HC Deb 05 May 1881 vol 260 cc1842-70
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

In rising to propose the Vote of which I have given Notice, I desire to make a very slight explanation. The names in the second Resolution, as they are given in the Paper, are in the order of their Army rank. But, as Major General Sir Frederick Roberts held throughout the campaign the local rank of Lieutenant General, and served in command of several of the officers whose names appear in the Resolution, I think that it will be more fitting that the name of General Roberts should occupy the place which it would have occupied if he held the rank which he enjoyed in Afghanistan. The Resolution will, therefore, be amended by the insertion of the name of General Roberts next to that of General Stewart, according to the local rank held by him. Sir, in moving this Resolution, I think I may justly say that it is my object to avoid all reference to any subject of controversy whatever. We have had frequent opportunities of discussing the policy of the Afghan War. I hope it may not be necessary to renew those discussions; but if it is, I am sure it will be the opinion of the great majority of the House that this will not be a fitting opportunity to do it; and I think most of us will agree that whatever may be our opinion of the policy of the war, the gallant officers and soldiers engaged in it had no other duty, when war was once declared, than to use their utmost exertions to carry it on and bring it as suc- cessfully and speedily as possible to a close. I have one word to say in explanation of a departure which has been made in the present instance from the practice which has been pursued on former occasions. On other occasions the Vote has been prefaced by offering the thanks of the House to the Viceroy for the part he has taken in applying the resources of India to the prosecution of the war. Exception has been taken upon more than one occasion to the earlier practice. When the thanks of Parliament were voted to the Army that had been engaged in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny, Mr. Disraeli took exception to the Vote to Lord Canning, the then Viceroy, on the ground that the introduction of the name of a civilian or Viceroy was calculated to intrude matters of controversy into a proceeding which ought, as far as possible, to be removed from controversy in such a connection. And when the right hon. Gentleman opposite, two years ago, moved a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in the Afghan War, I thought it necessary, although I raised no opposition to the Vote, to call attention to what fell from Mr. Disraeli, and expressed my opinion that the course indicated by Mr. Disraeli might have been more wisely followed. We have, after some consideration, decided to take upon this occasion the course which I indicated my preference for two years ago. But I need hardly say we have done this, not with a view of casting the slightest slur upon, or in any way of disparaging the services of either the late or the present Viceroy. I do not think anyone would imagine that I should be a party to disparaging in any way the services of the present Viceroy; and I hope that no one would expect that I should take this opportunity of voluntarily casting any slur upon the late Viceroy. Whatever may be the views taken upon questions connected with this war, I, at all events, am the last man to impute to the late Viceroy any want of energy, forethought, or skill in the prosecution of the war. I will now very briefly mention to the House one or two of the leading events of the late campaign, in regard to which I propose that the thanks of the House should be given to the Army. The House will remember that, on the conclusion of the Treaty of Gandamuk, in May, 1879, the Army of the Khyber and the Kuram line was immediately withdrawn into India, and it was decided that the occupation of Candahar should be continued until autumn. On the 3rd of September the Residency at Cabul, whither Sir Louis Cavagnari had been sent as our Envoy, was treacherously attacked, and, in spite of a vigorous defence on the part of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his escort, the greater part of them were murdered. The Government of India, of course, took immediate measures to avenge so treacherous an act, committed on the person of our Envoy. The measure immediately resolved upon was the re-occupation of the Shutargardan Pass, with the object of advancing the Army upon Cabul. The re-occupation of Jellalabad and the Khyber Pass was determined upon, and the evacuation of Candahar, which was then in progress, was at once suspended. At the same time, orders were given to General Stewart to advance upon Cabul. Well, Sir, immediate effect was given to this determination of the Government of India. Between the 3rd of September and the 12th of September, 6,000 men advanced on Cabul, the Shutargardan Pass having already been occupied by General Massy. On the 5th of October General Roberts gave battle to a large force of the enemy, who had taken up a formidable position in the form of a horse-shoe, extending over two or three miles of hills, which were described as rising one behind another. The attack of the British upon that position was completely successful. The enemy, after severe fighting, were entirely dispersed, and many of their guns were taken. On the 8th of October, the brigade under General Massy occupied Sherpur; and on the 12th the British flag was hoisted upon Bala Hissar. The energy with which these operations wore performed may, I think, be realized when the House considers that it was only on the 3rd of September that the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his companions took place, and that by the 11th of October, in spite of the most serious opposition, the result I have mentioned was achieved. In these operations, no less than 214 guns belonging to the enemy were captured by the force under General Roberts. General Sir James Hills, whose name is included in the Vote, was appointed Governor of Cabul; and, in that capacity, he ren- dered most efficient service in various operations in the neighbourhood, and was frequently mentioned in the despatches of General Roberts. Well, Sir, at the same time, steps were taken for the re-opening of the Khyber Pass. This step was necessary because, though the Shutargardan route was one by which the advance could most rapidly be taken, it was not a route which was open throughout the whole of the winter. Meanwhile, General Bright was employed in re-opening communications through the Khyber Pass. By the 14th, means had been adopted for keeping open the communication. On the 5th of November, the Forces of Generals Bright and Roberts met at Cabul. From that time until the arrival of General Stewart, General Roberts exercised supreme political, as well as military, control at Cabul. General Roberts at once saw the necessity, although the capture of Cabul had been effected, of breaking up the combinations which were rapidly forming themselves around Cabul for the purpose of threatening his communications and attacking his position. This enterprize proved to be one of a much more formidable character than was at first anticipated. General Roberts achieved considerable success in breaking up those combinations; and on the 10th of December dispersed large bodies of the enemy; and, for the purpose of checking the movements of the enemy, a force under General Massy was despatched upon the following day to follow up that success. He encountered a large number of the enemy, not less than 10,000 men, under the command of Mahommed Daoud, and was obliged to fall back. In the course of this affair, he lost two guns, which were, however, recaptured the same day. From the 12th to the 14th of December, very constant and severe fighting took place; but no advantage was gained by the enemy. However, a force, estimated at not less than 50,000 men, surrounded Cabul, which was too overwhelming a force to justify General Roberts in holding the city, and, on the 14th, he retired into Sherpur. That cantonment was occupied from the 14th to the 22nd of December. The duty which fell upon the troops during the period I have mentioned was of the most severe and