§ Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has called for an explanation from General Tudor as to why he did not report the serious matter of the dismissal for looting of 26 cadets of the Auxiliary Division of Royal Irish Constabulary, and also the resignation of General Crozier and of Captain Macfie, the Commandant and Adjutant of the Auxiliary Division.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation from the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, because General Tudor had informed him that the offences of the 26 cadets who were dismissed were to be condoned; whether this statement was contained in the letter tendering his resignation written by General Crozier to General Tudor on the 19th instant and whether he is now aware that the 26 cadets were returned to duty, and not, in the first place, for trial?
§ Captain REDMOND(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the letters which appeared in today's Press exchanged between General Crozier and General Tudor: whether he will now definitely state on what grounds General Crozier and his Adjutant, Captain Macfie, resigned; and in view of the fact that he approved their action, why General Tudor accepted the resignation; and whether the right hon. Gentleman approves of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of these officers who were endeavouring to maintain discipline in the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI will answer the three questions together. The hon. Member for Belfast seems to be under a misapprehension as to an answer I gave in the House to a supplementary question yesterday. I did not intend to convey the impression that I had no knowledge of this very serious breach of discipline at Trim, or that the Chief of Police did not mention it. He mentioned it to me on the 15th instant, and I told him it was a matter of discipline, and he must take the steps he thought best for the discipline of the force. I heard nothing of General Crozier's or his 1128 Adjutant's resignation until I saw it in the Press on the 22nd instant. Nor had I until then any knowledge whatsoever of any disagreement between General Tudor and General Crozier in this matter.
As regards the substance of the questions, I again take the opportunity of stating that the sole reason why the cadets in question were ordered to return to Ireland was to enable a thorough investigation to be made of the charges in which they were implicated. It is not the case that they have been returned to duty. There never was, and there is now, no question of condoning looting and the suggestion apparently put forward by General Crozier or on his behalf that his resignation was in any way due to the frustration by higher authority of efforts made by him to secure an improved standard of discipline is one for which there is not the slightest foundation in fact. General Crozier is the officer who, as Commandant, has from the outset been primarily responsible for the maintenance of discipline throughout the Auxiliary Division, and I am informed that he has at no time made any complaint to superior authority in regard to his powers or the means at his disposal for securing an adequate standard of discipline. Having regard to all the circumstances, I fully approve General Tudor's action in accepting the resignation of these officers.
§ Mr. DEVLINWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? He has given a series of statements, but he has not answered my question whether he has called for an explanation from General Tudor why he did not report the dismissal for looting of 26 cadets, and why he did not also report the resignations of General Crozier and his adjutant.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI thought I had dealt fully with the first part of the question. The second part refers to a letter from General Crozier which I think is dated 19th February, and was sent from an address in Somerset to General Tudor in Dublin. I got a telegraphic copy of that letter yesterday for the first time.
§ Mr. DEVLINDid General Tudor report to the right hon. Gentleman that he had in his hand the resignations of General Crozier and his adjutant, and the 1129 reasons why they had resigned? Did the right hon. Gentleman receive any report from General Tudor on that?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI received the letter over the wire yesterday.
§ Mr. DEVLINHas the right hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation from General Tudor why he waited until yesterday, when the matter was published in "The Times" and subsequently raised in this House, before sending the letter, and why was it General Tudor did not report so serious a matter to the right hon. Gentleman when the incident took place?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI do not think General Tudor was lax in reporting it. The letter was sent on 19th February from Somerset to General Tudor, who was in Dublin. The text was wired to me yesterday and I received it last evening.
§ Mr. DEVLINI must press for an answer to the question whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked for an explanation from General Tudor why he left the Chief Secretary, who is responsible in this House for the Irish Government, ignorant of the facts until he saw them in "The Times"; why he did not acquaint him of the fact that General Crozier and his adjutant had resigned, and the reasons for their resignation. Has any explanation been asked for from General Tudor in regard to that?
Mr. J. JONESIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said yesterday he knew nothing whatever about this business until he saw it in "The Times"?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODIn the preliminary paragraph of the answer I gave just now I tried to make that clear. In answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I saw there might be a misapprehension, and I have done my best to correct it. In my opinion this is a case not of conflict of principle in dealing with discipline in Ireland, but by the unfortunate miscarriage of a letter General Crozier thought he was ignored when, in fact, he was not.
§ Mr. DEVLINThis is the point I want to make clear: Why did not General Tudor acquaint the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that General Crozier and his adjutant had resigned, and why did he 1130 not report it to the right hon. Gentleman instead of leaving him to wait to read it in "The Times" newspaper?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODMy answer to that is, that General Tudor wired over yesterday the letter of resignation from General Crozier. I do not know when he received it. I know it was dated 19th February, and sent from a post office in Somerset to General Tudor, who was in Dublin. I do not think there was any intentional delay on General Tudor's part in sending it.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYMay I press for an answer to my question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation because General Tudor had informed him that the offence of the 26 cadets who had been dismissed was to be condoned and that the whole question of court-martialling them with a view to greater punishment was only an afterthought when the matter was raised in this House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that can be proved?
