§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper a Question to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state the terms of reference to the Military Court of Inquiry now sitting in reference to the Castleconnell shooting, and whether the findings of the Court will be made public.
132§ The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it was not until I came to the House this afternoon that I understood there was sonic difficulty in answering this Question to-day, and of course, I shall not press it. Perhaps the representative of His Majesty's Government will explain where the difficulty lies. I can only remind your Lordships that I put this Question down for to-day on the invitation of my noble friend opposite. He asked me last Tuesday whether I would put the Question down for that day week, and I did so. If I do not ask the Question now I hope your Lordships will understand that the fault is not mine.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, an apology is certainly due to the noble Marquess and to your Lordships that an answer is not forthcoming to-day. It is none the less true that I cannot answer it at this moment, though I hope to do so on the date to which the noble Marquess is good enough to postpone the Question. I cannot inform your Lordships exactly why the information has not been received. I understand that it was telegraphed for, but when I came to the House this afternoon I found to my surprise that the Irish Office had not received from the military authorities the information asked for. I will not make ally observations upon the omission to supply it, because I do not feel that I know enough about it. If the noble Marquess will put down his Question for the day after to-morrow I will give him the fullest answer in my power.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat is Thursday next?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes.
§ LORD PARMOOR rose to ask whether any steps have been taken to ensure an impartial and public Inquiry into the circumstances which led to the death of Mr. O'Donovan at the Shannon Hotel, Castleconnell, on April 17, and into the allegations made as to the conduct of the Auxiliaries on that occasion. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I understand it is not inconvenient for the noble Earl opposite to answer my Question, although, in some ways, it is undoubtedly connected with that which the Marquess of Salisbury has postponed. One of the matters I raised before was as to whether the Inquiry was a Court-Martial or a Court 133 of Inquiry, and also, if it was a Court of Inquiry whether special publicity would be given to the result. I am sure all your Lordships who were present will remember that when I used, in the Resolution which I proposed, the words "impartial" and "public." I used them obviously in a different sense from that in which the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Government, used them in answering my Question. I think he is cognisant of that himself, from his saying that he had a feeling at any rate that my criticism went much further than he thought it could be carried by the terms of my Resolution.
§
I wish to say one or two words both on impartiality and on publicity. So far as publicity is concerned I sent to the noble Lord a telegram which I received. I do not know the person who sent it, but it came from Limerick, and was signed by "James H. Moran, solicitor, next-of-kin." I presume that means Mr. O'Donovan's next-of-kin. Mr. O'Donovan is the man in reference to whom the Inquiry was being held. The telegram read—
Castleconnell justice demands full independent inquiry. Fear Crawford incorrectly informed regarding facts. Court empty except Press and relatives. Privilege cross-examination farcical. Every question put through President of whose impartiality there is no complaint.
That is a very interesting ending to the telegram. At a later stage I will say a word or two about impartiality. In addition, there have been reports in the papers from correspondents showing that, so far from publicity being allowed in regard to the proceedings, the reports to the various papers have been censored. Of course, a censored report of proceedings of this kind is practically equivalent to no report at all. Not only that, but you may get what is, in fact, a garbled report brought to the notice of the public. Therefore, if this is true, it, seems to me that there is no publicity at all in the real sense.
§ I want to be very careful about what happened when I raised the matter before. It is a matter, I think, of very great importance, if this is a Court of Inquiry, whether the result will be made public or not. In the case of the Strickland Report, which every one knows was of extreme importance, there was no publication. I am not now going into the reasons of that. It was not published on the ground that the finding of a Court of Inquiry was, in the ordinary course, not made public. There is another matter which came to the front 134 in discussion in another place, and that was that if it is a Court of Inquiry it is not a matter in any sense sub judice. It is merely a Court of Inquiry in order that you may get information on which further proceedings can be taken, such as Court-Martial proceedings, if you have, under the Court of Inquiry, obtained satisfactory prima facie evidence and satisfactory prima facie proof. Though I do not want to embark upon the Question which has been deferred by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I may say that, so far as one has ascertained at present, the question of publicity stands in a very unsatisfactory position. Either one has to take it that there is no publicity, or that the accounts are censored, and I think that is really worse than if the Inquiry were held in secret.