arduous kind. The attacks of the enemy were constant; the cold was very severe, and the duties alto- gether were of the most trying description; but, animated by the example of General Roberts and the other officers, the troops behaved in a way than which nothing could more admirable. On the 22nd of December, an attack was made on the cantonments. That attack was well resisted; and, at the same time, General Roberts made a flank attack, the result of which was the complete defeat and dispersion of the enemy. From that time until the return of the troops from Afghanistan, although several expeditions of a minor and unimportant character were undertaken with the view of breaking up hostile gatherings, the operations were not of very great importance. In the Kuram, the route through which had been abandoned after the Khyber was opened, no military operations of any great importance took place; but General Tytler found it necessary to make an expedition against a tribe which had treacherously murdered a British officer. That operation was conducted with complete success; but I much regret to state that in consequence of exposure General Tytler died. The command in the Kuram Valley was exercised by Major General Watson, who, in the earlier phase of the war, had commanded the contingents furnished by the Punjab Chiefs to the complete satisfaction of the Government of India. He held the Kuram command till the close of the war. On the renewal of hostilities it had been arranged, on the relief of his troops by corps from Bombay, that General Sir Donald Stewart should, if necessary, threaten the fortress of Ghazni, and it was resolved that he should march from Candahar by Ghazni to Cabul, returning to India by the Kuram or Khyber route. On the 31st of March, the General marched with this object from Candahar, and on the 19th of April he was attacked at Ahmed-Khel, 20 miles from Ghazni, by a large body of the enemy. The attack was one of an extremely important character. It was made by a party of greatly superior force, and the enemy was aided by many thousands of fanatical soldiers, whose onslaught was pushed with such desperation and persistency that General Stewart was obliged to put every man of his reserve into the firing line. The loss of the enemy was very severe, amounting to between 2,000 and 3,000, over 800 having fallen in the attack; and the value of the success achieved was enduring. No further operations of importance took place until the month of July, when, in consequence of the advance of Ayoob Khan from Herat, the Government of India found it necessary to despatch a small force to Candahar, under the command of General Burrows, to assist the Wali, who had shown the greatest loyalty to the Government. Sir, I need not detain the House with any record of the events which took place at that time. They are, unfortunately, better known to the House and the country than are the more successful operations of the war to which I have referred. It is enough to say that on the 28th of July General Burrows suffered the reverse of Maiwand; and in referring to that reverse, deplorable as it was, I must say that although there may be reason to think that the result might have been different if the troops had been otherwise handled—still, it is but just, both to the officers and the men engaged, to say that it ought to be remembered that they met an enemy immensely superior in number, and animated by the same fanatic courage with which they had attacked General Stewart. The result of this unfortunate action was the retirement of General Primrose from the cantonments to within the city and citadel of Candahar, where he was very soon afterwards besieged by Ayoob Khan, the siege continuing from the 28th of July to the 29th of August. The principal event which took place during the siege was the sortie of the 16th of August. The result of that sortie, though extremely creditable to the valour and courage of the troops engaged in it, was not altogether satisfactory, although it relieved the garrison for some time from annoyance. I cannot pass from this subject without mentioning the loss which was sustained by the British Army on that occasion by the death of General Brooke, who was shot while endeavouring to save the life of a wounded comrade. Sir, immediately upon the disaster of Maiwand and the investment of Candahar, orders were given to Sir Robert Phayre, who was in charge of the communications in the Bolan Pass, to concentrate his force and proceed immediately to the relief of General Primrose. Although Sir Robert Phayre was unable to reach Candahar before it was relieved by General Ro- berts, great credit is due to him for the energy with which he encountered and overcame innumerable difficulties in the way of obtaining transport and supplies, and in hurrying up his force as quickly as he did. In the meantime, it had been decided that Sir Frederick Roberts, at the head of a picked force of 10,000 men of all arms, should march from Cabul to the relief of the garrison at Candahar. General Roberts left Cabul on the 9th of August, and arrived at Candahar on the 31st, having covered 316 miles in 23 days. On the very day of his arrival the General reconnoitred the positions of the enemy in force, and the next day he attacked them, and with perfect success, completely routing Ayoob Khan's force and dispersing them, capturing 34 guns. So much has been said as to this memorable operation that it is unnecessary I should detain the House with respect to it; but I cannot leave the subject without mentioning the name of General Ross, who commanded the Infantry division, and whose able assistance, not less than that of many of the brigadiers and other officers, has been so frequently and generously acknowledged by General Roberts in his despatches, and by the Government of India in commenting upon those despatches. Sir, I have only been able to give to the House the barest outline of the principal operations which took place. I cannot, however, but feel that in this, more than in ordinary wars, even if the record were more complete, it would still convey a very inadequate idea of the dangers, the difficulties, and the hardships encountered by our gallant troops. A large portion of the service was necessarily of a kind which could not be reported in despatches, or in that or any other way be made known to the world. A great part of it consisted of operations of the most trying and difficult character. During the occupation of the country, as well as during the progress of the operations, the troops were constantly in contact, and frequently in collision, with an active, brave, and sometimes treacherous enemy, especially on the line of communications and on the dangerous duty of securing supplies. The officers had, therefore, to be constantly on their guard, and were frequently engaged in skirmishes of which no record has been left. It is service of that kind—signally trying as it is—that is a better test than is furnished by more conspicuous operations of the true qualities of the men. I am happy to say that, in the opinion of the Government of India, the conduct of the troops in all these services was everything that could be desired. I propose that the thanks of the House shall be given, as they are due, to Sir Frederick Haines, the Commander-in-Chief. It was his earnest desire to have taken personal command of these operations, and he pressed his wish on numerous occasions upon the Government of India. For administrative reasons, however, it was impossible that his request could be complied with. All these military movements, however, have been entirely under his direction, and the uniform success which has attended them is due to the ability with which they have been planned as well as the fidelity with which they have been executed. The Government of India has paid testimony to the unfailing discipline, the high spirit, and the cheerful endurance which have been conspicuously evinced by the whole force during this prolonged and trying service. They exhibited the most soldierly qualities, and rarely, if ever, has a war been conducted in an enemy's country with such a strict regard to the principles of humanity and honour, and with such a total absence of excess of any kind. I think the House will