MRS. FERGUSON WILLS (FIREARMS) (Hansard, 2 July 1962)

§ Mr. John E. Maginnis (Armagh)

I intend in this debate to raise a matter of principle and one which, in my view, touches the honour of Her Majesty's Government. Happily, the facts in the case are not in dispute. The issue is narrow, but it is of vital importance to the person concerned.

Mrs. Ferguson Wills is the widow of Lieutenant-Colonel S. K. Wills, who died in 1937. At the time of the troubles in Ireland, the United Kingdom Government ordered individuals to hand their firearms to the Royal Irish Constabulary for safe keeping. Lieutenant-Colonel Wills did so, and received a receipt which I have here. It is headed "O.H.M.S." and is in the following terms: Firearms property of Lieut.-Colonel Samuel K. Wills, Royal Army Medical Corps (Retired). Handed over for safe custody (by order) to Royal Irish Constabulary, Bally-hack-amore, Belfast, Co. Down. personally by the owner on January 20th, 1920, the following: No. 1 One Boer Mauser Rifle. No. on rifle B 1837 and letters J.C.V. cut on stock. No. 2. One Rook rifle. No. on rifle 287–230 0.P also on barrel No. 983. The above in fine serviceable condition, oiled and lubricated, enveloped in flannel and secured in strong wooden box with owner's name printed thereon and carefully screwed down. Received the above from Lieut.-Colonel S. K. Wills, R.A.M.C., of 41, Knock Road. Knock, Belfast. "Bridgham, Sergeant in charge. Dated at Ballyhackamore, January 20th, 1920." I understand from Mrs. Ferguson Wills that a pair of horse pistols were also included with these arms in a wooden case, but the former were not entered on the receipt which was given.

The only parts of the receipt which I cannot read are the initials of the sergeant in charge, but this is immaterial since my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not dispute the accuracy or genuineness of the receipt. Neither does he deny that the United Kingdom Government accept full responsibility for the receipt given by 243 this officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, even though, as the House knows, this force was disbanded on 31st August, 1922.

What happened to firearms handed in for safe keeping during this period? There were first stored in the military depot at Carrickfergus, later at Woolwich Arsenal and also in Dublin. I understand that later they were collected together at Woolwich Arsenal, and that in 1923 the United Kingdom Government started to return some of these firearms to their owners. In 1927, those arms which remainded were transferred to the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Eire, although some had been destroyed.

During that period—in fact, from 1922 to 1923 —Mrs. Ferguson Wills and her husband were living abroad and never received any communication about their firearms, nor did they see any notice in the Press intimating that such arms would be returned. There must have been a quantity of arms which were not returned to their owners and been either lost or damaged, for between May, 1923, and April, 1929. a sum of nearly £14,000 was paid in compensation to owners by the United Kingdom Government. Again, neither Mrs. Ferguson Wills nor her husband knew that these payments were being made in compensation, and I understand that the Home Office cannot trace any communication having been sent to them to tell them of such payments.

After her husband's death, states Mrs. Ferguson Wills, As there always seemed to be some trouble in the country I did nothing, thinking the firearms were in safe keeping. Perhaps she showed too great a confidence in the integrity of Her Majesty's Government, for when she presented the receipt for these arms which they had ordered in for safe keening, the arms were gone and compensation was refused.

I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider the matter afresh. Her Majesty's Government ordered these arms in for safe keeping and got them. That is not in dispute. They gave a receipt and intended to honour it by returning the arms or paying compensation. That is not in dispute, for they have taken both these courses with other 244 individuals. In fact, they have already paid nearly £14,000 in compensation. The question is, why will they not pay compensation to Mrs. Ferguson Wills? Is it because of the length of time which has passed? I remind my hon. and learned Friend that this time elapsed because Mrs. Ferguson Wills relied upon the receipt which she held and believed that the arms were in safe keeping. The House is, I am sure, aware that last year a payment of about £100 was made from the Titanic Fund for property lost in that disaster, which occurred in 1912. Perhaps a fund of this nature can give a lead to Her Majesty's Government.

I understand that no request for compensation other than that from Mrs. Ferguson Wills had been received in recent years, and in consequence there can be no question of payment in this case opening the door to a flood of other claims. If, however, there were other valid claims, they should be met.

Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that in similar circumstances a bank, having given a receipt, would repudiate it without paying compensation? Is a public company, therefore, more jealous of its honour than Her Majesty's Government? If my hon. and learned Friend had taken property and failed to return it to its owner, would he even dream of dishonouring a receipt because time had lapsed? I do not think so.

As I said, the facts are not in dispute. The issue is one of principle and, I believe, touches the honour of Her Majestys Government. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter and agree to pay compensation to Mrs. Ferguson Wills.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke)

My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) has made an eloquent plea on behalf of Mrs. Ferguson Wills, and has stated his view of the principle involved. I agree entirely that this is an issue of principle. If compensation were to be paid, its amount would be very small.

My hon. Friend explained that this matter was first raised in January, 1960, by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham), 245 whose constituent Mrs. Wills is, with my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of the Department of Technical Cooperation. The ensuing correspondence lasted for most of 1960, but it was not possible to reach agreement. Subsequently my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a number of Parliamentary Questions about the matter. There were 10 in all, answered during the early months of 1961.

