§ "The Government is receiving advice from all quarters on the 'problem' of Irish affairs. One group of individuals declare that the only solution of the problem is to give the country up to the criminals who are seeking to reduce it to anarchy. Another group of individuals assert that if a nebulous form of Government which they, without defining, call 'Dominion Home Rule,' were established, the murderers would cease to murder. Yet a third group hold that the Government should meet the representatives of the Republic and discuss peace terms. These counsellors willfully misunderstand the 890 Irish 'problem.' The Irish 'problem' has next to nothing to do with politics. Politics is the stalking horse behind which the masked murderer lurks. The Government is opposing murder. The Government is doing its duty to the nation and to the Empire in refusing to allow a gang of cutthroats to dictate to the enlightened democracy, from which the Government derives its power. The Government stands for constitutionalism and the Home Rule Act. The opponents of the Government stand for the right to murder. In that confrontation is the real issue. Does Ireland stand for the ballot or the bullet as a political method? The Government stands for the ballot. If Ireland stands for the bullet, so much the worse for Ireland. Her road to reason may be a long and bitter one."
§ That is the whole paragraph to which I referred, and I call the House and the country to witness that there is only one interpretation of that particular phrase in that particular paragraph, and that is that the opponents of the Government in this House, and out of it, do stand for the right to murder. It is a most diabolical charge for any Minister of the Crown to hurl at his political opponents, and, say what the right hon. Gentleman may, there is no doubt that that is the interpretation which will be put upon it by any impartial judge, and I am sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman neglecting the first opportunity that has been given him, after this has been brought to his notice, of apologising to the House and the country.
Mr. THOMASThe House generally will appreciate the action of the Chief Secretary, but I am sure they will regret that he did not avail himself of a bigger House to make his apology. At the same time, now that the matter is raised, I hope his colleagues will observe what he has stated to-night in that frank, open way, and will not say to those who are appealing for support in election addresses something which has now been repudiated by the Chief Secretary. In other words, I hope that Cabinet Ministers seeking re-election will not restate what the right hon. Gentleman has practically apologised for to-night.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI have not seen this article, but I have had the benefit of hearing it read, and, of course, so far as I am concerned, I hope it is not necessary for me to say that I do not for a moment suggest, nor do I feel, that the interpretation that has been placed upon it by the hon. and gallant Member is correct. The 891 "Weekly Summary" has been issued to the police at a time when it is difficult for them to keep in touch with the central police organisation in Ireland. There is no intention of using this for political propaganda against the opponents of the Government. The original intention was, and the intention now is, to use it to hearten up these men in the very difficult task they have to perform. I regret that there is anything in the Summary, or that there ever has been in the Summary, anything that could bear an interpretation of personal offensiveness such as the hon. and gallant Member has placed upon it.
§ Sir D. MACLEANrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has spoken once.
§ Lord R. CECILI am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit—we all expected it of him—the moment when his attention was drawn to the actual words used in this "Weekly Summary," to withdraw them and express his regret. I can- 892 not see that the words were open to any other possible interpretation than the interpretation which my hon. and gallant Friend has put on them. I cannot but feel that Members of this House have a considerable right to complain that a document issued by a Government Department, and at the public expense, should be so carelessly worded, to put it mildly, as to be capable of conveying an interpretation of that kind. I very earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give orders to whoever is responsible for the production of this paper to be more careful in future.
Mr. KELLYIt is somewhat ominous that the very first week that the "Weekly Summary" has been placed in the hands of Members of this House the Chief Secretary has had to make an explanation and to express regret. I hope, that that will be a warning to the editors of such a paper.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Ten o'clock.