agree with me that great credit is due to Sir Frederick Haines and his predecessors for the high state of discipline which rendered it possible that so flattering a tribute should be offered to the Army. I have referred to the active services of Sir Donald Stewart. It is impossible, in speaking of him, not to mention the spirit of self-sacrificing generosity with which, on the eve of a critical military operation, he reduced his own force, and placed the pick of his troops at the disposal of Sir Frederick Roberts. It has not been usual in Votes of this character, and I have not thought it necessary, to make special mention of the services rendered in this campaign by the political officers. But it would not be right that I should conclude without reminding the House that in wars of this description the services which are rendered by the political officers are not only of the highest importance, but are frequently attended by personal risk. Of the political officers, and the services rendered by them, I can only speak in the most general terms. The services of the Lieutenant Governors of the Punjab and of Bombay have been recognized by the Government of India. Sir Robert Sandeman, our Agent in Beloochistan, has, throughout this campaign, rendered services of the most signal and valuable character. He has preserved, with great ability, the best relations between our Viceroys and the Khan of Kelat, who has shown loyalty to his allies, and has on several important occasions rendered the greatest service to our Army. Sir Robert Sandeman was also placed at the head of the administration of the whole line of communications, and his services cannot be overestimated. The Government of India have also rendered a just tribute to the skill of Mr. Lepel Griffin, who for six months was in charge of our political relations at Cabul. I need not remind the House of the assistance rendered, at personal risk, by Colonel St. John at Candahar on the unfortunate day of the battle of Maiwand. It remains for me to say what has been done by the Government of India in the direction of rewarding these services. To Sir Frederick Haines, to Sir Donald Stewart, and to Sir Frederick Roberts, Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to offer the honour of baronetcies, which two of these officers have accepted; but Sir Frederick Haines, for personal reasons, has declined, at all events for the present, the acceptance of that distinction. In conformity with former precedents, the Indian Council has also granted to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts, who are officers in the Indian Service, pensions of £1,000 a-year for life, or, if they prefer, a capital sum of £12,500. The troops have received six months' batta, and a medal will be struck for the Afghan Campaign, with the names of several engagements on the clasps. In commemoration of the famous exploit of General Roberts, a bronze star will be given to these who took part in it. I have now only to say that, cordially as I trust the thanks of both sides of this House will be given, and fully sensible as I am of the extent to which the troops of all arms have deserved it, I hope that the time is far distant when we may be called upon to renew these military operations. Successful as, on the whole, they have been, it cannot be denied that, as must always be the case, they have shown us some defects in our military organization which the Government of India are now earnestly engaged in considering. There is an ample and honourable field open to British officers to co-operate with that Government in remedying those defects and increasing the efficiency of the Army of India, upon which our power must always rest, and which must always, therefore, be maintained in the highest state of order and efficiency.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I rise to second the Vote of Thanks which has just been proposed by the noble Lord, and I can assure the House it is not my intention in any way to weaken the statement of the noble Lord by attempting to add any comments or remarks of my own. I am convinced that the simple narration which the noble Lord has so ably given of the events of the recent campaign is, in itself, enough to reward those to whom we wish to do honour. It was but necessary for the facts to be stated—for the facts, I am sure, will speak for them-selves. I agree—and I trust the House will also thoroughly agree—with the sentiments of the noble Lord in his opening observations, that this is not an occasion on which, if ever, we ought to discuss the policy of the Afghan War. It would, indeed, be a very great misfortune if, when we were considering how we were to acknowledge the gallant conduct of our brave soldiers, we were to mix up our expressions of admiration for the men who have shown such devotion to duty—a question upon which there can be no difference of opinion among our fellow-subjects—with matter which may be of a contentious character. We cannot but feel, however great may be the honours bestowed by the Sovereign, or in any other way, upon the soldiers who fight for us in the field, there is one honour they covet, I believe, above all others—I mean the honour of special mention in the Houses of Parliament, and a Vote of Thanks from those Houses. I am convinced that although the British soldier, when he is far from home, and when called upon in a strange land to undergo, not only the perils of battle, but also the long and trying sufferings which the noble Lord has so well pointed out, in campaigns like this—and not only the British soldier, but the Native soldier also, when called upon to fight for the flag under which he is so contented to serve, and under which he has shown himself on many occasions to be so true and loyal—I am convinced that both the British and the Native soldier, when they are called upon to undergo these sufferings and make these exertions, are largely sustained by the certainty that their efforts will be recognized and appreciated by those in whose cause they are engaged. I will not make any remarks upon the question the noble Lord referred to when he spoke of the change he has made in not introducing the name of the Viceroy of India, as has been customary in such Votes. We fully understand the ground on which he has made the alteration. It is not with reference to this occasion only, but as to what has been his opinion on a former occasion, and that it is not one Viceroy only, but two—one not belonging to the Party to which the noble Lord is opposed, but to which he himself belongs, whose name has been deliberately omitted. We, therefore, understand that no slight has been intended, but that the intention of the Government has been to direct our special attention to those who have been engaged in the military operations, and it is purely in connection with those operations that the Vote is proposed. In selecting the names that have been brought before us for commendation—those who are to receive the thanks of this House and those whose names have been mentioned, though not included in the Vote—the desire has been to pick out the names of those to whom great honour is due; and I can only express regret at the omission of any special reference to the conduct of our Native officers and the Natives who have been employed in our service. I may take the opportunity of mentioning a name well known to many in this country besides those directly connected with the administration of India—I mean Sir Gholam Hussein. I am glad to be permitted to second this Vote, and to associate myself with the Vote of Thanks which the noble Lord has proposed in the full confidence that the Vote will be passed in the spirit in which such Votes are passed—namely, as a Vote of Thanks to those noble and gallant men who have laid down their lives or endured hard-ships in our behalf without reference to any other consideration.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Thanks of this House be given to General Sir Frederick Paul Haines, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., C.I.E., Commander in Chief in India, for the ability and judgment with which he directed the recent operations from September 1879 to September 1880 in Afghanistan."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

