§ 21, 22, and 23. Mr. HAYES FISHERasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the new conditions as to war service involving the disappearance of officers according to their domicile have yet been published in any Army orders; whether the domicile of every officer serving in Ireland has been or will be shortly ascertained; (2) whether he will state to the House what were the consequential and supplementary movements indicated by General Sir Arthur Paget when he interrogated certain officers as to their willingness to proceed to Ulster; and (3) whether an order was issued to the officers at the Curragh to the effect that they would be given twenty-four hours in which to decide whether they would be prepared to proceed to Ulster; whether it was intimated to them that if they refused they would be dismissed from the Army; whether this order was issued with the knowledge and approval of the members of the Army Council?
§ 26. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the order to General Gough to return to duty or any memorandum of such order was committed to writing; and, if so, will he communicate it to the House?
Mr. BAKERMy right hon. Friend will have an opportunity of replying to these questions in the course of the Debate this afternoon.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERAt the same time, can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, looking to the fact that the Prime Minister has endorsed this new rule of service in the Army, see also that the domicile of non-commissioned officers and privates is also ascertained beforehand?
24. Major WHITEasked the cost of the movement of troops into Ulster during the last ten days; and on what Vote the expenses of these movements will appear?
Mr. BAKERThe cost of the movement of troops falls upon Vote 6. It is impossible at present to state the expense due to the movements to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.
Major WHITEWill the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that these movements and this expense have been incurred for purely party purposes, consider the desirability of their being paid out of the Liberal party funds?
§ 49. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the instructions given to General Sir A. Paget, prior to his interview with the officers of the Cavalry brigade in Dublin, were submitted to him; and, if so, were they in writing?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe answer is in the negative.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask the Prime Minister whether the White Paper includes all the documents he specifically promised yesterday respecting the Memoranda of the Secretary of State for War, or the Chief of the General Staff, as to oral instructions given to General Sir Arthur Paget, and which must have been given, and which are in existence, and in regard to which the Prime Minister answered yesterday "Yes," and said it would be published? —
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf they were in existence, certainly.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He promised yesterday he would give that statement in the White Paper. May I ask why it was not published?—
§ The PRIME MINISTERThey were oral instructions.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. May I read the question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "Order, order!"]
Sir GILBERT PARKERAre we to assume that the memoranda of these con- 377 versations, instructions, or orders were not preserved when given orally?
§ Mr. GOULDINGAnother debt of honour!
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask whether these instructions were submitted to the Army Council before they were issued to Sir Arthur Paget?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir, as far as I know.
§ 48. Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister if he is willing to appoint a Commission to draft a scheme of devolution applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom, on the understanding that, until such scheme, modified as may seem fit, has been adopted by the Imperial Parliament, those counties of Ulster which desire it shall remain outside the scope of the Government of Ireland Bill now before the House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThis is a matter which can be more suitably dealt with in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill next week. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire.
79. Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland over how long a period has information been obtained by the Government as to the organisation and development of the Ulster Volunteer Force; and what was the first occasion on which the attention of the War Office was called to the matter and information furnished to it, so as to enable any necessary plans to be devised for meeting by force the opposition of Ulster to Home Rule?
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)The Irish Government has been informed of the progress of this movement since its inception. The War Office has also had from the beginning its own sources of information.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDI desire to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether a battle squadron was ordered to proceed home with dispatch from Spanish waters; whether the order was cancelled by wireless one night during the passage home of this squadron; whether a flotilla of destroyers was ordered to proceed with dispatch to Lamlash or the North of Ireland; whether the 378 order was cancelled by wireless during the passage of these vessels to their destination; whether His Majesty's ship "King Edward VII." and her sister ships were ordered to embark field guns; whether these orders were subsequently cancelled; whether he will state to the House what was the emergency which necessitated these orders being given; whether he will state to the House why the orders were countermanded; and whether the orders were given originally by the Board of Admiralty as a Board or by his own authority?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt was decided a fortnight ago by the Cabinet that a naval force comprising a Battle Squadron with attendant vessels should be stationed at Lamlash, which is a convenient and usual station for them to conduct their exercises from, and where they would be in proximity to the coasts of Ireland in case of serious disorders occurring. On Saturday night, when it was clear that the precautionary movements of troops to the various depots had been carried out without opposition, it was decided that this movement could be delayed until the Easter leave period was over. If the House is interested in the subject, I will read the telegraphic orders by which these movements were effected:—
Copy of telegram from the Admiralty to the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Third Battle Squadron, dated 19th March, 1914:—
Send 'Britannia' to Gibraltar and proceed at once with remainder of squadron at ordinary speed to Lamlash. After clearing Ushant, you are yourself to proceed in your flagship to Plymouth, handing over command of squadron temporarily to the Rear-Admiral. From Plymouth you are to come to London and report yourself at the Admiralty, subsequently rejoining the squadron overland at Lamlash, whither your flagship is to proceed in the interval. Report time you expect to arrive in London.Copy of telegram of Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleets, H.M.S. "Iron Duke," dated 20th March, 1914:—The Vice-Admiral, Third Battle Squadron, has been ordered to proceed with his squadron to Lamlash. Two divisions of the Fourth Flotilla are to join the squadron at Lamlash on Monday, 23rd March, and follow temporarily orders of Vice-Admiral.These orders, which is the point in the question, were issued in the regular way by the Board of Admiralty on the direction of the Executive Government. I have inquired about the field guns, as to which the Admiralty gave no instructions, and I find that the Vice-Admiral asked for them for exercising his men on shore at Lamlash if the weather was bad.
