§ 58. Mr. WALTER SMITHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there have been any investigations as to the responsibility for the reprisals that have taken place in Ireland by the armed forces of the Crown; whether any persons have been found guilty and, if so, the number; and what, if any, is the nature of any punishment inflicted?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODInvestigation is made into every case of alleged reprisals by the armed forces of the Crown. Disciplinary action has been taken in a number of cases of indiscipline, but I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the 351 question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow on the 21st ult.
§ 59. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the town of Bandon was again raided on the night of 24th October by a band of soldiers; whether they burned down the hosiery factory in Hill Street; whether the company owning the factory is under the chairmanship of the right hon. the Earl of Bandon; whether the workpeople deprived of work by this outrage are being assisted in any way; and whether any person or persons have been proceeded against or punished for those acts?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put to me on Thursday last by the hon. Member for Harrow. Pending the result of the inquiry which is being held, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to this matter.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYCan the right hon. Gentleman not answer the third part of my question as to whether the company owning this factory is under the chairmanship of the Earl of Bandon? Surely that is common property.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI believe the Earl of Bandon is a director of the company.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs there any pretence on the part of the Government that the burning of this factory was a legitimate reprisal on Sinn Feiners?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThe matter is under inquiry and I cannot make a statement.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFTCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether if any further murders take place of the character of those of the last two or three days, the Government can see their way to arrest hostages amongst the Sinn Fein leaders, try them for high treason and shoot them if further murders take place?
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ire- 352 land whether there has been a renewal, in the last two days, of the policy of reprisals, at Littleton, Thurles, Bally-bunian, Tralee, Galway, and Ballyduff; and whether he is now prepared to give a definite assurance that the Government will take immediate and adequate steps to break down this policy of frightfulness which is aggravating the already deplorable conditions in Ireland?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODFollowing murders and attempted murders of police and soldiers in the places mentioned, there have been disturbances consequent upon the search for the criminals. That search is proceeding.
I have called for reports in all these cases, but they have not yet arrived. In most of the cases mentioned the telegraph wires were cut by the criminals, and communication is therefore difficult. I am informed that the police are in a state of great indignation following the assassination of their comrades.
§ At the end of Questions—
§ Mr. O'CONNORI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the continuance of the burning of creameries, the firing of towns, the threats of murder against representatives of the British Press, and the destruction of life by the forces of the Crown in Ireland, and, in view of the appalling conditions which these outrages have aggravated, the immediate necessity of such strong and vigorous action on the part of the Government as will put an end to this disastrous policy of reprisals."
§ Mr. SPEAKERYesterday I said there was not sufficient evidence to support this Motion. I fail to see that there is any fresh evidence to-day. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that as soon as there is any definite evidence on any of these matters I shall be quite prepared to accept his Motion, so far as I am concerned. I think that he has not carried the matter one inch further than it went yesterday. Instructions have been given for a report to be sent in at once, and, for the reasons given, that report has not yet been received. If the House is prepared to discuss these matters it should at least have some further information.
§ Mr. DEVLINMay I point out that yesterday I called attention to the practical burning down of several houses, and 353 the discharge of firearms by forces of the Crown in a Northern town, and that this has gone on in several other places in the country. Is not the only way in which we can put a stop to these things to draw the attention of the House of Commons to what is going on? We have for four days been waiting for information that has not arrived, although, when there is any point in his own favour, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can always get the information. It is four days since some of these incidents occurred, and because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to secure the information, which is in the possession of everybody in this country who reads the newspapers, we are to be denied the right to discuss these matters in this House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe firing of the towns to which the hon. Member referred resolves itself into the burning of two houses.
§ Mr. DEVLINThat was an entirely different thing. The town I referred to was the town of Dungannon; the town the right hon. Gentleman referred to is in the South of Ireland. This is a Northern town, where political and religious passions may be let loose at any moment, and the forces of the Crown have gone out there, where no policeman was murdered, and have wrecked the houses and fired indiscriminately through the town, and we are told that we cannot discuss the matter here.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member places me and the House in a great difficulty because he refers to these matters as "definite matters." For instance, "the burning of creameries." There has been no statement whatever with regard to the burning of any creamery since this matter was discussed a week ago. Then there is the "firing of towns." The hon. Gentleman cites one town. That town is not named in his particular motion for Adjournment. The matter must be definite. A general statement about the "firing of towns" and the "threat of murder against representatives of the British Press," as to none of which there is very definite evidence, lands the House in the difficulty that we are discussing matter with which the House is not and cannot be acquainted.
§ Mr. DEVLINMay I respectfully point out that we here who are raising these matters have no method of getting information unless the information is given to us by the persons concerned and published in the Press. We are now told, that the decision is that only the Chief Secretary is able to bring forth reports—from interested parties who are perhaps the malefactors in these transactions—and we are not to be allowed to discuss the matter in this House, and these horrible proceedings may go on without Parliament being given a right to discuss them.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf a matter is to be discussed it is surely right that the whole House, and not a very small section of it, should have the evidence and the statements on which the discussion is to be based. Until that is afforded I say that the House is not in a position to discuss the matter. As soon as it is made public I shall not for one moment stand in the way of the hon. Member raising the question.
