The Committee will expect me to explain the details of this Supplementary Estimate for the office of the Chief Secretary. May I say that it has nothing to do with the Chief Secretary's salary and the Chief Secretary has no allowances or expenses of any kind—that is to say, no expenses or allowances that are paid by this honourable House? The Supplementary Estimate deals entirely with or arises entirely because of the disturbed state of Ireland, and is for extra payments not foreseen when the original Estimate was introduced or when the first Supplementary Estimate was introduced in July of last year. These expenses deal with the increase of staff, administrative and police. I am sure the Committee would like to know that this police staff is almost entirely temporary and is not a permanent or pensionable staff. In so far as the administrative staff is concerned, most of it is comprised of personnel loaned by Civil Service Departments in England or Ireland. Their salaries are paid by their substantive departments, but their allowances and their travelling expenses are paid under this Vote or the Vote that preceded it. Every regard to economy has been considered in reference to the appointment of this staff, and when the disturbed state of Ireland passes away—I am sure we all devoutly hope it will pass away at an early date—all this extra personnel and consequential expense will go. My submission is, having regard to the pressure on the Government of Ireland and the need of grappling with a difficult situation, that this is a very small Vote.

I ask the Committee to grant £13,945; under the heads of Salaries, Wages and Allowances, £9,720. The additional staff of the Chief Secretary's Office absorbs £2,100. This is for the part salary of an English civil servant who is assisting in the Government of Ireland and for part of the house allowance properly due to an Under Secretary in Ireland, and the salaries of two temporary clerks, both of whom are ex-Service men, and of seven typists. Without exception the messengers and temporary clerks employed in my office are either ex-Service men or ex-policemen. I want also £620 for certain allowances and expenses in the office of an Assistant Under-Secretary who is located at Belfast where he has a private Secretary lent from the Civil Service of England, two temporary clerks who are ex-Service men, four typists and four messengers, ex-Service men or ex-policemen. I come next to an item called the Publicity Branch. I ask the Committee to give me £900 for it I want to be perfectly frank as to the reason. We are all agreed that there is a great propaganda, under the auspices of the Sinn Fein movement of Ireland, which is carried on not only in this country, but throughout the world, and I felt it was my duty to appoint, as I have appointed, a Civil servant who was a trained journalist to take charge of a department in Dublin Castle, to receive every journalist of every country in the world that sends a newspaper representative, and to supply them and the public with official information which it is my duty to substantiate or if in error to withdraw at this Box. I believe he has carried out his duties very well.

If there is any complaint about this Vote it must be that enough is not done to put the whole case of the Irish and the British Government before the public of this Kingdom and of the world. He prepares from reports, from Military, from Police and from unofficial sources, the facts of any given case or incident. He receives journalists who come to Dublin and to Ireland. He sees that they are provided with every facility to see whom they wish and to travel without interference through the whole of Ireland, if necessary under police or military escort. With the exception of one journalist, of the hundreds that have visited Ireland I have never heard one single complaint of discourtesy or inability to see anybody that the particular journalist wanted to see. The Commander-in-Chief, myself, the heads of the Departments, local commanders, and heads of police throughout Ireland, all have received these journalists, no matter whom they represented, and I think it is a fine record to know that of the hundreds who have travelled in Ireland, not one of them has suffered a mishap or has made a com plaint, except one gentleman, who said his life had been threatened, I think in Tralee, some months ago, and if it were threatened, nobody regrets it more than I do.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after he has prepared those précis or incidents, they are syndicated to the press?

Yes, they are distributed through the usual press channels, and I believe invariably they are stated to be official communications, so that they can be checked by this House, if necessary, as to accuracy.

Is this the Department that issues statements to the effect that when a man like the late Mayor of Limerick is murdered it was done by Sinn Feiners; is that the sort of work it does?

This Department does not issue opinions.

Who does it then?

I issue the opinions. I hope I can carry the Committee with me that no one is more anxious to get a clear, accurate, unquestioned statement of facts on any event than I am. One reason why I have selected this trained journalist, who is also a Civil servant, is because of his record, because I believe he faithfully carries out the duty imposed upon him.

Does this heading not include the "Weekly Summary"?

This does not touch the "Weekly Summary," which is a police publication, published by the police, for the police, and here I have to make something approaching an apology. I understood it was on my Vote, but on inquiry I find it is on the Stationery Office Vote, which is a Vote undertaken by the Treasury.

Is the salary of the editor on the Stationery Office Vote?

There is no salary paid in connection with the "Weekly Summary."

But it must be a whole-time job for somebody.

There is no salary paid to anybody; it is put together by the police themselves, and is largely composed of cuttings, representative cuttings, from representative papers.

The "Winning Post" especially. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]

Anyhow, this publicity item of £900 has nothing to do with that. It is an honest attempt to give to the House and to the country the facts, whether they are in favour of the Government or against the Government, and I have always felt, with reference to Ireland, that on balance, if the whole truth is known, the Government's case is unquestionable. Passing from publicity, the next item is £100 for allowances to clerks on loan, that is to say, clerks loaned from other Civil Service departments, who have allowances because of increased responsibilities due to the peculiar situation in Ireland to-day. Then I come to the main item of £6,000 for additional staff for the office of the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police is Major-General Tudor, who was appointed in order to bring together all the police forces in Ireland. On 7th March last the Committee was good enough to pass a Supplementary Estimate with reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Auxiliary Division. I am glad to say that the Dublin Metropolitan Police requires no such Supplementary Estimate at all, so that does not arise. The Office of the Chief of Police is put under this heading for the purpose of the Estimates. It is a temporary office, and the personnel is entirely temporary. The Chief of Police has his headquarters staff, some 10 officers, nine of them distinguished soldiers, one of them a civilian trained in police work. He also has a quota of clerks and of typists. This is a temporary service, which disappears when the present state of Ireland passes away.

Who is the Police Adviser?

Major-General Tudor was appointed first as Police Adviser. That name was changed to Chief of Police by administrative instruction. Major-General Tudor is now the Chief of Police, but when the Estimates were printed his title was "Police Adviser," as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his customary alertness has noticed. Under the head of "Allowances for Disturbance" there is provision for £2,000. When a civil servant or a soldier on special duty takes up his duties in Ireland, he at once goes into the danger zone. His life is always in danger, whether he is a civil servant, a soldier, or a policeman. He must live in certain quarters and only certain quarters, and therefore he has lost all the amenities that go with the ordinary calling of these officials in peace time. He is separated from his wife and his children, and he is entitled, I think, to reasonable allowances for these abnormal conditions under which he serves. Here, in the comfortable seclusion of the House of Commons, to which no visitors can enter, whose approaches are guarded by exactly the class of men from which are recruited the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Auxiliaries in Ireland to-day, it seems impossible, and it is impossible, to realise the danger and the difficulties with which some spheres of the Irish Government are carried on. Whatever hon. Members may think of the Irish Government or, what is less important, whatever they may think of the Chief Secretary, I am sure we are agreed that these officers and officials are maintaining the highest standard of patriotism and self-sacrifice in accepting the onerous and dangerous duties in Ireland which they are carrying on with the sole object of helping that country in this most distressing period. Therefore, when I ask the Committee to give me extra allowances for some of these gentlemen—indeed, for all of them—I hope I am not imposing an uneconomic or unreasonable burden on the taxpayers.

Under the head "Travelling," owing to the frequent debates in the House and the frequent conferences and pressure of this vital question of Ireland, there has been a great increase in the travelling of officers between Dublin and Ireland and this country. I am asking the Committee therefore to give me this Supplementary Estimate of £1,800 for that specific purpose. These officers and officials are entitled to be recouped for the cost of their journeys. The Committee will understand that some of them have to travel in a way that demands personal protection and, therefore, additional expense. Under the head of "Incidental Expenses," which, perhaps, to this Committee, and I must say to myself, is rather a repellant title—it is not my title; these Estimates are prepared and submitted to this House by the Treasury, and "Incidental Expenses" is a Treasury heading—is an item principally for the purchase of a great number of newspapers, in order that we may, as far as possible, contradict and combat untrue statements in reference to events in Ireland; and, secondly, to meet the cost of a photographic expert whom we have been compelled to employ under a regulation of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act to take photographs of all prisoners, and to take reproductions of the photographs of the particular persons who are wanted. Those photographs are distributed in this country and Ireland, and some other countries in the world, in the interest of tracking down those who are responsible for some of the most repellant crimes in Ireland. This is a common practice in all modern police administration, and I think the item of £425 is so small as to show that there is no extravagance in this direction. I would ask that the Committee would confine its discussion to these Supplementary Estimates, as I understand I am compelled to do myself, and that they would agree with me, having regard to the circumstances in Ireland to-day, that this request for £13,945 is not unreasonable, and does show that the Irish Government have due regard to economy as the first interest and prime duty.

I beg to move, "That the Vote by reduced by £5.

This Vote contains many items which no one, certainly on this side of the Committee, and I should say in any part of the Committee, would cavil at for one moment, particularly the reasonable allowance due to those men who are now undergoing what must be one of the hardest tasks ever put on any human beings. I am certain that none of us in any way wish to hamper them, or to cast any sort of slur or aspersion on them, or on the work they are doing. But there are certain items which we feel demand far more explanation, and demand criticism, particularly, I should say, from this side of the Committee, because we have not—I say it with all respect to hon. Members opposite—any sort of confidence that they are not using this as a purely Party matter to upset the present administration. They are, no doubt, perfectly entitled to use all sorts of levers to upset the administration, which they heartily detest and wish to get rid of, but this is too grave a thing to use in any way as a Party matter.

Are you the only honest people here?

No; I make no special claim to honesty, but I do say we have seen in the past things that shake our trust in the bona fides of certain hon. Members opposite.

A roost offensive charge. On a point of Order. Is it in Order to reflect on the honour of hon. Members on this side, and not give some example—some justification? [HON. MEMBERS: "You."] Yes, me if you like. Is it not the usual practice in this House, if it is not in the Standing Orders?

I have known many occasions when similar remarks have been made by Members, and I have not heard anything out of order in this respect from the hon. and gallant Member. I was listening to what he was saying on other matters and I do not quite see how it comes inside the Supplementary Estimate.

It is a new standard set in this House.

I bow to your ruling, and regret if I have infringed the Rule laid down. We should like from the Chief Secretary further enlightenment as to this general question of information. There is an item here for certain expenses in the Publicity Branch, and certain expenses in regard to expenditure for photographic purposes, and we do not feel that this Committee has received anything like the proper amount of information which the is entitled to have in regard to affairs in Ireland. I should like to know how this information is collected, how it is distributed and to whom it is sent, because, to begin with, it is a very small Vote. Anyone who has anything to do with the distribution of information at this moment knows that the amount of publicity you can gain by an expenditure of £900 is very small. If you have, as we have been informed, an official who is also a trained journalist to carry out this publicity work, it is very difficult to see how anything approaching the publicity of the Sinn Feiners is being countered by the Irish Office. We know from our own personal experience that for one piece of information we receive from the Irish Office, we receive scores from the other side of carefully documented, thoroughly worked-out, well-printed pieces of information containing, in many cases, charges, and ranging from a circular from Mr. De Valera himself down to all sorts of things which may or may not have been published directly with money spent by the Sinn Fein leaders in Ireland. We are not spending anything like the amount necessary to put the Irish Office case even before Members of this House; how much more, then, are we failing to put it before the country as a whole.

We do not, I think, sufficiently realise that in this case we have a sum of money which has to cover not merely publicity in this country, but publicity in all the countries of the world. The Chief Secretary mentioned the case of the foreign journalists. What can we suppose that they take as authentic from the reports of an officer who is immured all day long in Dublin Castle, and has neither the time nor, I suppose, the opportunity to move outside. What of the number of official reports the right hon. Gentleman is receiving from his Courts of Inquiry here and throughout Ireland—is there any use that we can make of them? Surely there is a Government case! We believe it as an act of faith, but an act of faith is be- lieving in things of which we have no evidence. Certainly that is a position which we have to face with regard to the Irish Office. We find a constant stream of all sorts of information from Sinn Fein, and we have no counter-publicity from this side. We believe—we hope—that there is a counter to it; we believe there is counter information in regard to many of these charges, but we have no evidence of it submitted to us, and we respectfully beg the Chief Secretary for Ireland to take serious account of this. Opinions, as he himself has said, are no good. We want facts. We believe the facts are there. We beg him to bring them out, to make them available for Members of this House, and to give them the widest publicity throughout the country.

How is this information collected? Is he getting reports in from his officials? Does the right hon. Gentleman receive regular information from the affected districts? He said, quite truly, you could not demand the same publicity or reports from officers who are in a country which is in a state of rebellion. But may I remind him that during the War reports were rendered twice daily from the trench line itself to general headquarters! Has the right hon. Gentleman reports coming in, negative as well as positive, with regard to the affected and disaffected areas? For instance, with respect to affairs in Limerick, we heard, but did not know, that affairs had been quiet, when suddenly two appalling and brutal murders are committed. Has there been evidence of Sinn Fein propaganda or of attempts to stir up things in Limerick? We have no information. We hear in some newspaper, in a casual statement—which may or may not be true—about Michael Collins complaining that there were 500 idle rifles in Limerick. Is that true? Has the right hon. Gentleman a positive or a negative report? The report that there has or has not been perfect peace in a large area of the country is a report which would be of great value to us in framing an opinion when we find that one of the most terrible complaints made against the Auxiliary forces is that in the case of large areas of the country where perfect peace exists, trouble is stirred up by the members of that force. We disbelieve it entirely but we have no evidence to support our belief either on one side or the other. Naturally we give the officers of the Crown, and of the Army, the benefit of the doubt. Where, however, specific charges are made and where these men are exposed, as they are to a continual stream of accusations, we do claim from our side that we ought to have the facts with which to rebut those accusations.

The Strickland Report!

