§ 22 and 23. Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that of the papers and other effects taken from Mr. Sheehy Skeffington's house by soldiers of the Royal Irish Rifles on 28th April, two days after his murder, none were returned till some days after the court-martial of his murderer Colthurst on 6th June; why were not more than about one-third of the things then returned; why were those things returned torn, dirty, defaced, rain-stained; whether the two-thirds of the effects which were not returned are still in the possession of the military authorities; if so, why are they still retained; if not, why were they destroyed; in view of the fact that no breath of accusation has been uttered against the murdered man or any charge preferred against his widow, will an apology be offered to Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington, and will a proper offer be made to her for the loss and damage done to her property; and (2) whether he is aware that among the things returned to Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington about two and a half months after her husband's murder were khaki clothes and other garments blood-stained and with bullet marks, papers of P. H. Pearse, counterfoils from the Sinn Fein bank, notebooks of an Enniscorthy prisoner, and other documents from different houses raided in Dublin; whether these things were placed among the things of the late Mr. Sheehy Skeffington in order to raise suspicion or to excuse his murder; if not, how they came to be mixed up with his effects; and whether he is now in a position to state that the Government will show their sympathy with the families of victims of Captain Colthurst's murders by some public announcement, at once declaring the innocence of the murdered men and freely offering such full apology as they can give?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)My hon. Friend put to me on the 3rd August several questions with reference to the effects of the late Mr. Sheehy Skeffington, and I fear that with reference to these questions I can 653 only repeat the substance of what I then said. It seems to me premature to inquire seriatim into these various points independently of and prior to the inquiry. I will also refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 31st July, and I would add that any question of compensation or reparation if and to the extent that that question might properly arise, can certainly not be the subject of any announcement until the inquiry is over and its conclusions are available.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs the hon. Gentleman in possession of the terms of reference of this inquiry? We have not seen them. I should like to ask how these matters must necessarily, as he says, come within the purview of the inquiry?
§ Mr. FORSTERI do not think I said that. What I said in the answer to which I have alluded was that I thought they would come within the scope of the reference. I have not yet seen the terms of reference.
§ Mr. KINGIf they do not come within the scope of the inquiry they will be gone into by the War Office, no doubt?
§ Mr. FORSTERThen I am quite sure my hon. Friend will put a further question.