§ 101 and 102. Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that the conduct of the commandant at Frongoch camp in trying to force the Irish prisoners to identify, or to assist him in any way 955 to identify, their comrades wanted for military service is causing difficulty at the camp; if he will cause instructions to be issued to the commandant to cease punishing the prisoners for refusing to spy on their own countrymen; if he is aware that the commandant stated that the hut leaders would not be required to spy out any man unless he, the commandant, ordered him to do so; when this system of dealing with these prisoners will cease; if the question of their release has yet been considered and, if so, with what result; and (2) if he will state the number of Irish prisoners who were transferred from the north to the south camp at Frongoch; whether this was done by way of punishment, and, if so, for what offence; how many went on a hunger strike and how many were certified by the doctor to be in a weak condition after hunger striking; and if he has yet considered the advisability of removing the commandant responsible?
Mr. SAMUELI understand that a number of the men at Frongoch refused to answer their names when the roll was called and otherwise combined to conceal the identity of certain persons who were charged with the evasion of military service. In consequence, it was found necessary to transfer 342 men to the South Camp, with the loss of certain privileges. No question of spying arose. I am not aware that there has been anything in the nature of a hunger strike, but I am making inquiry.
§ Mr. DILLONDo the Government deliberately contemplate the policy of forcing men who are charged with being in arms against the Crown to enter the Army and fight for England?
Mr. SAMUELThere were two or three men who are permanently resident in England, and therefore subject to the Military Service Act, who, when the rebellion broke out went over to Dublin and took some part in it, and it is not thought that, because they not only evaded their duty under the Military Service Act, but also took up arms against the Crown, therefore they should be exempt from liability to military service. Probably they would not be put in a fighting unit.
§ Mr. DILLONDoes the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintain that it is good policy to introduce into the British Army men who are notoriously disloyal to the Crown?
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIs it not very much like the slavery campaign that is being conducted in Belgium?