MR. HEALY moved, as an Amendment— That this House, disapproving of the Afghan War as needless and unjust, considers it inexpedient to return Thanks to Officers or Soldiers for slaying a number of people with whom we had no righteous quarrel, and devastating their Country. The hon. Gentleman said, that, although the Prime Minister refused to allow time to discuss Motion with respect to the arrest of a Motion of the House, because it would stand in the way of Land Bill, he had arrested the progress of that important measure in order to introduce this Motion. He would not make any needless remarks to delay discussion; but he considered it his duty, even although he had only one other Member to go into the Lobby with him, to take a division upon his Amendment for the purpose of protesting against the unjust and needless slaughter and reckless invasion of Afghanistan. He had often thought, when reading the accounts of the battles in that country, particularly in the way of setting up pretenders, that he was reading a chapter in the history of his own country 200 years ago; for, in almost every particular, the old system of British policy as carried out in Ireland was renewed in Afghanistan. On this ground, as well as on general grounds, he had put down his Notice. He thought it would be considered rather remarkable if it were to go forth to the world that it was only successful soldiers who were to be thanked. Had this war ended by the defeat and dispersion of the British forces and their being driven beyond the Frontier, the House would never have been asked to accord them thanks. When the Boer War was ended the Government would not be willing to return thanks to the soldiers who had suffered in that country, although they had performed a more arduous task, as they had to stand up against trained marks- men instead of fighting an undisciplined rabble, as the people of Afghanistan were. The noble Marquess referred to the fanatic swordsmen; but the people who had been resisting British invasion might have been spared the sneer. Were they fanatics because they were true to their religion and their country? If that were fanaticism, he was proud to own himself a fanatic. He moved his Resolution, believing that everyone who voted for the Resolution of the noble Marquess associated himself in some way with blood-guiltiness.

