IRISH ADMINISTRATION.

HC Deb 01 March 1921 vol 138 cc1723-67

Captain REDMOND

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I move this Motion for the purpose of tailing attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the lack of control of the Irish Administration, as disclosed by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until the 22nd February, 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. I feel confident that, in the facts I am about to give the House, Members generally will find substantiation for the charge, grave as it is, that I have thought fit to bring against the Government. What has come to be known as the Trim incident, is now well-known both inside and outside the House, and I do not intend to dilate unnecessarily in the statement of the facts. But what I would like to do at the very outset is to clear the air of what might be certain misapprehensions. In the first place, I would desire to let it be known that this is not a question of the discipline of the Regular Forces in Ireland. It has nothing to do with either the military as such or with the Royal Irish Constabulary Regulars. Personally, I have never attacked Regular officers or soldiers in their capacity as executive officers. I have attacked, and shall continue to do, those who are responsible for placing them in very often unwilling and difficult positions. I want to be quite frank with the House, and take it into my confidence. I have had no more to do with this matter than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself. As he stated on the 23rd February: I have had nothing whatever to do with it, and I knew nothing about it at all until it appeared in the 'Times' yesterday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1921, col. 932, Vol. 138.] That is exactly my position. I read it in a letter that appeared in the "Times," and I was very struck with the gravity of the accusations that were made, and, in order to elicit information, and get at the truth, I placed a question, upon Private Notice, to the Chief Secretary. We are all acquainted with what followed. I think the House generally, and certainly I particularly, was astounded at the revelations that were there made. In almost every particular of my original question, the Chief Secretary concurred. When it is generally understood who the dramatis personœ are in this incident, I will be regarded as having no personal interest whatsoever in any of the individuals concerned. In the first place, Brigadier-General Crozier was in command of a battalion of the supporters of the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) known as the Ulster Volunteers before the War, and during the War he rendered distinguished service by commanding, I think, the 9th Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles. I never had the opportunity of meeting this gentleman before I put the question, but I will admit—and the House will, see afterwards when I recite certain statements of his—that I have had constant interviews with him since.

As regards General Tudor, I am really at a loss to know who General Tudor is. General Tudor has been described in many ways in this House. He is a General in the Army, I presume—a distinguished General. But he has also been described as Chief of Police in Ireland, an office, I confess, of which I have never heard, and I would like the Chief Secretary later on to explain when it came into existence. We have also been told that he is police adviser to the Lord Lieutenant. I believe that is an office that has recently been created, but it certainly has not been long in existence. What I would really like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House is this: How is General Tudor responsible to this Government for the conduct of what is known as the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary? Is he the head of all the police in Ireland? Does he take the place of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland, or is that position still vacant? It was rendered vacant, perhaps hon. Members may be aware, by a singularly sinister proceeding. What took place was that General Sir William Byrne was kindly told to stay absent on leave. I believe he is still absent on leave. I would like the Chief Secretary, therefore, to inform the House what is the capacity and what authority General Tudor has got at the present time in Ireland. I do not want to weary the House by going into very great detail, but I feel it incumbent upon me to read a statement that has been given to me by General Crozier. It is his statement, not mine. It is a statement to which General Crozier has signed his name, and he has gone so far as to tell me that he is willing to attest to the facts in the statement upon his oath. It is a chronological record of events that took place, according to General Crozier, in connection with this Trim incident: Two cadets came up to Dublin purposely to see me to inform me of certain disgraceful conduct which had taken place on 9th February near Trim. They arrived 12th February. Before seeing me they bumped into Tudor at a hospital where they had been seeing a wounded comrade. They told Tudor all about it. Shortly after I met Tudor at the Castle, and he told me all about it. I went to my headquarters then, because I knew those men were waiting for me. N.B.—Tudor said to me it was very good of these follows to give me evidence in this way. Tudor told me there had been a tremendous amount of looting. I interviewed the two cadets in my orderly room in presence of my Adjutant. In consequence of their statements, I went to Trim barracks to investigate on the 13th. Previously to this I 'phoned up Captain Robinson, private secretary to Tudor, and told him what I proposed doing, and he said 'Right.' I went on Sunday, 13th, to Trim with my Adjutant. I arrived unexpectedly and immediately had all available men fallen in. I addressed them on parade, and told them a report had reached me that a disgraceful episode of looting had taken place on the 9th. That I would hold an inquiry forthwith. I went to the Company Orderly Room and examined every available person separately. During this inquiry the Company Commander, Major Daniel, was present and the 2nd in Command of the Company was also present. My Adjutant took notes and I did the examination. This inquiry lasted 3½ hours. As the evidence came out bit by bit, because there were five witnesses who were good, the Company Commander and 2nd in Command became astounded. A 200-lb. sack of sugar had been stolen. It had been carried off the tender by one man assisted by another and put into the canteen. Some 20 to 30 head of fowls had been taken and had been pooled for a dinner. Some jewellery had been taken, a picture, two rugs, brandy, whisky, grocery stores. Everybody except the five people who gave information stoutly denied that any looting had taken place at all. I came to the conclusion that the Company Commander was not responsible as he was absent on duty with the Divisional Commissioner. I told the Company Commander on the conclusion of my inquiry to call the Company in again, which he did, while I went round and examined certain localities—canteen where sugar is stated to have been placed in full view of members of the Company drinking in the canteen. I also examined the Crossley tenders which had been used, and in the birdcage tender, and on the floor found sugar. Evidence had been given that bag had burst and a trail of sugar was made from tender to canteen. I tested the sugar. The notes I took were available in my orderly room at Headquarters when I left. During my search in the tenders it was reported to me that a man had thrown a kit bag full of groceries over the wall. I said nothing but sent somebody to search the other side of the wall, and under the grass and straw found other groceries in a kit bag with an old shirt on top. The kit bag and contents were retained by the Company Commander as an exhibit. The two rugs were found next morning in a barrack room. My time was getting short and I had to be back in Dublin before dark. The Company was now fallen in as I had ordered. I went over to them and spoke to them all. I stated that it was conclusively proved that disgraceful larceny had taken place by those who were in the Robertstown raid. I stated that they must remember it was a police constable's duty not only to detect, but to prevent crime and to report it, and although the idea of all hanging together was all right from one point of view, from the point of view of the police operating in a distressed country it was all wrong. I said it would be very much better if they made a clean breast of the whole thing, but I regretted I could not promise them anything less than removal from the Force, but that I would place the matter before the authorities in the event of further evidence coming forward. I said I was going to have a cup of tea and in half an hour's time I would be back in the orderly room, where I would receive any further evidence. I went back in half an hour's time but there was no evidence. At the inquiry a chit was put in as an exhibit that the house in question had been left intact by the search party. That chit was signed, I believe, by Mrs. Charles, and was obtained by force. Before leaving Trim I ordered the Company Commander to go straight out to Roberts-tow[...] to apologise to Mrs. Charles in my name for what had been done, and to express my regret that owing to having to be back before dark I could not come myself, but would do so later; to recompense Mrs. Charles forthwith and to report to me that he had done so. I also informed him that in all probability the men concerned would come up to Dublin in the morning and be replaced by others, but I could not decide anything till I had seen General Tudor. I went up to Dublin, reached the Castle about [...].30, had tea with General Tudor, and discussed the whole thing, telling him exactly what I have stated now. I stated to him that I considered everyone who had been on the raid was implicated, and that I was satisfied on this point. I proposed that the ringleaders and one temporary cadet against whom was specific evidence should be tried by Field General Court-Martial and that the remainder should be dispensed with as unsuitable for the Auxiliary Division. On the raid they had arrested Mr. Charles and brought him back in lorry and placed him in the guard room. He identified some of the property as his. The five temporary cadets who gave information identified the ringleaders as being actually in possession of stolen property. For example, one was seen with a rug over his arm. Another man was seen with a bottle of burgundy. There is a statement made by Mrs. Charles saying exactly what had happened. This was given voluntarily to the Company Commander when he went to pay his compensation by my orders. She was paid about £35. All the men implicated arrived at Beggars Bush on the 14th, a.m., and I separated the five ringleaders from the others. They were then all disarmed and the five marched over to a prisoner's cage. Remainder were placed under open arrest and I interviewed them again in the orderly room at Beggars Bush and told them their fate. I had original notes before me. There were a few men whom the Company Commander had been unable to place before me the day before as they were out on another job. The Company Commander had investigated their cases and sent them up with the others. These cases I investigated myself in the presence of my Adjutant. None of the men denied that they had been on the raid. The five ringleaders were not only the seniors except one temporary cadet with the burgundy, but also were actually seen with stolen property. General Tudor had previously agreed to this action being taken. He had agreed that proper course was to dispense with services of the men who had been on the raid and to try the five or six ringleaders against whom was specific evidence that they were actual thieves and not only accessories. Having dispensed with their services I 'phoned to the Castle at noon to say I had done so. At 6.30 on the 14th of February, 1921. Tudor 'phoned to me and said, 'What about those cadets of yours at Trim? Do you think it is all right?' I replied, 'You mean my ex-cadets.' I said; 'That's all right. They are going over to-night. You must trust the men on the spot' (or words to that effect). He replied, 'Oh, all right.' Tudor went over on the steamer that night. He wrote this letter to me on board and addressed it 'Brigadier-General Crozier, c/o Captain Robinson, Dublin Castie.' I found it in my letter rack in the Mess the next evening at dinner time. I think it is important that I should read that letter at this stage. This is the letter that General Tudor wrote: DEAR CROZIER, I think it will be best for you to keep these 30 temporary cadets suspended until I come back. I want to discuss it with the Chief Secretary. He gets all the bother. My main point is that it is an unfortunate time to do anything which looks panicky. I think also these temporary cadets will have a distinct grievance if the platoon commanders and sections leaders are acquitted. Tell these 30 they are suspended pending my return or, if you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their accounts till I come back. Yours Sincerely, H. H. TUDOR. This letter was dated February 14th and the envelope is from the London and North-Western Railway.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

That quotation is not quite correct. General Tudor said: Tell these 30 they are suspended, or if you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their accounts.

