§ 39. Mr. AMERYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions have teen given to officers on His Majesty's ships now off the coast of Ulster not to enter into communication with the signal stations of the Ulster Volunteers or with the civilian population generally?
§ 41. Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether any restrictions have been placed upon the officers of the Fleet at present stationed in Belfast Lough with reference to social engagements on shore; if so, what are those restrictions; and why have they been imposed?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am not prepared to give any information about the orders under which the Fourth Flotilla is now acting.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider it rather an insult to the officers of the Navy to say that they cannot be trusted to dine ashore?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir; I do not consider it an insult at all. I think it very desirable that the necessary instructions should be given to ensure that the duties which are now being discharged should be performed with all formality and decorum.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am afraid I am not prepared to give any information about the orders, nor am I prepared to enter into any discussion about them.
§ 45. Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether the written orders issued to officers of the 5th Division by General Fergusson, on the 20th March, and purporting to be issued with the authority of the War Office, asked officers who from conscientious or other motives felt unable to carry out their duty to say so at once, making their decision, if possible, by that evening, adding that such officers would be at once dismissed from the Service, and express- 34 ing the hope that very few cases would be found of officers electing to sever their connection with the Service?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI understand that the document referred to did contain such statements, but, as Sir Arthur Paget has stated, it was issued under a wrong impression.
§ 46. Mr. WEDGWOODasked What steps His Majesty's Government propose to take with reference to the illegal importation of arms into Ulster and the recent coercion of the servants of the Crown?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am at present unable to add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for North Salford on Thursday last.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODHow does the Chief Secretary reconcile putting Larkin in prison while the gun-runners are allowed to go free? Will not the effect in Ireland be that it will soon be recognised there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?
§ Sir W. BYLESIs the Government fully alive to the danger to responsible Government of winking at these acts? Is it not certain that any suitable measure of punishment would meet with the warm approval of the loyalists of Ulster?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAll material considerations have been carefully taken into account?
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEHas any inquiry been made why the servants of the Crown did not resist coercion?
§ 51. Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether any rule or principle is followed in determining whether a public servant is or is not too fully engaged with other business to supply information demanded in admissible questions asked by Members of the House of Commons; whether the decision on the point is within the unfettered discretion of the Parliamentary heads of Departments or of the Cabinet; and whether the immunity from supplying material for answers to Parliamentary 35 questions which has been extended to General Sir Arthur Paget can be extended to members of the civil and diplomatic services and officers in the Navy at any time selected by a Minister or Ministers on grounds similar to those stated in the case of General Paget?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThis is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Ministers responsible to Parliament, and to be determined by reference to the special circumstances of each case.
§ 55. Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the salary attached to the office of Chief of the General Staff, now held by Sir Charles Douglas, is the same as when the office was held by Sir John French?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSir Charles Douglas is retaining the salary which he received in his previous appointment, and which is higher than that received by his predecessor.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYOn what ground is the salary higher, seeing that it is a junior office?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn my opinion, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff ought to receive at least as high a salary as any other officer in the employment of the State. With regard to the inspector-generalship, which Sir Charles Douglas has vacated, no appointment has yet been made of a successor. I am considering the reorganisation of the Department, with, I hope, the result of effecting economy in expenditure.
§ Mr. LEEAre we to understand that the salary of the Chief of the Imperial Staff has been permanently raised?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is my intention.
§ 56. Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Prime Minister whether his refusal to answer questions in the future is intended to apply to subjects other than those connected with the forcible coercion of Ulster?
§ 57. Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister if he will say, in view of his refusal to answer any further questions on the subject of recent events in Ireland. whether this decision applies to events which occurred between 14th March and 23rd March, or, if not, what is the exact period with regard to which no further information is to be given?
§ 58. Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the refusal to answer questions on the subject of the recent Army crisis and the proposed movement of ships and troops to Ulster is to be understood' as applying to the whole of the rest of the Session?
§ 62. Sir W. BULLasked the Prime Minister whether he can cite any precedent for the Parliamentary head of a Government Department refusing in advance, in relation to demands for information which he has not seen, to answer questions put by Members of the House of Commons on matters affecting his Department in relation to public policy?
§ 64. Mr. EVELYN CECILasked what precedent exists, established by any of his predecessors or by any Minister of the Crown, for his action on the 29th ultimo in announcing a general refusal to answer further questions on a matter of great public interest?
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy statement was intended to apply to all matters covered by the Motion which was discussed last week. I am not aware how far there are precedents, but the circumstance of the case are exceptional, and, as far as I know, unique. I have been asked, and have answered, some 700 questions in relation to these matters, and they were discussed at length by the House for the best part of two nights. In view of the limited time allowed by our procedure for questions in regard to matters which arise from day to day, and which are often urgent and important, I think the course taken is for the general convenience of the House. I must add that I do not think that the continuance of these questions at the present moment is in the interest of the public service.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWDoes the right hon. Gentleman fully realise the serious nature of the precedent which he is setting up? He has taken this course, as I understand, because in his opinion the privilege of asking questions has been abused. But is that a reason for depriving every Member of the House, even hon. Members who may have asked no questions, of the opportunity of obtaining information on points which may be entirely new and very important? Does the precedent not merely amount to this—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to review the whole matter.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWith all respect, I was only asking—and if you rule I am not entitled to do so, I will at once desist—I was only asking whether the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman is setting does not amount to this: that the Government may refuse at any time to answer inconvenient questions?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNot at all. I put it entirely on the special ground of this particular case. If any new facts arise I shall be glad to answer questions in relation to them.
§ 59. Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the result of his inquiries into the question whether any officer serving at the Curragh, in addition to the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, lodged a written protest with Sir A. Paget on Saturday, 21st March, expressing their readiness in obedience to any orders that might be given to them to protect life and property in support of the civil power, but protesting against being used for active operations against Ulster?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI must refer the hon. Member to what I said in my speech on Wednesday last with regard to questions of this nature.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSWill the right hon. Gentleman say what the result of his inquiries was? He promised to inquire.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the hon. Gentleman will send me a written statement—I cannot for the moment call to mind the promise—I shall be happy to give a reply.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSMay I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th April? He will see his promise recorded there.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI will refer to it. I do not carry it in my mind.
§ 61. Mr. JAMES HOPEIn asking the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House as to the points arising in the Debate of 29th April which he declared himself as feeling unable to explain through lack of time on that occasion, may I be allowed to put the question in a slightly altered form and to give a brief personal explanation. In the Debate on Thursday last the Prime Minister said—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentle man is not in order in going into that.
§ Mr. J. HOPEI only want to omit a reference as to time, which was founded on a misapprehension, and the OFFICIAL REPORT does not bear it out. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House as to the points arising in the Debate of 29th April, which he confessedly passed over on that occasion?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not sure that I know the points to which the hon. Member is referring. If he will kindly furnish me with a statement I will consider it. I see no reason to add anything to what I said in my speech on Wednesday last.
§ Mr. J. HOPEShall I be in order in reading the passage?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will see that if hon. Members entered into explanations and expositions of every ques- 39 tion put upon the Paper it would be almost impossible to deal with them. The hon. Member should think it out before putting it down.