§ MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an officer of the Royal Tyrone Fusiliers in barracks at Omagh, who is also a grazier and dealer in live stock, having failed to sell in open market as fit for food a huge old sow no longer suitable for breeding purposes, succeeded in disposing of it to the meat contractor of his regiment; whether the meat contractor was permitted to supply the flesh of the animal as pork to the men of the Tyrone Fusiliers at the full contract price for good meat; whether some of the men did refuse to receive this pork at all, and whether the remainder did not throw it away as unfit for human use; whether it is not the case that the same officer has been already subject of complaint for his action towards the sergeants of the staff of the regiment in requiring them to supply themselves with meat from butchers designated by him; whether the officer in question is not a near relative of the colonel commanding the regiment; and, whether Government will institute a full inquiry into all the circumstances?
§ COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Member was amusingly put; but, nevertheless, it conveyed a somewhat serious imputation. The hon. Member had asked him a Question in reference to the matter at two hours' Notice on the last morning before the Whitsuntide Recess. He (Colonel Stanley) telegraphed to Ireland, and though the answer was not received before the hon. Member put his Question, it was received before the House adjourned, and the substance of it was immediately communicated to him. The allegation was distinctly denied. It was stated that there was no complaint whatever, and no appearance of discontent. Before the House adjourned, he asked the hon. Member to give his authority for the statement he had made, in order that he might follow the matter up. The hon. Gentleman had not, however, thought fit to comply with that request up to the present time. After waiting some days, he desired a letter to the same effect to be addressed to him, but to that letter he had received no reply. He would have no objection to institute inquiry into the 1611 case, when there wasprimâ facie evidence sufficient to justify him in doing so; but until then, he would not, of course, take any notice of the matter.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that to put himself in Order he would conclude by moving the adjournment of the House The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had, in his résumé of the conversation which had occurred between them, forgotten to mention one essential point—that he had told him that among his informants were soldiers of the Militia regiment in question. He had since, he might add, made further inquiries, and had received more letters, not only from soldiers, but from inhabitants of the town, and he should be happy to place these in the hands of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he would satisfy him that the persons who had thus written to him as a Member of Parliament would not suffer—["Oh, oh!"]—from any disciplinary measure in consequence. This was not a mere condition of his own. The persons who had written to him requested their names should be kept secret; but they asked for an investigation, and they stated that, if the Government chose, they could find plenty of evidence on the spot.
§ MR. SPEAKERI beg to remind the hon. Member that he is not in Order, as there is no Motion before the House. The hon. Member for Dungarvan has not concluded with any Motion.
MR. MACARTNEYThe hon. Member for Dungarvan said he would conclude with a Motion; but he did not do so.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI beg to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
MR. MACARTNEYagain rose. He said, he would not have intruded on the House with this question, but he had received a letter from his son, who was the officer of the regiment who examined the rations on the day in question.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is proceeding to the discussion of a Question; but there is no Question before the House.
MR. MACARTNEYunderstood that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had moved the adjournment of the House. If he was not in Order, he would sit down; if he was, he would go on.
§ MR. SPEAKERrepeated that there was no Question before the House.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, in that case, he would beg to second the Motion. He had received a letter from his son, in which he stated that the contractor was entitled to issue pork rations twice a-week, but that the men were not compelled to take them, and could obtain beef rations instead. On the day in question four pork rations were refused, and beef rations were issued in their place. One man refused the ration of beef because it was too bony, and another ration was given to him, about which he made no complaint whatever. He believed this was the origin of the complaint brought forward by the hon. Member.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.