MR. O'KELLY

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed To leave out from the 'word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to and the words "this House, disapproving of the Afghan War as needless and unjust, considers it inexpedient to return Thanks to Officers or Soldiers slaying a number of people with whom no righteous quarrel, and devastating Country,"—(Mr. Healy,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

I am very sorry, Sir, that occasion would arise which would call upon me even for one moment to give the House the idea that I supposed anything would require to be added to what has been said by my noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Such is not my intention; but I do wish very respectfully, and at the same time earnestly, to deprecate a division on this occasion. I would say, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that in one respect I sympathize with him if he thinks that some disparagement has been shown to the great and important measure relating to the tenure of land in Ireland by allowing precedence to be given to the subject now before the House. I assure the hon. Member that if he examines the annals of this House he will find that it has been usual on every occasion, even when the most vital subjects were under discussion, to allow prior consideration to be given at the commencement of the evening to Motions of this kind, having in view the graceful and complete rendering of a just honour to those to whom it is due. It is assumed that such Motions will require a very short time; and it is also felt that to give them the most marked and prominent position in the proceedings of this House is the mode in which we would desire to give that which, after all, is nothing but an honorary gift, in order that it may have its greatest value. On that account I am sure the hon. Member will not at all suppose that in this proceeding we have attempted in the slightest degree to derogate from the strong sense we have so often expressed of the importance of going forward with the subject to which I have referred. Two observations I may make. One is that I am quite sure that nothing could be further—indeed. I am authorized to say that nothing could be further—from the intention of my noble Friend than to cast any slight upon the desperate valour which has been shown by the Mohammedan population of Afghanistan in defending, as they conceived, their religion their country. The word "fanatical" is a word which describes enthusiasm carried to an extreme, and which is well known to characterize both religion and conduct in the East in a manner so traditional and historical that the use of the epithet does not convey the slightest discredit. On the contrary, I believe that we who sit in this House should not rest satisfied with merely expressing a negative or a neutral opinion; and that, while we deeply regret the occasion for a collision arising, we can truly honour in our hearts and minds the unsparing exercise of valour which can ever be found in the cause of what the Natives believe to be true. In the same way I wish to say that the omission in this Motion of specific nominal reference to the Native Forces is entirely due to the observation of strict rule and precedent in the case; and I certainly am of opinion—and I believe it is the general opinion—that in all matters of this kind the observance of rule and precedent is a matter of practical prudence, tending both to the dignity and safety of proceedings, such as that in which we are now engaged. On the question of the Motion itself, I hope the hon. Member will feel that he has sufficiently discharged his duty by the protest which he has made. He felt himself compelled to make a protest, and he has made it; but why should he persist in carrying with him some few Members of this House into the Division Lobby with no other possible effect than that of detracting from the grace and kindliness of the act which it is the desire of nearly all the Members of the House to perform? Surely the hon. Member cannot think that the gratitude of this House to the Army in the field ought to depend on the degree of approval or disapproval with which it may regard the policy that that Army has been called upon to give effect to. Deplorable indeed would the position of the soldier be, considering the enormous efforts, considering the costly sacrifices, he has to make in the performance of his duty in the field, if he found that he would be judged by his country, not according to his own conduct, or the manner in which he had fulfilled his covenant with the Sovereign—not by the manner in which he had displayed even the very noblest qualities which war, with all its miseries, is calculated to produce; but that he was to be tried by reference to another standard—namely, by reference to the rectitude of the judgment or purity of the judgment of those who had ordered him into the field, and for whose error, if error it was, he was to be the sufferer. I am sure he will see that such a doctrine really will not bear examination for one moment at the tribunal of common sense; and I do earnestly and respectfully submit to the hon. Member that he would do no disparagement to himself, and would greatly promote the general wish of the House, if, content with his protest, he will withdraw his Motion, and allow this to be an unanimous Vote.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, that with some portion of the speech of the Prime Minister he agreed. He had intended to move the Previous Question, as on a former occasion, when the noble Lord who moved this Resolution sat on the other side of the House. On that occasion he moved the Previous Question, and went to a division upon it. He regretted when he saw the Notice which the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) put upon the Paper, and he would make an appeal to him now. He did not condemn the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Afghan War; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had not taken the best way of putting himself in accord with the sentiment of the House by moving an Amendment which, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, seemed to condemn the soldiers for actions for which the House really was responsible. If, therefore, the hon. Member would kindly accede to his suggestion to withdraw his Amendment and the House would allow it to be done—["No, no!"]—he would move the Previous Question. He proposed to move the Previous Question, because he felt strongly on the matter. But he was going to oppose the Vote of Thanks in a manner least repugnant to the sentiments of those who were about to support it. He congratulated the noble Lord upon the position in which he found himself in moving this Vote. It was rather different from his position two years ago. Then they were in a state of alarm about wars in different parts of the world; but now the noble Lord had the proud satisfaction of rising to propose this Vote when, for a wonder, we were at peace with all the world, when we were not annexing anybody's territory, nor vindicating the Queen's authority anywhere by force of arms, when we were not making Naval demonstrations, not even carrying out "the mandate of Europe," which was, perhaps, the little failing of the present Government amongst its many virtues. Indeed, we were in such a condition that an hon. Friend said to him the other day that if we did not take care we should be slipping into Christianity. Honestly enough he could say he was grateful for that state of things. Dr. Johnson had said that gratitude was a lively sense of favours to come. But he felt grateful because he hoped they would never again have to speak on a question of this kind; and unless the right hon. Gentleman opposite came into power he hoped they would have no more wars. He did not think the noble Lord was very happy to-night; he did not speak with that energy he sometimes exhibited. He had a shrewd suspicion that the noble Lord hated the whole thing from the bottom of his heart. It was not the noble Lord's Motion really. The voice was the voice of the noble Lord; but the Motion was the Motion of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). They should have heard nothing about this Vote of Thanks were it not for the persistent Questions—there was nothing like persistency—of the hon. Member for Guildford. He regretted to see the noble Lord dragged at the chariot wheels of the hon. Member. He did not think the noble Lord liked it much, or that his Colleagues liked it, for he noticed that they all got up and went out of the House. He was not going to find fault with the noble Lord, who was driven to it by the commonplaces of the House and the way they were going on about these military matters. He hoped for the future the noble Lord would not be so much influenced by the hon. Member for Guildford, but would take counsel with the Radical Members below the Gangway. [Laughter.] Let not hon. Gentlemen laugh. It was the Radical Party who put the present Ministry into power. Nobody knew that better than the noble Lord and the Prime Minister, and they also knew that among the cardinal points of the Radical programme was their hatred, their condemnation of that spirit of military adventure which had cost the country so much. What was the philosophy of these Votes? Why were they called upon ever and anon to give these Votes of Thanks to soldiers? What was a soldier? He was a man who made a contract with his country to kill anybody whom the country wished him to kill, anybody whom the country wished to destroy, to destroy people's property, burn their houses, and inflict untold misery upon them, perfectly regardless whether it was right or wrong. The soldier left that to that House to decide. He became a mere animated machine, with no consideration of right or wrong. ["No!"] He was astonished to hear anybody deny that. He thought even the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would not have denied it. Surely the soldier was bound to fight whether the cause was right or wrong; it was not for him to reason, but to act. It was different with the Volunteers; they did not fight, but only simulated fighting. Yet he had just seen in a paper that a large sum had been given to teach them how to shoot moving objects at unascertained distances. But the real soldier meant business. He was not there for one moment to discredit the soldier. ["Oh!"] Not a bit. Parliament was responsible for all he did. He did his best, and generally went to fight for us in a wrong cause, for most of our causes in the last century had been wrong. He did not always win, and then he did not get thanked. He wanted to carry that little further. If they were to have thanks given to those great commanders for doing what was called "brilliant deeds," let them have some censure for those who did deeds worthy of censure. If the one thing was right the other was right. His doctrine was that they all did their duty courageously and fulfilled their contract. We ought to fulfil our contract with them, and not make this invidious distinction of proposing thanks to those who happened to be lucky and nothing to those who brought us into disaster and disgrace. It was better to assume that all did their duty. Why were the Army and Navy to be singled out for special Votes of Thanks when they did their duty? Did not the police do their duty? [An hon. MEMBER: Not in Ireland.] Well, he did not understand Ireland. Very few people in that House did. He was only talking about the English police, with whom he was better acquainted. Why was not the policeman to be considered as good a character as the soldier? The policeman was much more useful, because the soldier was employed to break the peace, and the policeman was employed to keep the peace. Therefore, he would wish to have a now system adopted at our public dinners—though he was not a great man for toasts—and to have the toast proposed of "The Army, the Navy, and the Police." Why should not the distinguished services of a more useful nature than the slaughter of our fellow men be honoured? When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in Office a few years ago he, in conjunction with his Colleagues, did a thing not very popular on the other side, but which would be remembered to his honour years and years after he was taken from us—he meant the peaceful settlement of the Alabama question. That was real nobility, real Christianity, and would redound more to the credit of this country than the slaughter in battle of any number of people opposed to us. He was glad to take that opportunity of paying a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had so justly won the confidence of his Party. There was nothing for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would be more honourably remembered hereafter than for the part he took in the peaceful settlement of that International business. He objected to the special glorification of war which this Vote involved. As for the occupants of the Treasury Bench, he should like to know what had become of the two right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham, and whether it was their intention to vote in favour of the Motion? According to another prominent Member of the Government, war might be described as "a combination of all the crimes, horrors, and sufferings of which human nature is capable," and the Prime Minister had said— A long experience of life leads me to a deeper and deeper conviction of the enormous mischief of war, even in the best and most favourable circumstances, and the mischief, indescribable and irredeemable, of causing an unnecessary war. Hon. Members in that part of the House had unanimously condemned the Afghan War as unnecessary, and as connected with the most horrible incidents. ["Question!"] The question surely was the value of, the services performed by the Army, in regard to which it had been said that they hanged more Afghans than they shot. He contended that Votes such as these were not only mischievous in principle, but also most injurious to the public feeling and public welfare of the country; and he hoped that, at least, hon. Members below the Gangway would join him in making a protest against a glorification of the military spirit, and in declaring that they did not feel joy in the destruction of their fellow creatures, but that they preferred a policy of "peace on earth, and good-will towards men."

