§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the whole of the facts stated in the House yesterday by myself in connection with the incidents at Mallow were given as sworn evidence at the military inquiry; whether he is aware that at the same inquiry a representative of the men's organisation was refused permission to attend, thus 95 preventing the men's interests from being properly safeguarded; whether the competent military officer in charge of the inquiry stated that he had no authority to allow him to be present; whether the Government intend to publish the report; and whether, in view of the importance of the whole facts of the case being made public, he will grant an open public inquiry?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware that the statements made by my right hon. Friend during the course of the Debate yesterday were given as sworn evidence at the military inquiry at Mallow, but I am making inquiry. I do know that at the inquest on Mrs. King, whose murder was the commencement of the Mallow question, and at the inquests on the railwaymen, no evidence was given of the shooting of railwaymen on the day following her murder, although it was open to anyone to give evidence. The usual military inquiry into all the events at Mallow is proceeding, and I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the normal procedure, which allows interested parties to be represented by counsel or solicitors has not been departed from. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to secure that all available evidence is brought before the court. With regard to the remaining part of the question, I can add nothing to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.
§ Mr. THOMASWill the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether, if he is satisfied that the representatives of the men were refused permission to represent the men, a fresh inquiry will be held, and permission given? Further, is he aware that when this inquiry took place, nearly the whole of the people who could give evidence were in various hospitals, and that one of them has since died, whose evidence I quoted? How could people who were themselves wounded, and some of whom were dying, be called to give evidence?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODWith regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I may say that a very considerable number were neither wounded nor shot, but were available to give evidence at the inquiry. As 96 to the first part of the supplementary question, I must point out that the representatives of a trade union of railwaymen, as such, are not, any more than representatives of bakers' or any other societies in any privileged position before these courts of inquiry. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no law in Ireland!"] Railwaymen can be represented through counsel or solicitors, like any other members of the public.
§ Mr. THOMASDo I clearly understand that the same representation that is allowed by the law of the land can be obtained in Ireland, and if at this inquiry, in addition to the men's union representatives, the union's legal representative was refused permission to be present, will he then hold a fresh inquiry?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThe inquiry is still proceeding, and the legal representatives of any person interested in this or any other inquiry is always welcomed to these courts.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWill the finding be made public when it is concluded?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI cannot answer that question. I shall not pledge myself to the public issue of the Report.
§ Mr. THOMASIn view of the effect that reports of this kind are likely to cause abroad, in the interests of the nation itself, will not the Government see the advisability of issuing the report?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHDoes the Chief Secretary mean to convey to the House that legal representatives of people killed have always been admitted to these inquiries?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODYes, as far as I know.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIt is not so.