§ 19. Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has been able to reconsider an answer he gave to the hon. Member for Enfield on 31st ultimo, when he informed him that the Irish Press had not been forbidden to publish reports of raids for or seizure of arms in Ireland by persons acting on behalf of the Irish army; whether, as a fact, an order to the above effect was sent to the editors of all Irish newspapers on the 16th ultimo; and is this order still operative?
§ Mr. DUKEThe hon. and gallant Member's question to-day deals with a different subject-matter from that which I answered on 31st January. The answer I then gave was a perfectly accurate answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question. I am informed, however, that at the request of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland the Irish Press Censor has made a communication to the editors of Irish newspapers with regard to certain occurrences which might be thought to affect the security and safe custody of military arms. This communication was marked "Confidential." I assume from the 250 hon. and gallant Member's question that he has seen a copy of the document, and that he thinks it right, as a Member of Parliament, to disregard the official injunction to secrecy. In my opinion it is not in the public interest that I should follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Major NEWMANWhy did the right hon. Gentleman tell me, when I asked this identical question, that no such order had been given?
§ Mr. DUKEI have already said that the question to-day deals with a different subject - matter from that which I answered —
§ Major NEWMANI say no!
§ Mr. DUKEIf the hon. Member will refer to the question which he has carefully framed for to-day in order to suggest that inaccuracy, he will be reminded that he has added to it a statement which he draws from, as I suppose, the confidential communication to which I referred.
§ Major NEWMANIs it not a fact that I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, telling him that I was going to raise this question, so that he could have communicated with me privately if he wanted to do so?
§ Mr. DUKEI did not think fit to communicate privately with the hon. Member, who never loses an opportunity to put embarrassments in the way of the Administration in Ireland.
§ 20. Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information as to the continuance of the raiding for arms by persons acting on behalf of the Irish Republican force; whether he has any official information showing that on the 3rd instant a raid took place at Queenstown, when three Lee-Enfield rifles, a number of other rifles and shot guns, six revolvers, 1,800 rounds of Lee-Enfield and other ammunition were appropriated; that on the 8th instant a post office in county Cork was raided by a party of armed men, who drove up in a motorcar, and that 2,600 rounds of sporting ammunition were taken from two shops in Dundalk; and if he can say if any of these arms and ammunition have been recovered and restored to their owners?
§ Mr. DUKESeveral raids for arms have taken place as mentioned in the question. The Queenstown case was not a raid, but 251 a burglary, in which a number of arms and some ammunition were stolen from the house of a dealer. I am told that nearly all the arms were of an obsolete type. The constabulary authorities have received no report of an attack on a post office in county Cork by raiders in a motor-car; but on 7th February a man armed with a revolver knocked at the door of Banteer Post Office, and when it was opened he thrust in his hand and demanded arms. When told there were none he demanded money, and was handed £3 10s. by the postmaster. At Dundalk a, boy in the employment of a shopkeeper stole 500 rounds of ammunition. This case was one of larceny, and the cartridges have been traced and the boy arrested. In the other cases referred to the arms and ammunition have not been traced.
§ Major NEWMANWhat is the difference between a raid and a burglary?