; and whether he will lay those instructions upon the Table?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the hon. Member will read the telegram referred to and the telegram preceding it ho will see that the phrase "general instructions" was used in connection with paragraph 3 of the War Office letter of 14th March.
§ 117. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister on what date and from what source did the Secretary of State for War first receive information that depots in Ulster were in danger of attack by evilly-disposed persons; on what date was the question of moving troops from the South into Ulster first considered by the Cabinet or the War Office; and on what date was the decision to order such movement definitely arrived at?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have already stated, the information was received from the police principally from December last. As regards the last part, instructions were issued to Sir A. Paget on 14th March, as published in the White Paper. I am not prepared to give dates when matters were considered or decisions taken by the Cabinet.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIf the information was received in December, why is it that the Government took no action until March?
§ The PRIME MINISTERBecause the Government exercised their own discretion.
§ 118. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government anticipated internal dissension and, if so, of what character, on the 19th of March, when Sir Arthur Paget dispatched the telegram numbered X. in Part I. of Command Paper, No. 7329; and for what rea- 1344 son recruits were to be sent to their battalions in the event of such dissension being locally feared?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI can add nothing to what appears in the White Paper on this subject.
§ 119. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister for what reason, or owing to what information, the authorities at the War Office held that the steps taken by Sir Arthur Paget, as described in his letter of the 17th March, for carrying out the instructions given him in the War Office letter of the 14th of March, were insufficient for that purpose?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThis was decided in consultation with Sir Arthur Paget in view of all the information available to the Government.
§ 120. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the appointment of Major-General Friend to be a resident magistrate in the counties of Antrim and Down still holds good; whether Sir Nevil Macready has been appointed a divisional magistrate; whether there is any precedent for appointing a General Officer Commanding a district to be a divisional magistrate within the area of his command; and whether the appointment of these officers as magistrates will enable the military to be called in aid of the civil power without request from any permanent civil authority?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNeither of the appointments referred to have been made. There are numerous precedents for appointing military officers as magistrates when troops were required to act in aid of the civil power, and the appointment of a military officer as a magistrate on such occasions merely gives him the authority of a justice of the peace.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI followed the White Paper.
§ Colonel YATEIs the resident magistrate to have command over the troops in Belfast district?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir; the two things are not connected with one another.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLAre we to understand there is an inaccuracy in the White Paper with regard to the appointment of Major-General Macready as resident magistrate?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have said so already. He was intended to be appointed, but the appointment has not so far been made. I do not know why.
121. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if any evidence exists to the effect that certain persons have incited officers of the Army to disobey orders; and, if so, whether it is proposed to institute proceedings against such persons; and, if not, will he say why such proceedings are not to be taken?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 30th March. As regards the latter part, it is not in the public interest to make any statement on the subject.
Mr. F. HALLIf it is not in the public interest to make any public statement on that subject, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon the matter, and will he give the hon. Gentleman instructions accordingly?
§ 122. Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if the appointment of an Army officer as a divisional magistrate for Antrim and Down has been cancelled; if not, is such an officer now in control of the Royal Irish Constabulary in those counties; and why it was necessary to supersede the civil authority in counties which were perfectly quiet and orderly?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe appointment referred to in the first paragraph of the question was never made, and it was not proposed to supersede the civil authority. The reason for proposing to appoint the General Officer Commanding Belfast a resident magistrate has already been explained.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask whether it has been customary in the case where a military officer was appointed 1346 a magistrate to do so without communication with the local magistracy?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNot in the case of a resident magistrate in Ireland.
§ 124. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the telegram or written order conveying the decision to move the Bedfordshire Regiment to Enniskillen, Omagh, and Armagh, which is referred to in No. VII. of the second White Paper?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir, I am not prepared to publish orders of this kind.
§ Mr. AMERYIn what respect does that order differ from many other orders published in the White Paper?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI repeat the answer I gave.
§ 110. Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.)asked the Prime Minister why the arrangements for embarking the field guns were cancelled by telegram No. 13 of the 21st March; and whether by that date the bad weather referred to in telegram No. 9 was no longer anticipated?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe order was cancelled because the squadron was not proceeding to Lamlash.
§ 114. Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister what were the arrangements previous to the orders of the 19th instant, referred to in telegram No. 13, Part II., of the new White Paper?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe arrangements referred to were, as indicated in the latter part of the same sentence, those for tactical exercises in the Channel.