§ As to the point of impartiality, I think the noble Earl misunderstood what I said about that the other day. No one feels more strongly than I do the desire to have impartiality in a Court of Inquiry or a Court-Martial. I thought I made it quite clear the other day—I am sure many friends of mine in the Army fully appreciate it—that I am making no attack of any sort or kind on the Army. I have always felt that the Army in Ireland, under great provocation, has maintained its discipline in a wonderful manner. What I mean by "impartiality" is a different thing. People may desire to be impartial, but they may not be in a position to be so. They may not have the judicial training by which alone you can get impartiality in the true sense. As a matter of fact, every one is biassed; I do not think any one is impartial entirely; but judicial training, when it deals with these matters, recognises the necessity of great care, and takes precautions that the decision may be as impartial as possible. No doubt the greatest care is taken that there shall be no bias in the nature of interest, certainly no money bias, and no bias in the sense of maintaining the view of an official body in an official Inquiry. One does not make a charge against any one; but that is human nature, and one has to guard against matters of that kind. I hope the noble Earl will answer my Question as to whether any further steps have been taken in the direction indicated.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, I am afraid Lord Parmoor finds himself faced with the same difficulty as the noble 135 Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and that is, as explained a moment ago by the Lord Chancellor, that the full facts are not in our hands at this moment.
§ LORD PARMOORWould the noble Earl allow me to make an explanation? I asked the Lord Chancellor whether that would be an objection; and I understood that it was not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI am merely going to repeat what the Lord Chancellor said a moment ago—namely, that it is impossible for me to give a full answer, just as it was impossible for him. As to the nature of the Inquiry, whether it would he a Court of Inquiry or a Court-Martial, I confess I believe I used both phrases when addressing your Lordships the other day. Frankly, I cannot charge my memory as to what is the actual nature of the Court, but that point will be made clear when the Lord Chancellor speaks on this matter a day or two hence.
As regards publicity, if I accept the message communicated from Mr. Moran in Limerick as correct, I am afraid I was wrong, and, therefore, misled your Lordships in saying that the Court was open to the public. Mr. Moran denies that that is the case. He may be correct; and if he is correct I owe your Lordships an apology. But that the Court is open to reporters is not doubted in the least. I have had the duty of looking through columns of reports in the newspapers, and so far as the great public of Ireland is concerned, and also the great public generally, the Court is as public as though the inhabitants of Castleconnell were allowed to go and sit in the Court House itself. As to the further point that these reports in the newspapers were garbled—I think he said they were garbled—
§ LORD PARMOORCensored.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThe word "garbled" was used, and I have no evidence of that. Certainly the reports, as I read them, do not show any external signs of being "garbled." So far as the case against the Forces of the Crown is reported, it seems to be stated with decision, completeness and fairness, and I am not prepared to admit that the charge is correct. 136 With regard to the question of impartiality, I do not want to get into a metaphysical or ethical controversy with the noble and learned Lord on that point. I imagine he is right in saying that we are all more or less biassed on subjects which interest and concern us closely. But the bias, I would remind him, of the persons who form a Court of Inquiry, or a Court-Martial, is against those shown to have been undisciplined or who have committed breaches of discipline. The bias of a man on a Court-Martial is certainly not in favour of the man who is alleged, on given grounds, to have acted contrary to the laws of discipline. If anything, the bias is against those against whom the charge is brought.
Then about that bullet which Lord Parmoor produced in your Lordships' House the other day. Lord Parmoor had in his hand a bullet which he alleged to be an expansive or dum-dum bullet. That bullet, somehow or other, found its way to the House of Commons. A friend of mine in the House of Commons, a man of much experience in rifles, asked to see that bullet; and it was shown to him. That honourable and gallant friend of mine says that there was no powder in the cartridge, that the cap was spent, and there being no charge, the bullet, as he had it in his hand, could neither have been used nor could have been intended to hurt anybody. I ask your Lordships to reserve judgment upon this allegation of a dum-dum bullet until it has been submitted by Lord Parmoor in the proper manner to the appropriate authorities, and not allow yourselves to be influenced by this scandalous allegation so heartlessly made by Lord Parmoor.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I be allowed to say one word in answer to what the noble Earl has just said? As regards the word "censored" I used that word as implying that it was a garbled report. I think it is, in the sense that you do not get a full report of what has happened. As regards the matter of the dum-dum bullet, I beg to say that an Inquiry, is exactly what I want. I have been pressing for an impartial public Inquiry. The allegation as regards the dum-dum bullet was contained in a letter which I read. I showed the bullet to members of this House of the highest military authority, and they informed me that it was such, because the bullet had been turned round with the nose the wrong way on. It was a cartridge which had not exploded. If it had exploded one 137 would not have, found the bullet in the position in which it was found.