Captain REDMOND

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his correction. General Crozier proceeds: On the 17th of February General Tudor said that he had talked over certain arrangements with Mr. Cope about the re-adjustment of the division; he indicated to me that the division would be broken up into two, and that I would have one half and someone else the other half, and that these men would be reinstated and put into the other division so that they would not be under me. The other details are set out in the interview which I granted to the 'Daily News' on Friday last and reproduced in that paper on Saturday the 26th. I am not going to trouble the House by reading the whole of that, but there are a few extracts I may have to take from it at a later stage. General Crozier goes on to say: There is not the slightest doubt that when General Tudor returned from London and saw me at the Castle with the 17 Company Commanders, the Adjutant, and General Wood, that the intention he stated was to reinstate these men without further inquiry or trial. The 26 cadets returned not under arrest. General Tudor said at the conference: 'I have promised these men they shall be taken back, and will go back to their own Company.' (Signed) F. P. Crozier. I do not intend to offer any lengthy comment upon this statement of General Crozier, but what I would like to draw from these statements, or what I consider to be the meaning of them, is this: An order was issued and then a counter-order. Now there is disorder. Three, to my mind, incontrovertible facts—and I challenge the Chief Secretary to contradict them—have emerged from this welter of confusion which has arisen over this fearful piece of plundering. The first, and this, I take it, is the most serious of all, is in connection with the matter of discipline. The General who was in command or had superior authority in relation to these Auxiliaries decided, on political grounds, not on a question of discipline, or of military law, or of the rights of the convicted, or of the legality of the proceedings—but for political reasons, as is shown by the correspondence, decided to change his mind, which he did, and to go back on the decision which he had taken all through with General Crozier. The second fact is that a properly constituted trial took place, that proper proceedings were brought against these men, and that they were convicted, the case being conducted as all previous cases had been. The third fact, and it is brought out in this interview, and has been neither contradicted nor proved contrary to the fact, is that it was the intention of General Tudor, when he left London and came to Dublin, as expressed by him in front of General Crozier and 17 company commanders, together with the Second-in-Command and the Adjutant, that these men should be reinstated. That, to my mind, was nothing short of condonation.

I repeat that the political action on the part of General Tudor is by far 1he most serious part of the whole question. Why did General Tudor change his mind? Whom did he see in Dublin? He was phoned at 6.30 in Dublin and told of the action which General Crozier proposed taking with regard to the cadets, and he concurred therein. But by the time he got on to the boat, as is evidenced by this letter, he had changed his mind. I contend the House should know whom General Tudor had met in the meantime, and what made him change his mind before he left Dublin. He said he was going to London as he wanted to consult the Chief Secretary. He did go to London; he did speak to the Chief Secretary, who admitted that on the 15th General Tudor informed him of what had taken place in regard to the cadets. The Chief Secretary has stated that General Tudor did not inform him of General Crozier's resignation. I wonder whether General Tudor and the Chief Secretary were merely conversing about the weather. Had General Tudor no conception of the attitude of mind of General Crozier on this subject, seeing that he had concurred with him on that point in every step he had taken? I challenge the Chief Secretary to deny that this action on the. part of General Tudor was political action, that it was dictated by political exigencies, and was in every sense outside his military duties, either as custodian of the men who had been charged, or as the preserver of discipline within the force.

I come next to the question of the trial. I want to make it clear to the House that proper proceedings were taken. I challenge the Chief Secretary on this question also. These men were brought before their Commanding Officer. None of them denied that they had been in the raid. Specific evidence was brought against five of them by some of their number and immediately it was brought the five ringleaders and one temporary cadet were remanded for trial by Field General Court Martial. What about the remaining 26? They were not remanded because there was no specific evidence against them. But the whole point with regard to them is that they were policemen, that they refused to give any evidence, and refused to report upon these occurrences. Although they were all questioned about them, not one of them would come forward and make a report as to what had taken place. What General Crozier says in his statement is true, namely, that it is the duty of a police constable to report on occurrences like that. They, however, refused to divulge any information, and therefore after that investigation, and because of their refusal to report, with the sanction of General Tudor, their services were dispensed with on the ground that they were unfit for the police force. That was a most proper and customary proceeding according to the Regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary which, I believe, also obtain in regard to the Auxiliary Force.

By the way, I should like to pay a tribute to the very pertinent question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Colonel J. Ward) the other day, when he asked if these men, having been tried once, could be legally retried. It may be said that, in reality, there was not sufficient evidence against these men, and I believe it is being said now, at this late hour, that the real object of recalling them was because General Tudor did not consider that the sentences were severe enough. It is very hard to swallow some things, and I certainly find it hard to swallow that, at this stage of the proceedings, as a reason for General Tudor's action. But supposing that that was the reason given, I would like the House to know exactly where the Government stand in this regard. I do not think that they know themselves; at any rate, we can only find it in the records in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Prime Minister, in this House on the l5th February—the day of the opening of Parliament—speaking on the Address, when questioned concerning the action that had been taken in regard to cadets in a very similar case in Cork, made the following statement: Seven of them whom all we can say is we suspect of being responsible for acts of indiscipline, although we cannot identify them, have been dismissed. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Dismissed? The PRIME MINISTER: You cannot do anything; beyond that without evidence against them. Lieut.-Commander KENWOHTHY: Why dismiss them? The PRIME MINISTER: After all, I believe an officer"— mark his words— is entitled to feel that he has absolute confidence in those in his command. He had no confidence in these seven men for reasons that satisfied him, but for which there was no evidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February. 1921, col. 43, Vol. 138.] He is allowed to dismiss them, and the Prime Minister concurred in the dismissal, coming down here and saying, on the Address, that, where there was no evidence, and simply because a commanding officer had no confidence in his men, and suspected them of certain acts, he had a right to dismiss them. The Chief Secre- tary may say now that these men did not get a fair trial, when undoubtedly there was evidence against them, and when their case was fully and thoroughly investigated by General Crozier, with the concurrence of General Tudor. How can these two actions be reconciled? Either the Chief Secretary's championship of General Tudor, or the Prime Minister's championship of General Crozier, goes by the board. I therefore challenge the right hon. Gentleman again on this question of fact, as to whether, as I state, there was, a proper investigation and a proper form of proceedings. If he says that there was not, then I ask, what case has he for accepting General Crozier's resignation, having regard to what the Prime Minister said on the 15th February last? We now hear that a court of inquiry is to be set up. I wonder would anything have been heard of a court of inquiry if there had not been a question in this House? I would like to know who suggested the court of inquiry and when it was suggested. Was it a military officer who suggested it? Did a General, with knowledge of military discipline and military law, suggest that, after these men had been summarily dismissed—and properly so, according to the code of the Royal Irish Constabulary—they should be brought up again before a court of inquiry? I do not think so, and I have my suspicions that the suggestion came rather from a legal than from a military quarter. The court of inquiry is at present sitting. I say that that court of inquiry is an improper court, that it has no legal standing; and it is only fair to the House that the Chief Secretary should inform us what prompted him, or whoever it was, to set up this court of inquiry, and why he thought it necessary to go behind the considered decision and action, according to proper procedure, of General Crozier in the matter.

I come now to my third point, and that is the condonation by General Tudor. I will not mince words. The intention of General Tudor was expressed by him, as testified by General Crozier, before witnesses—very important and honourable witnesses. If the right hon. Gentleman could only get a statement from any of them that General Tudor had no such intention or made no such statement, we should all be very glad to hear it. I say that this statement of General Tudor—as yet uncontradicted by evidence—that he was prepared to reinstate these men in their former company or corps, was nothing short of condonation by General Tudor, and that that is what led to the honourable and upright and prompt course of action taken by General Crozier in sending in his resignation. In support of that, I would refer to the telegram sent from the Recruiting Officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary in London to General Crozier. It reads as follows: Twenty-six T.C."— that is, temporary cadets— report to Company to-night. Meet, Order of Police Adviser. There is no question there about these men being sent for retrial. There is no question about their being under arrest. As a matter of fact, General Crozier says that they were not under arrest. I say that that telegram, and the facts as stated by General Crozier, are a sufficient indictment, which has got to be replied to by the Chief Secretary and General Tudor, for condonation of this offence. If the Chief Secretary does not answer those three questions to-night—if he cannot deny that in a matter of discipline General Tudor acted on political grounds, if he does not deny that a proper trial took place and that General Tudor was guilty of condonation—I say that then there is only one course open to the right hon. Gentleman and to General Tudor, as honourable men who occupy very important and honourable positions in this country, the one a member of His Majesty's Army and the other one of His Majesty's Ministers, and that is to resign the positions which they now occupy. I say that they are called upon to resign but it is a matter for themselves and their conscience. From the point of view of Ireland, however, and from the point of view of this country, this irregular force should be immediately disbanded. It has proved to be nothing but a failure and a disaster from the point of view from which the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated it. It was to bring about and maintain law and order in Ireland, but since it has been inaugurated things in Ireland have gone from bad to worse. I have persistently demanded in this House that, if you will have martial law in Ireland—I am not now discussing your policy in regard to martial law—you should have proper martial law; you should have martial Jaw applied by responsible military officers, responsible to the proper heads of their districts, and responsible, through the proper medium, to this House and to this country. I think this state of irregularity and the position that it has brought our country and this country to in the eyes of the world is due largely to this method of dealing with the question. I therefore desire to place these facts before the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister will not deal in the manner I have suggested with them, at any rate I do not think I am making an extravagant demand—I do not think I have been extravagant in the statement of my case—when I say there should be appointed immediately a full commission of inquiry into the whole system of the administration of the Forces of the Crown in Ireland.

