HL Deb 24 March 1914 vol 15 cc676-82
VISCOUNT MIDLETON

rose to move that there be laid before the House the instructions given by the Army Council to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in regard to the meeting of officers called by the Commander-in-Chief on Friday last, and the report of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland to the Army Council in relation to the meeting.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since I placed before the House last night the Motion which is on the Order Paper in my name I understand that a statement has been made in another place, and that the Prime Minister has announced that certain information and Papers will be laid to-night and will be available for the use of Parliament to-morrow morning. It is always difficult to make quite sure by hearsay what Papers are to be laid, and I would, before the noble Viscount answers and tells us precisely what it is intended to lay, mention one or two points on which, so far as information has reached us, we are not at present wholly satisfied. We were told, according to what has passed in the other House of Parliament, that there would be laid on the Table of the House the instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget last December, and also the in- structions given to him on March 14 last; and those instructions we presume to be the instructions which were held to govern the action of the General Officer Commanding on Friday last.

But, my Lords, it was pointed oat in debate here last night by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that Sir Arthur Paget, after receiving these instructions on March 14, paid a visit to London and was in close communication with the War Office. If that was so, we submit that we are entitled to learn what passed between Sir Arthur Paget and the War Office in the interval between receiving those instructions and the action which he took on Friday last. That is a very important question, and I believe it was raised in the other House. It is absolutely necessary that we should know in some form what passed between the General Officer Commanding in Ireland and the Army Council in the middle of last week. I know that it is very difficult to give the gist of a verbal conversation, but unquestionably these Papers will be wholly incomplete unless they contain something of the kind. We were further informed that there would be laid before us Despatches which passed between the General Officer Commanding in Ireland and the Secretary of State for War after the interview on Friday last. I ask the noble Viscount, Will those Despatches give what I have moved for —namely, the report of the General Officer Commanding of the interview; not merely a report that a certain number of officers had resigned or had made this or that difficulty, but a clear statement of what passed at the interview.

Your Lordships will remember that the main difference of opinion, at least as regards facts which we have before us, not as regards our surmises of what has occurred, is with regard to the statement read out on first-hand authority from one of those present at the interview which was questioned by the noble Viscount opposite and also by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. At the time the noble Viscount characterised it as hearsay. I characterise it as first-hand evidence which deserves and requires first-hand refutation. Those two points are the kernel of the whole matter. Are we to have in the Papers a statement of what passed with the General Officer in London on Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday last, and shall we receive the report, the detailed report, of that interview. It is of importance that we should have this information in order that we may know, not merely in the first instance what instructions Sir Arthur Paget received, but whether those instructions were carried out in the extraordinary and, as we think, provocative manner in which they are held to have been carried out.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for the instructions given by the Army Council to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in regard to the meeting of officers called by the Commander-in-Chief on Friday last, and the report of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland to the Army Council in relation to the meeting.—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY)

My Lords, I promised last night to do my best to get these Papers laid before the House; and, as the noble Viscount has said, we intend to lay on the Table this evening and to have circulated among the members of your Lordships' House to-morrow morning most of the Papers, if not all, that the noble Viscount desires to have. But I must point out, surely he will see, as your Lordships will see, that there is considerable difficulty in one matter that the noble Viscount mentions. He reminded the House that Sir Arthur Paget visited the War Office, and he wants to have a record of what passed orally at that interview. I do not know what view the Secretary of State for War would take of it, but it occurs to me off hand that you are establishing a very dubious precedent if you insist upon the communication to Parliament of individual and strictly confidential communications between two important members of a Department—members so important as the Secretary of State for War and the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. It is a very awkward precedent, and I should have thought it was more than merely awkward; it is a subversion fatal to the successful working of Departments if important members, or unimportant members for that matter, of a Department are to have what passes—their obiter dicta, their conversations—reported and being reported, stiffened and hardened, which may present an impression and an appearance in the Papers not at all like what really happened, not at all the truth, the spirit, and temper of the interview. However, I will make inquiry as to whether the Secretary of State assents to that. I admit that there may be importance in it; but I would beg your Lordships to remember the general objections to this kind of reproduction.