Mr. THOMASHow is it to be made public, except in one of two ways—either through the newspapers, through which publicity has already been given, or through this House in a Debate? Therefore the only way of raising the matter is from the published information in order that an answer might be given in the only right place, namely from the Treasury Bench.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI should have thought that the way it would be made public would be by reports from those who have inquired into it. The newspaper reports are, after all, mostly only second-hand evidence at the most.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs it not a question of urgency that the life of a British subject, the correspondent of a London newspaper, whose evidence is corroborated by a similar correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" with regard to affairs in Ireland, should be in danger, and that we are not allowed, at the request of more than forty Members of this House, to discuss that subject as urgent in order to know from the Chief Secretary whether the facts are true or not? It surely does not follow that a question raised from this side of the House requires to have that kind of evidence? I would point out respectfully that to-day 355 already my right hon. Friend, the Irish Secretary, in response to a question from this side, instituted an inquiry, the facts of which are denied in the question. We respectfully submit that Parliamentary institutions will be altogether useless unless we have these public opportunities of discussing these matters.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe threat of murder, I take it, is the one about which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked the question, namely, that the man was "threatened by a policeman in uniform." That is the threat of murder, is it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIs there any other threat?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have had no evidence of it whatever. This is the only one about which, as far as I know, there has been any question. On that question, the hon. and gallant Member bases the statement (whether it is true or not I cannot say) that Mr. Hugh Martin was threatened by police in uniform. Is that a sufficient reason for moving the Adjournment of the House upon the "burning of creameries, the firing of towns, and the destruction of life by the Forces of the Crown"? As soon as the hon. Member will produce a definite matter, I will certainly be prepared to admit it as urgent, and will accept a Motion for the Adjournment at once.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMay I submit this, that the House will be put into a very great difficulty if a Minister of the Crown may always avoid a discussion by being unable or unwilling to produce information. If my right hon. Friend can say that he will be prepared to produce the information, either now or as soon as ever he can—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has said so!"]—personally I do not see why we should not discuss it. But I do submit it would be a very disastrous precedent if the functions of this House were put entirely at the mercy of a Minister of the Crown.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe consequences would be equally disastrous if a discussion were taken upon information of this sort, 356 about which the Minister of the Crown who has to defend it has received no information. It is really a commonplace of parliamentary procedure that before a discussion can take place both sides must have information. It is no use having a discussion where certain statements are made as to which the Minister says, "I have not got the information, and, therefore, I cannot deal with it." There can be no discussion under those circumstances.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHMay I call attention to the fact that 95 towns in Ireland have been partly sacked or looted within the past six months by uniformed forces of the Crown?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is less than 10 days ago that we had a discussion on that, and therefore what we are now asked to discuss is anything which has occurred between the period of that discussion and now.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHWe have never had an official report about the looting of any of these towns, and how long are we to be kept waiting for those reports, even although they are official reports of the officers who have, in many cases, conducted the looting and the sacking?
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI need scarcely assure you, Sir, that I will obey most respectfully any suggestions that you may make as to the raising of this discussion; but may I say that my explanation of my proposal for the Adjournment to-day, as on previous days, is that these crimes are being committed daily? I have before me evidence—I agree that it is only the evidence of newspapers—that within the last two days, for instance, a woman with a baby at her breast was killed, and that a man was called out and killed, I think in the town of Tralee. I have several other instances of the same kind. I am sure you will quite sympathise with my desire to put an end to these outrages, which are a dishonour to this country. [Interruption.] Yes, to put an end to all of them. [Interruption.] And, I think, if you will allow me to follow that interruption, I will best put an end to assassination by private bodies of men if I attempt to prevent assassinations under the connivance and by the order of the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Therefore, I will take your suggestion to give me the full right to 357 raise this question to-morrow, or until such time as the Chief Secretary puts the House in the position of raising the question by giving us definite information, either in corroboration or in contradiction of the statements of most responsible and respectable newspapers of the country.
§ Mr. DEVLINMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to give us specific answers to these questions to-morrow? We do not want another saturnalia of assassination at the end of the week, and we are entitled before the House rises—tomorrow will be our last opportunity—to ask the right hon. Gentleman to have the information before the House. I must point out that it is quite customary to give notice of a question on the Tuesday calling for information with regard to certain incidents that occur in Ireland. We have called for complete answers on the most intricate and difficult questions on the Thursday, and yet this series of murders and lootings and firings of towns can go on for four or five days, and we have no information given to us?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman Las had the information that the wires were cut.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)On a point of Order. I should venture to say to you, Sir, and to the House, that the position seems to me, and to the Government, perfectly clear. We have no desire whatever to avoid discussions, and whenever there is a specific case put forward the Chief Secretary will at once take steps to get the information, and the moment he has it, we are ready to have a discussion. But it seems to me that it would be a waste of the time of the House if there was a discussion before the Government receives the information. On the other hand, as was suggested by my hon. Friend (Lord It. Cecil) the Government might try to burke discussion altogether by not getting the information. That would be absolutely unpardonable, and if that were done, I am sure that you, Sir, would not tolerate it.
§ Sir D. MACLEANMay I say on the point which has just been discussed, that assuming the Chief Secretary for Ireland is in possession of information with regard to the two journalists who have been named, and that if the question is raised 358 to-morrow, it would then be sufficiently urgent and definite in your opinion to give the House an opportunity of discussing it, if supported by the necessary number of Members.