Mr. NEWBOULD

I beg to second the Motion.

The true sequence of events in this unfortunate affair has at last emerged and we are able to judge their real meaning and relation to each other. The fact that it has emerged is not due to, but in spite of the answers to questions given by the Chief Secretary. That is a grave reflection, but I do not think it is an unfair one. I have no desire to be unfair because I believe, although he is responsible, he should not take the whole of the blame. The fact is that on this matter, as on many other matters of equal and even greater importance, he has been either uninformed, ill-informed or, what is worse still, misinformed. The Chief Secretary cannot be expected to have first-hand knowledge of everything that happens in Ireland. He must depend on the information supplied to him by responsible people on the spot. That he is often without that information, and that when he gets it it is unreliable and incomplete, has been obvious for a long time to those of us who follow Irish affairs in this House especially since he took office. How many times has he had to admit that he had no knowledge of important and urgent matters that well well-known to hon. Members? How often has he had to say that he would institute immediate inquiries? The case under discussion is a case in point, and there are many others. What, for instance, does he know about the alleged looting of a bank at Strokes-town, where it is stated that the culprits were caught red-handed with some £1,200 in their possession, and what has been done about it? Or is he as ignorant on this point as he was last week on the point under discussion, and will hon. Members and the Press have to inform him, as they had to inform him of the Trim incident? I shall be very glad indeed if he can deny that any such thing as I have referred to at Strokestown ever took place. On more than one occasion the Chief Secretary has told the House there was not a tittle of evidence against the Forces of the Crown when their implication has been notorious and has subsequently had to be admitted by himself. I need not pursue this point any further. My point is that the Chief Secretary's information is often belated, usually incomplete, and frequently misleading. The Chief Secretary has my sympathy, and, I am sure, that of every Member in the House in the very difficult position which he has to fulfil, but he is responsible for Irish administration, and this House is entitled to complete, accurate and reliable information on Irish affairs.

9.0 P.M.

I shall deal with only one other point— the question of discipline in these Army Auxiliary Forces. When highly-placed police or military officers pause in the execution of their duty to consider the possible political consequences of their action, discipline must suffer. It is impossible to maintain the standard of discipline which is essential to the carrying out of the difficult and dangerous duties which are assigned to our Forces in Ireland to-day. That political considerations were the dominant factor in this matter is borne out entirely by General Tudor's letter to General Crozier. General Tudor says: I want to discuss it with the Chief Secretary. He gets all the bother. What bother? Of course, the bother in this House and in the Press—the political bother. General Tudor wanted to ask the Chief Secretary—he says it in his letter in effect—what would be the political consequences if these men were dismissed? I want to ask the Chief Secretary, did General Tudor put that question to him, and, if so, what was his reply?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood)

I can say at once he did not.

Mr. NEWBOULD

I was quite well aware that when the Chief Secretary answered he would answer in his usual emphatic manner.

Mr. DEVLIN

Did he say anything to you at all?

Mr. NEWBOULD

The Chief Secretary's manner is all his own, but his answers are frequently supplied to him. The combination is an unfortunate one, and it ceases to carry conviction to this House. I quite anticipated that I should get that interruption from the Chief Secretary. The letter went on to say: My main point is that it is an unfortunate time to do anything that looks panicky.

Mr. DEVLIN

There were three bye-elections on at the time.

Mr. NEWBOULD

Could the dismissal of these men look panicky from any other point of view than a political point of view? I think not. It is quite obvious on the face of General Tudor's letter that that was the important fact in their minds at the time. My point is that after approving of General Crozier's letter before embarking on the boat for England—and as General Tudor admits that he had approved of it—General Tudor had an appointment with or met some highly-placed official in Dublin, and that official placed before him the possible political consequences of the dismissal of these men. That, and that alone, is the explanation of that letter. Why was it an unfortunate moment when this might look panicky? It was the eve of the assembly of Parliament, and the Government had some very awkward snags to surmount in regard to Ireland. They had the suppression of the Strickland Report, and the publication of Judge Bodkin's Report. These were nasty snags to surmount, and they were the reasons why political considerations were taken into account. The suggestion that General Tudor's action was dictated by the fact that General Crozier's action had not been severe enough, is blown sky-high by General Tudor himself in the last paragraph of his letter: If you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their account until I come back. Is there any suggestion there of sterner action? Is there any suggestion there of placing these men under arrest, either close or open? Nothing of the sort. Political considerations interposed, and they prevailed, and when political considerations prevailed a knock-out blow was struck at General Crozier's authority and any possibility of effecting a much-needed improvement of the discipline of this force was done away with. General Tudor came to London to see the Chief Secretary, and the result of his interview with the Secretary was that these men were returned to their units. To an honourable man and a gallant soldier there was no alternative left to General Crozier but to resign. I have said that an improvement in the discipline of this force was very necessary. It is not surprising that the standard of discipline in the force is not very high. The force lacks the greatest asset on which discipline is built and maintained. The force lacks tradition. As an old regular soldier, who served five years in the ranks, I attach enormous importance to tradition. The very difficult and dangerous tasks which have to be performed in Ireland to-day is such as makes it unsafe to leave it to a force of this nature. This force is hastily improvised, it is ill-assorted and it is ill-defined. However brave and gallant many of its members may be, and undoubtedly are, it lacks many of the attributes which are essential to the performance of its difficult task. Discipline cannot be achieved in a day or a week or a month, and in the meantime we cannot afford to run the risk of further acts of indiscipline such as the one we have now under consideration.

What is the Government going to do? I would prefer to leave this task to the Regular forces, in whom our confidence is unshaken. As to the Chief Secretary and General Tudor, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that they should resign their positions. [Laughter.] Hon. Members think that is a joke. It is not a joke. If there is any honour in the Coalition Government they would have resigned before now. These 26 men cannot be re-tried. If it is not actually legal, it is against the tradition of the force; it is a breach of faith, because these men were returned to their units on the promise that they should be reinstated and not re-tried. They cannot be re-tried if they are reinstated. Then what is the use of the Government prating in this House about the maintenance of law and order, when they propose to condone larceny in the very force which is there to maintain order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

I must remind the House that the Motion, quite properly, is confined to a definite matter, and it is that definite matter we must discuss now, and not the general question of Irish administration. The matter in question is between General Crozier, General Tudor, and the Chief Secretary.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

My only regret in speaking in this Debate is that, owing to the exigencies of the House, it was impossible to bring on the Debate at once when the question was first raised, so that I could have met criticism at an earlier date and could have checked in their dissemination a good deal of criticism and innuendo which I think, is both unfounded and unfair. I think it would be well, and the House would appreciate it, if I made a few preliminary remarks as to what the Auxiliary Division is, and cleared up certain misconceptions as to the Division. Let me say in the forefront of my remarks that no one realises more than I do the difficulties of obtaining rapid, accurate, and full information in regard to events in Ireland. Ireland in many parts is in a state of actual rebellion. Soldiers, policemen, civil servants and law-abiding people are frequently in danger of their lives, and it is a difficult thing to get all the information that any Chief Secretary would like to give to the House as rapidly or as fully as he and the House would naturally desire. That is said in reference to a matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Newbould). The realities of the Irish situation are not always appreciated by the House of Commons. If I am asked a question about Cork to-day, I have to take some officer from his duty in that rebellious area, where the lives of officers of the Crown are in hourly peril, to deal with a very proper question raised in the House of Commons. No one regrets more than I do the inadequacy and belatedness of much of the information given to the House.