What about the publication of the results of the 172 Courts of Inquiry which have been held in January and February? We have no collective summary of these things. We have no information as to the results of these Courts of Inquiry. Propaganda is all Very well, but may I remind hon. Members and the Chief Secretary that it was found during the War that the best propaganda was facts, and that the great score of our propaganda towards the end of the War was that we had an enormous number of true things which filtered through in spite of all the other side could do to stop them. Let us then have these facts, these reports from these 172 Courts of Inquiry, and let the Chief Secretary make some use of the resources which he has, and the resources which this House, I am certain, is willing to give him, for the purpose of making our case known. It has been said before and now to nausea that the effect of this running sore is acting to our prejudice throughout the world. Certainly when I was in Paris last week, and I saw on all the hoardings the announcement of a great film "Nora la Sinn Feiner." These things are being published throughout the whole world and are blackening our name throughout the world. If we have the facts let us publish the facts and counter the lies. If they are lies let them be investigated and let us certainly have the counter to them.

We cannot indefinitely support a régime which itself does not make full use of the publicity possible, does not lay its cards on the table, as I am certain the Chief Secretary is anxious to do, and does not realise that we of all parties desire that these things should come to an end, and are supporting the Chief Secretary in the belief that he is doing his best to reduce and suppress disorder and murder from whichever party they come in Ireland, and to hand over the administration of the country to the Irish themselves at the very earliest moment it can be done with safety. We cannot vote this money without pointing out that these disturbed conditions in Ireland are in effect the cause of the whole of this expenditure, and the whole of the present appalling situation. I do not wish, Sir Edwin, to trespass the limit which you have laid down, so I will not develop that theme further, but I will only say that yesterday we had for the last time, I believe, the speech of a well-known, very acceptable, and honoured member of this House, resigning to take up his duty the premier of one of the subordinate bodies in Ireland.

The situation is critical, extremely critical, and anything we can do in this House to support the administration at this critical time when these new bodies are being born we shall do, because we believe that is the best thing for the peace of Ireland. But we must demand, we must, at any rate, respectfully press, for far more publicity than we have had before in regard to Irish matters, if necessary to a much greater extent than before in making public the case which we believe the Government have. We desire an accurate and constant and repeated stream of information about affairs in Ireland, information which can be sworn to and proved up to the hilt. In connection with the photographic vote I do know certainly that official photographs in Ireland have been challenged. I wish to point out to the Chief Secretary that these things are not only useless but actually a terrible danger to the cause which we have at heart. I would point out that one faked photograph does more to destroy confidence than 50 genuine photographs will do to restore it. That propaganda which cannot be proved up to the hilt is only an injury to our own side. I believe one officer is not sufficient, and that you will require more than one officer. I do not believe that the civil servant who has been a journalist is sufficient single-handed to cope with many scores of skilful men, skilled in the art of publicity and writing who put forth this persistent, continuous effort to undermine the whole foundation of Government in Ireland. We have the gunmen and we have the penman, and of the two I think the penmen are more dangerous to the British Empire throughout the world than the gunmen. I do not believe that the Chief Secretary is doing sufficient to counter the accusations that are being made, and we respectfully urge that these accusations should be investigated and the results published. If it be true that he is anxious to give facts against the Government as well as facts for the Government, let him go wholly forward with that policy. By facts, and by facts only, can we clear up this terrible situation. I move the reduction of this Vote by £5 because it is only by moving a reduction that one can bring these things under discussion, but, if the Chief Secretary were to come down to this House and ask for a much larger sum of money for publicity and for information to let in fresh air on these things, I am sure that the House would be prepared to grant it him. The fact that these things are being done behind closed doors is wrecking our cause in Ireland, and, if we can let in fresh air and sunlight on the situation, I believe that disadvantageous as it might be temporarily, the Government would score in the end and the cause of the British Empire throughout the world would score.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite opened his speech by accusing some unknown Members on this side of the Committee of being actuated by ulterior motives in dealing with Ireland. He wound up by saying that his only object was to let daylight and sunlight into Irish affairs. I would respectfully submit to him that if he believes those who think keenly about Ireland are only actuated by ulterior motives he should mention the names and definitely bring the charge. On the other hand, I would remind him, regardless of what he may say, that it is because we want to let in daylight and to have these things exposed and because unfortunately the only means of exposure is the House of Commons that we are going to exercise our parliamentary right of using every opportunity to expose the whole business. The Chief Secretary explained the object of some of these Votes, and the first to which I desire to draw attention is the item "Photography." Like many other hon. Members, I received the famous photograph of the Battle of Tralee.

Let me correct a misapprehension. That was not an official photograph. There was no official photographer in Tralee, but any photographer is entitled to take photographs in Ireland and make what use he can of them by sale or otherwise. The Government has nothing whatever to do with this particular photograph.

I am sure everyone in this Committee will appreciate that statement, and will appreciate the fact that the Government repudiates all knowledge and authority for this particular photograph. It was a photograph reproduced in the English Press of a motor lorry—

An Army lorry.

It was a photograph of a motor Army lorry with soldiers in soldiers' uniform, showing that in the midst of carrying out their duty they were assassinated. I, like many other hon. Members, had that picture shown to me, and I also had the original with the soldiers missing, which proved that it was a faked photograph. The original, observe, was headed "The Battle of Tralee." I showed it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) without the soldiers in it, and I said, "Do you know this place?" He said, "I know it very well. It is just outside Dublin." Incidentally, he not only knew it, but I believe I am correct in saying that it was the home of his ancestors. Here was a faked photograph taken just outside of Dublin of an Army lorry with soldiers on guard and all the uniforms and paraphernalia of war. The Government is not responsible, and I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement entirely. Two things emerge: Who paid for the Army lorry? From where was the Army lorry obtained? Who supplied it? Guns are prohibited in Ireland. From where did the guns come? From where did the helmets come? It only shows how much more necessary it is for the House of Commons to let in daylight, to use the phrase of my hon. and gallant Friend. If the Government has no responsibility, what is the British public to say? What opinion can they form when it is now admitted that the Government has no responsibility and know nothing about the business? Incidentally, no repudiation came to the British public.

I ask the Committee to judge what was the object of that picture. It was to create an impression that in the Battle of Tralee, so-called, the British soldier was cowardly attacked. He was shown lying down. I am told—I cannot vouch for the truth of it—that there was a hitch in the first photograph and that the soldier when "dead," had the audacity to rise just as the snap was taking place. This Vote is for publicity, but it is not for false publicity, and publicity should include a repudiation of something that is untrue equally as much as it ought to give the facts. Now that we have had a repudiation from the Chief Secretary, I hope that the necessary steps will be taken to inform the British public how they have been taken advantage of by false photographs of this kind.

The next question I desire to call attention to is the expense that has been incurred for travelling by officers and police, and I want to submit to the Committee some of the methods which they employ in their travelling. Every case I quote has been reported to the Chief Secretary; therefore it cannot be said I am springing these matters on him. He has had an opportunity to investigate them. A driver working on a passenger train from King's Bridge, Dublin, to Cork, on Saturday, 19th February, states that two military officers boarded his engine. The driver of a train is, of course, responsible for the safety of the passengers, and he has a right to ask anyone boarding his engine for their authority. He did so in this case. He said to the officers, "Show me your permit or your authority, because I am in charge of the lives of these people. I am responsible for carrying them safely to their destination." What was the reply? One of the officers immediately produced a revolver as their authority, and, in the van next to the engine, there rode a party of military with machine guns. The military left the train at Mallow, and policemen then boarded the engine, and throughout the whole of that journey this driver had to work his train and to be responsible for the lives under the authority of a revolver presented at his head by an officer of the British Army.

And who is responsible for that? Surely you are.

My hon. Friend says I am responsible.

Remember the resolution passed at the Trade Union Congress presided over by the right hon. Gentleman.

Order, order.

1.0 P.M.

I want to submit that we are now voting money for publicity, for photographs, and for newspaper cuttings and we are entitled to ask why events of this kind are allowed to take place and why publicity is not given to them, or, in the alternative, if punishment is awarded in such cases why no publicity is given to that. I will give another case. At Waterford the guard on the 4.5 train to Mallow, on 11th February, on arriving at Fermoy, was ordered at the point of a revolver by an officer to proceed to the rear of the train and then to a waiting room, where he was stripped within sight of the public, and ordered to turn inside out all his clothes, even to his socks. After a delay of 74 minutes he was required to sign a document to the effect that nothing had been taken from him by the military and nothing done unnecessarily. I ask the Committee, apart from their views on the merits of the question of Home Rule, what can be said in support of a system und r which working men who are discharging their duties under most difficult circumstances are subjected to treatment of this kind? We want publicity given to these matters. I hope I am keeping strictly within the limits of the Vote. It is a Publicity Vote. It has been suggested that sufficient money is not voted for publicity, and if that be so all I can say is that we ought to expose things of this kind, and, if necessary, let us have more money for the purpose. I am not going to complain of the lack of money if providing it will bring into the light of day cases of this kind. A yard foreman at King's Bridge, Dublin, while on duty on 22nd January was called by a soldier armed with a rifle, and, while obeying that call, was intercepted by another soldier, who also covered him with a rifle, and, owing to these soldiers being unable to see each other, one can imagine the position of the man liable to attack from two sides from soldiers neither of whom could see what the other was doing, and both of whom had their rifles pointed at him.

And who is responsible for that?

I should say very largely those who have been supporting this wicked policy in Ireland, and if my hon. Friend comes under that category, well—I leave him to explain his position. Let me take another case. A porter at Gal-way was returning from duty and was held up by two men in khaki and kicked. They damaged his tea-can and the medals which, incidentally, he had won in the War, and when he was allowed to walk away they fired at his feet. I want to submit that these are things which the British public ought to know about. I want to be quite fair to my right hon. Friend. I think he will agree I have sent him scores of these cases from Ireland because they come to me from our membership there. I do not believe he knows anything of what is taking place. I do not believe he has any conception of the way in which the King's uniform is abused in Ireland.

The right hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide. I quite agree that this is a Publicity Vote, but at the same time my right hon. Friend is not entitled to bring under revision the whole Irish policy of the Government.

I will endeavour to follow your ruling. But if you will look at the Vote you will see it includes allowances for travelling, increased travelling between London and Dublin necessitated by conditions in Ireland, subsistence in Ireland of officers loaned from English departments, incidental expenses, increased provision for newspapers and for general press expenditure. I would respectfully submit that the object of this Publicity Vote is to enable the British public to accurately gauge what is taking place in Ireland, and we are, therefore, entitled to show reason against this expenditure which has been incurred. I am endeavouring to show that things are happening in Ireland about which the British public know nothing.

What I am anxious to avoid is a general discussion on the whole Irish policy of the Government. That can be taken on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, which comes up later for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to deal with it on this Vote.

I agree, and that is why I am strictly avoiding any reference to Home Rule or anything of that kind. I am keeping clear of the question of government in Ireland, and am trying to limit myself to two things. The first is the question of photography where it has been abused, and the second is the question of publicity and of the reasons that would justify the Chief Secretary in asking for this money. Some hon. Members on this side of the House may say that they do not think the Chief Secretary is entitled to this money, and I am endeavouring to show that he is entitled to it, if he will only say to the House that he wants to publish all these things. I am mentioning some of these cases in order to justify him in saying, "All these things have taken place, and I want the money for that purpose." I am sure that it was only want of time that prevented him from mentioning them, and that is why I am mentioning them instead. Whilst one can understand the attitude of the Government in saying that their case is misrepresented, that their side of the case is not known, and that they want it to be known, what one cannot understand is that the British public knows nothing about these things which are taking place in Ireland every day. We shall continue to discuss these Estimates and more Supplementary Estimates, until the House of Commons and the British public know the facts, whether they are against us or not. If the orders of the Government are abused, if people disobey their authority, run foul of all orders, and break discipline, in the end the responsibility for all these tings will come back to the House of Commons, and we are entitled to bring to the notice of the Chief Secretary on a Vote of this kind all such incidents as I have mentioned. I deplore more than I can say the continuance of these cases. I have cited only a few of them, and I could quote scores. When we have had admitted, as we have had to-day, the fact that faked photographs are supplied to this country—published, probably, in all good faith by British newspapers—and when it is admitted that the Government know nothing about and have no responsibility for these photographs, we are entitled to say that the good name of the public is being abused. Again, every hon. Member who knows Ireland will know the difficulties under which the railwaymen are discharging their duties there, and when, in addition to all their difficulties and responsibilities, they are being subjected to treatment such as I have mentioned, it at least proves the absolute necessity of full publicity, not of distorted facts, not of one-sided evidence, but full publicity of the full facts, so that the British public may know them.

My right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) began his speech with a reproval of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark (Capt. Elliot) for attributing what he called ulterior motives to hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is a phrase of which my right hon. Friend is exceedingly fond. He is always suspecting that people are attributing to him or his friends ulterior motives.

He said so.

I think I am correct in my recollection that my hon. and gallant Friend used no such expression. What he did say—and I entirely agree with him—was that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in discussing these Irish matters, are, so far as we can judge, much more animated, not by ulterior motives, but by party motives, than by any desire to serve any other cause. The right hon. Gentleman challenged my hon. and gallant Friend, if he had any insinuation of that sort to make, to give it and mention names and make the charge. I do not want to make any insinuations; I make the charge against my right hon. Friend, among others, and I say that it is perfectly observable that, throughout many months past, the object of the questions addressed to Ministers from the other side of the House has been mainly to bring out something, if they can, which will be of party advantage. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak about a very remarkable photograph of what was called the Battle of Tralee. I noticed that when he spoke about that photograph he was immediately received with cheers from that side of the Committee, and he was evidently touching upon something with which his friends were very familiar. I know nothing about it, but I want to add one point of mystery to that photograph—and it seems to me to be not the least part of the mystery. According to the description given by my right hon. Friend, the pur- pose of the photograph was apparently to show that there had been a cowardly and cruel attack upon the military. The point of mystery is, how does it come to be so familiar on the other side of the Committee? I never heard of it before, and, so far as I can gather, none of my friends on this side of the Committee have heard of it.