MR. J. COWEN

said, he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister as to the desirability of their having no division on the question before the House. If the Vote had to be of any value it ought to be unanimous, cordial, and hearty. A division would sensibly detract from its merit. By voting for the Motion no one committed himself to the policy involved in the Afghan War. It would be quite justifiable for those who disapproved of that enterprize to vote in favour of the Resolution. The Army was simply giving effect to the instructions of Parliament; and Parliament was giving effect to the wishes, or at least the supposed wishes, of the country at that time. He had no desire even to refer to the purpose of the war. It would open out a wide field for debate if they were to comment on it. But he would say this, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—who compared the struggle of the Afghan tribesmen with the struggle of his own countrymen against the English—that the fight was not a fight for nationality. He would yield to no one in his concern for nationalities or for the independence of other nations. But the conflict in Afghanistan, so far as England was concerned, had reference to another Power than the Afghans. The Afghans were merely the instruments. They were moved by a distant but potent mechanism. It was not these Asiatic Highlanders that the English Government fought. It was a much more powerful people. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) talked about the spirit of the late Government and the hands of the present. But in the Afghan War the hands were the hands of Esau, and the voice was the voice of Jacob. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not wish to raise any controversy. He was only desirous, as the subject had been referred to, of recording his opinion that it was not a struggle against a nationality, but a struggle against a Power that had destroyed more nationalities than any other in existence. Dismissing that aspect of the question, however, he was glad that the proceedings of that night had done a tardy act of justice to a distinguished soldier. No man had been more harshly censured than General Roberts when he was fighting the nation's battles in a remote country, under terrible disadvantages, and when, too, he had no means of defending himself. He was accused of having deliberately hanged men who were opposing him in fair fight, with having burnt the houses and destroyed the villages of inoffensive non-combatants—of having, in fact, been guilty of no end of wanton cruelty and hardship. These charges were made against Sir Frederick Roberts in his absence, and repeated from day to day. If he was guilty of them, instead of being thanked he should have been censured. If he was not guilty of them, the men who made them ought to retract and apologize. The statement that had been made by the Secretary of State for India was a vindication of that gallant officer's conduct, and as such would be received with satisfaction and pleasure by the entire nation. He had only one further remark to make, and that had reference to the observation of the hon. Member for Wexford, who said the proceedings in Afghanistan resembled the doings of the English in Ireland. He (Mr. J. Cowen) did not think the facts warranted such a remark. However painful some of the incidents in the war in Asia might have been, there had been no pitchcaps, no triangles, and none of the other atrocities that characterized the suppression of the insurrection in Ireland in 1798. Indeed, no more marked proof of the improvement in the mode of conducting warfare could be cited than the contrast between the struggle in Afghanistan just terminated and the war we waged in the same country in 1842. He was not aware that the discussion was going to take place, or he would have prepared himself with information to show how the English Army acted in Afghanistan 40 years ago. They burnt villages, cut down trees, destroyed standing crops, and converted beautiful and richly cultivated plots into a barren wilderness. For miles everything above the earth that was consumable was put into a blaze, and both property and persons were destroyed wholesale. Anyone who would contrast the action of the English troops when they retreated from Cabul at that time with the action of the Army that General Roberts had recently led through the country would be able to appreciate the great advance that had been made in the mode of conducting war by civilized countries. The educating influence of the age had nowhere been more beneficially felt than in our military operations.