The Auxiliary Division was formed in the summer of last year, and is entirely recruited from ex-officers of His Majesty's Forces. The recruits pass through the principal recruiting offices in London and Glasgow. They are then sent to Dublin, put into the depot and trained in police duties. The authorised total of this Force is 1,600. It is nearly recruited to its maximum. It is divided into companies of about 100 each, and these companies are sent to the most disturbed areas. For instance 7 of the 14 companies existing now are in the martial law area. I have the word of General Strickland himself vouching for the splendid services which these companies give him. This Auxiliary Division has its own transport, and was recruited for the specific purpose of forming mobile columns to move rapidly from one part of Ireland to another. The Royal Irish Constabulary is a county force in much of its administration, and it was essential to get a mobile force that could move where there was great trouble and operate there. The ex-officers are enlisted for one year only. They have no pensions rights. Take them altogether, they have been a most efficient and well-disciplined force, and that is borne out by the letter in the "Times" of 22nd February, which is part of the agitation now going on on this particular question. The writer of that letter, who obviously knew the force, paid a tribute to the efficiency, courage and discipline of these ex-officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force. General Tudor, though not known to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, at which I am surprised, was a distinguished Commander of the First Kitchener Division for some four years at the front. He was selected to be the head of all the police forces in Ireland, with the idea of coordinating the police forces, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for War.

Captain REDMOND

When was this office created? I think it is a new title.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

In May or June. It was an ad hoc office to deal with the realities of the Irish situation. It was considered that an officer of distinction was the best man for the position. He was recommended by the Secretary of State for War after consultation with the General Officer Commanding, Sir Nevil Macready. He was appointed to this high position, and I must pay this tribute. He has never failed to show the greatest courage in the most difficult circumstances. He constantly motors throughout Ireland where it is dangerous to motor. His life is in constant danger. Only the other day in Dublin be missed by but a few minutes an ambush which was prepared for him. It is quite right that the House should severely criticise me. It is the lot that any Minister deserves. But I do think that to criticise an officer like General Tudor is going rather far. When one considers that Ireland is now in a state of war, criticism in this House of these gallant men, to whatever force they belong, does not help them to carry on.

As to General Crozier, he did his part in the War, and he applied for a post in the Auxiliary Division. He was selected to take charge of the Auxiliary Division, and almost from its inception he has been the officer commanding the Division, responsible for its discipline, responsible for the officers appointed, only under the Chief of Police, and I have never heard from him personally, nor from any record that I have seen, other than the greatest agreement and good fellowship between General Crozier and General Tudor, until the 22nd of February. I first saw General Crozier at the inspection of "A" and "B" Companies of this Auxiliary Division, and I ventured, as I have done since, to make an appeal to them that they were in a disturbed country, and that high standards of discipline and conduct would have a great effect for good in curing the bitterness of Ireland. I saw General Crozier last on 22nd January at the depot of the Auxiliary Division, where I again met another company and made a similar appeal. I have never had any complaint from him, and I am not aware of any complaint that he has made in reference to the loyal support which he received from General Tudor or from myself, and I do not understand myself how an ex-general officer, instead of asking for an interview with the Chief Secretary, should use the medium of the public Press or the friendship of Members of this House, because how can it help the force of which he has been the officer commanding almost from its inception? After all, the persons in this matter count but little. This force is now in Ireland carrying out its duty, I think with some exceptions, adequately and well.

Captain REDMOND

He was not a friend of mine. I never met him.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Let me bring the House back to the sequence of events in this matter that is called the Trim incident, though for me it is much more than an incident. It is a very serious event. It was General Tudor himself who on the 12th February was informed that there had been looting at Trim. Let me say here that there had been looting at Trim. The amount of looting is estimated at from £100 to £130. The material damage will be made good. But I admit that the moral stigma remains, and the breach of discipline must be adequately dealt with. General Tudor sent General Crozier, commanding all the Auxiliaries, to Trim. He went on the 13th inst., and reported to General Tudor on the 14th inst., and said that he had placed two platoon leaders, two section leaders, and one cadet under arrest on definite charges of looting. These persons are still under arrest, and will be tried by court-martial for looting. There is no question about that. General Crozier further proposed to dismiss the rank and file, some 25 in number, who he thought were implicated or who refused to give evidence. General Tudor approved his action in placing the five men under arrest, but expressed disquietude at the proposed dismissal of 26 temporary cadets without a full investigation. So we come to one of the points which have been urged. General Tudor informs mo that there was no full investigation that could possibly be called trial.

Captain REDMOND

Produce the records.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I regret to say that there are no records of General Crozier's investigation except what I have given the hon. and gallant Member in Question and Answer and in my speech to-night. There is a conflict of evidence between General Crozier and General Tudor. One says there was an investigation, a proper trial, as the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford has said, General Tudor, and I am convinced he is right, says there was no such thing as a trial.

Mr. NEWBOULD

There were plenty of witnesses.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The difficulty was that they could not get witnesses. One reason for the suspension of these 26 cadets was that they would not implicate anybody and refused to answer questions.

Mr. NEWBOULD

Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? General Crozier's Adjutant and the Officer in Command and the Second in Command of this company were present at the investigation. They can prove whether there was a proper investigation or not.

Mr. STANTON

Where did you get posted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I do not think the hon. Member advances the point at all. I admit the conflict on this, but I cannot see how it was possible to hold an adequate trial of 26 cadets in the 3½ hours which General Crozier occupied.

Mr. NEWBOULD

Have you been a private soldier?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Yes, I have been a private soldier?

Mr. NEWBOULD

I have been a private soldier, and tried.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The point is that there is conflict. I regret there is; no documentary evidence bearing out the suggestion that there was a fair trial of these men, and that is the first point of conflict. General Tudor left for London on the night of the 14th, after having seen, and discussed the matter with, General Crozier. Here we come to the letter, which I think is vital to this whole matter. Before he left on the night boat from Queenstown, which leaves about 8 o'clock, he wrote this letter, which I must read again, to General Crozier. He wrote this letter before he came to London, while the Cadets were suspended, and while the five were then, as they still are, under close arrest on the accusation of looting. Dear Crozier, I think it will be best for yon to keep these 30 temporary cadets suspended until I come back. I want to discuss it with the Chief Secretary. He gets all the bother. My main point is that it is an unfortunate time to do anything which looks panicky. I think also these temporary cadets will have a distinct grievance if the platoon commanders and sections leaders are acquitted Tell these 30 they are suspended pending my return or, if you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their accounts till I come back. Yours Sincerely, H. H. Tudor. I submit to the House that that is a frank and honest letter of a senior officer to a brother officer. To suggest that there was anything political in this is, to my mind, as unwarranted as it is untrue. Let me clear up one miserable innuendo that is going round, and which has been suggested to-night, that I had anything to do with this breach of discipline, with the suspension or the return of these cadets. General Tudor mentioned it to me, and happily my Private Secretary, Captain Hemming, of the Treasury, and Sir John Anderson, Joint Under-Secretary, were present at the time. All I said was: "This is a matter of discipline, do what you think best for the discipline of the Force." That is all I have said. I have had long experience with troops, long experience; and that experience and the War has burned this into me, as an administrator, that if you put an officer in charge of a force, as I have put General Tudor, you either support him or you dismiss him. There can be no alternative. I have never interfered with his discipline, I have never hesitated to endorse every action that he has taken, and that is the position I stand in to-night. I am not going to desert this gallant soldier, who is risking his life in a way that no one who does not know Ireland intimately will realise, and who, for the rest of his life, will be a marked man by those who are causing all the trouble in Ireland today. I submit that from that letter there cannot be drawn any sinister or unworthy suggestion, as has been imputed in certain newspapers, and as has been suggested in this House. With regard to alleged political interference, I have made my position, I hope, absolutely plain. In order that there may be no doubt about it in future, let it be clear that what is done in the way of discipline in Ireland is not done at my instigation, but everything that is done has my support, and a severer and more drastic discipline, as long as it is just, will have my definite support.

General Tudor left for London and arrived on the morning of the 15th, and he thought that General Crozier had received his letter, and that these cadets remained suspended in Ireland. Apparently, General Crozier never received the letter or did not receive it in time. Had he received it, he could not have sent the cadets over without disobeying the instructions of his chief. So that, therefore, he could not have received it. Not having received it the cadets were sent over. Then another set of circumstances arose. They undoubtedly waited on General Tudor; they complained that they had been dismissed, with the stigma of thieving upon each one, without a chance of a trial, without a hearing; and they asked him to give them a chance, before a court-martial, so that they might be convicted of looting if they were guilty, and that they might be free men if they were not guilty. I would remind the House that General Tudor did not intend that they should be sent here. They were sent here by mistake. He had to make up his mind whether, to meet the just requests of the 25, he would send them back for trial, or whether, having regard to General Crozier's act, he should sacrifice the 25 without trial to save the prestige of General Crozier, as General Crozier felt that his prestige was at stake.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Support the officer on the spot.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

