§ 48. Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister whether the officers who have been informed officially of its contents, as well as those who have seen a copy of the Memorandum given to Brigadier-General Gough by the Army Council, dated 23rd March, and initialled J. S.,J. F., and J. S. E., are to believe what they are told in the last paragraph 831 of that Memorandum, or whether they are to understand that they are not to rely upon the guarantee therein contained?
§ 49. Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of using the forces of the Crown in Ireland or elsewhere to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of the Government of Ireland Bill?
§ 55. Mr. ASTORasked if the statement contained in a recent White Paper, dated 23rd March, that the Government had no intention whatever of using the forces of the Crown to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of the Government of Ireland Bill, was drafted on the supposition that it conveyed the decision which the Cabinet had come to upon the day named, or the view which it was believed was held by the Cabinet as the result of previous deliberations?
68. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked whether the Government repudiate in its entirety the guarantee given to the Army on its behalf by the Secretary of State for War that they would not be used for political purposes; and, if so, has the decision been officially conveyed to the officers whose return to duty was thereby secured?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe points raised in these questions can be all dealt with in the Debate this afternoon.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWill the right hon. Gentleman give a special answer to question 49?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThey will all be fully answered.
§ 51. Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether there is any, and, if so, what precedent for giving either to officers or men of regiments called in to aid the civil authority in maintaining law and order the option of disappearing from their regiments because they are domiciled in the district in which they are called upon to act?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is, and has been for a considerable time past, the 832 accepted policy and practice that, as far as possible, troops shall not be employed in aid of the civil power in districts with which they have any territorial connection.
§ Mr. CASSELWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question. It has no relation to the particular regiments that are to be used, but it asks whether there is any precedent for giving the officers in a regiment that is to be used the option of disappearing?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt means, as I understand, if it is pointed out that there are such officers and men, the regiment will not be employed.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEMay I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Black Watch were not used in Dundee, in their own recruiting district, about eighteen months ago, in spite of the protest of all ranks?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord should give notice of that question.
§ 54. Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister who are the members of the Army Council, what are the emoluments that accrue to the individual members of that body, and under what Vote the Army Council may be criticised?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe names of the members of the Army Council will be found on page 5 of the monthly Army List, and the amounts of their salaries are given on page 89 of the Army Estimates. An opportunity of criticising any action of the Council is afforded by the discussion on Vote 12.
§ 60. Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister whether non-commissioned officers and men are to have the opportunity, authorised in the case of officers by the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War of 16th December, 1913, of being removed from the Service in the event of their desiring to choose which order they would obey?
§ The PRIME MINISTERBoth officers and men would, in the case supposed, be dealt with under the King's Regulations.
§ 61. Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister whether, prior to the meeting of the Cabinet at mid-day on Monday, 23rd March, he discussed with the Secretary of State for War what explanations should be given to General Gough in order to remove the misunderstandings which had led to resignations in the 3rd Cavalry Brigade?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe answer is in the negative.
§ Mr. GUINNESSDid not the right hon. Gentleman meet the Secretary for War at least three times in the previous two days, and are we to understand that the question of the reinstatement of these officers who had resigned was never even discussed?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not prepared to give answers as to private conversations.
§ 62. Mr. GUINNESSasked whether the Cabinet have now repudiated the principles of military duty laid down in the Memorandum of the 16th December, 1913?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir.
§ 63. Mr. W. YOUNGasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take with reference to Lord Esher's letter stating that under certain circumstances half the officers of the London Territorial Force would resign their commissions; whether this information was in the first instance communicated privately to His Majesty's Ministers, or sprung on them first through the medium of the Press by Lord Esher; whether, considering Lord Esher's special position, His Majesty's Ministers regard this letter as a threat to them if they carry out their policy with regard to Ireland; and what steps they propose to take with reference to Lord Esher?
§ 64. Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a letter by Lord Esher stating that half the officers in the London Territorials would resign if Regular troops were ordered from Aldershot to Ireland; whether he will regard this as in the nature of a threat from Lord Esher to induce the 834 officers under his influence to resign; and, if so, will he take steps to relieve Lord Esher of his duties as President of the Territorial Force Association and permanent member of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn reply to these questions, Lord Esher's letter, which I much regretted to read, was an expression of his opinion as to what might happen in certain circumstances. I did not and do not read it as a threat, and I do not consider any action with regard to it necessary.
§ Mr. CROFTDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable, in the interests of the Territorial Force, that all doubt on this question should be immediately put an end to?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is a matter of opinion.
§ 67. Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the Prime Minister when he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, respectively, first became aware of the addition of the last two paragraphs to the statement issued by the Army Council on 23rd March which was contained in a recent White Paper?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have already explained, neither I nor the other two Ministers of the Crown referred to became aware of these two paragraphs till after the letter had been handed to General Gough.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHWill the right hon. Gentleman be more precise? Will he say if several of his colleagues had seen the paragraphs before he made his speech in the House on the same day?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think not; in fact, I am sure not.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYDid the document, as considered by the Cabinet, contain paragraphs which, though different in verbiage, were similar in meaning?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNot as ultimately settled by the Cabinet.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYOr as considered by them?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not going to answer any question as to what was done in the Cabinet.
§ Earl WINTERTONWhy answer any questions at all?