MR. ASHTON DILKE

said, he thought sonic reference ought to be made during this debate to the attitude taken by a large section, he believed the majority, of the Liberal Party in the months of December, 1879, and January, 1880, in regard to certain acts which were said at the time to have been committed by General Roberts in Afghanistan; and he thought they were indebted to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Cowen) for having reminded them that they then took an attitude which, so far as he could judge, was not the attitude of the Liberal Party now. He knew that it would be impossible to omit the name of General Roberts from this list. He was not going to vote against the Vote of Thanks. He could not agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, for the war was their own doing, and he thought they ought to thank the soldiers who had carried out their wishes. Nor could he vote for the Previous Question with the hon. Member for Carlisle; but so long as the name of General Roberts was included in the list he could not conscientiously vote for it. ["Oh!"] He should not trouble the House with any remarks of his own; but would prove his case out of General Roberts's own mouth. In his Proclamation on entering Cabul he said—"The British Government has the right of totally destroying Cabul." Had the British Government that right? They would not dare to use such language if they were fighting a civilized enemy; and were they to say when fighting a savage and uneducated enemy thousands of miles away from public opinion what they would not say under other circumstances? On October 18— Rewards are offered for any person who has fought against British troops since September 3; larger rewards offered for rebel officers of the Afghan Army. Were these men "rebels"? ["Yes!"] Rebels to whom? General Roberts spoke with just and proper indignation of the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari, and he would have entirely sympathized with him if he had been content to hang or shoot only those who were concerned in that murder. But he went much further. On November 12 he said— Amnesty will not be extended to those concerned in the attack on the Embassy, or who were guilty of instigating the troops and people to oppose the British troops. Such persons will be treated without mercy as rebels. It was to that General that they were asked to vote thanks. At the time the Press was under the military censorship of Cabul, telegrams emanating from Cabul contained in them nothing which was unpleasant to the military authorities. The newspaper correspondents wrote— The trial of the prisoners is proceeding daily; all convicted are hanged. The city Mollah was hanged for preaching a religious war. The Kotwal was hanged for inciting and organizing resistance to us at Charasiab. But Charasiab was a fair and pitched battle. Again— All the villages round Cabul are hostile to us. No quarter is given to anyone firing upon us, and prisoners taken in fight are shot. As for the execution of the city Mollah, what, he might ask, would they say if a German Army came and hanged the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Mayor of London for inciting them to do their duty as patriots and citizens? These facts might receive the cheers and the honours of the House of Commons; but if they ever came to a war with a civilized nation these things would recoil upon our heads.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down had thrown a new light on the question now before the House. The charges referred to had been either falsely or truly made. If they were false, why had they not been repudiated by the Members of the Treasury Benches? They were asked to thank, among others, General Roberts. He found reported in Hansard a debate in the Session of 1879 in which nearly every one of the Generals named in the present Resolution were thanked for what they had done in this war in Afghanistan. It was said that they should not wage a discussion on the policy of the war on this occasion; but men who represented the minority in the country—a minority that would stand by peace and non-intervention—were bound, in season and out of season, to make their opinions heard. But Ministers had themselves discussed the conduct of officers, and had thus initiated a discussion of the kind, which had been deprecated. These officers were Civil Governors as well as Military Chiefs, and it was in the former capacity that they were guilty of the acts that had been complained of. Comments had been made on the attitude of the Government, and on the absence of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham; but he thought their absence was more honourable than the presence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman also had been a member of the Society of Friends; but he had probably seen and learned so much in the course of the last 12 months that he was now willing to support a Vote of Thanks to an Army. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whom, in many respects, he recognized as his political tutor, had, in one of the reports of his great speeches, quoted the phrase of Wilberforce with regard to the "noxious race of heroes and warriors." It was, therefore, not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman was not here to-night. His hon. Friend who had raised this question would have been perfectly willing to have left it to some other Members; but he had shown that, if the English Members neglected to stand by the principles of justice and peace, some Irish Members would stand up and do so for them. He should go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend, and the only difference between Afghanistan and Ireland was this—that what had been done in Afghanistan within the last year or two had been done in Ireland some time ago.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have thought it necessary to say a few words on behalf of the Army of this country. That Army does not require any defence from me. Under difficult circumstances on many occasions, it has discharged the duties intrusted to it in a manner which has done it the greatest possible honour. I am glad to think that it has done so in the present instance, and that now, as on so many previous occasions, it has obtained the respect and gratitude of this country. But I rise in particular in consequence of the attacks which have been made on Sir Frederick Roberts. In ordinary circumstances, I think I might safely have said that I would leave his reputation to the judgment of his fellow-countrymen. They have heard the case, and have decided it in a way which cannot fail to be gratifying to Sir Frederick Roberts, as is shown by the reception he has met with in this country since his return, and by the universal opinion which has been expressed respecting his conduct. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) has acted in the most unfair possible way. He has raked up some old charges against Sir Frederick Roberts; but he has not referred to the fact, which most Gentlemen in this House know perfectly well, that a complete defence of Sir Frederick Roberts was laid before this House in the form of a Parliamentary Paper. This fact the hon. Member for Newcastle had never alluded to. [Mr. ASHTON DILKE: I only read Sir Frederick Roberts's own words.] The defence of General Roberts was laid before this House in the year 1880. I think the letter in which it was sent was dated the 27th of January in that year. It was laid before the country for its candid consideration. It offered a complete denial of the charges which had been made, and from that time to the present no Member of the House had stood up and reiterated those charges. Sir Frederick Roberts might well have been fully convinced, therefore, that after the answer which was given to those charges they would never again be brought forward, and that he would be protected from a most unfair attack such as had been now made upon him.