It was reproduced in the Sunday Press in this country.

"What paper?"

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this photograph had been sent to members of the House of Commons. The Sunday Press, of course, is open to anyone, but I do not indulge myself in reading the illustrated Sunday papers, and therefore I was unfortunate enough not to observe it. It was not sent to me, nor, so far as I can ascertain, to any hon. Member on this side of the Committee.

The Chief Secretary saw it.

It really is a rather mysterious circumstance, in view of the character of the photograph as described by my right hon. Friend, that we should have been deprived of the advantage of seeing it, whereas hon. Members opposite apparently were presented with copies. Taking the ordinary well-known division of parties, and having regard to the character of the, photograph, I should have thought that, from the point of view of its being faked as a support of the Government, we would have been the people to receive it, and not hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I cannot carry the mystery any further; hon. Members must draw their own conclusions from my right hon. Friend's great familiarity with it, and from the fact that it takes us entirely by surprise. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to give a number of cases, which he endeavoured to bring within the purview of this Vote by saying that he wanted greater publicity. I take the same line; I also am anxious for increased publicity, although I am not going to support the reduction moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said that these things really must have publicity. He gave us some terrible cases: one of an engine driver who, when he asked a visitor to his engine for his authority or permit, was told that it was a revolver. My right hon. Friend, I think, did not say whether that occurred within the martial law area or not. If it did I do not see anything very remarkable in it. I am not versed in the rights and wrongs of martial law, but I should have thought, for instance, during the war in the Army zone a revolver was as good an authority for protecting trains as could be wished. If the right hon. Gentleman will bring some other cases where the men of his own union were ambushed and their lives jeopardized, and, I think, in some cases lost, through the engine being deliberately taken into an ambush, I can well believe that this officer, who I presume was duly authorised, took charge of the engine on this occasion not to jeopardize the lives of the passengers but to save them, and possibly to save the lives of the men on the engine too, and therefore I am not the least moved by an example of this sort to join in asking for more publicity.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say he had supplied the Chief Secretary with a number of cases, and he says, and I can quite understand it, that an enormous number of these cases reach him from members of his union in Ireland. All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman is more simple-minded than I took him for, and I do not think, although he has numbers of his union in Ireland, he has yet gauged the Irish character, because though I have no doubt members of the union look to him with the utmost reverence and respect so far as the union is concerned, they are not above pulling his leg, and it is a pastime that is very popular in Ireland, especially when they can get hold of an Englishman. That is perhaps one of the points where there is irreconcilable difference between the two islands. But, really, I think there is a case where we require more publicity. I should like to see those cases which have been sent by members of the union to the right hon. Gentleman under cross-examination. I wonder how many of them would bear the publicity which he is so anxious to get. I think it is very likely the greater number of them would break down. When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged just now as to who was responsible for something he was talking about he said those who are supporting this iniquitous system of government in Ireland.

This policy.

What policy?

The policy of terrorism.

That is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's phrase. I should say it is the policy, whether successful up to now or unsuccessful does not matter, of repressing crime.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to get into a discussion of general policy.

I am afraid I strayed beyond the limits of the Vote, and I will not sin any more. There has been a great demand, both from the right hon. Gentleman and from my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, for greater publicity and for propaganda. To a great extent I share my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view that it would be very desirable for the Government of Ireland to give more information for the guidance of public opinion in this country, but how is it to be done? I have had something to do with propaganda in this country during the war. How does the right hon. Gentleman suppose it could be carried out? The newspapers, so far as I know, are free to give any information they like. They can give it without regard to whether it is true or false, and a great deal of the information they give I believe to be absolutely false. It is very difficult to control them in that way. I know from experience that if you attempt to supply newspapers with information which they do not seek through their own agency they probably will not publish it. You cannot force them to do so. It is not a question of a larger Vote and more money supplied by the House. The question is one of the method of informing public opinion and so far as my belief goes, unless you can get the newspapers to do it as part of their ordinary business, no efforts that either the Government or Parties or Members of the House can make will very materially help in doing it. If it could be done I should be very glad because although I do not for a moment deny that things have taken place in Ireland that no one has attempted to defend, still, I believe on the whole if the situation in Ireland were more thoroughly understood by public opinion in this country than it is, and the action of the Government were more accurately described and the cases of failure sifted until it was seen what a' small residuum they really are, then I believe it would be to the advantage of the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman and others are sincere, as I am sure they are, if it is true that they are not actuated by party motives, I am quite certain they would be as glad as we could be to see the vindication of the Government by more publicity.

The charge of party feeling is one that I am not the least ashamed of if by "party" is meant those who think with me that the whole reputation of this country is being damaged abroad, and those who have some respect for the good name of our Government and even for the reputation of Ministers. If those who think with me are party, then I hope it is a growing party, and one which will soon assume power in this country. I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) referred to me when he talked about our dishonest action or motives or whatever he meant by that, but if so I regret only that he did not document or prove or give some instance of what I think was a charge which is not usually made by Members in the House of Commons. We are expected not to doubt the word of Ministers. We accept their statements and we do not accuse them of inaccuracy or falsehood. I think we are entitled to the same consideration on this side. What is applicable to Ministers should be applicable to private Members. We have not the same means of information as Ministers, and we have not the same staff for checking our facts, but we do our best to probe them, and we bring them forward from motives which at any rate we consider honest, and I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, though this is his first Parliament, should so far forget the traditions of this House.

I am sorry the Chief Secretary is not here, because I am going to ask for a personal explanation of what I think has been the case of a very unfortunate mistake which I think has not been quite fair to us on this side of the Committee. I wish to make a personal application to the right hon. Gentleman for certain information with reference to publication. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) based his reduction of the Vote on the fact that the Government were not doing enough to counteract the propaganda of Sinn Fein. He went on to say that the only propaganda that really counted is the propaganda of facts. When he was speaking I was reminded of the comments of General Von Lundendorff, who complained bitterly of the effects of the British Publicity Department during the war, and described how the whole German case was undermined and how the German Government never met the charges made by us. The whole basis of the British publicity was that we stuck to facts as far as we could, at any rate when we understood the subject. It is extraordinary to find the defender of a losing cause in this House complaining of exactly the same thing from Sinn Fein. So much for Sinn Fein publicity. Are you going to spend money particularly to refute the charges brought by people of undoubted integrity, who are not Sinn Fein, but who are observers in Ireland, like General Lawson, a man of undoubted patriotism and loyalty? Are we to spend money trying to blacken the character of such people, or to refute their evidence? There is Lady Sykes, the widow of a very respected and honourable Member of this House, the late Sir Mark Sykes, who addressed a huge meeting of women in the Central Hall, Westminster, last night, which was almost unanimous, and who made most astonishing charges against the Government of ill-treatment of the civil population. Are you going to spend money to refute that? Is that what my hon. and gallant Friend means? Are you going to spend money trying to pick to pieces the case put forward by Judge Bodkin in his now famous letter with respect to the terrible state of affairs brought about by the Crown Forces in Clare? Judge Bodkin, who is paid out of the Consolidated Fund, in exercising his functions as a judge in assessing civil damages for acts done by the servants of the Crown, made a report which has never been answered by the Government. There has been no attempt to reply to it, except by an hon. Member for Ulster who accused Judge Bodkin of the terrible crime of having been a Nationalist. Are you going to spend money on that? Is that what you want to do, or are you going to spend money in publishing Judge Bodkin's report as something approximating to a true picture of affairs in one part of Ireland?

Complaints are made by the hon. and gallant Member that only one side of the case is heard. I wonder what newspapers he reads in this country. The newspapers that support my party give little publicity to Irish affairs, I am sorry to say, but the papers that supports his party give absolutely only one side, and the truth has to be forced out, unless such an event occurs that they have to publish it. The Northcliffe Press is an exception. It has taken an impartial attitude and has tried to give both sides; but the kept organ of the Coalition, the "Chronicle" and its tame newspapers, like the "Daily Telegraph"—let them blackguard me as much as they like, I will mention it by name. Open the "Daily Telegraph" any day and you see nothing but insults to the Irish National spirit, nothing but false statements of the whole problem with which we are faced; not one word of the scandalous doings by the agents of the Crown in that country. Biased, one-sided, the Press of this country, or a large part of it, has disgraced journalism in its treatment of Ireland. If you wish to get information about Ireland go to the foreign Press, "Le Petit Parisiene," "Le Matin," or the Spanish and American newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Hearst papers?"] Not the Hearst papers, but papers like the "New York Times" and the "Chicago Tribune." You get more information about Ireland, and some of the British case as well, in those papers, than you do in the great organs of the British Press. I do not think that the case of the hon. and gallant Member is proved by any means.

I wish to make complaints about the Government's Publicity Branch, for which we are now asked to vote money. When the temporary Cadet Hart murdered Canon Magner and the young farmer Crowley an attempt was made to conceal the crime. The Resident Magistrate was hunted, his house was raided, and now he has had to clear out of the country, on Government advice. In spite of that, the Resident Magistrate made his complaint, and when the matter was reported in the local press of Ireland, and the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) raised it by Question in this House, the truth was out, and out very quickly. Within twenty-four hours, before there was any trial, or before any of the police medical officers from Liverpool, and so on, could furnish a report, and before there was any court-martial, out came an inspired statement from Dublin Castle that this Cadet was insane. He was in charge of a body of men, fully armed, in a hostile country, in charge of a Government lorry, with the power of life and death in his hands, and he was said to be insane. Immediately out came the Government's Publicity Department with this statement. The next thing, issued within a very few hours, was that this man had been driven insane because one of his comrades had been murdered in an ambush a little time previously. Is that the work of the Publicity Department for which we are asked to vote this money? Perhaps the Chief Secretary will answer that point. When Cork was burned—and it is said by Irishmen that the authors of the burning of Cork are known even by the cats and dogs in the city—a statement was immediately issued by Dublin Castle that the Sinn Feiners had burned it. While the place was still burning, while the ruins were still red-hot, that statement was issued, and an extraordinary map was published, a faked map, showing that it was quite possible for the flames that were started in the main street to have spread to the Carnegie Free Library and the Town Hall.

Although I have been to the beautiful city of Cork a few times, I am not as familiar with Cork as I should like to be, but in this map they actually put one of the burnt-out buildings on the wrong side of the river. It was too much to expect that even some hon. Members of this House could believe that the flames had leaped the river Lee and had burnt a building on the other side. This faked map was produced and actually published in one of the Government's tame newspapers, the "Daily Chronicle." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, tame. It was bought by the Government. Of course it was. It is not an unfair description. This faked map was produced. Was it the work of this wonderful Publicity Department? I should like to ask another question about this Publicity Department. When the late Lord Mayor of Cork, Alderman McCurtain, who was an hon. Member of this House, was mur- dered, the usual statement was made that the extreme party in Sinn Fein had murdered him because he had preached moderation. At that time I do not think there was a single hon. Member of this House who could say that McCurtain was murdered by the servants of the Crown. I could not believe it. We had the Coroner's inquest and it was shown that he was murdered by the servants of the Crown, and then it was said that this was a biased coroner's jury, a biased coroner, and the rest of it. Who to-day doubts who murdered Alderman McCurtain?

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Vote.

I was not going into this regrettable incident. My point was that Dublin Castle immediately published that Alderman McCurtain was murdered by the extreme wing of the Sinn Fein Government. Another case was that of the raiding by servants of the Crown with blackened faces of the house of the Bishop of Killaloe, Dr. Fogarty. They went up to his empty bed and pointed their revolvers there, and then the statement was immediately put out that these were extreme Sinn Feiners who were attempting to assassinate his Lordship. The other day great publicity was given to the statement that the widow of Alderman McSwiney, the late Lord Mayor of Cork, was engaged to marry a respected Irish Sinn Feiner in this country, Mr. Art O'Brien. The young widow of a few months was engaged to be married to a man of 60. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members who laugh are not content with the tribulations of a family who have already suffered for the cause in which they be lieve, but they attempt to blacken the character of the young widow within a few months of her husband's death. Was that report put about by this Publicity Department? Was this trained journalist used for this filthy work against this young widow? Is that the sort of thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Capt. Elliot) wants? Mrs. McSwiney, with her charm and her youth, was a force. The widow is jeered at in this Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am content if you do not jeer at a woman that you should jeer at me. She was a force and it was thought necessary to tear away the halo that had gathered round her young head. I wonder who thought of that libel to publish abroad about this woman who had become a public character. Is that what you want us to vote the money for?

Since the hon. Member has asked me may I point out that he is the person who is giving publicity to this libel, for I never heard of it and I think it most unfortunate that we should bring this lady's name into the discussion.

It was published in every paper I saw. An hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that it was a social event. It was in one sense of the word. Great publicity was given to it and I am astonished the hon. and gallant Member did not see it. A denial was given at once after Mr. Art O'Brien's attention was drawn to it, but that received a great deal less publicity. Was this done by the Government?

I will say at once, No.

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentle man has given this denial. I hope that that sort of thing will not be done. In the absence of the Chief Secretary I regret to have to make this charge. We were told by the Chief Secretary that this Vote for his office includes a publicity grant and we could discuss this "Weekly Summary." The "Weekly Summary" has not been brought up in other discussions in this House. I think that we have some legitimate ground for complaint against the Chief Secretary because he has more than once in this House accepted full responsibility for statements in the "Weekly Summary." I have asked him on previous occasions to let hon. Members have this "Weekly Summary." That has been refused. But last session he quoted from it and as it is an official document, I asked that it should be laid and as a result of a parliamentary bargain it was not laid but I was promised the whole of the back numbers and everyone that came out afterwards, and I have had the back numbers except the ones previous to—

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to discuss the "Weekly Summary" which already, it has been explained, is not included in this Vote.

The "Weekly Summary" is not in this Vote.

We are paying money for the purchase of newspapers in a great many places in order that statements can be reviewed and this "Weekly Summary" is largely composed of cuttings from newspapers. If the Stationery Office pays for the printing and the paper, is it really maintained by the Government that the Chief Secretary has no responsibility for it and that the editor is not paid under this Vote?