General Tudor took no action in England but returned to Dublin and met a conference of the company commanders of the Auxiliaries. It should be stated that the Company Commanders of the Auxiliaries are all distinguished soldiers. When we have difficulty in getting an adequate commander from the Auxiliary Force itself we get a senior officer from the War Office. General Tudor met all these senior officers, including General Crozier. This Trim matter with other matters was discussed frankly and fully. On that point the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) wanted to know whether I could read from some evidence of someone at that conference contradicting General Crozier. I am very happy to be able to oblige him. General Wood, the second in command of the Auxiliary Depot, was at that conference and he says: The statement appearing in the interview given by General Crozier to the Press has no truth in it so far as it concerns me. I was present at the conference held at General Tudor's office on the 17th inst., when General Crozier, his Adjutant, and the Company Commanders were present. It was very clearly stated by General Tudor that there was no question of condoning looting or other disobedience, and that the Cadets had been brought back with a promise of trial, and in the event of being found guilty of any offence, would be punished. That is from an officer of distinction whose word I accept. I wish it were possible to clear up these contradictions between General Crozier on the one side and General Tudor and his other commanders at the conference on the other side; but let me remind the House what that means. Here was a secret conference of the senior officers of the Auxiliary Division, called to discuss questions of discipline, of fighting, and other matters connected with this division, and I do not think it is quite worthy of any general to disclose in the public Press or to inform private Members in this House what took place at the conference. I am sure the House does not want me to disclose what takes place at conferences of soldiers and policemen, men who are endeavouring to carry out the very difficult task of maintaining peace and restoring order. I have quoted General Wood. After the conference and discussion of this matter General Tudor, not believing for a moment that General Crozier felt so strongly on the question that he would resign, sent a telegram to Major Fleming, who was a County Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary and an ex-Irish Guards officer during the War: Send over the Twenty-six N. Company Cadets now in London for investigation by the Chief of Police. It is true one hon. Member to-night read the answering telegram, but he did not read this one, and this is the vital one, because it comes from General Tudor. The cadets were sent over. They were not returned to duty; they were not put into their old company; they are not now doing any police duty whatever. They are suspended from all police duty pending the inquiry now proceeding. That inquiry automatically follows any charge made against any member of the police force. It is an inquiry conducted in this case by Brigadier-General Barron, C.B., D.S.O., and Lieut.-Colonel Price, D.S.O. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They are both distinguished soldiers. It is true, I believe, that Colonel Price was connected with what was known as the Ulster Volunteer Army.

Mr. DEVLIN

No. Do you want to know about Price?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

He is a most efficient and gallant officer, and carries out his duties satisfactorily to General Tudor and me. It is very hard on these men in Ireland, who risk their lives—

Mr. DEVLIN

So do we all.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

This Court of Inquiry interviewed, as is required by the regulations governing the constabulary, not only each one of the twenty-five suspended cadets, but every other member of N Company who was at all likely to have been connected with this business at Trim on 9th February. On the Report of this Court of Enquiry charges will be made against members of this company who can be accused of looting. A court-martial will be set up by Sir Nevil Macready and it will be composed entirely of British officers. These men will be tried and if found guilty will be sentenced, and after sentence will be dismissed from the force. That is the procedure now going on. It is fair. It will do justice to the innocent and certainly stern justice to the culprits. This will be the best thing in the way of discipline for the whole Force. I believe that the discipline of a force is made the stronger and the better if justice, however stern, is meted out deliberately and fairly by officers who have the confidence even of those who suffer.

Captain REDMOND

Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether he agrees with the statement of the Prime Minister in the House the other day, as to the action taken with regard to seven cadets after the alleged looting in Cork, that is, dismissal without any evidence whatsoever against them but on mere suspicion.

Mr. NEWBOULD

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether General Crozier will be asked to give evidence at the inquiry now taking place?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I shall see that he is asked. I hope that in the interests of the old Force of which he was the commander, and which I believe he left largely because of the non-receipt of that letter from General Tudor, he will do his best to bring the culprits in this case to justice. As to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, whether I agree with the Prime Minister in regard to the dismissal of the seven cadets [...]n Cork, I do. In the Cork case it was impossible to identify anybody. In this case it is possible to identify, but in this case the officer, General Tudor, has the power, if he suspects a person or considers a person unsuitable, for medical or any other reasons, to dispense with his services. General Crozier had that power, subject to this, that the man was informed that he had the right to appeal to the Chief of Police. After all, let us remember these Auxiliary officers had been invited to join this force. I do not believe it is right and fair to them, or to the prestige of any force, that they should be dismissed without an opportunity of stating their case. There is no force that I know of from which men can be dismissed on suspicion; you cannot do it in the Army, certainly. You can dismiss from this force on suspicion, subject to appeal to the Chief of Police.

The next stage of this business was this. General Crozier had left for the south of Wales oh leave. While there, on 19th February, he wrote the following letter to General Tudor, who was in Dublin: Dear General,—The more I think over the matter, the more I am of opinion that your attitude in the Trim incident has made my position quite impossible. As I am all out to have the discipline unquestioned, I therefore propose to resign at the expiration of my leave. I still consider thefts on the part of policemen in the course of their duty unpardonable, and I cannot honestly associate myself with a Force in which such acts are condoned. That is a very serious letter to write to a superior officer. I am glad to say that, in an interview since this letter, General Crozier has watered down this word "condoned" and said it was not used at the, conference on the 17th ultimo. I should like to see any evidence that can be produced to show there is any condonation of looting or any other misdemeanour in this or any other Force; it would be most helpful to me, and whatever the House may think of me as a Minister, I am sure they would all like to see the Forces in Ireland disciplined and any question of looting or crime dealt with. This letter was sent from Wales on the 19th. It was not received by General Tudor until the 22nd. On the morning of the 22nd, the fact of General Crozier's resignation appeared in the Press. General Tudor actually saw it in the Press before he received the letter of resignation from General Crozier. I do not understand that system of discipline among generals.

Mr. W. THORNE

Postal delay.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I do not think it was a delay in postage. The first part of the Motion which condemns me deals with this non-receipt of this letter of resignation. It says: 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 the 22nd February. I had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until I saw it in the Press. I wired at once to General Tudor. General Tudor wired again that he had just received the letter of resignation, and I do not see how I can be condemned, or how I can condemn General Tudor, for any laxity in administration. I want to read the letter of General Tudor accepting the resignation of General Crozier. It is dated the same day as the receipt of the resignation: Dear Crozier,—I have received your letter and have accepted your resignation as Commandant of the Auxiliary Division from to-day. I have so informed the Chief Secretary."— He did, by wire, at once. I regret there should have been a misunderstanding, as your letter clearly shows there has been. I hare nothing more to add, except to thank you for the work you have done as Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, which I know has been exacting. I submit that that is the letter of a simple, straight soldier. The point about this letter is this. After General Crozier had made an accusation of condonation against his superior officer, General Tudor tells me he felt he could do nothing but accept his resignation at once. I will admit to the House that other action might have been taken—the resignation might haw been refused until General Crozier had proved his words in regard to condonation, but General Tudor accepted the resignation, not from the date of the end of General Crozier's leave, 5th March, but from the date of the letter being received, namely, 22nd February.

That is the Tudor-Crozier incident, and I will not be long in coining to the close of my remarks. I submit that there is not any evidence, and there could be no suggestion, except that founded on malice or ill-nature, to accuse me of having any political motive or interest even in this matter. My interest is entirely in the interests of the sternest discipline, and I would never think of suggesting anything political to an officer like General Tudor, or to General Sir Nevil Macready. Never for a moment would either of these officers tolerate it. The point about the trial raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford in his opening remarks I have dealt with. There was no trial; there will now be a trial. There is no question of re-trial, because there never was a trial. It was not the intention of General Tudor that these men should be reinstated. These men must stand their trial, and take the consequence. I hope I have made it clear to the House that in this matter General Tudor has acted always with regard to the discipline of the Force, which is his primary consideration. In this matter let me say that I have discussed it with General Sir Nevil Macready, the General Officer Commanding, who tells me that General Tudor has taken the only possible step in the interests of the discipline of the force. No one is sterner in his views on discipline than General Sir Nevil Macready. The splendid discipline of his Army is a testimonial to his success. He gives me every possible help that he can in endeavouring to maintain the highest discipline among all the Forces in Ireland.

Now General Crozier has left. His adjutant is said to have resigned. We have no record at all of any resignation of his adjutant. Officially, his adjutant is on leave. On the question of writing to the Press, I must say that I do not think it helps the Administration in Ireland. If every officer who resigns or every officer who is dismissed or who is asked to resign starts writing to the Press, or informing private Members of this House, the difficulties of the Irish Administration will grow greater. It is not the Chief Secretary who suffers, except that he suffers the anxieties and the natural worries of those who are carrying out the orders of this House in trying to restore law and order. Any questions involving discipline should be kept within narrow limits, and the responsibility should be always placed upon the Chief Secretary. No recriminations or criticisms should be urged against officers who enjoy his confidence and the confidence of this House. I have put in the place of General Crozier, on the recommendation of General Tudor, General Wood, C.M.G., D.S.O., who served in Rhodesia, in the Boer War, and in the Great War, where he got the D.S.O. with three bars. In appointing officers I always get reports from the War Office, which, as every service man knows, discloses the whole record of a man. The report of the War Office on General Wood says: He is a very gallant and fearless soldier"— and it goes on in eulogy of this gallant officer. I have appointed, on General Tudor's recommendation, as second in command, Lieut.-Colonel Guard, C.M.G., D.S.O., who was for a time in command of one of the Battalions, Royal Scots, in the War, who was also G.S.O.I., and who was with General Ironside in the North Russia campaign. I name these men in order to give the House an idea of the efforts being made to secure for this Auxiliary Division officers whose records will command the respect and confidence not only of those men over whom they have command, but of this House. No one has more often voiced the importance of discipline in Ireland than I have. I have felt from the start that when you are dealing with a fraction of the population in rebellion you must have the best possible discipline in your force, or you will fail to defeat the rebels, and, what is of as much importance, you will fail to secure the support of law-abiding people. That is what makes this Trim business so humiliating to me. You need discipline, to retain the respect of law-abiding people in Ireland, on whose support you must rely for good government, and by whose support, and whose support alone, peace can be ultimately brought to Ireland. General Tudor has had my instructions from time to time on this particular matter. I have had him at different Debates seated in this House so that he could realise what the House felt about the importance of this question and take it back to his police officers in Ireland. He has done his best and is still doing it. I submit that this Trim business—a nasty business it is, I am compelled to say—

Mr. DEVLIN

Is it the only one?

