HC Deb 03 June 1918 vol 106 cc1235-7
Mr. SPEAKER

I have received from the Chief Secretary for Ireland the following letter, which, with its permission, I propose to read to the House:

Chief Secretary's Office,

Dublin Castle.

1st June, 1918.

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that the following Members of Parliament were arrested under the authority of Orders issued by me on the 17th May under Regulation 14b of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and were transferred on the 18th May to Great Britain for internment:

  1. (1)Mr. Edmund de Valera, M.P. for East Clare, on 17th May;
  2. (2)Count George N. Plunkett, M.P., for North Roscommon, on 18th May;
  3. (3)Mr. W. T. Cosgrave, M.P. for Kilkenny City, on 18th May; and
  4. (4 Mr. Joseph McGuinness, M.P. for South Longford, on 18th May.

I desire to say that my Order of the 17th May recited that the above-named Members of Parliament were persons within an area in respect of which the operation of Section one of The Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act, 1915, is for the time being suspended; and, further, that on the recommendation of a competent military authority, appointed under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, it appeared to me that for securing the public safety and the defence of the Realm it was expedient that the said Members of Parliament should, in view of the fact that they were persona suspected of acting, having acted, and being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the defence of the Realm, be interned, and be subject to all the rules and conditions applicable to persons interned, and should remain interned until further orders.

I have the honour to be

Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

EDWARD SHORTT,

Chief Secretary.

Mr. KING

On the announcement you have just read, Sir, may I call your attention, first of all, to the usual practice in such cases. It is quite clear from Erskine May and the authorities, that it has been usual to acquaint you, as guardian of the liberties of this House, immediately on the arrest of Members of Parliament. If we take the cases of arrest that were made in 1881 under the Crimes Act in Ireland, we shall find that on the very day on which Members of this House were arrested in Ireland, letters were addressed to you, Sir, or to your predecessor, notifying that such arrests had been made. I wish to call to your attention, Sir, the special case on the 4th May, 1881, the day after the pre sent hon. Member for East Mayo was arrested. The hon. Member was arrested on the 3rd May, and on that very day Lord Cooper, the then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote Mr. Speaker, and on the 4th May the letter was read in this House.

Mr. R. McNEILL

May I ask, Sir, in what form the hon. Member is bringing this matter forward? Is it a point of order, or a question of privilege, and will it be open to debate by the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

This is a question addressed to me. I believe that is only the preliminary stage.

Mr. KING

I shall be only too pleased, Sir, to satisfy both you and my hon. Friend. The question I have to put is clear, and it is this: whether it is not the duty in such cases to intimate at once, and without delay, that such arrests have been made. May I point out to you, Sir, that the letter stales that these arrests were made on the 17th and 18th May, some on one day and some on the other, and it was not until the 1st June, a fortnight later, that the Chief Secretary, wrote to you an intimation of the fact of the arrest. Of course, we all recognise that the Chief Secretary is new to his office and we wish to be as patient as possible. But on the question of the rights and privileges of this House and of the usual custom, may I not ask you whether it is not in accordance with precedent that such arrests of Members of Parliament should be communicated to you forthwith and without any delay?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is aware that there is no statutory injunction upon magistrates, or persons committing Members of the House, to inform the House of that act. It is entirely a matter of custom and of courtesy, and I think that, as a rule, it is better that the letter