The answer to that question is that that this publication has already appeared under another Vote.

May I respectfully call attention to the fact that the "Weekly Summary" consists largely of quotations, that the statement of the Chief Secretary in opening the debate is that this publicity department which is on this Vote had as one of its duties the collection of material from the different newspapers of the country, and that that involves the extraction from them of certain matter for the purpose of quotation. The point I submit to you is that these quotations in the "Weekly Summary" were probably, as far as we know, supplied by the publicity department. The "Weekly Summary" consists largely of quotations, and in that aspect of the case we are entitled to read from the "Weekly Summary" quotations supplied by the publicity department.

I am afraid that that is rather far fetched.

I submit that I am entitled to discuss why this "Weekly Summary" is not included under this Vote. I did consult your predecessor in the Chair, and he said it would be in order to raise the point why the "Weekly Summary" was not in the Vote, and I think we have a grievance.

It cannot be in order to discuss, why a matter is not in the Vote. The reason it is not in the Vote is that it has already appeared in another Vote.

The Chief Secretary informed us it would be in this one. Of course I accept his apology made to-day, but I hope to raise this on the Consolidated Fund Bill. This Parliament is voting money for counter propaganda against Sinn Fein. I know that the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) and others have an extraordinary theory that there is an underhand secret society throughout the world which is spending immense sums on trying to undermine the foundations of the British Empire, a sort of wonderful Red-Headed League that inspires all the false statements about India, about Egypt, about Ireland, and about everything else that it possibly can. In the same debate I asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who in this House is the most fitted to know of any such thing, and he said he had no knowledge of such a society. The propaganda of Sinn Fein is no doubt competent, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary himself. But the best propaganda in this country against the Government's Irish policy has been their suppression of facts. I have personal knowledge of keen Unionists in politics in this country who would believe nothing of these statements made by the Irish side for months, but when the Government suppressed the Strickland Report amongst others they began to shake their heads, and from my personal knowledge of these people I know that it is because the Strickland Report was suppressed that they believed the worst against the Government, I think justifiably, in connection with the burning of Cork.

What is the use, therefore, of talking about trying to meet these false statements that are going throughout the world, when the Government sets up its own so-called impartial tribunal, misleads the House into thinking we are going to get their reports, and then refuses to publish them? The best propaganda Sinn Fein has got on its side is produced by the right hon. Gentleman and the British Cabinet. We are suppressing the truth, we are ashamed of the findings of the Military Governor of Cork. What better propaganda could you have—better far than your Red-Headed League—for the overthrow of the British Empire. It has not cost Sinn Fein a penny. If you want to counteract one of the most damaging incidents that blackens our name abroad, the burning of Cork, publish that report. Then come here and ask us for money for your trained journalists who become Civil Servants, or your Civil Servants who become journalists. Do not come here asking us for money for realistic photographs. You can get them cheaply enough in Vienna, where there is an International Bureau for faked photographs of maltreated bodies and you can put in a letter press that they were murdered in Serbia or Armenia or Russia or Turkey, or England or Ireland. They circulate throughout the world wherein the propagandist requires such a weapon. This international bureau does a flourishing trade in faked photographs. But if you really want to counteract the damage of the bad press which the British Empire has abroad, publish the whole truth, be honest, tell us the facts. Publish the findings of the military court of inquiry into the murder of the man Lawless and of the Balbriggan incident, which you refused the other day to publish. Let us have the findings of the Strickland inquiry. Let us have a little openness and honesty about these things. The right hon. Gentleman talks about giving both sides of the case. It is easier to get butter out of the mouth of a dog than to get any statement derogatory to the Government out of the month of the right hon. Gentleman. Our complaint is that he is not frank. The Government does not permit the facts to be published unless they are blackening to the Irish cause in the face of the world. That is our complaint. Graver complaints are made outside, but we do not make them here. We charge the Chief Secretary with being misinformed, on the one hand, by his servants in Ireland, and on the other hand, with suppressing the reports of courts set up on his own showing for the information of this House. The suppressed report will give rise to more rumours, true or false, than anything else, and if I might make a suggestion to him in his very difficult task—he knows that I have tried to help him once or twice, but it is getting more difficult [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not bother. Give it up."] We had got 150 Members of the Cameron Highlanders the other day who refused to re-engage—

That not on the Vote.

This is my respectful advice to the right hon. Gentleman. He will publish the findings of the courts that have been set up to inquire into these cases. He knows one case well, the case of a farmer called O'Connor murdered very brutally four months, ago and about which we cannot get any information because it is in the martial law area or for some similar excuse. He was murdered on 15th December and I have been asking questions for weeks and cannot get a reply one way or another. Let us have the truth. Everybody is beginning to think that there is something very wrong with the administration of the forces in Ireland. If things are wrong it is better to let the world know than to conceal them. That is the way to restore some confidence. That will be worth more than any number of faked photographs and inspired articles and the official accounts and official communications that you can hand out to a credulous Press and a credulous public. That is worth much more than this Vote, and if my hon. and gallant Friend does not press this reduction I will myself move a reduction and I hope I shall have the support of everyone who has some real regard for the welfare of this country and its good name abroad.

The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is one of those people who is dissatisfied with everything and everybody except himself and his own opinion. He has taken a long time this afternoon in giving expression to that self-satisfaction. I do not intend to follow him in the various cases which he has brought up, but I do want to reinforce the appeal for greater publicity which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot). May I say that both the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) and the hon. Member, opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) have mistaken the appeal that was made by my hon. Friend. That appeal was for publicity, not so much outside, or at any rate not only outside, but in this House of Commons itself. Let me try to trace what happened in this House with regard to publicity. Suppose some reputed fact is brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, who is only too glad to get it, and produces it in this House in the form of a question. Perhaps the Chief Secretary has not had very long notice of that question, and so he promises an inquiry. Let the Committee realise that the facts stated in such a question are often of the most horrible character, and anybody who sees that question on the paper must share the indignation of the questioner. What happens? An inquiry is promised. Does the House ever hear the result of that inquiry? Let me give one instance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) raised the question of the Mallow shootings, and the point at issue was whether the shootings took place on the day of the murder of Captain King or the day after. I do not know yet when these shootings took place, and I want to know. May I impress this upon the Chief Secretary, that really it would be much better to give these facts, whether they are unfavourable or not. Nobody on this side of the Committee is so foolish as to imagine that you can have a large force in Ireland, constantly attacked it may be, and that you will not get certain unfavourable cases. Nobody is so foolish as to imagine that, and I think it is rather unfair for hon. Members opposite to insist that that is contrary to nature.

Who said that?

It is the general attitude. What I should like to impress upon the Chief Secretary is that he should give this information whether it is favourable or whether it is unfavourable. I do not think he will expect Members of this House to be unreasonable in their criticism of him just as he, with true loyalty to those who serve under him, is never unreasonable in his criticism of them. Let me give one further example of what I mean. It has been brought to my notice that a permanent, official in Ireland admitted there were cases of indiscipline a long time before the Chief Secretary admitted it in the House of Commons. What am I to do in a case like that? What am I to do as one anxious to support the right hon. Gentleman? I can only come to the conclusion he has been misinformed and kept in the dark. It seem to me the House is entitled to further and fuller information upon that point. Upon the question of publicity outside, I, an ordinary Member of the House of Commons, get papers sent to me from Sinn Fein. I have had thousands of different papers sent by Sinn Fein, and I do not think I have had any papers sent to me from the Irish Office except one copy of the "Weekly Summary." That does not give one a chance; that is one of the things which should be put right in the public interest. This gentleman whom we are proposing to pay £900 to-day exists to supply him and the public with official information. Is the Chief Secretary really satisfied with the fulness of the information he supplies, because if so, he does not pass it on.

Let me take this further point which has been already mentioned, the question of the publication of findings of courts of inquiry. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) that that would be most dangerous, because it would endanger witnesses and so on, I suppose. Surely you can publish a summary of those findings without endangering any witnesses, and I am perfectly certain without damaging the morale of your force, because if there is one thing more than another which would influence the Force, it would be the knowledge that discipline is to be enforced. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman has made his determination upon that point quite clear to the forces under his control. Now let me take one further point as to the sort of propaganda which the right hon. Gentleman may have to meet with the inadequate force at his command. They are inadequate. How can you expect one man in a single room in a fortress, almost a besieged fortress, to do work which is done by an entirely unscrupulous, highly organised, and highly disciplined body of propagandists outside? The hon. and gallant Member for Hull is satisfied with his information. He may have sources of information which I have not. He may be more industrious in reading the newspapers, but I do not think he will say that newspaper information is to be taken as gospel. The only thing you can take as gospel are facts you have seen for yourselves, or facts which have been reported to you by those whom you can trust. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's knowledge of the facts in Ireland is as accurate as his knowledge of Irish geography, then I am not inclined to put much trust in the conclusions he comes to.

It is as good as the Chief Secretary's!

2.0 P.M.

What is the propaganda he will have to face? He may have to face this sort of thing. Take the letter sent to hon. Members by De Valera the other day, in which it was alleged that cases of outrage upon women have become frequent and constant. Supposing the Chief Secretary gets up against a well-staged outrage on women, what is his answer to that? I submit that unless he has an accurate and repeated and constant system of reports, positive as well as negative, he has no reliable means of meeting a carefully organised charge of this sort. I do not believe that that particular sort of charge is true, but unless we get the facts on the other side here in this House of Commons we cannot be expected to continue to give an unwavering support to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will be the first to admit that, and I am very glad that the occasion of this Vote has given the opportunity to one or two of us who really have been put into great agony of mind by the repeated assertions from the other side of the House which seemed to us to have been inadequately contradicted. It is for that reason I shall join with my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Eliot) in expressing the hope that the Chief Secretary will be able to give us a little more satisfaction in the future when and if we ask for information.

The Chief Secretary opened his remarks by attributing these Supplementary Estimates to the disturbed state of Ireland, and as acts of indiscipline by the auxiliary police have tended to aggravate the disturbed state of Ireland, I am sure I will be in order if I refer to the question of the discipline of that force.

The hon. Member is certainly not in order in referring to the discipline of the police. It does not come on this Vote.

In so far as the acts of indiscipline aggravate or are part of the disturbed state of Ireland, surely it is in order?

On that point of Order. I do not wish to traverse the ruling you have given, but I would draw the attention of the Com- mittee to the item "Additional Staff of the Police Adviser's Office." I put it to you, Sir, that that is a new service, and raises the whole question.

I understood from the statement of the Chief Secretary that this Vote includes the salary of General Tudor, who is the head of the police?

I cannot tell if that is the fact or not.

May I ask the Chief Secretary, so that we may keep within the rules of Order, what that sum of £6,000 really involves and who are paid by it?

I quite appreciate the reasonableness of the request. There is no new service in this Vote at all. If it were a new service, the Treasury, who are responsible for the form of these Estimates, would put in a heading to that effect. This sum of £6,000 only concerns the Chief of Police in so far as allowances are concerned, but it does concern additional staff for the Chief of Police Office, that is to say, the allowances of this additional staff.

Have they no salaries?

Let us be perfectly clear on the point.

Surely it is not the fact that the £6,000 are given exclusively for allowances? Are not some salaries for the staff of the Police Adviser's Office included in this?

I am certain that the salary of the Chief of Police is not involved, I am clear also that provision is not sought for six additional officers who have been appointed to the office of the Chief of Police since the last Supplementary Estimate. My own view is that it does not deal specifically with salaries, though it does deal in one or two cases with the augmentation of salary.

May I draw attention to the original Vote A, which deals with the Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary and clerks. There is not one word about the police in it. That is the old Vote A, of which I hold a copy in my hand. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that this is a new service?

I am sorry it has taken so long to discuss a point of Order, as my few remarks would have been completed by this time had I been allowed to proceed with them. In so far as acts of indiscipline have occurred as part of the disturbed state of Ireland and in so far as we are discussing an additional staff of police for the Police Adviser's office—the Police Adviser being in the main responsible for discipline—I must leave it to you to decide whether I shall be in order in making the remarks I propose in regard to the discipline of the Auxiliaries.

I have already said it would not be in order.

I accept your ruling and with regret, because I feel that the remarks I proposed to make were indeed germane to the subject.

I wish to support the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote), in the general line they have adopted regarding this £900 grant for publicity. I understood that not only did they support the voting of this particular sum, but that they would have supported a much larger amount. I think the question of publicity goes to the root of our Irish troubles and that a great deal of the present misery in Ireland arises because the general facts of the situation have not been completely or sufficiently understood. I do not agree entirely that it should be utilized, or that it has necessarily been wisely utilized, in referring to facts and facts alone, because I feel strongly that an argued case should be put not only before the people of this country, but before the people of Ireland. A vital matter for which I consider this grant should be used in this country is the bringing home to the minds of the people that the whole of the Irish trouble from the beginning until to-day has originated from an attempt by a comparatively small number of people to make use of murder and outrage for political purposes. If that fact were more generally and more widely known I cannot believe that even the small amount of support which is given to those who oppose the Government in their general policy in Ireland would be forthcoming. It is also of vital importance to bring that home to the Irish people. It is clear that the people who are bringing misery to Ireland, through murder and outrage, will discontinue their efforts as soon as they realise that there is a strong and firm body of opinion in this country that stands behind the Government, that this murder and outrage will not achieve its end, and that it can have only one result, the misery of the Irish themselves. If through this organization the true facts of the position, and particularly the fact that the Government has no vacillating policy and that it is supported by a firm body of public opinion, which neither murder nor outrage nor anything else will cause to deviate from its path—if those things were known I feel sure that we could look forward to the discontinuance of these methods at no very distant date.