10.0 P.M.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

No, it is not the only one, but that one and every other one is inquired into by officers in whom I have confidence, and the culprits are tried by officers in whom General Sir Nevil Macready has confidence. I hope this incident, as General Crozier calls it, will not persuade the House to lose perspective of the realities of the Irish situation. Breaches of discipline have been dealt with and will be dealt with. The realities of the Irish situation remain.

Mr. HOGGE

And you remain.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Yes, as long us I have the confidence of the House in my efforts to secure the sternest discipline for the forces in Ireland, in the interests of Ireland, as well as for the good name of this country, I will remain.

Mr. ASQUITH

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has perorated with his accustomed vigour, this time on the theme of the importance of maintaining discipline in the forces of the Crown in Ireland—a very appropriate subject. It is curious that we should, for the first time, I think, have heard him deal with this matter with such energy and even vehemence of language. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] With more vehemence and vigour. It is the only case, so far as I know. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. DEVLIN

If the Leader of the House rises he will not be allowed to speak.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Perhaps the hon. Member for Belfast will please allow me to preserve order.

Mr. DEVLIN

Then keep hon. Members opposite quiet.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member does not always keep quiet himself.

Mr. ASQUITH

It is the only case, I think—certainly it is one of very few cases—in which an actually proved instance of misconduct on the part of the Auxiliary forces in Ireland having been examined by the General in command of that force and visited by him, with the approval of his superior officer, with condign punishment, his action has been disavowed and is now overruled by the Chief Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Withdraw."] I repeat what I have just said. I hold no brief in this matter for any of the Generals concerned. I know very well the admirable service which General Tudor rendered in the War as Commander of the Ninth Divi- sion. Of General Crozier I know nothing personally. I have never seen him in my life, and I have never had any communication with him, but I believe he also had a good record in the War, or I am quite certain he would not have been appointed to the post he had in Ireland. But I must say instantly, before I come to the real point, that I do not understand the view of discipline taken by the Chief Secretary when he says that a General who has resigned his office, and whose resignation has been accepted by his superior, is not at liberty to communicate with the public through any channel. But I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the parties. I want to look at the actual facts What are they? I take the undisputed facts first, and then I will come to those which are in dispute.

This company of the Auxiliary Force went out one night to this place somewhere near Trim on what was really a marauding expedition. They looted the principal shop or store in the town. They brought home with them on their lorry a considerable quantity of spoil of a miscellaneous kind, some of which, at any rate, was distributed among and retained by the ringleaders. It is a lurid illustration of the state of discipline of this force that out of the whole number of people engaged in this expedition there were only two who informed their superior officers when they had returned of what had happened. The whole of the rest were silent. General Crozier most properly, and I think the right hon. Gentleman told us under General Tudor's instructions, proceeded to hold an investigation. He declares he went minutely into all the facts of the case and had every one of these men before him, and the conclusion he arrived at was this—that there were five ringleaders who had actual concern in the looting, and who had appropriated the spoil. As regards the remainder, he spent a great deal of time in company with his adjutant and the other officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] Three and a half hours, and afterwards in Dublin, a supplementary inquiry. He was a man, remember, who a fortnight ago had been for months considered fit to command the whole of this force. He made this investigation, and came to the conclusion that there were five cases in which actual theft and looting was proved, and some 25 or 26 other cases in which the men, although they had not engaged, or could not be proved to have engaged, in actual pillage and theft, were cognisant of what was going on and took no steps to prevent it. As General Crozier thought, it was their duty not only not to violate the law, but the prevent its violation and to report violation when it occurred. That was the charge made against them. It was not a charge of theft; it was a charge of not having done their duty in preventing and reporting. Thereupon he ordered the five men, the ringleaders, the actual suspected thieves, to be tried by court-martial, and, as regards the other cases, he came to the decision they had shown themselves not fit any longer to be members of the force, and that dismissal was approved by General Tudor.

Mr. BONAR LAW

That is disputed.

Mr. ASQUITH

It is the first time I have heard it disputed. It is asserted most positively by General Crozier that it was so approved, and I think General Tudor's own letter when he was on the voyage to England proves that it was the case. So strongly was General Crozier of that opinion that a précis of the decision was drawn up and was circulated through all the companies of the auxiliary force in order to be read at three successive parades. That was the state of things, and except for this point, raised for the first time to-night, that General Tudor did not approve of the dismissal of these men, there is no dispute about the facts I have given, absolutely none.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether in his opinion, private soldiers or policemen should report to their seniors?

Mr. ASQUITH

Yes. If they have been engaged in theft and pillage, certainly. What are they in Ireland for? They are not sent as combatants; they are sent as policemen, and if they are engaged in committing crime, certainly they ought to report. What happened then? These men were dismissed, and sent back to England. General Tudor had an interview with the Chief Secretary, and—I am now coming to a fact in controversy—he had his interview with the men. I would like to know exactly what passed between General Tudor and these men. Did he say to the men, "You have to go back and be put on your trial" and "on your trial" for what? or did he say, "If you will consent"—I use one of the phrases I have seen—"to be good boys in future, and be on your good behaviour, this thing will be overlooked, and you will be reinstated in your position?" Which of these statements was made? They went back, not under arrest; they went back quite voluntarily to Ireland. Did the men go back under the impression they were going to be put on their trial?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am informed they did.

Mr. ASQUITH

That is what I would like to know. It is a very extraordinary proceeding. And what offence were they going to be charged with? That is the first question I ask, and about which there is considerable controversy. Then I come to another. What happened at this meeting in Dublin when General Tudor met the assembled officers from General Crozier downwards—General Crozier, General Wood, the Adjutant and the Company Commanders at Dublin Castle? General Crozier's statement is perfectly plain. The whole question was a question of reinstatement. I hear for the first time to-night that General Wood makes a contrary statement. Have the Company Commanders been asked their recollection of this matter? What do they say? Because, unless General Crozier is either making a misstatement, considerable discussion took place as to which of the various companies of the regiment these men should be put into. It does not look as if any of them had been brought back there for the purpose of being tried. I am not expressing any opinion one way or the other as to which of these statements is true, but I say you cannot accept the statement made by the Chief Secretary to-night without taking into account the absolutely contradictory statement made by General Crozier and all those who agree with him. On this point there is a complete conflict of evidence between them. We are in this position. Admittedly there was a gross breach of discipline by persons who were no longer fit to be members of the police force. Admittedly, after inquiry, they were dismissed by their Commanding Officer. Admittedly the order was promulgated and circulated throughout the whole of the Force in Ireland.

All these are admitted facts, and I should certainly myself draw the inference, though General Tudor may, on second thoughts, as he undoubtedly did, have believed it would have been a wiser course not to resort to those extreme measures—I should certainly draw the inference, in the first instance, that General Tudor approved, or, at least, did not disapprove. About subsequent events, as I have said, there is complete conflict of testimony as to what was said to the men by General Tudor and what was said in Dublin by General Tudor to these various officers. Therefore, it seems to me that in this ease, as in so many of these cases, what you need is a really independent and impartial inquiry, not conducted by a military court, or according to military rule, but an impartial, independent inquiry to get to the real truth of the case. We start with the presumption that discipline has been grossly violated and has been vindicated by the General commanding the force. What happened subsequently is now a matter of conflict of testimony. An hon. Gentleman a few-minutes ago represented me as prejudging the case. I am not pro-judging. I must say I do not think the time of the House has been wasted by the discussion of this matter, but it is a comparatively small question.

It is, after all, a case of looting. As far as I know, it was not accompanied by any violence, and certainly not by loss of life, on one side or the other. How many cases have there been of a far graver and more serious kind, from the burnings at Cork downwards or upwards according to the scale upon which you regard the magnitude or the unimportance of these matters for which no disciplinary action has been taken. The feeling of this House and I am sure the feeling of the country is, as I have said more than once and as I repeat now with the additional illustration which this particular incident affords, you will never be able to convince the people that you are going the right way to work to establish the authority of the law in Ireland until you have had an independent impartial inquiry into all the circumstances.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I remember with regret that the last time I spoke on this subject I succeeded in irritating hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with me. I hope to avoid that error to-night. Undoubtedly this is a subject upon which there is strong feeling on both sides, and I confess to my right hon. Friend that I could not listen to his speech without feeling that his mind is entirely taken up with one side of the case, which fails entirely, both in his own mind and in the minds of others, to let people have an understanding of what is the whole problem. First of all, in regard to the particular points raised in my right hon. Friend's speech. I do not know General Crozier, and I have certainly no intention of saying anything against him, or of referring to him in any way, except to the extent that the clear evidence justifies. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) has been Prime Minister and Secretary of State for War, and yet he actually told us to-night that there was nothing irregular in a General Officer communicating his opinions to the Press before his resignation had been received by his superiors. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If I have in any way mistaken the right hon. Gentleman, I should be glad to be corrected. I cannot imagine how anyone who talks of discipline can hold such a view as that. We recognise that in the Constabulary discipline is not so strictly enforced as in the Army. I think that even this House of Commons, or any House of Commons, would be astonished if one of my right hon. Friends were suddenly to resign for some reason, and, before the Prime Minister had received the resignation, were to send to the newspapers his letter containing it.