MR. CHILDERS

A minute or two before the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken rose to address the House I had asked my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India to obtain for me from the Library that despatch which has been referred to, and if my noble Friend had returned in time I should have at once risen to address the House. The Paper itself has not yet reached me; but I have the fullest recollection of having most carefully studied that Paper when it was laid on the Table of the House, and I thoroughly satisfied myself that Sir Frederick Roberts had successfully and satisfactorily rebutted the charges which had been made against him. I regret I had not had an opportunity of saying this before the hon. Gentleman opposite rose; but I hope the House will excuse me for wishing to wait for a few moments until I could get the actual correspondence. Sir Frederick Roberts was attacked—though not by me or my noble Friend—for his supposed improper conduct in putting to death certain Afghans in connection with the rising which took place in consequence of the Cavagnari murder. I hope the House will accept from the hon. Gentleman opposite and from myself the assurance that, the case having been fully looked into and considered by us, we—speaking for Her Majesty's late Government and Her Majesty's present Government—are satisfied that those charges were without foundation. I intended also to say a word or two—and really no more is necessary—with reference to the general imputations which have been made against the British Army, and as to the effect of Motions like the present. Motions like the present are the customary course adopted in both Houses of Parliament when an I Army has done its duty in obedience to the commands of its Sovereign. On the completion of its work the House has uniformly been asked if the operations were considered of sufficient importance to pass a Vote of this kind. I will go the length of saying that it would be a great misfortune if the Army was to be taught to believe that such a Vote of Thanks was to depend on the approval or disapproval by a section or a majority of Parliament of the political reasons which put the Army in motion. Soldiers in the discharge of their duty should know nothing of politics. If a Vote of Thanks was voted on one occasion and negatived on another, when the successful operations of the Army were of equal importance, the soldier will begin to think—"I wonder whether the case in which I am engaged is one of which the political grounds are sufficient to gain me the thanks of Parliament?" I hope the soldier will never ask that question. I hope the soldier will always do his duty, and without asking for the reasons of the war, as he has done it in the past, and as he is doing it now. On that ground I much regret the Amendments which have been made to-night, and I still hope the House will pass the Motion nemine contradicente,, as on past occasions.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, that if the Previous Question had been moved by the hon. Member for Carlisle many hon. Members would have had an opportunity of escaping from a position of some difficulty. It was a fact that the war in which our Army had been engaged was condemned by the great majority of the people of this country. The responsibility in no way rested on the Army; but a double responsibility rested upon those who originated the war in Afghanistan. ["Divide!"] How was it that the enthusiasm for this Vote came entirely from the country Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who occupied a front position by their relatives and friends in the British Army? The statement that General Roberts had done nothing unbecoming a British soldier only showed what a low standard prevailed on the two Front Benches as to what was just to a country which we invaded without any show of reason or justice. This Resolution was not to convoy the thanks of the House to the pri- vate soldiers who fought in the war. A glorification of the war system, which had its basis in what was called society, was the real reason for the Vote. [Interruptions.] If he was not allowed to proceed with his remarks he would be under the necessity of moving the adjournment of the debate. Representing a large constituency (Bradford) holding a strong opinion on this question, he asked the indulgence of the House. He ventured to think that the Government were performing merely a perfunctory duty in this matter, and that their hearts were elsewhere. Even if the House passed this Vote unanimously, it must not be understood by the country that it had in any degree altered its opinion as to the injustice of the war. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, in order that the Previous Question might be moved.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he could not but think, looking to the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, that a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in the Transvaal would come with better grace from their lips than a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in Afghanistan. In either case, criticism or opposition, it seemed to him, was perfectly legitimate, otherwise there would be nothing to prevent the Chief Secretary for Ireland from coming down to the House some evening and proposing a Vote of Thanks to the Constabulary engaged in shooting down the poor Irish peasantry in the West of Ireland. He was anxious to know at what date the Government became aware of the spotless and stainless character of the officers and troops engaged in Afghanistan; because if they did so at a tolerably early date, it would not be easy to reconcile their silence at the period of the General Election on the subject of the excesses alleged to have been committed by General Roberts and others. Those alleged excesses were among the most powerful arguments used by Radical speakers and writers for the overthrow of the late Government; and the Members of the present Government, by their silence in reference to them, connived at the charges made. The hon. Member, amid signs of impatience on the part of the House, quoted some doggrel verse which had appeared in a Radical organ—The Echo—in 1879, describing the British troops as— The Christian sons of pillage, That burned the Afghan village. He trusted the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would acquiesce in the appeal made to him by those Radicals who had not yet lost all sense of consistency in the delights of power, and withdraw his Motion in favour of the Previous Question, which, if adopted, would leave the matter in statu quo. For his own part, until an investigation showed whether the British troops had been unfairly vilipended or not, he was not prepared to express an opinion on the question. After due investigation, he would leave no objection to support a Vote of Thanks to an acquitted and glorified Army.

MR. OTWAY

said, the attacks which had been made on Sir Frederick Roberts had been conclusively answered. That gallant officer would probably survive the charges of the junior Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Ashton Dilke), as well as the attack of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He pointed out that when Sir Frederick Roberts was accused of shooting Afghans as rebels, they were actually in rebellion against their own Sovereign, Yakoob Khan, who had made a Treaty with Sir Frederick Roberts, and was in his camp. Although he had never approved the Afghan War, he could not refuse a Vote of Thanks to the Army which had so gallantly done its duty.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

, while acknowledging the gallantry displayed by the troops generally, by the commanders, and by Sir Frederick Roberts, said, he could not approve all that Sir Frederick Roberts had done in his political capacity; and after what had been said by the Secretary of State for War, he thought it necessary to protest against its being supposed that those who voted in favour of passing a Vote of Thanks to the Army were, in consequence, committed to the support of all that had been done in prosecuting the Afghan War, and after Sir Frederick Roberts's victories.

MR. HEALY

asked permission to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Previous Question. ["No!"]

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 304; Noes 20: Majority,284.—(Div. List, No. 194.)

Main Question put. (1.) Resolved, That the thanks of this House be given to General Sir Frederick Paul Haines, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., C.I.E., Commander in Chief in India, for the ability and judgment with which he directed the recent operations from September 1879 to September 1880 in Afghanistan. (2.) Resolved, That the Thanks of this House be given to—

and the other Officers of the Army, both European and Native, for the intrepidity, skill, and perseverance displayed by them in the Military Operations in Afghanistan, and for their indefatigable zeal and exertions during the late Campaign. (3.) Resolved, That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the valour and perseverance displayed by the Non-commissioned Officers and private Soldiers, both European and Native, employed in Afghanistan during the late Campaign, and that the same be signified to them by the Commanders of the several Corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant behaviour. (4.) Resolved, That the said Resolutions be transmitted by Mr. Speaker to the Viceroy and Governor General of India, and that His Lordship be requested to communicate the same to the several Officers referred to therein.

Back to