Naturally, I regret that the points of view of the Government and of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland who have interested themselves in this matter should remain as far apart as ever. I should say straight away that there is nothing I can add to the full explanations which they have already been given in the answers to those Questions and otherwise of the Government's views. I think that it is fair to say that the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh are essentially the same as those which have been advanced in opposition to the Government's views in the correspondence and Questions I have mentioned.

No Government like to appear unsympathetic or to seem to act harshly towards a trusting individual. But I am fully satisfied that the Government have acted perfectly fairly towards Mrs. Wills. I must say quite frankly that I do not see how it can reasonably be suggested that any responsible Government could have acted differently. The arguments adduced in favour of compensating Mrs. Wills have implications for public policy that are unacceptable, and that have in fact been rejected on more than one occasion by Parliament.

My hon. Friend has already given a short account of the history of this matter, but I must recapitulate and add to his account. During the troubles in Ireland owners of firearms were at first invited, and later ordered, to hand in their arms to the authorities for safe keeping. The number of arms surrendered ran into tens of thousands. Some of these arms were subsequently sent to Woolwich Arsenal; many of them remained in Ireland.

From mid-1923 onwards steps were taken by the United Kingdom Government to return surrendered arms to their 246 owners, first by advertisement in the Press and then by sending individual notifications to all owners whose names and addresses were known, inviting them to reclaim their arms. Compensation was paid to owners whose arms had been damaged or could not be returned because they had been lost. Remaining records indicate that compensation amounting to nearly £14,000 was paid from the United Kingdom Exchequer the last payment was in 1929.

In 1927, the remaining arms at Woolwich were sent back to Northern Ireland or to the Irish Republic, according to where they had been handed in, and the Governments of those territories took over responsibility for assessing and paying compensation. Arms regarded as worthless and unserviceable—valued at under £2—were not returned to Northern Ireland but were destroyed.

Mrs. Wills has produced a receipt which shows that on 20th January, 1920, her late husband, who was then living in Belfast, handed over at a local Royal Irish Constabulary station, by order, a Boer Mauser rifle and a rook rifle. Both guns were described as being in fair serviceable condition; they were secured in a strong wooden box with Colonel Wills' name on it. Mrs. Wills has said that there was also a pair of horse pistols in the box, but there is no record of this.

Thorough searches for these arms have been made both here and in Northern Ireland, but without success. There are now no records of particular surrendered arms. The individual records have all been destroyed, in accordance with the rules relating to public records of this class. Consequently, it is now impossible to say whether the arms in question ever left Northern Ireland, or, if so, whether they were sent back or were destroyed, or whether a letter inviting Colonel Wills to claim the arms was sent to him or, if so, to what address.

The Government cannot accept the contention that, having once accepted the compulsory surrender of these arms, they are under a permanent obligation either to return them or to pay compensation. An obligation of this nature cannot endure forever. This Parliament has in more than one enactment recognised the need for limitation. It is true 247 that Colonel and Mrs. Wills were abroad from 1922 to 1928, during the period when the Government were making attempts to return all surrendered arms to their owners. But the fact seems to be that at no time between 1920 and 1959 did either of them evince any interest whatever in these arms, or make any inquiry about them. It was not that they had forgotten. It appears that Mrs. Wills was aware for twenty or more years, before her inquiry at the end of 1959, that the arms had been surrendered, but throughout this period she did nothing about it.

I may say that Colonel Wills was not the only owner who made no effort to claim his arms; there were about 2,000 others. It has been argued that the Government are in the same position as the private person who accepts custody of someone else's property. I would not like to dig deep into the law relating to bailees of this sort, but, even so, I cannot accept this comparison. The Government act on behalf of the public as a whole and in the public interest. The action taken in 1920 was essential at a time of emergency, and I do not think that anyone seeks to deny this. Yet it is argued that the Government, having been forced to take this action in the discharge of their essential responsibilities, must forever remain liable to the owners of the surrendered property, that it maks no difference whether the owner waits four years, or, as in this case, forty years, before making a claim.

The owner is not even expected, apparently, to tell the Government of his whereabouts. He, or his successor, 248 on this argument, can wait until it suits them to turn up and claim, and the Government then have no option but to produce or, failing this, to pay compensation. This argument involves putting an intolerable burden on the public purse. If it were accepted and carried to its logical conclusion, which would mean repealing all the limitation enactments of course, the Government would see no end, to the crack of doom, to their ultimate liabilities. It is the taxpayer who would suffer in the long run.

We are satisfied that the proper principle in this matter is that embodied in the Limitation Acts. In the case of public authorities, it is right and proper and well known that claims should be made within a reasonable period of years and should then otherwise lapse. This preserves the proper balance, giving, on the one hand, reasonable protection for the rights of the individual, and, on the other, reasonable protection for the public interest and, in particular, for the taxpayer.

I am, of course, sorry that Mrs. Wills now finds herself unable to recover her husbands property or its value, but the fault at this great distance of time is not that of Her Majesty's Government, and I must say quite clearly, and, I hope, finally, that I can see no justification for the suggestion that the taxpayer, after all this lapse of time, should be expected to provide compensation.