The last speaker has said that he thinks there is small support now given to the rebellion in Ireland. I suppose he refers to the Sinn Fein cause. As far as I know there is absolutely no support given in any quarter in this House or in this country to the Sinn Fein rebellion or to the disorders which it creates. Criticism in this House is directed to establishing peace in Ireland and that would mean the putting down of the Sinn Fein rebellion and the outrages. Criticism, in this House is directed to what we believe to be the utterly wrong methods adopted by the Government in their attempts to govern Ireland. The hon. Member was under a total misapprehension as to the position of Members on this side. He made another criticism. He said he believed that the outrages in Ireland and the civil war in Ireland could be put down partly by publicity, because as soon as it was thoroughly understood in Ireland that there was a determined body of public opinion behind the Government the crimes and the outrages and the rebellion would stop. The hon. Gentleman is a very much younger man than I am. I have heard that argument again and again for the last 50 years. It was summed up by Lord Salisbury in his memorable phrase about, "twenty years of resolute government in Ireland." I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Government that the Government may, by the unlimited exercise of force in Ireland, drive these disorders under the surface and put them down for the time being, but they will never thereby reconcile the Irish people to government by this country. Again and again, generation after generation, these horrors will break out until you take the only true means of putting an end to them, and that is by establishing in Ireland a Government by consent of the people.

On a point of order. May we also refer to the Government of Ireland?

I think the hon. Member has finished his remarks on that subject.

I only wished to reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Loseby). The question before us is, are we to vote this money as a Supplementary Estimate for carrying on the Government of Ireland in its present form? Where you have a thoroughly bad system on a thoroughly unsound basis you may prove conclusively that every detail is consistent with the other details, and from that point of view I do not attempt to criticise the details of this Vote, but I shall vote against the granting of this money for the reasons which I have already implied in the first part of my speech. I feel sure that if it was not £13,000 but £13,000,000 of money which the Chief Secretary asked us to grant, we would grant it readily if we believed it was not for developing and strengthening an utterly bad and rotten system, but for setting up a new and a better system.

I have been in public life a good many years, and in this House for many years, and I think if hon. Members had had the same amount of experience of public life and of life here, they would have taken a more exact measure of the amount of propaganda which Members of this House receive, and which the public receive, when feeling runs high. After all, is it necessary or is it wise of this Government or any other Government to take notice of what, on the face of it, and to any man who looks at the subject from a fair point of view, is not worth taking notice of; is it necessary or wise to take the allegations that are made at their face value? In the case of these charges against the police and the Army at least, the presumption in the minds of most of us who have had to deal with these forces is that they are not as a rule capable of perpetrating the horrors alleged. Does anyone believe in his heart that the allegations made in the letter which was circulated some time ago to each of us from the Dail Eireann are true? Why should we go beyond what is already available to every Member in the House in seeking for information? We get from time to time Command papers, which anyone can obtain for a penny—returns showing the number of serious outrages in Ireland reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police during certain months. I happen to hold in my hand a report covering the whole of the period from the 1st January, 1919, to the 1st January, 1921, and that is open to everybody. When you look at the summary you find that 8,857 outrages have been committed by those who associate themselves with the other side in the Irish Republican Army. The headings are, Attacks on Property; Court-houses destroyed, damaged, unsuccessfully attacked; Raids on Coastguard Stations; Raids on Lighthouses—and here I pause, for it is very well known that the reason of that is in order to make the ships coming from the British Isles founder on this rocky Irish coast—Raids on Government Offices; Attacks on Mails; Telephone and Telegraph wires cut; Old-Age Pensions thieved; Raids for Petrol; Firing into Trains: Incendiary Fires, and so on. The totals under these heads are 6,400. Attacks on persons; Police killed, wounded, disarmed; Military killed, wounded, disarmed; Civilians killed and injured; Intimidations and Kidnapping, amount to another 2,386. If hon. Members want to know what we ourselves receive, I have got a letter from a connection of mine, and I am not going to give names. It reads:—

"You will be sorry to hear that So-and-So, who was murdered last Wednesday by Sinn Feiners when driving home, was my sister's husband. It is a great blow to us all, and poor So-and-So (the wife) went through a severe strain, which she has borne with wonderful fortitude. So-and-So had never taken part in any political affairs at all, and was a most generous and good-natured soul. The horse and trap came home empty, and So-and-So (the wife) went out and found the body in the road."

My position is this, and I am sure it is the position of a great many of us, that we do not wish to start a propaganda against people who will do that sort of thing, because we believe human nature revolts against the actions of these men, and it would be spending money in vain to spend it on propaganda. If we start a propaganda directed to destroy the evil done by the propaganda by the other side, it only shows that we are recognising them as fair opponents. They are not fair opponents; they are dirty fighters, and to spend more money on them than is necessary is absolutely useless. Let people say what they like. Let us say we are determined first of all to enforce law and order, and we will not do it by propaganda or anything of the sort; we will do it by the force of law and the Forces of the Crown; and, secondly, we are prepared to give to Ireland the fullest measure of self government. I will not go further than to say that it is well that we should actually know the position of hon. Members opposite in the Labour Party, because recently their numbers have been added to, and a Member who has been added recently to their numbers took upon himself to say what their position was. Here is what he said:

"No power on earth could prevent Ireland from getting self-determination."

The hon. and gallant Member must not deal with the general question of the Government of Ireland. We are dealing here only with the specific Supplementary Vote.

Returning to the subject of publicity, I will hand this statement to the Chief Secretary, and if you do any propaganda I should like to have it reprinted as a statement of the policy of the Labour Party. It says:

"There would be a continuance of civil war"—

Order, order.

All I say is that from my point of view the best thing we an do is not to spend any money on that sort of thing, but to go on steadily and determinedly with the policy which, in the long run, will do more to bring Ireland into that state of prosperity and goodwill which all of us want to see.

With the possible exception of the hon. and gallant Gentle man who has just sat down, there has, I think, been unanimity in this Debate, at least from one point, and that is that more publicity is needed. Hon. Members opposite accuse us on this side of emphasising one aspect of the present troubles in Ireland, and we, on the other hand, accuse hon. Members opposite of emphasising another aspect to the exclusion of the one which we emphasise. After all, we have at least this excuse, that hon. Members opposite have taken from our shoulders the burden of emphasising the aspect which they emphasise. There are 300 or 400 of them to a mere handful of us. They do it very admirably. They have a strong press behind them, which lends them very valuable aid. The right hon. Gentleman, the exponent of the Government on this matter, also emphasises that aspect of the question more than the other, and, of course, on our shoulders rests the burden of emphasising the other. Upon this point of publicity the mere existence of a publicity department presupposes the desire of the Government for publicity, and I presume the policy of the publicity department must be that the truth shall be known—the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am going to suggest what indeed has often been suggested before, that if the Government are really anxious that the truth should be known, then they should take upon themselves the burden of making the truth known, and relieve both sides of the responsibility. I suggest that the simplest method of doing that would be merely to publish the reports of the various courts which are making inquiries into all these terrible affairs in Ireland, both on the one side and on the other, quite impartially. Let us know the truth of both sides. Then there is the report of General Strickland. Why not let us have that? If the Government want us to know the truth, if the Government think publicity desirable, as they do, or they would not be asking for this money, why not let us have that report? I think the Government could also do admirable work if they published that report of Judge Bodkin the other day. That was a report of proceedings which were taken on oath, and my recollection is that my right hon. Friend called it the other day a partial report. [Hon. Members: " Ex parte. "] Very well, an ex parte report. It was a report of proceedings at which witnesses were heard on oath, and, as a matter of fact, nothing has been said yet to the contrary. No state- ment which was made in that letter has been denied. But it does not matter what it is, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he really wants the public to know the truth, to let us have the reports of all these courts quite impartially, both inquiries as to outrages committed by Sinn Feiners, and as to outrages committed by forces of the Crown.

No one is more anxious than I am to support the Government in their Irish policy up to the very hilt. I think the right hon. Gentleman has got the most difficult job of any Member of the Government, and deserves our utmost sympathy and all the support we can give him in order to enable him to carry on. But it does make it difficult for us, when we are confronted with the argument in our constituencies, that the Government are hushing it up, that they will not tell the truth. I represent a constituency which, in this great London of ours, I believe is as strong as anywhere in the prominent Irish organisations, and I have addressed one or two meetings practically convened by communists. I was challenged to go, and went. I had at once the argument against me, "Why cannot the Government tell the truth?" I found it an argument almost impossible to refute. I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman. to give information which may be of assistance to the enemy, but cannot he give us information about such things as the burning of Cork? To hush it up seems only to breed distrust. I get letters from Ireland. I have one or two naval friends who are employed in Ireland, and they write me very frequently, so that I get quite a good insight into affairs from men on the spot who are not directly involved, as those in the Army are. I have one or two letters about Cork, and they seem to show that if the facts were only widely known, it would be seen that, while some of the Crown forces were implicated no doubt, the main portion of the blame was upon Sinn Fein. It may be so or it may not be, but I do plead with the right hon. Gentleman—I am as anxious as anyone in this House to support him—to see if he cannot give us information. I, like my hon. and gallant Friend, am afraid that Sinn Fein will stage outrages on women and then blame them on the Crown forces for purposes of propaganda, and, unless we are perfectly certain of the information, how can we go to our constituencies and reply to charges made. It is doing us untold harm all over the world.

I rise with a great amount of diffidence, and I can assure the Committee that anything I say on this subject will not be done with any view of serving any political end, but with the object of giving the views of a plain man who has never up to the present interested himself actively in politics. I want to refer more particularly to the "expenses of maintenance due to present abnormal conditions." I need not labour the point as to the present condition of the country, and I do not think it would serve any useful purpose, even if it were within the rules of this debate, to enter into any discussion as to the cause or causes which have brought about the present condition of affairs. We know that grievance is followed by resistance or outrage, that outrage is followed by repression and repression is again followed by grievance, until there was set up a vicious circle, and it becomes as difficult to disentangle cause and effect in this matter as it would be to solve the time-honoured problem as to which came first, the hen or the egg. The only question, then, is in regard to what can be done. From my knowledge of the country, where my position brings me into contact with all classes, I know the feeling which is abroad. I am perfectly satisfied that the one way to avoid bringing about a settlement is to continue the present policy of the Government. I am not here as an apologist for Sinn Fein. I deplore their methods as I deplore the methods by which they are combated. But if one is to understand this problem at all, and more particularly if you are going to see daylight, you must endeavour to get behind their spectacles and to see things from their points of view.

The first point I should like to make is this: All hon. Members of this House agree that these outrages are as bad as they can be. We all agree that they are murders. The point we must bear in mind is that from the point of view of Sinn Fein they are not murders. This whole point is psychological. You must understand their psychology. They might say, and they do say, that you have as good a right to accuse them of murder as anyone would have had to accuse our soldiers in France of murdering the Germans. I do not agree with their point of view, but I can see it. Therefore, so long as they regard the matter from this point of view, so long as they say, and believe, wrongly in my opinion, that their first duty is to offer armed resistance even under these terrible conditions, there is no use in fighting, for in the whole history of movements of this kind, if I may be allowed to say so, success has never resulted from countering a strong feeling of this kind by force of arms.

How is it to be met? I believe it can be met. I believe it can be met if the Government choose to take a firm step; if they do so I believe you could get peace inside of a month, a peace, too, which would be satisfactory, and satisfy the only essential stipulation which would be laid down. As I understand it, one thing must in all circumstances be preserved, and that is what is shortly called "the strategic unity of the Empire." It is not for me to say—I am not a Member of the Government—by what method that quite desirable object should, or could be brought about, but I believe it is possible, and I hope the Government will see their way to make an effort in this direction. I hope, Sir Edwin, I have not transgressed the rules of order. I am not very well versed in the conditions that accompany debate here, and I can only express my thanks for having been allowed to say what I have said.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member who has just sat down was entirely within the limits of order in the course he has pursued, but I am quite sure that if I attempted to follow him on the subject which he has opened out I should probably be ruled out of order.

At once.

Still, I agree that the sentiments expressed should have been mentioned in that brief form. Like many others, I speak as a supporter of the Government in regard to its Irish policy. I am a supporter of both branches of that policy, on the one hand of the drastic repression of criminal outrage and violence, and on the other hand of the remedial policy of putting into force a measure of Home Rule. I am a strong supporter—I would say an unqualified supporter—of both of these branches of Government policy. My sole desire is to strengthen the hands of the Government, and especially of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, with great courage and great perseverance, is endeavouring to sustain one of the most terrible burdens that any Minister could be called upon to sustain.

I must, however, confess to a feeling that in some respects the Government is not doing justice to its own policy. I must confess a feeling of misgiving as to the propaganda on one side and the lack of it on the other, and in some cases as to whether the methods which are adopted in carrying out the policy of which I approve are effective methods, and in some respects also as to whether they are the right methods. I do not know, I should like to be furnished with the means of knowing so as to give a reasonable opinion upon these matters. The Government is opposed just now in its Irish policy by a remarkable propaganda from two quarters. There is the Sinn Fein propaganda which is an able propaganda, brilliantly conducted, very unscrupulous in its methods, utterly reckless with regard to questions of truth and fact, a propaganda very widely directed, and reaching to many quarters. There is also, in addition to the Sinn Fein propaganda quite a different propaganda, of the opposition both in this House and in the Press to the Government, which, I think, undoubtedly in many cases tends to use the Irish question not merely on their merits but for mere party purposes as a stick to beat the Government. I could take no better illustration of that than the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), for there we have an admirable illustration of the kind of propaganda which is being used against the Government merely for party purposes. He took the case of the rumours which we all saw in the Press with regard to a lady whom, as far as I know, we have every cause to respect, and to sympathise with, Mrs. MacSwiney, the widow of the late Alderman MacSwiney, suggesting, somewhat callously, that within a few months of the death of her husband she had become engaged to marry again, an entire falsehood which was contradicted. Then he immediately proceeded to suggest that this rumour was put about by Dublin Castle, and to ask: Was money being asked for in this Vote for the purpose of spreading these rumours in regard to Mrs. MacSwiney? What reason was there in any degree, what even remote reason was there, direct or indirect, for associating these rumours which had appeared in the newspapers over here with the activities of the right hon Gentleman's Department in Dublin? There was no reason. He did not allege that there was any direct reason, but, after having devoted about a quarter of an hour to emphasising the infamy of such methods, and the disgrace of this attack upon a woman, he said that his only object in raising the question was to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman through his subordinates was the author of this attack upon the reputation of this lady. That is an example of the quite unscrupulous use of material of this kind for the mere party purpose of attacking and damaging the Government without any reference whatever to the merits of any question in Ireland.

