HC Deb 19 July 1922 vol 156 cc2081-4
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I ask the leave of the House to make a personal explanation on a matter in which my conduct as a Member of this House has been challenged. My attention was called to a letter appearing in the "Morning Post," of Monday last, from Mr. R. C. Henderson, the father of one of the officers murdered at Macroom. A somewhat similar letter appeared in the "Times" to-day, unsigned, but very probably from the same source. The letter in the "Morning Post" quotes the concluding statement of an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) to a Parliamentary question on the 12th instant as follows: There is no truth in the suggestion which has been made in some quarters that these officers were out for their own pleasure. They were proceeding by car in the ordinary course of their duty. The letter then goes on to state that in the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment Mr. Chamberlain, Leader of the House, stated that the officers were not on duty— that they had gone to visit friends—and he further embellished the falsehood by saying that it was difficult to keep officers and men in barracks for long periods, etc., thus deliberately deceiving the House of Commons and the public. The House is already aware of the circumstances in which I was called upon to speak for the Government in that Debate, which arose unexpectedly, on the Motion for the Adjournment, and in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill). I had to gather my information hurriedly in the course of the afternoon, between 4 o'clock and 8.15. I saw the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland, who happened to be in London, as soon as they could reach the House of Commons. My information, derived from the Irish Office, was that these officers were not on duty, but had gone to visit friends. In the course of the conversation, I asked the military authorities whether it was right that these officers should have been allowed to go unprotected into a district which was notoriously out of control, and where the Provisional Government were unable at the time to exert any authority, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland gave me the reply which I gave to the House—that it was impossible to keep officers or men confined for long periods to barracks. I was not fully satisfied with this explanation, and wrote the next morning to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, asking him to go further into the question with the military authorities. Within a day or two that question was settled by the decision to remove the troops from Cork.

From that day till I read Mr. Henderson's letter on Monday list, I had no idea that my statement was challenged. On reading that letter, I at once made inquiry, and I now find that the information supplied to me was incomplete. The officers, I am informed, were intelligence officers. They were not at the time deputed for any "special duty," but in- telligence officers are technically always "on duty," and they were, therefore, on duty at the time that they were kid napped. The Irish Office had failed to understand the distinction between "duty" and "special duty," and had interpreted the statement that they were not on special duty as meaning that they were not on duty. My whole conversation with the military authorities, as shown by the letter I wrote next day to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, proceeded on my part on the assumption that they were not on duty, and nothing was said by others at that interview which could indicate to me that I was mistaken, nor—though a minor inaccuracy in another portion of my speech was subsequently pointed out to me—was I informed at any time that I had been in error on this point.

Since making inquiries, I have heard from the General Officer Commanding in-Chief in Ireland that to the military mind no discrepancy whatever is involved in describing an officer as "not on any special duty" and at the same time as "on duty."

The military authorities at the time of my statement and of the disappearance of these officers greatly feared that had I made public the fact that they were "Intelligence Officers on duty," it would have gravely increased the danger to their safety if they were still alive. Had this fear not been in their minds, I should, I think, have been furnished with more complete information.

I thought it due to the House, as my conduct was challenged as a Member of the House, to make this explanation. I only wish further to express my regret if the incompleteness of my information led me to make a statement which has obviously given great pain to the father of one of these officers, and may have given equal pain to the relatives of the other officer and the military driver who accompanied them and suffered the same fate.

Viscount CURZON

Are we to understand that these officers were not definitely ordered to go to Macroom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes, Sir. They were not deputed for special duty, but as Intelligence Officers they were always on duty.

Viscount CURZON

Were they or were they not definitely ordered to go to Macroom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

No, they were not. I hoped that was plain from my statement. May I appeal to the House, as this is a personal explanation, and on a personal explanation, it properly stated, you, Sir, have often ruled that nothing arises, if there are questions of fact as regards the employment; of the officers, I shall be much obliged if hon. Members will put them, after notice, to the Secretary of State for War. I have slipped into an error once because I, or those who advised me, did not appreciate the meaning of military terms, and I think the House had better receive its information as to facts from the Secretary of State.