Let us look at this incident. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) is, I think, in the unfortunate position of having prepared the speech he intended to make the night before he heard the statement of the Chief Secretary. He came here to make a speech on a case he had read in the newspapers, which was entirely different from the actual facts. The case we saw first in the newspapers was this: that the officer commanding this company, exercising discipline, had dismissed a certain number of men; then that the Chief of the Police, his superior officer, being afraid of the political effect, wished to delay matters. He saw the men in London, and sent them back without any punishment or any trial against the de- cision of the officer who had sent them away. There is not a word of truth in any one of those allegations. My right hon. Friend says—and it is the very essence of his case—that it was General Crozier who took the disciplinary action. It was nothing of the kind. General Tudor, hearing from cadets who had gone to visit a comrade in hospital that there had been a breach of discipline, told General Crozier to take action to have an inquiry, and he at once sent—

Mr. ASQUITH

I said so.

Mr. BONAR LAW

My right hon. Friend's speech implied that the man who wanted disciplinary action was General Crozier. The very essence of this case is that the first action to secure discipline was taken by General Tudor, who we are now told wanted to allow the men to escape, and in fact condoned the offence. Next it is said that General Tudor approved of the arrest of these five men and of the dismissal of the remaining 26. General Tudor denies that. He is most emphatic, and those who know him and who served with him in France—whatever opinions they may have—will agree that they can rely on anything he may say. I do not, however, rely only on General Tudor's statement. I rely on the clear evidence of facts. The letter he wrote from Kingstown bears out the statement that he had doubts about the dismissal of these men. He wrote to General Crozier that he thought they should be suspended until he returned to Dublin. Does not that in itself prove that General Tudor was doubtful about the wisdom of dismissing these men? My right hon. Friend suggested that it was a second thought; but General Crozier made this visit on the 14th, and the letter of General Tudor's was written on the 14th. How is there a second thought? It is quite evident that at that time he had doubt as to the wisdom of sending the men over, and he told them not to send them, but to keep them till he came back.

Then my right hon. Friend makes an insinuation which I really do not think is worthy in regard to a man in General Tudor's position. He makes the insinuation that what General Tudor meant was to re-instate these men without any question of examination—that that was his intention, and that all the rest was an after-thought, as the result, I sup- pose, of what has happened in the House of Commons. What are the facts? He saw these men in London, and they made the complaint to him—the very complaint to which he had referred in his letter to General Crozier—that it was not fair to dismiss them as thieves without a trial. What did General Tudor do? He said, "I will take no decision till I get back to Dublin. You will remain here, and I will telegraph what is to be done with you from Dublin." He went to Dublin, and he then had a meeting with all the senior officers of the Auxiliary Force. The right hon. Gentleman says that he would like to know what was the intention as regards these men. Surely he cannot have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend. It is not a question of what was his intention; it is a question of what he said; and in the telegram telling them to send these men back he said in the most clear way that they were to be sent back, not to be reinstated, but in order that their cases might be investigated. My right hon. Friend says that he would like to know what the men themselves thought about it. I will tell him. General Tudor noticed the kind of things which were being said in the House, of Commons about him, and which have been repeated by my right hon. Friend; and he sent an order to General Wood to see these men, and to put to them categorically in Dublin questions as to what was said in London. I will read what they said. It was not General Tudor, but General Wood, who saw them, and this is signed by the whole 26: Question: When you saw General Tudor in London, did you express a wish to go back to N. Company? Answer: Yes, he told us that we should be sent back to Ireland, and, if sufficient evidence was forthcoming against any individual member of the party, we should have to stand our trial. My right hon. Friend asks what was said. That is what the men declared he said to them in London. Does not my right hon. Friend feel that his whole case is gone?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is all the stronger.

Mr. BONAR LAW

My hon. and gallant Friend says that it is all the stronger, but it seems to me that it is all invention. Let us consider further what happened. General Tudor called together all his officers in Dublin to discuss the whole matter with them. Among the other communications which are quoted in the Press is a statement of General Crozier that General Wood was one of those who agreed that his position was made difficult by the action of General Tudor. But General Tudor said that then: was not a word of truth in that—that there was no question of condonation, and that the whole discussion was as to the best method of having the case investigated. My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that this question, is trivial. It is very trivial, from his point of view; but it does, I think, throw full light on the nature of the campaign that is being waged against these people who are carrying out on our behalf one of the most difficult tasks that was ever undertaken by anyone.

My right hon. Friend says there has been no attempt to secure discipline. Is that quite true? Not only the Chief Secretary, but every one of us, would have to disappear if that were the case. I wish the House of Commons and the country— I think they have—to have a clear picture in their minds as to what are the conditions with which we are dealing in Ireland. One hon. Member, I think the hon. Member (Mr. Newbould) implied that it is only the police who are bad boys, that the soldiers are behaving very well. If that be true would he explain to me why it is that since the beginning of last year 60 soldiers have been murdered and 150 wounded—I do not know how many last month. Would he explain this further? Many hon. Members know General Macready. They know what good work he did as a soldier and as Chief of Police here. They know also that when he was in Ulster he was just as fearless in doing what he thought his duty as he is at this moment; and everyone who knows him realises this, too, that though it is his duty to try to restore civilised conditions in Ireland, there is not a man in this country or in Ireland who longs so vehemently to have all this horror ended in Ireland and to see peace established in that country. That is the kind of man he is. Did the House notice the communication he made to his troops the other day? He said deliberately that two of his soldiers had been brutally murdered, for what purpose? To try to drive them to reprisals, in order that we might have Debates like this in the House of Commons. These are the conditions which are prevailing in Ireland. It is all very well to imply that everything would be satisfactory if we would stop creating new offences. An Amendment to that effect was actually supported by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), who kept martial law in force in Ireland for ten months himself. I wish that were possible. But does the House remember that before there was any question of reprisals, upwards of 80 policemen had been murdered in cold blood, and not one of the murderers could be brought to trial, because of the terrorism which prevailed?

We have to deal with a situation of that kind. Let the House—let even those who are condemning what we are doing—try to look at it. We have a very large force both of soldiers and policemen in Ireland. Discipline is a very difficult thing to secure. Tradition has a good deal to do with it, but there is more than tradition. Discipline in the Army is secured to a considerable extent because of the immediate touch of each body with someone superior arising behind him. If you are dealing with a police force in conditions such as prevail in Ireland, where they are acting largely on their own responsibility, there is infinitely greater danger of want of discipline than in a military force, and it depends to a large extent on something that is not easy to get, and that is the kind of officer who can at a word control his men. We know there has been a breach of discipline, but surely it is not enough to say that unless you say we have not taken every reasonable means to secure discipline. We have.

My right hon. Friend said that he had only one choice, either to support General Tudor or to dismiss him. I do not think he did himself justice in that. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Greenwood) has to answer the kind of speeches which are made, and has to be careful not to give the impression—as unfortunately my right hon. Friend opposite did when he was responsible—that the police cannot rely upon the support of the Executive Government when they are doing right. My right hon. Friend has to be careful in condemning not to condemn in such a way as to give the police impression that where they are only acting rightly he will not support them to the utmost of his power. I know from correspondence, and from interviews, at which I have been present, with military chiefs and police chiefs, that through the whole of these months my right hon. Friend has impressed upon them that, without discipline, our whole policy must fail. Only two or three weeks ago General Tudor was present at a conference between the Prime Minister and myself, and we said to him—although we did not need to say it, because he knows it as well as any Member of this House—that breach of discipline among the police absolutely destroys it as a weapon for the purpose for which we are trying to employ it in Ireland. We said that there is only one thing that can make our policy fail in Ireland: and it is not the excesses of the murderers, it is not the screeching of people in this House or in the country. The one thing that will make it fail is that the police cannot secure adequate discipline in the force which is acting on our behalf. We have tried, and we intend to try, to maintain discipline. It is a great mistake to suggest that His Majesty's Government like what is going on in Ireland any more than the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. We would be thankful to see it ended.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

You can end it.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Yes, but there is one way in which it can be ended. The reprisals, if they exist, only come after brutal murders. The whole situation would end at once if the murders ceased. Han. Members opposite and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite could make no greater mistake than to imagine that they are going to get peace in Ireland by trying, however ineffectively, to give the impression that this country will ever surrender to crime.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I find myself not quite in agreement either with the supporters or the opponents of this Motion After the lesson which my right hon. Friend has been trying to teach the Leader of the Opposition, I will do my best to see both sides or all sides of the lamentable position of affairs in Ireland. Under the ruling of the Chair we are not entitled to discuss that at length. No doubt there will be other opportunities. I feel very strongly that my right hon. Friend opposite is under a profound mis- take in supposing that the methods which are alleged, not merely by irresponsible, but by responsible persons, to have been adopted by the police in Ireland had ever any precedent in the history of the restoration of law and order by previous Governments in the nineteenth century, or can in any way lead to anything but the demoralisation of the Irish people, and, in a degree, of the English people as well. I have heard it very wittily said that the Government say "there is no such thing as reprisals, but they have done a great deal of good." I think some day or other they must elect between the two horns of that dilemma. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that there are no reprisals, or that they are a good thing. He does not know himself. The Government never know how to answer a straightforward question.

