HC Deb 14 December 1916 vol 88 cc833-5
122. Mr. HUGH LAW

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a telephonic report of the murders of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington and two others in Portobello Barracks on the 26th April was sent by the adjutant, acting under orders from Major Rosborough, to garrison headquarters and to the headquarters of the Irish Command in Dublin about 11 a.m. on the same day; that at about one o'clock men under the command of Captain Bowen-Colthurst shot two other unarmed men in Harcourt Place in the presence of a number of witnesses; that at 7 a.m. on the 28th April a body of troops under the command of Captain Bowen - Colthurst and Colonel Allett raided Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington's house, into which they fired a volley before effecting an entrance; whether, in spite of these occurrences, Captain Colthurst was retained in the command of troops until the 6th May; and will he say by whose instructions this was done?

Mr. FORSTER

As regards the telephonic report, I have seen the statement in paragraph 38 of the Report of the Royal Commission. The statement in the second part of the question is, I am informed, not correct, and the third part is also, as regards the time of day referred to, not in agreement with what is stated in the Report of the Royal Commission. As regards the last part of the question, the facts are as follow: Captain Bowen-Colthurst was ordered on 26th April by Major Rosborough not to leave the barracks, and when Lieut.-Colonel McCammond resumed command after return from sick absence he confirmed the order, the effect of which was to retain Captain Bowen-Colthurst under his personal supervision. The, actual date on which Captain Bowen-Colthurst was placed under arrest was 5th May, and not 6th May, as erroneously stated in the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Was the arrest of Captain Colthurst owing to a telegram sent by Lord Kitchener from the War Office in presence of the private secretary of the late Prime Minister?

Mr. FORSTER

I have made considerable inquiries with regard to that. It has not been possible to ascertain the circumstances in which the telegram was sent, but I am informed that no such telegram was ever received in Ireland.

Mr. LAW

If Captain Colthurst was placed under the personal supervision of the officer commanding on 26th April, how was it that two days later he was able to go out into the street in Dublin and take part in an attack on the house of Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington?

123. Mr. HUGH LAW

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the murder of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington and two others reported that, as the result of a communication of the military authorities in London made by Major Sir Francis Vane, Captain Bowen-Colthurst was placed under open arrest on the 6th May; that the Prime Minister has intimated to Sir Francis Vane his appreciation of the service rendered in letting him know the state of affairs in Dublin; whether Colonel McConchey, C.B., commanding the 178th Brigade, General Friend, late Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in Ireland, and Major Rosborough, commanding the troops in Portobello Barracks, have all testified to the value of the assistance given by this officer in the defence of Portobello Barracks during the late rebellion; and whether he can say why Sir Francis Vane has since been relegated to unemployment?

Mr. FORSTER

I have seen the statement in paragraph 53 of the Report of the Royal Commission. I have no information as to what passed between the late Prime Minister and Sir Francis Vane. In reply to the third part of the question, I understand that Colonel McConchey expressed an opinion that Sir Francis Vane's services had been of value. I have no information as regards the other two officers mentioned. The answer to the fourth part of the question was given in a reply to a question put by the hon. Member for West Clare on the 3rd August.