Confronted as we are by this propaganda on behalf of Sinn Fein, and this party propaganda to which I have referred, two separate and distinct propagandas, what are the Government doing to reassure public opinion in this country? I cannot refrain from saying that I think the Government are not doing enough. They are content to rest solely on their policy, believing it is the right policy, pursuing that policy, and hoping that public opinion will follow and support them. It is not enough to be right You have to convince the country that you are right and carry the country with you. I do not suggest that what is wanted is what is popularly known as a propaganda campaign on behalf of the Government. Propaganda in that sense is no use. The Government is not going to persuade the country that all is right by merely taking into its employment some journalist or civil servant, paying him a salary, and getting him to write articles or to issue reports or argue that the Government is right. That will have very little effect. It is not propaganda that is wanted so much as publicity. It is the air of mystery and of secrecy that is doing the Government most harm. I am convinced that if the Government can find the means—I think it can find the means—and can find the courage to let the facts be more fully and widely known, even in those cases where the facts are against them, it will do more to reassure public opinion than anything else. I am convinced that in all the essentials of policy, in the suppression of crime and outrage in Ireland, and in putting into force the Irish Home Rule Act, it has the country behind it. No propaganda is needed in that respect, but what is needed is publicity, and the abolition of secrecy and mystery, in order that the country may be convinced that the methods which are being used to support the policy of which the country approves are effective methods and the right methods.

I only want to emphasise the concluding remarks of the last speaker. I entirely agree that publicity is needed hot only in this country but in Other countries, especially among our Allies. During the last few weeks I have had communications from persons in France wholly differing from me in politics—I have even had one from a schoolgirl, who is being educated there—stating that in that country the Sinn Feiners have a form of propaganda that is penetrating right throughout the length and breadth of the provinces of that country, and that there is nothing to counteract it. One of the methods adopted by the organisation is to scatter broadcast De Valera's charges, which were sent to every Member of this House. Whatever be the opinion on that side or on this side of the Committee there is not a Member who believes that the charges of De Valera that our troops have been responsible for outraging women are true. Those charges, however, were circulated throughout France, and French gentlemen, who politically differ from me, say that for the good name of England at least publicity ought to be given to the denial of those charges, and I can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use the increased money coming his way, not for giving any colouring for party purposes, as has been alleged, but for publishing a statement of absolute facts, contradicting these outrageous charges that are not only bringing dishonour on men in a difficult position, but also making the position of our friends in France difficult when they are not denied, so far as the Government is concerned.

3.0. p.m.

I hardly know anything so distasteful to an Irishman as the debates which sometimes take place in this House with reference to Ireland. As a patriotic Irishman who loves his country and is an Imperialist to the backbone, I do deprecate many of the things which are said from time to time in this House about my country. I know there are times when those who sit on these benches are blamed largely for that which is at present happening in Ireland, and for the need now for this propaganda. We should be out of order to-day in discussing the origin of all this trouble. We may go back to the day when Ireland first showed its face above the seas if we want to find the origin of the Irish question. As long as I can remember anything about Ireland it has always been said that meantime Ireland is in a very serious condition. That is the reason we have this debate to-day—the serious condition of things in Ireland. What I would like to address myself to for a very short time is the item headed "Publicity Department." The Chief Secretary, in his opening statement, said the complaint was made that enough was not done to put the case before the world, and that this Vote is intended to give such information. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) used somewhat the same language and asked how could British public opinion judge when certain information was withheld, and if sufficient money was not spent on this Publicity Department how could the English public be truthfully informed of what was going on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also referred to the question of publicity in connection with affairs happening in Ireland, and referred to the Press of what he called on his side. He said that even the Northcliffe Press was impartial in giving what he believed to be the true facts as to what was happening in Ireland. I am sorry I cannot agree with him. When I take up an edition of the Northcliffe Press, such as that published on 14th March, I read in big headlines plain enough for everyone to see

"More Irish Executions To-day."

"Dublin in Dread."

"Women's Protest March."

"England Executes War Prisoners."

This is the propaganda issued broadcast by papers professing to have tremendous sales, millions of copies, and which everyone is supposed to read. That is the truth about Ireland as given in the Northcliffe Press. May I give another example of the propaganda of the Northcliffe Press. I believe that the Press Association is used to try to educate the British public with regard to what is happening in Ireland. The Press Association on 1st February telegraphed to the British Press as follows:—

"A number of railwaymen ran up the line—

this is in connection with the account of the Mallow shootings—

"A number of railwaymen ran up the line and a fusillade rang out behind them, as a result of which one man, Dennis. Bennett, a cleaner, aged about 17, was shot dead."

That was issued by the Press Association, so that English people might understand what was happening in Ireland. The Northcliffe Press, along with the other Press I presume, got this telegram in the usual way. But this is how the "Times" of 2nd February issued its copy of the Press Association telegram:

"A number of railwaymen ran up the line and the police fired, with the result that—"

The rest of it is practically the same.

Is it not true then?

I am pointing out to the House how the Northcliffe Press deliberately puts words into the original telegram which were not there.

Have you seen the original telegram?

Is it not true?

I am pointing but the "fakes" in the English Press.

Have you seen the original telegram? One may be wrong and the other right.

I am pointing out that the Press Association telegram, as sent to the whole British Press, is practically in the same words, and surely some explanation is necessary when one particular paper gives it in a different form. It is only reasonable to argue that one particular paper is deliberately faking things, and I think I am quite within my rights in putting that argument forward. I should like to have a little more propaganda of some kind different to that which the English people are asked to swallow, such as these statements denouncing the executions in Dublin. Recently the "Westminister Gazette" said:

"You may think the young men of Ireland misguided or deluded, but this spirit which risks everything and goes smiling to the gallows to resist what it thinks to be oppression is plainly not that of a murderer. … To cease talking of these men as a murder gang and to consider seriously what has brought them to this pass and why we are in this desperate conflict with them is the first need if we are to grope our way back to statesmanship."

Will we be allowed to quote extracts from the "Weekly Summary," seeing that the hon. and gallant Member is now quoting from newspapers?

I cannot say to what extent quotations can be made until I have listened to them. This is a Vote for Publicity, and the hon. and gallant Member is showing why the money should be voted. He is quoting extracts in support of his argument which, so far as I can judge, are in order. With regard to quotations which may be made later, until they are used I cannot really rule that they will be out of order. I must know in what connection they are being used.

When I hear in this House of a Press which does not take partisan action, I think I am entitled on this Vote, which is to be used specially by the Government for counteracting misstatements and misrepresentations, to use these quotations. According to this paper, these young men are not to be styled murderers. I think it is for the English Press, if they want to have this question settled once and for all, to tell us the truth as far as it is possible to get it, and not deliberately to put these murderers into the limelight as patriots of the first water. They tell us of the scenes that took place outside the gaol whilst these murderers were being executed. Is that in order to settle the Irish question?

Now the hon. Gentleman is getting into arguments as to what is in the newspapers. That would be out of order.

The whole emphasis of that section of the British Press to-day is a deliberate propaganda in order to hound down the Government and those who are responsible for it. If it is not the question of Ireland, it is some other question. To-day we have before the Committee the question of publicity, and the expenditure of public money in order to tell the truth to the world in connection with Ireland. I wish it were more money. It is not enough. I am sorry that they do not use their funds, and all their inside knowledge, in order to suppress such propaganda as was published recently by a delegation of the Labour Party, who went over to Ireland to try to find out the truth. We all know that almost all the information they got came directly from Sinn Fein sources. It is that propaganda that we want the Government to deal with. We want the truth about it. I wish that parties in this House would not try to use the lamentable state of Ireland in order to further their party interests. Where they are trying to get the truth, I wish they would try to get it from both sides. As an Irishman who loves his country, I say that the present state of Ireland is most lamentable. I must not now go into that question, but I would like to press upon the Government the necessity of spending more money on telling us exactly what is happening, and in contradicting such things as appear from day to day in the Northcliffe Press. I do not say that the Northcliffe Press, in their propaganda against the Government, do not to a large extent tell what has happened so far as they know, but what I object to are these great headlines, almost invariably pointing out sympathy with murder. At the same time, in some little obscure corner of the paper, you will find what I saw to-day—a case where a girl had been tied up to the gate of a chapel with her hair cut off, and "Beware of spies, I.R.A," written on paper attached to her. Why are not things like that published with great headlines? It seems almost beyond human ingenuity to discover a means whereby this country of mine may be brought back to its original state, but if the question of propaganda and the spending of a little money is going to help, I do hope that the Government will bend all their efforts in that direction. For myself I doubt it very much; there must be some other way. At, some other time I hope to have the opportunity of discussing with my hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Woods) his ideas. As far as we are concerned on this side, we are prepared to give to the Government, or anyone else, all the help we can to settle once and for all this Irish question. I hope the Government will pursue relentlessly the course they have taken, quite apart from anything that the English Press, such as I have mentioned, can do, and that shortly we shall see the country in a state of peace which she has not enjoyed for a very long time.

I want to say to the Committee just a few words, mainly in repudiation of the strange allegation which has been thrown out against many of us on this side of the Committee, that we do what we do in connection with this subject in the hope of reaping some Party advantage. That has been said, not merely once, but several times this afternoon. First let me say how much I feel impressed by the two speeches which the Committee has heard from two Irish representatives, one speaking from the point of view of the North, and the other the representative of Dublin University. Both of those speeches prove how complete and ignominious is the failure of the method at present pursued for the government of Ireland. We are now asked to consider financial provisions for greater publicity—for the spending of larger sums of money in order that this Government may be enabled to tell the truth about themselves. The lamentation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down might be lessened if he took particular notice of the headlines in the North of Ireland Press. They are not less bold, they are not less clear and impressive, than any of the headlines in any English paper.

I think you will find that they are.

That certainly has not been my impression so far, and I think I may invite the Government to make some comparisons for one's satisfaction at some future time. There is no word or implication of untruth in the headlines to which the hon. and gallant Member objected. Whether we like it or not, these men who are described as murderers do not so regard themselves. They expose them- selves daily to the greatest personal risks and sacrifice, and go smiling to the gallows. They believe that they are at war with England, and we in this House regard England as being at war with, at any rate, a considerable portion of the Irish population. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] My answer to that dissent is that we are using every instrument of war. An army, the forces of military power of every kind—shot and shell and tank and gun—everything that can be used which is known to the Army is being used at present in connection with the Government of Ireland, and if really we are not at war it is time we faced the situation and reversed this policy. In short, we have tried every method of producing a state of good Government in Ireland except the method of letting the Irish people govern themselves.

If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to argue this question, shall I have the right to reply?

I was just about to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my ruling.

I do not think I have uttered a single word which has not touched upon some previous argument used by the two or three preceding speakers.

Of course I cannot prevent hon. Members saying things which are out of order, and until they have said them, I cannot rule them out of order. When I have ruled them out of order, it is not in order for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to what has been said under those circumstances.

I rose principally to repudiate strongly the repeated statement that in taking the line we did in regard to Irish administration we are seeking some party advantage. I hope I am at least entitled to deal with that argument. It is not a new argument. Older Members in this House can recall it being used 25 years ago. It was alleged against Mr. Gladstone, against his colleagues and against the Liberal Party in the political life of this country in former years. Whether true or not it is at any rate a very old Tory political charge. As to the Labour Party seeking to reap party advantage I can truthfully say that on the contrary we are conscious of suffering serious political disability for taking up what in many parts of this country is an unpopular cause. But we have not faced it from the angle of any political gain or political advantage. We cannot stand to reap any advantage at all as a party from the course we are taking on this Irish question. It is really because the country is getting sick of the sight of blood in Ireland that there is such indignation in many British constituencies, and that is why these pathetic appeals are now being made to the Government to spend more money in this country in order to tell the British electors the virtues of the present Government in its discharge of Irish administration. There is in this country a great Coalition Press ranged actively behind this Government. There ought to be no sense of disadvantage in the minds of hon. Members as to the virtues of this Government not being sufficiently trumpeted in almost every town in the country. Millions of sheets are circulated in every big centre in this Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Manchester Guardian"]. Surely my hon. Friend knows little, I will not say of the quality of the British Press, but at any rate of the degree of circulation of various papers when he mentions the paper like the "Manchester Guardian" in comparison with the millions of sheets to which I refer. The truth about Irish government would be better known to the people in this country if we had fewer of these newspapers, and I can assure the Chief Secretary that his policy is not likely to be strengthened by seeking to spend public money for what is at best a partisan purpose. If we are to have the money of the State spent in any avenue of publicity, it must not be spent in any one-sided way, and if we are to have the facts as they are called circulated, let us first make sure that they are facts, and that can only be done by taking a much more impartial line than up to now the Government has shown itself willing to do. I protest against the implication that our views in these matters of our activities are determined by any hope of party advantage. On the contrary we are quite well aware that in facing what is often the unpopular duty of carrying on propaganda of this kind as we do in the country, we stand rather to lose than to gain from the political standpoint.

No one can accuse me of taking part in this debate with the idea of advancing the political interests of my party in this country. I am speaking for Ireland. I am anxious to see Ireland liberated, and I am anxious to see Ireland and England reconciled. I do not care which Government accomplishes that task. If this Government does it I shall be glad. If it postpones any attempt to accomplish it naturally I shall be glad to see its place taken by another Government. What I want is to see the Irish question settled and I am not concerned by which party in the State it is settled. I have been a supporter of every political party in this House, including the party of hon. Members opposite. I hope it will not be in the Book of Judgment, but I helped the party opposite to win a good many seats in 1885 because they pledged themselves against the coercion of Ireland. If I entered upon the question whether that pledge was carried out I should be going beyond the rules of order.

