Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HISTORY OF ARMY TROUBLE WHITE PAPER ISSUED

MINISTER FOR WAR EXPLAINS. WHAT THE ARMY COUNCIL INTENDED. (Received March 26, 9 a.m.) LONDON, 25th March. A White Paper has been issued in connection with the matters bearing on the resignations of Army officers in Ireland. It states that on 16th December, an interview was held between Colonel Seely and the general officers commanding, when the possibility of resignations was brought under Colonel Seely's notice. Colonel Seely dealt with the legal question, which laid it down that a soldier could not shelter himself from civil law behind his superior's order if that order was unreasonable and outrageous. For instance, if the Army was called upon to massacre a. demonstration of Orangemen who were not endangering their neighbours' lives, the soldiers would be justified in refusing to obey. What was required to be faced at present was the possibility of troops being required to support the civil power to protect life and property when the police were unable to do so. Colonel Seely declared that he would hold the officers individually responsible for seeing that nothing was done under their commands subversive of discipline. The Army Council on 14th March, believing that Armagh, Omagh, Carrickfergus, and Inniskillen were liable to attack, instructed Sir Arthur Paget to take special precautions. Sir Arthur Paget telegraphed that all the officers of the Fifth Lancers except two were resigning their commissions, and there was tear of the same condition in the Sixteenth Lancers, and also the fear that the men would refuse to move. Sir Arthur Paget telegraphed on the 20th that the Brigadier and fifty-seven officers of the Third Cavalry Brigade would prefer dismissal if ordered to the North of Ireland. The Army Council replied authorising the suspension of the senior officers, and ordered Brigadier-General Gough and the officers commanding the Fifth and Sixteenth Lancers to attend at the War Office, officers being sent to relieve them forthwith, and that the resignations of all officers should be refused. General Gough reported that his officers were unanimously of opinion that further information was essential before being called upon, on such short notice to form decisions vitally affecting their future. He especially asked for a clear definition regarding the duty required of them in Ulster. If it consisted in the preservation of property and the maintenance of order, all were prepared to carry that duty out, but if it involved military operations against Ulster the officers would prefer dismissal. On the 23rd, General Gough asked whether, in the event of Home Rule becoming law, the officers would be called upon, under the expression of maintaining law and order, to enforce Home Rule. He insisted that this point should be made clear. The reply initialled by Colonel Seely, i Field-Marshal Sir John French, and General Ewart on the 23rd authorised General Gough to inform the brigade that the Council was satisfied that there had been a misunderstanding. The duty of all soldiers was to obey the Council's commands for the protection of property and the support of civil power in the event of disturbances in the protection of lives. This was the only point the Council intended Sir Aithui- Paget to put to the officers. The Government must retain the right to use the troops in support of the civil power in the maintenance of order, and did not intend to take advantage to crush political opposition to their policy or the principles of Home Rule. COLONEL SEELY'S ADMISSION INADVERTENTLY MISLED CABINET. THOUGH INTENTION WAS HONEST (Received March 26, 10 a.m.) LONDON, 25th March. j Colonel Seely added that Sir Arthur Paget's officers honestly believed that a plan existed to overwhelm Ulster by a surprise attack. They were not awaro |»that they were only asked to support the civil powei. Sir Arthur Paget denied the accuracy of the letter purporting to giv« a a his phrase that "the country would fee jn a blase by .Saturday." H

said he meant a blaze in the press. Colonel Seely accepted the responsibility of granting conditions to General Gough. He admitted he misled Cabinet inadvertently, though he was honest in his intent. Therefore, he tendered his resignation. The suggestion that the King took any initiative was absolutely unfounded. COERCION NEED NEVER HAPPEN THE ASSURANCE TO THE ARMY. GIVEN WITHOUT CABINETS KNOWLEDGE. (Received March 26, 10 a.m.) ' LONDON, 25th March. Mr. Asquith. said that coercion of Ulster could never happen, and never would happen if Ulster took advantage of the Government's offer. When Cabinet was dealing with General Gough, said the Premier, they authorised the Army /Council ,to supply him with a document explicitly setting out the army's duty, without giving an assurance of any sort. Afterwards Colonel Seely, without Cabinet's knowledge, added a paragraph giving that assurance. The Premier, in conclusion, emphasised that Cabinet would never permit demands for an assurance which would place the Government and the House of Commons at the mercy of navy or military. A HELLISH INSINUATION WINSTON CHURCHILL ROUSED BONAR LAW'S PERTINENT QUESTIONS. (Received March 26, 8.15 a.m.) LONDON, 25th March. Mr. Bonar Law said there were many gaps in the. White Paper which required filling before adequate discussion was possible. Colonel Seely had said he would conceal nothing, and that the White Paper included all the instructions given Sir Arthur Paget, but where were oral instructions respecting the movements of troops and also numerous consultations of which there were no memoranda? Mr. L. C. Amery (Unionist) asked : "Will Mr. Churchill state whether he hoped that the purely precautionary measures would lead to fighting and bloodshed?" „ Mr. Churchill repudiated this, and said it was a hellish insinuation. This caused an uproar. The Speaker ordered the withdrawal of the epithet. Mr. Churchill reluctantly withdrew it. On Colonel Seely'a- suggestion the discussion will be continued on the full facts to-da.y.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19140326.2.69

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 72, 26 March 1914, Page 7

Word Count
971

HISTORY OF ARMY TROUBLE WHITE PAPER ISSUED Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 72, 26 March 1914, Page 7

HISTORY OF ARMY TROUBLE WHITE PAPER ISSUED Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 72, 26 March 1914, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert