§ 61. Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary for War whether the three soldiers recently released from captivity in Moscow were arrested by a military policeman on their arrival in Hull; whether they were confined for the night in cells in the police station; whether they were refused newspapers and their freedom; and, if so, what is the reason for this treatment, and will these men be set at liberty?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI will answer at the same time two private notice questions on the same subject. I regret that a mistake should have been committed in this case owing to a misunderstanding of the expression "escaped prisoners" which occurred in the telegram received from Helsingfors about these men, and was repeated in the War Office message. Orders were, of course, issued at the earliest moment to send these men on leave to their homes.
§ [The Private Notice Questions were:
§ Mr. LUNNTo ask the Prime Minister whether Privates Richards, pickard and Davison, ex-prisoners from Russia, on arrival at Hull on 29th November, were handed over to the military police; whether they were then kept over the 397 week end in military cells at the police station; whether for two days they were allowed no papers, were fed on Army rations, and were not allowed to smoke, or to see their friends and relations; whether these men are now detained in hospital, and for what reason; and whether the arrest and detention of these men represents the considered policy of His Majesty's Government towards returned prisoners of war, or was it the act of an irresponsible official; and what steps is it proposed to take in this matter?
§ Mr. HAROLD BRIGGSTo ask the Secretary of State for War if he has knowledge that the three Privates, Davidson, Pickard and Richards, who have recently been released by the Bolshevists and handed over to the British authorities by Mr. Litvinoff, have been detained by tine Military Police, and are not permitted either to see or communicate with their relatives, and does he consider such action is justifiable or lawful?]
Sir C. KNLOCH-COOKEIs it possible for a. Minister to answer a private notice question at the same time as a starred question? Is it not the rule that private notice questions cannot be given on a subject covered by a question on the Paper?
§ Mr. SPEAKERPrivate notice was given of two questions with regard to a matter already on the Paper. I do not see anything improper in it.
§ Mr. W. THORNEHas an apology been sent to the men in question?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo.
§ Mr. CLYNESWill any consideration be given to these men in the form of some recompense?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am not prepared to give any undertaking. I share my right hon. Friend's feelings of regret that men returning from hard service and misfortune abroad should have met with so unceremonious and chilling a welcome on their arrival in their native land.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have done so. By mistake they were detained in Hull by the police authorities, but as soon as the mis- 398 take was known and telegrams could be sent stating the facts, they were released on leave and sent to their homes.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not quite understand how the hon. Member can at one moment be so fall of sympathy for these men, and so full of malevolence towards people who may unwittingly have made a mistake.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIf these men were escaped prisoners from Russia, what reason was there for arresting them and putting them in the cells?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf they had been described as escaped prisoners of war escaping from the enemy, no doubt the mistake would not have arisen; but they were described as escaped prisoners.
§ Mr. DEVLINWas not the whole thing caused by the belief that these men were in Ireland?