With regard to the present debate, if the circumstances in Ireland were not so tragic. I should regard it as one of the most farcical debates I have ever heard in the House of Commons. The proposal of the Government is to get a grant of money for publicity. The attitude of the Government and many of their supporters is publicity and yet again publicity and yet again publicity. That is the longing and yearning above all things of their souls. I would apply to the action of the Government also the phrase de l'audace, de l'audace et toujours de l'audace. Of all the audacious things I have ever heard I have never heard anything so audacious as the Chief Secretary, with his record, coming and begging the House to give him a greater opportunity for publicity. I observe my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Loseby) also joins in the cry for more publicity. I think the request comes with special appropriateness from him. The other day he brought a charge in the House, whether true or not I do not know, of misconduct involving not cold blooded assassination or wholesale execution, but the offence of malversation of public money, an offence grave enough, but not as grave as this, and he got practically the universal assent of the House, includ- ing the assent of the Government, to an inquiry as to his charge. An independent inquiry, publicity, a judge to preside over the tribunal, and the charge one of malversation of public money. We have been asking for a public inquiry in regard to charges of cold-blooded assassinations and looting by the Forces of the Crown and wholesale burnings. We have been asking for that for months, but we have not got it. My hon. Friend who comes forward with the charge of malversation and who is perfectly within his right in demanding from the Government more publicity—

I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Member is in error. I have made no charge of malversation.

Then I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend and I offer him all the greater congratulation. I thought his charge was one of malversation. It was some trick of the loop in regard to the management of money or the arrangement of accounts, and for that he gets a public inquiry and a judge, while with regard to charges of cold-blooded assassination we ask in vain for an inquiry. This is the gentleman who comes forward and declares for publicity, more publicity, and again more publicity. There is another reason why my hon. and gallant Friend was so well entitled to join in this cry for publicity. I remember that the day when the wholesale burning of Cork was announced we put a number of questions to the Chief Secretary as to whether it had been done by the Forces of the Crown. His reply was, "There is no evidence whatever." He always displays great fervour, especially when he is in a tight place. If I did not know the right hon. Gentleman so well I should think he was sincere in these declarations for publicity. We all remember his answers. "No evidence whatever has been brought to me—I do not give his exact words—"to connect the forces of the Crown with these incidents." I asked "Who did it?" and I heard several voices from the other side of the House. I hope I am not doing my hon. and gallant Friend an injustice, but I thought I heard his voice. I said "Who then burnt the City of Cork?" and the hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not require much to enthuse them on behalf of the Government of which they are supporters—I use no other word than that of supporters—were so enthused and in- flamed by the histrionics of the right hon. Gentleman in denying my implication that the forces of the Crown had anything to do with the burning of Cork, that when I asked who burnt Cork voices from the faithful Benches opposite—even more faithful than the hon. Members below the Gangway who, I believe, are called the National Democratic party—even more than an hon. Gentleman who was formerly a Liberal and who brings to the Government all the well-known zeal of what I must call, in delicacy, the convert—called out "The Sinn Feiners." I thought that I recognised among those voices the voice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I apologise to him for having mentioned his name, if I am wrong, but certainly when I was met with that cry of "The Sinn Feiners." I thought I recognised his voice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Everybody said it."] Do you say it? I thought in all the world there was not a human being left who thought that Cork was not burnt by the forces of the Crown; but there is one faithful among the faithful who holds that it was the Sinn Feiners of Cork who burnt down their own beautiful city by way of revenge.

If the hon. Member is referring to me, may I point out that we have heard of the burnings of Cork, but we have not heard of the multitudinous murders by Sinn Feiners.

When my hon. and gallant Friend knows the rules of the House better he will know that to make a counter argument is not a point of order. It is just like the mind of the hon. Member and those who think with him. I charge the forces of the Crown with burning down Cork, and the answer is that the Sinn Feiners did something else. My point is, "Who burnt Cork?" These champion advocates of publicity suggested that it was the Sinn Feiners until the truth was thrust down their throats by facts that nobody could deny. Of course, give us all the publicity you can give us. Give us the Strickland Report. This pretence of the Government that they want more publicity is the most impudent thing that I have ever heard foisted upon the House of Commons. You talk about the party spirit. If this question were to be decided not by party spirit and party votes in the House of Commons, but by the voice of the English people, I know what the answer would be. They are asking for publicity and we are asking for publicity. An hon. Friend of mine who also was once a Liberal who spoke to-day talked about the people behind the Government. He has just returned from Kirkcaldy and by his defence of the Government helped to return the Labour candidate, a friend of Ireland.

What publicity have you ever given us that we have not had to drag from you? What has been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? He is a Canadian. I am as great an admirer of Canada as he is, but I say that the Canadian does not quite understand the English mind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor the Irish."] That is quite true. There is one thing the, English people like and that is straightforwardness, truthfulness, plainness of speech and no evasion. What has been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? He mistook the English people. He thought that he could bluff this thing through. You cannot bluff the English people. A certain amount of bluff goes with them for a certain length of time, but you cannot bluff them always, and once they begin to suspect the veracity of any man in public life in this country that man is done, and he ought to be done. One of the great virtues of the English people is their love of truth. What has been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? We are breaking it down I admit. First, a forcible emphatic denial of any charge, then a suggestion that the crimes which are laid against his servants were committed by another body in Ireland, third a grudging admission, and, fourth, an inquiry. Publicity! Publicity which takes care that every inquiry which we have had to drag from him should be surrounded by every circumstance not to advance but to prevent publicity. Take what we had the other day with regard to these three horrible murders. A public inquiry? Everything shall be dragged out! The whole facts shall be known! The criminals will be trapped and detected! What criminal has been trapped and detected among the forces of the Crown during the administration of the right hon. Gentleman? A few days ago I put the question—has anyone of those forces of the Crown who were charged with cold-blooded assassination been brought to justice except one, the man who shot Canon Magner and the boy Crowley, and that man was found to be insane and sent to Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum.

He is at large in Cork.

That is not true.

He was quite recently.

I do not make that statement. My hon. and gallant Friend may have information which I have not. I make the statement that in the case of all the scores of men who were killed in cold blood by servants of the Crown, not one assassin has been brought to justice, except this particular man. There were two murders committed in Balbriggan. Have the murderers been found? And there were three murders committed in Limerick. Have the murderers been found? No, but there has been a public inquiry, not by a court of law, not an inquiry by a judge, such as my hon. and gallant Friend has secured in connection with some dabbling with accounts. The widow of one of the murdered men refused and rightly refused to go to a trial of soldiers by a tribunal of soldiers. No such inquiry is real publicity. No such inquiry will satisfy the public conscience either in England or in Ireland. Take the case of the looting in Trim. How much publicity did you get for that with your hole-and-corner proceedings that are still going on? We do not know yet what the end of that hugger mugger will be. Any publicity we have got from the right hon. Gentleman has been forced out of him. It was not he of his own will that gave us such a miserable pretence of an inquiry as we have had in the Trim case. It was General Crozier's exposure of the dirty looting which he as an English officer was asked to condone. You complain of the want of publicity in this country, and an hon. Friend of mine from Armagh (Lieut.-Colonel Allen), describing himself as a patriotic Irishman—I do not contest his patriotism, I have never contested the patriotism even of my Orange fellow-countrymen; I contest their judgment—quoted accounts in English papers. I cannot understand the kind of topsy-turvy mind that exists in some of these supporters of the Government. The hon. Member complains that a paper in this city misrepresented the Report; in the other papers it was said that the military had shot a man, while in this paper they substituted the word "police" for "military" [HON. MEMBERS: "No"], or the other way about.

In the one case there was no question of military or police or who did it. In the other case the word "police" was deliberately put in.

Here is where the topsy-turvydom comes in. The important point to the mind of my hon. Friend was that the word "police" was substituted for "military." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the Committee allows me to make my point, it is this, that a man was killed, and the important fact was whether a railwayman when running away, who was doing nothing but attending to his duties, was killed or not. My hon. Friend ignores that point and fastens on some alleged inaccuracy in the Report.

The "Times" says "policemen."

The man who was killed. That is the important point.

The misrepresentation is the important point.

Is it more important whether a man was killed by the military or the police than whether the man was killed or not? Is it suggested that it was the Sinn Feiners killed him?

The suggestion is that it is simply false propaganda.

False propaganda, because it states that the man was killed by the police; and the important point is said to be not that the man was killed, but whether he was killed by the police or the military. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You complain of propaganda against you, and you suggest that you will get rid of that propaganda by spending more money. You will not get rid of that propaganda if the Estimate before us this afternoon were for £9,000,000 instead of £900. Who runs this propaganda? You were told in some of the papers—and this is the kind of suggestion that might commend itself to the political intelligence of such a person as the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch—

He is not in the Committee. Do not insult an hon. and gallant Member behind his back.

Whether it is Bournemouth or Christchurch it does not matter. It is only local knowledge like that that my hon. and gallant Friend possesses which can make the distinction between Christchurch and Bournemouth. The suggestion is made in the "Morning Post," which I think I might regard as more or less representing the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that this propaganda against the pure and spotless innocence of the Government is the creation of a great Bolshevik conspiracy That is only one of the many sources. Bolsheviks, Germans and Jews—these are the people that are co-operating in this great anti-British propaganda throughout the world; and the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet this combination of Bolsheviks, Germans and Jews by a Vote of £900. There is no propaganda against you except the propaganda of your own deeds. It is said that the Sinn Feiners have an admirable propagandist system. It must be a little inadequate, because it was never sent to me. Never mind, I do not make that as a complaint. I might ask the Chief Secretary for it, he might promise it me and I might not get it; but it is got by the Germans, Bolsheviks, Jews and Sinn Feiners. I have read some of this so-called propaganda I ventured to show the House the other day a series of cartoons which had appeared in the Press of the world. I do not produce them from a French journal or a German or an American journal but from an English journal—I suppose in the pay of the Bolsheviks, for everybody knows that Mr. C. P. Scott, the editor and proprietor of the "Manchester Guardian," is just the kind of man who would be in the pay of the Bolsheviks! There were four cartoons there. Whenever I am in France I scarcely take up a French paper that I do not find an article upon Ireland. These articles are not written by Sinn Feiners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your speeches!"] I am very glad if my speeches are held worthy of being recorded in the French Press. They are certainly not recorded in the English Press. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, with the politeness one would expect from the Member for Bournemouth (Brig.- General Page Croft), gives as the reason that they know me here. If, when they have known him here as long as they have known me, they have as good an opinion of him as I think the majority even of my fellow-citizens in England have of me, I shall be able to congratulate him on not having had a misspent life.

These articles are not written by Sinn Feiners. I read one article, and I know that when I come to give the name it will be murmured that it was by a German or a Bolshevik, because the name was Sauberwein; but the author is a patriotic French Alsacian. He had been in Ireland, and described what is taking place. Take the so-called propaganda in the United States. I saw the other day a cartoon representing a conversation between a Turkish Delegate at the recent Conference, not with the right hon. Gentleman, but with a typical English speaker. The Pasha had his scimitar covered with the blood of butchered Armenians, and he was gazing on John Bull with an air of ecstatic admiration because he was learning his lessons from the Turk. The other day I found some more propaganda, an interview with, I think, a representative of Kemel Pasha, and somebody was indelicate enough to ask him a question about the butchery of the Armenians. The Turk, with the natural politeness of gentlemen of that race, especially if he is a butcher, said that when there was a rebellion, as there was in Armenia, and it had to be put down by severe acts of repression, then, of course, some regrettable but necessary severities may be committed by the Black and Tans in Ireland. You are making the name of England a name of shame at the very moment when you have come out from the War in which you alleged that you were fighting for the liberty of the world, for the safety of representative institutions, and the defence of small nationalities. The Press of the whole world is against you, not because of propaganda by Bolsheviks and others. The Press of the world is against you because you are trying to drown in blood the aspirations of a nation, and you are trying to crush a race which for seven centuries has conquered bigger and better men than any of you to-day.

I congratulate the father of the House on his very vigorous championship of his country. Nobody has done more in his time than he to bring about the peace which everyone desires between Ireland and this country. Long may he be spared to trounce the Chief Secretary and everybody else who sits on this bench. I will say this for the hon. Gentleman that his language is always parliamentary and that his severest criticism leaves no sting with those who suffer from his castigations. I cannot, and Sir Edwin Cornwall would not allow me, to follow the hon. Gentleman in his speech, for I have been warned from the Chair that I shall not be allowed to discuss questions of policy. I cannot therefore deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member in his eloquent speech. I wish I had the opportunity of doing so, because I do not stand here in sackcloth and ashes for the policy of His Majesty's Government. The Forces of the Crown and the loyal and law-abiding people of Ireland are going through a most difficult and dangerous time in Irish history. But I must restrict myself to the Supplementary Estimates before the House. I shall endeavour to reply briefly and I trust satisfactorily to many of the criticisms that have been raised. The debate has shown that there is no condemnation of the Government on the ground of want of economy in these Supplementary Estimates. Criticisms have been restricted to the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the £900 required under the head of Publicity. Let me clear up at once what I think has been a certain amount of misapprehension on that point. This £900 is a Supplementary Estimate to complete the payment of the staff engaged in publicity work in Ireland and in the Irish Office in England. It does not constitute by any means the total expenditure.

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is always quite clear with the House. He says that this is required to complete a certain sum for publicity. I have in my hand the other estimates, but there is not a single penny anywhere for publicity until it comes to this supplementary vote. It is a new sum.

That is hardly a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, so far as I understand it, says that there is no other sum of money under this heading but there may be under some other head. It is not under this heading, "Publicity." I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said. When he said this was only part of a sum, I imagined there was some other sum under another heading. That may be the case. That is not a point of Order. It is matter for elucidation by the right hon. Gentleman as he proceeds with his speech.

On that point of Order. I have drawn your attention to the fact that this is a completely new sum, therefore it must be a new service, and being a new service, we are entitled to have the greatest freedom of debate upon it. There is no such sum under any department of the Irish Office. Therefore my right hon. Friend is not entitled to come here and say, this completes any item.

The hon. Member puts another point of Order. I am well aware of the fact that this is a new item under this Vote, and I have allowed a wide discussion because it is a new item. Time will show what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind with regard to this being part of a larger payment for publicity under some other Vote.

This is not a new service as the Treasury understands. It is a new item. I want this money to carry me over between now and the end of the financial year. In the Estimates that will come on as soon after Easter as is convenient there will be the salaries of this staff, set out in detail on which there can be the widest discussion. But you cannot complete your financial year without this £900. That is the whole point. We are just starting, because I felt for some time the need of this. This is put down to help me to start. Let me explain what I have exactly in my mind. It is not any idea as dealt with by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). To-day there is no such thing as a tied Press, as people have often suggested. The Press is becoming more and more independent, and I think it is a fine thing.

Where?

The "Daily Chronicle"

In Ireland. It is a natural thing for representatives of great journals in this country and the world generally to go for information—I have no doubt they do so—to Sinn Fein leaders. I am certain they come to Dublin Castle and to the Commander-in-Chief, the county inspectors, and officers throughout Ireland. It is essential for us to have someone—I think it is essential to have several men—who are accustomed to deal with these journalists who will escort them around Ireland and introduce them to anybody they wish to see who will give them the Government case, who will provide, if necessary, motor cars with escorts, because in parts of Ireland it is risky business to go travelling around with the best intention looking for information. That is one form of securing publicity through the medium of the Press, untied and independent, but whose representatives I submit should be received with every courtesy and should be shown every consideration, no matter what newspaper they represent. As I said in the earlier part of the debate, with the exception of one man we have not had a single complaint with reference to the treatment of journalists from any newspaper in the world.

4.0 P.M.

Another thing, in certain parts of Ireland—it is quite a delusion to think that all Ireland is in rebellion—the saddest events in our history are taking place, namely, murders and other incidents less sad but certainly grievous. These events are focussed in the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief on the military side, and in Dublin Castle on the police side. I submit this House is entitled to the fullest information as to any of these events, and I do my best through my officers and the Commander-in-Chief does his best through his officers, to get the information, centralise it, and distribute it through the usual agencies, or distribute it to individuals who ask for it, and give it to this House in the fullest possible way. I have listened to frequent criticisms of myself on account of the fact that I do not disclose everything. I do my best, and I am just going to take one case. It is said I am badly informed. It is not an easy thing to get well informed. A man is shot in the dark in some place in Ireland, a fight occurs, a fire breaks out, and there is a general melée. Next day in this House a question is asked of the Chief Secretary, and he is expected to know the sequence, the fact, the cause, and the culprits.

You are unable to answer for three months in some cases.

Surely the Committee will see it is in my intention to punish the guilty, whoever they are. A case has been quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) namely, the O'Connor case.

Four months.

Not quite so long as that, but some time.

15th December.

This case has been on the Order Paper, set out in the most lurid details, week after week. I have tried my best to get the facts, and I will give the facts as they are to show the Committee the difficulty one is in in answering quickly allegations of the most gruesome character against the Forces of the Crown. I am giving you this from a Memorandum I have received from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief who is responsible for the area involved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to a question of general administration, or is he dealing with this Supplementary Estimate?

The question has already been referred to.

Only in so far as it has referred to the desirability or undesirability of having this publicity has it been referred to. I only wanted to know was the right hon. Gentleman defending his administration or defending this Supplementary Estimate, because that would influence subsequent debate.

I am defending it. Under the head of publicity, this and many other cases in Ireland can the more quickly be brought home to this House and be made public if I am allowed to have this Vote and the larger Vote on the main Estimate. As to the case which has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I have received a statement that the inquiry has been hung up by waiting for witnesses. One witness, a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, had been wounded by Sinn Feiners and was only now able to give evidence. Another pos- sible witness had undergone a serious operation and would not be fit to travel for three weeks. It would be impossible to have a complete inquiry until this witness could give his evidence. What is the use, then, of accusing me of holding back information?

I withdraw most fully after having received that explanation.

I was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw.

Why have we not got that statement until to-day?

The point I am emphasising is not against the hon. and gallant Member but to show the Committee the difficulty one has in securing information and in carrying on the administration of justice.

I helped you there.

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for all the help he has given me and I hope he will continue that assistance. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) and other speakers as to the need of a larger grant of money for wide publicity, not in any partisan sense, but in order to distribute the facts—not opinions—so that this honourable House and the country and the world may know the truth as to the Irish situation. When I say the facts I do not mean only the facts as to events like a murder or a case of arson or cases of looting, but facts in a wider sense, because I have been greatly impressed by questions in this House and by some of the speeches to-day as to the need of informing the House more regularly of the administration of the law in Ireland. I shall do my best to see that that is carried out. That also means the collection of findings of courts of various kinds and their proper printing and distribution. While I am on that let me point out the difference between supplying propaganda and the Government issuing statements. Any individual in any part of Ireland can telegraph what he will, accurate or inaccurate, as to any events that take place in Ireland. If newspapers choose to print those messages nothing can stop them. But no Government can do that sort of thing. The Government must rely on its responsible agents for information that it issues officially. That can only be done after inquiry, and that always means slowness as compared with the individual who can wire off the wildest allegations and accusations against the forces of the Crown without any regard to their accuracy or care as to their effect.

The O'Connor case was true. There was a murder.

Another point I want to make as to the need for publicity is this, that there is no secrecy about the administration of the law in Ireland. Last summer we could not get jurors, litigants, or witnesses to attend the Assizes, but I am glad to say that the judges who are now going to the spring Assizes in Ireland are finding that the litigants are coming, the witnesses are coining, and the jurors are coming.

Judge Bodkin.

Yes, he sits regularly and unmolested and sends a copy of his letter to every Member of this House. All I say about his report—I will not criticise him, because he is a judge, but surely it shows there is no secrecy about these County Court or any other judges in Ireland. Then the Resident Magistrates are doing difficult and dangerous functions, after four have been murdered in cold blood by the enemies of this country and of Ireland, and brave men they are. That is the civil side of the administration of the law; it is perfectly open to the Press and the public. When we come to the criminal trials, we have to depend upon British regular officers, and I consider—and nothing will shake me in this—that the British regular officer has as high a standard of honour and as strong a sense of fair play as any other human being in Ireland or elsewhere. He is the only person we could get to try these criminal cases in Ireland, and over twelve have been murdered because they did their duty on these tribunals. The shocking murder of the 21st November last on a Sunday morning about 9 o'clock was of 12 officers, mostly non-combatant, who were engaged on this tribunal work. They sit in lieu of inquests for the simple reason that the jurors of a coroner's inquest either would not attend at all or if they did gave decisions according to the intimidation of the locality.

I wish to ask whether subsequent speakers will now be allowed to traverse the whole ground of Irish administration and criticise it as the Chief Secretary has defended it?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has said anything which would justify that course.

You have not been listening to him then.

Is the hon. Member for South Down in order in saying that the Chair was not listening?

Is any hon. Member justified in making very insulting references to the conduct of the Chair?

If I am prepared to overlook it, I think the Committee might.

The suggestion is made that there is some secrecy in these tribunals in Ireland, and I am answering those suggestions, under the head of publicity, to show that there is no secrecy in the tribunals. I wind up on this point by saying that courts-martial are open to the Press, to the friends of those interested, and to the counsel of the accused, and there is no secrecy. None of these courts are ever closed unless a witness asks for it to be closed for the protection of his own life or unless, as rarely happens, the President of the Court considers that one of the tribunal or other person would be likely to be injured if the court were left open. I am all, in the words of the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), in favour of letting the daylight in, but I cannot ask the agents of the Government, in the face of the murder of so many of them, to take a risk which is not only unreasonable but does not make for the good administration of justice in Ireland.

May I make one short reference to the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) regarding certain cases of railwaymen? He dealt with the case of three men in the martial law area who were held up by officers with revolvers. It must not be forgotten that for six months large numbers of railwaymen in Ireland were on strike against carrying soldiers, rifles and munitions. It ought not to be forgotten that in the martial law area the military have absolute control over the trains. It is their duty to see that no railwaymen are armed and that none of them carry messages for the Irish Republican Army. I regret if there was any unnecessary force used, but I am certain that if there were, it would be brought to my notice in this House. But where you have rebellion, and martial; law as a consequence, the Commander-in-Chief is the sole authority in the area over all persons, military police and civilians. You must allow him to restore order in the way he judges best. I am confident he is doing it according to the best traditions of the British Army. The right hon. Member for Derby did not refer to the murder of railwaymen in the course of their duties by the Irish Republican Army.

We are not responsible for that.

All these disastrous things are the direct consequence of the rebellion which, I regret, is carried on in parts of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested that I was misinformed at different times. I feel that criticism very strongly. I drafted with my own hands the following, order to the police, which shows the Committee I am fully alive to the criticism. I think it is ill-founded, but I am fully alive to it:

"It has been said and suggested in the House of Commons that some police reports are not true, and are intended to mislead. The Chief Secretary regards this as incredible, but he desires to make it clear that if any policeman, no matter what his rank, makes any report intended to mislead the Authorities, he will be dismissed from the Force, and lose all pensions and other rights. This order should be circulated to all stations."

I do not know what more I can do to carry out the natural wishes of the House than to require that every report I receive shall be true in substance and in fact; that whoever it may condemn, or whoever may suffer from the effect, it should, and must, be true. I have carried out that order in the spirit and the letter, but I have yet to know of any case where I have been intentionally led astray by these gallant officers of the police force. I am impressed by the desire which has been expressed for more publicity to inform this House and the country and the world. I am also impressed by the request to make known the results of all kinds of inquiries. Let us be clear in our minds that where the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief inquires into matters affecting discipline, the House will not expect me to give information.

If it is murder, we want it.

If it is murder the man will be charged in open court. Men are now under charge for the murder of the police. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have been tried"] Yes, some have been tried. There is no secrecy about the charges; the courts are open to the world. But there are certain kinds of inquiries as to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, as a Service man ought to know, and does know, the House will not, I think, expect to have reports furnished upon. I can assure the House, however, in reference to the great mass of inquiries in Ireland there is no secrecy, and I shall do my best to inform the House better than in the past of the results of the findings of the courts. I must always reserve the discretion, because the fundamental fact which is so often overlooked is that Ireland or a part of it is in a state of rebellion, and unless you wish to tie the hands of the Government in putting down this state of rebellion—which everybody admits—you must give the Government some discretion in dealing with a particular kind of inquiry. I am glad there has been no severe criticism upon the actual amount for which I ask. I think I have cleared up matters which have been criticised. I appreciate the kind words that have been spoken in regard to myself, and as to the belief that I am doing what I can to the best of my capacity in Ireland. There is no ill-will to the Irish people. I hope the House will grant me this Estimate. When the main Estimate comes before the House in the early part of the Fiscal Year I hope we shall have a full and complete Debate upon the policy of the Government in Ireland.

I desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide"]—and I make absolutely no apology to any hon. Member of this Committee for continuing this Debate. If hon. Members think that getting away for the weekend is more important than— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide" and Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman really did excel even his own past efforts in the speech which he has just made. He says, "I am asking for a little money for publicity. We want publicity. We want daylight, and the world is wanting to know the truth about events in Ireland." There was one event in Ireland which, I suppose, struck the imagination of the world more than anything else, and that was the burning of the Chief public buildings in one of the most important cities in Ireland. There was an inquiry into this. The right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and pretends that he is in favour of publicity and of letting the world know the truth while at the same time he declines absolutely to publish a report of the findings of the inquiry into the burning of that city. Could audacity go further? The right hon. Gentleman says something about Ireland settling down again to law and order, about the courts being re-established, and so on, when we know every day from the newspapers and from his own public statements that things are getting worse, and worse, and worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.] Certainly they are getting worse. There have been more murders on both sides in this year than there have been proportionately in any period of the same length in the history even of this Administration. The right hon. Gentleman comes and pretends that three-quarters of the country is as peaceful as Kent. He went to a meeting the other night and declared that his policy was succeeding. The same thing was said by the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor's banquet; he said that they had murder by the throat. The next day there were 25 questions on the paper dealing with murders, and I regret to say that nobody has been brought to justice for these horrible murders. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he wants £900 in order that the world shall have the advantage of understanding the brilliant success of his Administration. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman sometimes complains that he does not get notice of the cases that are brought up in the House More than a month ago I put to the right hon. Gentle- man, in I hope a temperate way, 15 cases of terrorism, of arson, of looting, and of murder, and neither in that debate nor as far as I know since has any answer whatever been forthcoming to any one of those cases. If he is going to have £900 to publish facts, then I ask him to give us the facts in some of those cases.

Did you ever put a single case of murder where you believed that you had definite evidence against the Sinn Feiners?

Does the hon. And gallant Gentleman think that I am without sympathy—

I ask you: Have you ever put a single case where you believed that you had definite evidence against the Sinn Feiners? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

What is it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know?

I want to know whether you have ever asked a question in order to try to bring to light the culprit where it was quite evident from the evidence as far as one could see that it was a Sinn Feiner who was guilty?

Certainly, I have repeatedly asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in this House whether he has brought anyone to justice for any sort of murder. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman means that I have condoned the murder of Crown forces, I deny it.

What about the ten cases?

I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now whether he is going to spend any of this £900 in publishing the results of the inquiries in those cases? Take the case of the looting at the house of Mrs. Lysaght. Has he ever asked for any report which he can publish in that case? There was the case of the war nurse who was threatened by Forces of the Crown and whose trinkets were stolen by Forces of the Crown. Was there an inquiry, and if so, will be publish the result?

Yes.

Then I think the money will be well spent. I think it is a pity, however, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has waited six weeks before he proposes to publish the result.

He is careful to find out first.