§ 50. Sir Richard Aclandasked the Prime Minister which units of the British Army were used to stop and disarm lorry loads of insurgents en route from Mons and elsewhere to Brussels at the end of November; and how many lorry loads were involved.
§ The Prime MinisterI think the hon. Member is referring to the statement I made on 8th December. Precautionary measures were taken by the British Army, but the disarming was, in the main, carried out by the Belgian authorities. In a few cases Belgian civilians willingly approached British troops to surrender their arms, and they were naturally helped to do so. The attitude of the British military authorities was regulated by the instructions received from the supreme Commander. These instructions were in full accord with the views of His Majesty's Government and we should be glad to share his responsibility.
§ Sir R. AclandIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that responsible people on the spot have sent accounts of the whole of this incident which are widely different from the story of the organised putsch as 1622 put to this House by the Prime Minister last week?
§ The Prime MinisterI was advised on the facts of the matter by the best authorities at the disposal of His Majesty's Government. Before I referred to it, I had what I put down carefully checked by those authorities, and I have no reason to believe that they did not represent the essential point, namely, that we did intervene, and had been ready to intervene, in putting down disorder on the lines of communications at the request of the Supreme Commander, and that we were acting under American instructions when we did that.
§ Sir R. AclandBut the Prime Minister said it was a putsch, and that is very important.
§ Mr. ShinwellAs my right hon. Friend made this a point of great substance in the course of his speech, namely, that lorry-loads of well-armed men were proceeding to Brussels for insurrectionary purposes—that was the allegation—will he take note of the fact that, from an authoritative Belgian source last week, it was stated categorically that all that happened was that two lorry-loads of men proceeded from Mons to Brussels, with the deliberate intention of handing over in an organised way their arms to the British military authorities, and that is all that happened?
§ The Prime MinisterEvery one can believes what he likes about a thing like that. I do not know why they should have been travelling by this inconvenient route to take exceptional action to deliver over arms which their party, and parties associated with them, were objecting to giving up at all. It seems very odd but, as I say, I understood that there had been for several days—[Interruption]—I am answering a question put on behalf of the hon. Gentleman opposite and he might allow me to reply—that for three or four days beforehand there had been very considerable anxiety about what would happen in Brussels and, as will be seen, our general officer, General Erskine, who is under the orders of the Supreme Commander, gave several warnings and I believe there was also an advance by a large crowd on Parliament House, or wherever it was.
§ Sir R. AclandA peaceful demonstration.
§ The Prime MinisterA peaceful demonstration—until you get well mixed up with the troops.
§ Sir R. AclandUnarmed.
§ The Prime MinisterYou do not know who is armed or not nowadays, when a small pistol can be produced from a pocket. At any rate there was firing, and very regrettable loss of life, and the Supreme Commander himself visited Brussels in those days and gave very decided and clear instructions as to the importance of preserving the tranquility of the communications. Therefore, far from withdrawing anything that I said in my speech, I may say that mature reflection, apart from some small details, leads me to reiterate what I said then.
§ Sir H. WilliamsDoes my right hon. Friend not think it is a good idea that these insurgents should be following the example of the Common Wealth Members of Parliament and surrendering their arms?
§ Sir R. AclandIn view of the fact that the Prime Minister described this thing—on his information, of course—as an organised putsch, and that the responsible correspondents described it as nothing of the sort, what will the Prime Minister do to check up on his sources of information, which seem to be letting him down all over the world?
§ The Prime MinisterI always endeavour to check up, and I think the statement of an organised putsch was thoroughly justified.
§ Sir R. Aclandindicated dissent.
§ The Prime MinisterHowever, I do apologise for using a German word.
§ Mr. A. BevanDoes the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest to the House that two lorry-loads of persons, who turned back at once when requested to do so by the Belgian police, can fairly be represented to this House in a serious speech as an attempted military coup d' état by partisan forces in Belgium, requiring the use of the British Army? Will he desist from deceiving the House in this irresponsible manner? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
§ The Prime MinisterI certainly do not ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw, 1624 because insults from him are as compliments from others. I repeat that the supreme American authorities and the British authorities on the spot were extremely anxious about the position in Brussels for the four or five days surrounding these events. I have not tried to deceive the House; why should I try to deceive the House? I certainly should not think the hon. Gentleman worth trying to deceive.
§ Mr. MolsonMay I ask the Prime Minister if it is not wise and prudent and humane to prevent a putsch before it takes place?
§ Mr. GallacherIf it is the case that there was an organised putsch, as the Prime Minister told us, why is it that not one of the leaders of this organised putsch is apprehended?
§ The Prime MinisterI suppose because they took great care to conceal their operations and identity.
§ Sir R. AclandIs the Prime Minister still persisting in his allegation about it being an organised putsch?