As to this particular controversy, like most of these controversies, it is impossible to get beyond the stage of saying that there is a conflict of testimony. I listened with great interest to the able speech of the Chief Secretary. With almost every word of it I was in great sympathy. Almost everything he said would command my own assent, and I think ought to command the assent of this House. But I felt that he did not completely meet what was really causing the greatest anxiety at present. I am not concerned to judge and do not attempt to judge between General Tudor and General Crozier. Both are very distinguished officers and for both of them I have a profound respect because of their past record in the service of the King. And this House is not a good judge in a dispute of this kind. But I do think that what made people anxious, though there was something in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to reassure them, was that grave charges of indiscipline are brought by responsible people and that one of these charges brought against the auxiliary police turns out to be well-founded. A great many charges have been made, some credible, some incredible, some by responsible people and some by irresponsible people—many of them much graver charges than any charge relating to looting. There was, for example, the extremely grave charge contained in the letter of Cardinal Logue—a charge of murder in county Armagh. When there were so many charges of that kind, people could not believe that there was nothing in them. On the other hand, I should be very sorry to believe that they were true. Here we find a charge of looting now admitted. That is an indescribably grave matter. It raises a much greater presumption in favour of these other outrages than appeared hitherto to exist. I should hoar with greater sympathy the indignant language of the Government if they did not set their faces against anything like an inquiry. No one wants to condemn brave men, as the Chief Secretary told us, risking their lives for the common cause of law and order—certainly not without a hearing. What we want is simply—

Earl WINTERTON

What support did they got from my Noble Friend and his followers?

Lord H. CECIL

These are not my followers. I do not think that in this House the Government has received any unreasonable criticism. Outside this House I have seen a great many things said against the Government with which I thoroughly disagree. Inside this House I think the criticism has been moderate and reasonable. I am obliged to say that as long as the Government refuse an inquiry they throw a sinister light on the whole of the transactions, nominally in the vindication of law. Let us not be told, as my right hon. Friend has told us again to-night, that there are two sides in this matter, the side of the assassins and the side of the police. That is a false hypothesis, altogether. There are only two sides I recognise in Ireland in a matter of this kind, the sides of right and wrong, and everybody who commits a murder, or loots, or commits an act of lawless violence, whether in the police or in Sinn Fein or anywhere else, is the enemy of God and of this country. I care nothing for those claptrap appeals which the Government are never tired of making to stand by brave men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]. They are dishonouring the country over which they preside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us an example!"] No, I will not give an example. What I care about is the vindication of God's Commandments in this case. I certainly do not want to make anything which would in any case be an unfair attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I want to vindicate the country from the complicity of acts of lawless violence. When we are told that General Tudor himself said there was a lot of looting; when we find so grave a charge is admitted and that the Government will not have an enquiry, I ask myself, where are we going? Things do not get better, apparently, in Ireland. We read with consternation and horror of the abominable crimes committed by criminals and rebels. I do not regard it as a state of war, of which the Chief Secretary has unfortunately spoken to-day. There is no war in the matter. I think the Government are the last people to call it so. It is a state of rebellion in some districts, and it is much more than a state of violence, it is a state of widespread assassination. The only way you can get rid of that is by restoring the atmosphere of law. You will never do that by allowing the police to commit acts of lawlessness. The thing has been faced before. Other Governments have had to deal with it in the Nineteenth Century, whether in so critical circumstances or not I do not know, and they succeeded in dealing with it by observing the law and enforcing it. I heard with great pleasure the Chief Secretary say that the only way to control the auxiliary cadets was by the strict enforcement of justice. What he said of the cadets was true of the whole Irish policy; we want a strict enforcement of law. The language of the Government was reassuring to-night, and I am certainly not going to vote against them. But we shall not do any good on the lines on which they have been going in the last six months. They must make up their minds effectively to control the Forces of the Crown. We are always glad to see the Chief Secretary in his place in this House. He has, no doubt, much information to give us. But I would rather he was in Ireland.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am here only because the House demands it.

Lord H. CECIL

I would much rather the right hon. Gentleman was in Ireland. He no doubt regards himself as the person responsible for the government of Ireland, and we must not attack officials of the Government except through him. He has very able colleagues who could quite well defend him here. He ought to be in Ireland in control, and he ought to bring the auxiliary forces under military law. We know now how extraordinarily ambiguous is the legal position of the force. No one knows whether they observe the rules of military discipline or whether they are in the legal position of civilians, whether trial before a commanding officer is legal or not, or what their obligations are under King's Regulations with respect to communications to the newspapers, and so on. They do not appear to be under military law or in the position of ordinary civilians. They would be much better under full military discipline.

If the Government will honestly devote themselves to enforcing the law and get rid of the horrible suspicion that haunts the minds of so many, that this corps is organised to do work which the Regulars would not or ought not to do for fear of demoralising them, they would have no more hearty supporter than I am, for I hate the Sinn Fein movement from the bottom of my heart.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 253.

Division No. 13.]	AYES	[10.58 p.m.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Grundy, T. W.	Rondall, Athelstan
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Hayward, Major Evan	Royce, William Stapleton
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)	Sexton, James
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Hirst, G. H.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hogge, James Myles	Spoor, B. G.
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas	Holmes, J. Stanley	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Briant, Frank	Irving, Dan	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cape, Thomas	Johnstone, Joseph	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Carter. W. (Nottinham, Mansfield)	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.	Waterson, A. E.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)	Kenyon, Barnet	Wignall, James
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)	Klley, James D.	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lawson, John J.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)
Devlin, Joseph	Lyle-Samuel, Alexander	Wilson. W Tyson (Westhoughton)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Wintringham, T.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)	Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Galbraith, Samuel	Myers, Thomas	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Glanville, Harold James	O'Connor, Thomas P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Captain Redmond and Mr. New-
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Raffan, Peter Wilson	bould.
NOES.
Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.	Butcher, Sir John George	Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.	Campbell, J. D. G.	Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.	Ford, Patrick Johnston
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Foreman, Sir Henry
Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.	Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)	Forrest, Walter
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Cautley, Henry S.	Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)	Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Atkey, A. R.	Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence	Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Churchman, Sir Arthur	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender	Glyn, Major Ralph
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-	Clough, Robert	Goff, Sir R. Park
Barlow, Sir Montague	Coats, Sir Stuart	Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Barnett, Major R. W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Grant, James A.
Barnston, Major Harry	Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale	Greene, Li.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)	Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Cope, Major Wm.	Greer, Harry
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell	Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)	Gretton, Colonel John
Betterton, Henry B.	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Gritten, W. G. Howard
Bigland, Affred	Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page	Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Curzon, Commander Viscount	Hallwood, Augustine
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)	Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Blair, Sir Reginald	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas	Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)	Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Borwick, Major G. O.	Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Bowles, Colonel H. F.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)	Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Brassey, Major H. L. C.	Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Breese, Major Charles E.	Du Pre, Colonel William Baring	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Edgar, Clifford B.	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Brittain, Sir Harry	Elveden, Viscount	Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Brown, Captain D. C.	Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Falcon, Captain Michael	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Burdett-Coutts, Rt. Hon. William	Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.	Hood, Joseph
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)	Fildes, Henry	Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)	Molson, Major John Elsdale	Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Hope, Lt.-Cot. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)	Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Hopkins, John W. W.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col, J. T. C.	Stanler, Captain Sir Beville
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant	Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Stanton, Charles B.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Morrison, Hugh	Starkey, Captain John R.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-General Sir A. G.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.	Steel, Major S. Strang
Hurd, Percy A.	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.	Murchison, C. K.	Stewart, Gershom
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.	Nall, Major Joseph	Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Neal, Arthur	Taylor, J.
Jephcott, A. R.	Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)	Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Jodrell, Neville Paul	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Johnson, Sir Stanley	Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.	Thomson Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)	O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.	Townley, Maximilian G.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.	Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)	Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry	Turton, E. R.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Pennefather, De Fonblanque	Vickers, Douglas
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Perkins, Waiter Frank	Waddington, R.
Kidd, James	Perring, William George	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)	Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)	Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.	Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Pollock, Sir Ernest M.	Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Waring, Major Walter
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)	Randles, Sir John S.	Warren, Lieut.-Col, Sir Alfred H.
Lloyd, George Butler	Rankin, Captain James S.	Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.	Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.	Weston, Colonel John W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)	Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)	Reid, D. D.	White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Lorden, John William	Remnant, Sir James	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Lort-Williams, J.	Renwick, George	Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)	Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)	Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)	Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)	Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Lynn, R. J.	Roberts, Rt. Han. G. H. (Norwich)	Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.	Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Wilson-Fox, Henry
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)	Rodger, A. K.	Winterton, Earl
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.	Roundell, Colonel R. F.	Wise, Frederick
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Hoyden, Sir Thomas	Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)	Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)	Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Magnus, Sir Philip	Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)	Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Manville, Edward	Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)	Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Middlebrook, Sir William	Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John	Younger, Sir George
Mitchell, William Lane	Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Moles, Thomas	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.