at the matter as one of "misunderstanding," and when Gough and his
brother officers appeared at the War Office on Monday the 23rd they were
told that it was all a mistake to suppose that the Government had ever
intended warlike operations against Ulster (the orders to the fleet had
been cancelled by wireless on the 21st), and that they might return at
once to their commands, with the assurance that they would not be
required to serve against Ulster Loyalists. General Gough, who before
leaving Ireland had asked Sir A. Paget for a clear definition in writing
of the duties that officers would be expected to perform if they went to
Ulster,[76] thought that in view of the "misunderstanding" it would be
wise to have Colonel Seely's assurance also in black and white. Seely
had to hurry off to a Cabinet Meeting, and in his absence the
Adjutant-General reduced to writing the verbal statement of the
Secretary of State. A very confused story about the subsequent fortunes
of this piece of paper made it the central mystery round which raged
angry debates. This much, however, is not doubtful. Seely went from the
Cabinet to Buckingham Palace; when he returned to Downing Street the
paper was there, but the Cabinet had broken up. He looked at the paper,
saw that it did not accurately reproduce the assurance he had verbally
given to Gough, and with the help of Lord Morley he thereupon added two
paragraphs (which Mr. Balfour designated "the peccant paragraphs") to
make it conform to his promise. The addition so made was the only part
of the document that gave the assurance that the officers would not be
called upon "to crush political opposition to the policy or principles
of the Home Rule Bill." With this paper in his pocket General Gough
returned to his command at the Curragh.

There the matter might have ended had not some of the facts become
known to Unionist members of the House of Commons, and to the Press. On
Sunday, the 22nd, Mr. Asquith sent a communication to _The Times_
(published on the 23rd) in which he minimised the whole matter, putting
forward the original pretext of movements of troops solely to protect
Government property--an account at variance with a statement two days
later by Churchill in regard to the reason for naval movements--and on
the 23rd Seely also made a statement in the House of Commons on the same
lines as the Prime Minister's, which ended by saying that all the
movements of troops were completed "and all o