§ Mr. HAMAR GREENWOODArising out of the answer, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that these official and secret orders got literally into the hands of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth?
§ Lord C. BERESFORDMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to the question why these orders were suddenly countermanded?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have said that when it was found that the precautionary movements of the military in Ireland had been effected without opposition from the army of 100,000 which has been raised to resist the authority of the Crown and Parliament—[Interruption].
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would ask the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) to restrain himself.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThen it was decided that the movements could be suspended until after the Easter leave has been completed.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDAm I in order in answering the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite? It is a personal matter.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord is entitled to give an explanation.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDI should like to give an explanation. This is a very serious charge. The information of which I asked for corroboration from the First Lord was got by me from the public Press. It is really a question of my honour. It is a repetition of what the First Lord once before charged against me—that I was a sneak and a skulk, and that I went upstairs to get my information. I will tell the House that I have had no information on the question of the movements of the Fleet, although I have had a great deal of information on the question of what the officers and men intend, under certain circumstances, which affect their conscience and their honour. I have had no information from any officer or man in the Fleet as to the movements of the Fleet mentioned in the question I asked just now.
Sir G. PARKERMay I ask if we are not right in interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's answer to mean that a squadron was ordered to Lamlash primarily not for the Easter manœuvres but for the purpose of supporting any military operations in Ulster? [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."]
§ Mr. AMERYWill the right hon. Gentleman state whether he expected and hoped that purely precautionary measures to look after stores would lead to fighting and bloodshed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must form his own judgment upon what has transpired.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAs the question has been asked perhaps with your permission, Sir, and with that of the House, I may repudiate that hellish insinuation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe First Lord of the Admiralty must see that that was hardly a proper epithet to apply. I hope he will see his way to withdraw it.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWith very great respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member asked whether it was true I had hoped that these precautionary measures would lead to fighting and bloodshed. I have been in this House for fourteen years, and in that time I have never been asked from the Chair to withdraw any expression which I have used, although I have been in many stormy Parliamentary scenes. Of course, if you say the epithet "hellish"—although appropriate to the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]—if you say that that expression is in the circumstances not within the limits which are tolerated in free debate, and cannot be permitted, then I must regretfully, but with respect, bow to your ruling. But I earnestly trust, Sir, you will permit it to be used.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe First Lord must see that I could not permit an expression of that sort to be used. Whatever indignation the First Lord may feel at the suggestion made, I think on reflection he will see that it would be impossible to permit an expression of that sort to pass.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAfter your ruling, Sir, and the expressions with which it is accompanied, I withdraw the expression "hellish."
§ Sir J. WALTONWill you allow the suggestion and the insinuation which was made to remain?
§ Mr. SPEAKERMy duty is to see that Parliamentary language is used. I regret very much the suggestions which are thrown across the floor—I will not say from one side but from both sides—in this rather exciting time. My duty is, as I conceive, to see that the language used is 381 proper Parliamentary language. It is obvious that language of the sort which has been used under what I would call very provocative circumstances, cannot be allowed to remain, because if a Minister of the Crown uses language of that sort, other Members will think that they are free to use similar language. I hope that this incident may now, at all events, be allowed to be considered closed.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWith reference to to-day's Debate, there is a suggestion I should like to make to the Prime Minister. It must be evident to everyone that there are many gaps in this Paper which require to be filled up before there can be adequate discussion of the subject. I shall only name one or two of the questions which I think must be answered, and as I understand that the Secretary for War is going to speak immediately afterwards, I shall be quite satisfied if he takes note of them and answers them in the course of his speech. First, is there any addition, as is reported in the Press, to the letter that was given to General Gough, and, if so, what are the terms of that addition? Another question is in reference to the promise given by the Prime Minister that the Memorandum of the verbal instructions given to General Paget would be included in the White Paper. They are not here, and I ask the Secretary for War to fulfil that pledge by reading them in the course of his speech. I wish to know, also, whether the War Office will now communicate the authentic version of Sir Arthur Paget's address which he himself gave to his commanding officers, and which was the cause of the resignations? The only other question I wish to ask now is whether or not the letter sent by General Gough on behalf of the officers was communicated to the War Office before they dismissed General Gough and the two colonels of the regiments?