I am perfectly aware to whom the noble Earl is referring. The hon. member of the other House is also a friend of mine. I believe lie is referring to Colonel Lane-Fox. Am I right? He has pointed out to him exactly the conditions which I pointed out to this I louse. The allegation was not that the bullet had been fired. It was picked up as spent cartridge. Where did it come from? That was the allegation and there is no one more anxious than I am that matters of this kind should be explained. That is the very object for which I am pressing. I want an impartial and public Inquiry. The sooner matters of this kind are cleared up, and not left as matters of misapprehension or suspicion, the better.
§ TEE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I rise to say just one word on this matter. It has been my duty more than once to take part in these Irish debates and to observe the consequences of statements and charges made in debate and perhaps not always completely verified by sufficient consideration. The discussion which has just taken place illustrates more clearly than any other incident could, or in my recollection has done, the positive danger, until the result of the Inquiry is in your hands, of noble Lords constituting themselves the advocates of a certain point of view in dealing with facts and circumstances, with the result, the most unfortunate result, of inflaming public opinion. I do not know whether Lord Parmoour is aware that his statement, so dramatically made, is already the subject of discussion in the bazaars of India, and of indictment among our enemies in the United States. Surely the noble and learned Lord would have served his interests more effectively if he hail placed at the disposal of the tribunal who were examining into this matter the suspicions which this incident caused to arise in his mind, and had not, with the authority which the noble and learned Lord's high position in this House gives him, stated it as a proved fact.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, may I say, in answer to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that I entirely agree with him that there should be an impartial and public Inquiry. The statement which I made was read from a letter from my 138 brother. I added nothing to what was there stated. I said at the time that I had been to see him in order to be sure of the accuracy of the statement from his point of view and from my own. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord as to the great misfortune of not letting matters of this kind be thoroughly and impartially cleared up at the earliest possible moment. Nobody can be more 'pleased than I when an allegation of this kind is finally disproved, if it can be disproved. That result would be one that I should welcome.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYMy Lords, I think there is yet another matter as to which some protest should be made. It seems to be assumed by the noble and learned Lord to-day that because this tribunal happens to be described not as a Court-Martial but as a Court of Inquiry, we may therefore, on no better ground than that, proceed to discuss it in one of our legislative Houses. Such a proceeding is contrary to the very best traditions of debate in both those Houses. You do not allow a discussion upon a coroner's inquest, and yet in a coroner's inquest there may be, as yet, no person put upon his trial, because no person has been convicted by the evidence. I think it should also be pointed out that it does not follow that the public are not admitted because it so happens that nobody is admitted but the Press. There may be good reasons in Ireland at the present time why it is not desirable, or even safe, in the interests of the officers and persons holding the Inquiry, to admit the general public. They may not be safe from violence. You have secured all the advantages of admitting the public when you have admitted the Press, because you can then be assured that the public will get some account of what takes place.
When the noble and learned Lord raised this Question previously he committed himself to the assertion that it had been admitted by the Government that the attack was perpetrated by the Black and Tan Auxiliary Forces. He had not, however, taken the trouble to ascertain whether, as was indeed the fact at the moment when he male that allegation, a Court of Inquiry had been sitting for some time inquiring into this most material fact, which might possibly be an issue in this case.
§ LORD PARMOORI am sorry to trouble the House again, but I should like to point out that not only was it not an issue but it was admitted.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYWho admitted it, and where?
§ LORD PARMOORIf the noble Lord at all regards these matters that have been going on, I think he will find it perfectly 140 admitted that this affair was the work of the Auxiliaries. I do not want to use the phrase Black and Tans.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYAll I can say is that whether a thing amounts to an admission or not may itself be a most disputable matter.
§ House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.