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEHaving been a personal friend of both officers concerned, may I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation because he thought his authority had been undermined, and in view of the fact that there was a mistake, cannot something be done for General Crozier in this matter?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI must confess that this matter has disturbed me a very great deal. These two gallant officers were friends and have worked together for years. General Crozier was appointed to his position on the recommendation of General Tudor. I regret the circumstances more than anybody else, but under the circumstances I do not see how I can do other than support the Chief of Police on whom I rely.
§ Captain REDMONDWhat does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the expression "Chief of Police"? I should like to know when that office was created and whether it is in any way the same as that of Inspector-General of Police?
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDDo I understand aright that these men were under military law when their case was investigated and they were dismissed the force 1131 by their commanding officer, and is there any law or regulation by which they can be taken back to Ireland and tried again?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThese men were dismissed as unsuitable for the Auxiliary Division. There was no trial preceding that dismissal. They therefore came to General Tudor and asked that they might have a trial before they were dismissed. That is the whole point. The regrettable feature is that General Tudor was not able, owing to a miscarriage in the post and a delay in the receipt of a letter, to communicate that fact to General Crozier.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLWas there no investigation by the commanding officer?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThe commanding officer has been suspended, and the inquiry into the case of these men is now proceeding. I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman means the commanding officer of the cadet company.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLThe immediate commanding officer.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREIs it possible for any man in the Auxiliary Division to be dismissed the force without a trial of any kind?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODYes, it is possible to dismiss a man if he be unsuitable for the force.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREWithout trial?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODYes, without trial, on the ground of unsuitability for the force. If there be a charge of crime against him. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was!"] Yes, I say that there was. There was a charge of crime, and the men asked, and I think fairly asked, that they might be tried.
§ Mr. WALLACEMight I ask my right hon. Friend what explanation he gives of the very serious statement in the letter that, in General Crozier's view, crime in this case has been condoned? I would like to know what comment the right hon. Gentleman has to make upon that statement.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI have tried to answer that question. I think it was a totally unwarranted term to use, and it is because it was so unjust and unwarranted 1132 that it makes it very difficult for me to do other than support the Chief of Police.
§ At the end of Questions—
§ Captain REDMONDOwing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg leave to ask to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the lack of control of the Irish Administration, as disclosed by the Chief Secretary in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until yesterday morning, and the grave danger to public peace and order in consequence of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of General Crozier, Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Adjutant, Captain Macfie."
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to take may, I am afraid, place the House in considerable difficulty with regard to the progress of the Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill. I understand that, in the interests of the men concerned, it is extremely desirable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment. The effect of not concluding the remaining stages of the Bill to-day may be to deprive the men next week of money which they are expecting to receive.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not know whether it would be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his Motion? If so, I should be prepared to take it one day next week when this Bill has been completed. I cannot say what the consequences may be if these people do not receive the money to which they naturally consider that they are entitled, and they cannot receive it if the Bill does not go through to-day. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be prepared to postpone his Motion. If so, I will overlook any question of urgency.
§ Captain REDMONDI very much appreciate the point that you make about the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and 1133 certainly, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to postpone the matter on the understanding that it will be discussed early next week, say, Monday.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman will select his own day. All I suggest is that his Motion should not come on until the Unemployment Insurance Bill is through.
§ Captain REDMONDIn view of what you say, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will give us an assurance that we shall have that day?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI think it will be more convenient to the House if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take his discussion on Tuesday, subject to the permission of Mr. Speaker, which has been already given. He is master, and not the Government.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSIn view of the desirability of avoiding precedents of this kind, will it not be possible to take the discussion on one of the Supplementary Estimates early next week? [HON. MEMBERS:"No."]
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI think the House will recognise that my hon. and gallant Friend has very properly, with the full assent of all his colleagues, fallen in with the suggestion which you have been kind enough to make, and I hope that it will be left there. This is a separate and important question, and I hope that it will be taken separately.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSMay I draw attention to the fact that the Standing Order deals with urgent matters. If a matter be put off for four days, may I very respectfully suggest that it can be no longer urgent.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have already said that I would waive that objection. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is postponing the matter for the general convenience of the House, and I do not think that it would be right to take the objection of urgency as one that would debar him.
§ Earl WINTERTONMay I ask whether in future it will be competent for an hon. Member, wishing to move the Adjournment of the House when it is not possible to do so, to use this ruling as a precedent?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt will depend on me or my successor, and, if I choose or my successor chooses to take the same course that I have taken to-day for the convenience of the House, I think the House on such occasion will again endorse such action.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEOught not the opinion of the House to be taken on this matter before the precedents of the House are absolutely altered? By next week this matter will be neither urgent nor of public importance in all probability, and therefore it is creating a very great precedent.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe create precedents every day.