As to letters, there is no mistake about them; but the reproduction of an oral interview is a very different thing. Four of the documents or instruments or records which the noble Viscount seeks will, I think, undoubtedly be presented. As for the report from the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland of the proceedings between him and Brigadier-General Gough and the other officers on Friday, the 20th, there again the same kind of consideration intervenes, but not so forcibly. This point, I believe, is not yet settled—this particular communication —but it is only a matter of a few hours before it will be settled. Personally I fully understand and appreciate the earnestness and the arguments with which the noble Viscount pressed for that communication, and I will do my best to meet his wishes. But, of course, it must be determined by the Department and by general considerations of policy. That being the case, I perhaps might submit to the noble Viscount that it would be more convenient if the discussion which he promises to the House could be deferred until the House has had the advantage of seeing the Papers.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, there is one question I want to ask, which is of particular interest to me, as I have only recently returned from Ulster. I want to know whether the speech delivered by Sir Arthur Paget on Thursday at the Curragh and quoted by Mr. Bonar Law and Lord Midleton yesterday was made by Sir Arthur Paget after consultation with the Army Council and the War Minister, or did he make it on his own initiative That is a very important question, for in that speech there is this most remarkable sentence— Sir Arthur Paget said that active operations were to be taken against Ulster, and that he expected the country would be in a blaze by Saturday. I was in Ulster on Saturday, and there was no doubt grave apprehension. I want to ask on what grounds, or by whose authority, whether his own or that of the Minister for War, Sir Arthur Paget declared that on Saturday Ulster would be in a blaze. If Sir Arthur Paget made that speech by the authority of the War Office and Colonel Seely, then I say that he has been disgracefully treated; he has been thrown over, as he seems to have been yesterday. He has been made the scapegoat; and this is not the first time I have known heads of Departments make a scapegoat of their permanent officials. If this gallant officer has been made a scapegoat, it is a scandal and a disgrace. Therefore I ask what was the meaning of Sir Arthur Paget's expression when he said that Ulster would be in a blaze on Saturday.

VISCOUNT MORLEY

I really think that I shall for once have the majority of the House with me in characterising the question of the noble Marquess as really unreasonable in view of the debate that is promised either to-morrow or on some other day. The question of the noble Marquess involves three or four issues which need very careful examination and full statement. I can give him no answer.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

We never get any answers.

VISCOUNT MORLEY

I beg pardon. At all events, the noble Marquess must put up with my ineffective answers. I promise that to-morrow, or whenever the debate happens, I shall be ready to say what seems proper to be said on that point.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I earnestly hope that the information, the documentary information, which the noble Viscount promises to give us to-morrow will be full and complete. We do not want to have any more "honest misunderstandings." The noble Viscount suggested that there might be a difficulty in the way of presenting to Parliament accounts of oral communications passing between high officials and officers subordinate to them. Of course, we understand that it is impossible to reproduce and divulge every conversation that takes place between an officer and his superior, but when the oral communications are supplementary to documentary communications, when they qualify those documentary communications, then it is most important that they should not be withheld from our information.

I understood the noble Viscount to indicate that there might be some doubt as to his ability to produce an official account of the interview which took place on Friday last between Sir Arthur Paget and his Brigadiers. I must say it seems to me that full information as to that interview is absolutely essential to the due consideration of this case. For the present the account given by the officers who were present on that occasion holds the field. We have received from them, from more than one of them, a full and circumstantial account of what took place. If that account is challenged, as it has been challenged, if we are to be told that there are misunderstandings, then it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to produce their own official account of what they believe, of what they are satisfied took place on that all-important occasion.

I hope we shall be given without fail full information as to the nature of the final intimation made, after all the previous communications and discussions, by Sir Arthur Paget to the officers under his command. We also want to know the conditions upon which General Gough has accepted reinstatement. We know quite well the reasons that induced him to resign. General Gough is not a man who will recede without sufficient reasons from any position which he has once occupied, and if he has been induced to recede from the position which he occupied two or three days ago we have a right to know what were the inducements offered him to take that course. I notice that the noble and learned Viscount told us last night that General Gough's reinstatement had been unconditional. I do not know quite what was meant by that expression. Does it mean that General Gough was allowed to go back to his post without any conditions being imposed upon him by 'His Majesty's Government? Some interesting items of information bearing on that point are public property, and we should like to know how far they are to be relied upon. In The Times of this morning I read the following passage— General Gough left London for Dublin last night. He resumes command of his Brigade, as we understand, with a written assurance from the Government that the troops under his command will not be used to coerce the people of Ulster into acceptance of the Home Rule Bill.

VISCOUNT MORLEY

May I say on that point—the point of the communication with which Brigadier-General Gough went away last night—that that will be among the Papers presented to your Lordships' House. It was a communication from the Army Council to the Brigadier-General.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Then we may understand that whatever communications have been made from Army Headquarters to the General Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland, and by the General Commanding-in-Chief to his Brigadiers, will be laid fully before Parliament?

VISCOUNT MORLEY

I understood the noble Marquess to refer to what Brigadier-General Gough carried away with him, and I say that communication was from the Army Council to Brigadier-General Gough, and that Paper will be presented to your Lordships' House.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Am I to understand that that communication did not pass through the hands of the General Officer Commanding in Ireland?

VISCOUNT MORLEY

I think not, though I am not certain.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

That strikes one at first sight as a somewhat unusual way of doing business. However, I do not desire to anticipate the discussion which will take place to-morrow evening on these Papers. I merely rose to express my hope that that discussion would take place with absolutely full and complete information vouchsafed to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I beg to give notice that to-morrow evening I will call attention to the Papers which will be laid to-night, and which I understand will be in our hands to-morrow.

Correspondence relating to recent events in the Irish Command: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of this day) and to be printed. (No. 38.)

House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.