HC Deb 04 August 1881 vol 264 cc827-36
MR. REDMOND

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to an outrage committed by soldiers in New Ross on Friday the 22nd instant, the circumstances of which are reported as follows in the "Wexford People" of the 27th instant:— Shortly after eleven o'clock on Friday night last, Edward Murphy, who is employed as a driver by Mr. Keely, of Cross Lane, New Ross, was returning home from Kilkenny, where he had been in the discharge of his duties. He had reached the locality known as Sugarhouse Lane, when he was met by a crowd of drunken soldiers. One of the number, who has the privilege of going out in plain clothes, and who is said to be an officer's servant, jumped up on the car upon which Murphy sat and demanded to be driven to the barrack. Murphy refused, when the soldier struck him with all his might, felling him to the earth. Several others of the party immediately sot upon the unfortunate man, whom they beat and kicked in the most savage manner. Murphy was unable to defend himself, and lay entirety at the mercy of his assailants, who, when they rendered their victim insensible, went to amuse themselves with the horse and car. Murphy's cries for assistance having been heard in the meantime, his wife and some neighbours soon arrived and conveyed the wounded man to his residence. At present he is in rather a critical condition, his head and shoulders being a mass of wounds; whether the foregoing report is substantially accurate; and, if so, what steps he has taken to insure the punishment of the perpetrators of this outrage and to protect the inhabitants from a repetition of such scenes; whether he is aware that continual complaints have been made of the conduct of these soldiers since they have been stationed at New Ross; and, whether he will inform the House of the grounds upon which the Government deem it necessary to maintain a military force in the town?

MR. CHILDERS

No, Sir; I am satisfied that the report in The Wexford People quoted by the hon. Member is greatly exaggerated. I find that a sergeant, two corporals, and a private, all of whom were sober, were returning to barracks on the evening of the 22nd of July, when the private slipped and hurt his knee. They hailed a passing car, and the carman at first offered to take them to barracks, but, being in liquor, he afterwards refused, although the fare was tendered, pushed two of them off the car, and struck them across their faces with his whip. A scuffle ensued, and he was knocked down, but very slightly injured. The matter was settled between the soldiers and the carman, who, at first, complained at the barracks, but afterwards declined to pursue his complaint. I am also satisfied that continual complaints are not made against the soldiers at New Ross, whose conduct is exemplary. They have on several occasions been pelted with stones, but have never retaliated. In answer to the third Question, I have to say that troops were sent to New Ross on the recommendation of the magistrates.

MR. REDMOND

said, that, in consequence of the reply which had just been given to his Question, and which was at variance with the details supplied to him from information the credibility of which he could not for a moment question, he thought it his duty to make two or three observations, and, in order to enable him to do that, he would conclude with a Motion. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not surprised to find that some hon. Members were impatient to hear that he proposed to do so; but he offered no apology for taking this course. The exceptional and unconstitutional manner in which government in Ireland was being carried on at present, not only warranted, but seemed to him to demand, the strictest investigation and the utmost vigilance from the Irish Members. During the prolonged discussions which had taken place on the Land Bill they on the Irish Benches sat in patience and reticence, while events had been happening which, under other circumstances, would certainly have called for the promptest interference on their part; but that Bill having been taken from the House of Commons, they thought it to be their imperative duty to draw attention to things which were being done in the name of law and order. With regard to this outrage in New Ross, he could state deliberately that this was not an isolated case. It was one of many instances of this conduct which had disgraced these troops while they had been stationed in New Ross. In the present condition of feeling in Ireland, and especially in a place like New Ross, this was a matter of very grave importance. It was not alone that the people looked upon their presence there as an absolute insult to them. It was not alone that their feelings were continually outraged by the presence and conduct of the troops; but actually the peace and good name of the town were imperilled by their conduct and presence. He held in his hand letters which he had received from respectable men—from men who were intimately concerned in maintaining the public peace and order of New Ross—from clergymen, from gentlemen who held offices of public responsibility and trust, and every one of these men informed him that the presence of these troops in New Ross was not only a source of anxiety to them, but was a constant source of irritation to the people. Last February he had occasion to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would state upon whose representation these men were sent to New Ross, and of course the right hon. Gentleman refused to disclose the names of the individuals who had "reasonably suspected" the locality; but he (Mr. Redmond) happened to know something about the circumstances under which these troops were sent there. He happened to know that a memorial was got up in New Ross which pretended to speak on behalf of the people of New Ross. He had reason to know that some of the local magistrates actually refused to sign this memorial, and that ultimately it only received the signature of a few individuals in no sense representative men, every one of whom was directly interested in creating a state of things which would warrant coercion. New Ross was absolutely peaceful at the time; but it was absolutely essential that an excuse for coercion should be produced, and consequently this demand was made for military protection. He had no hesitation in saying, from his own personal knowledge, and the information supplied to him from responsible men, that these troops since they had been sent to New Ross had been the perpetrators of outrages which had more than once almost led to serious collision and conflict with the people. He had received a letter from the Chairman of the New Ross Town Commissioners, who stated that there was no doubt that the soldiers were concerned in a very brutal and cowardly attack upon poor Murphy, a most inoffensive man. They attacked him without the least shadow of reason, beat him, dragged him, and kicked him off the car, made his head one mass of bruises, inflicted several wounds upon him, and then drove off. The fact that the soldiers paid £5 to hush the matter up formed a strong case against them. Murphy would not accept the money, but his employer induced him to do so, as if he took further proceedings it might injure the employer in certain quarters. More than one of the attacking parties were sergeants or corporals. He (Mr. Redmond) would recommend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he wanted "dissolute ruffians," to go to the men who perpetrated such outrages as these, and leave alone the peaceable respectable men upon whom he was now laying hand in Ireland. He sincerely hoped that the announcement that appeared in that day's papers that the right hon. Gentleman intended to give up the reins of government in Ireland would turn out to be true. The Chairman of the New Ross Commissioners further stated that— The conduct of these soldiers had given much annoyance, and caused much offence to the people. They were not required to establish law and order; but they irritated public feeling, and increased the dissatisfaction of the population generally with British institutions. He had another letter from a well-known and esteemed clergyman, stating that the facts set forth in his Question were substantially correct, and adding that Murphy, who was one of the most inoffensive of mortals, was brutally beaten by the soldiers out of mere drunken wantonness. In another portion of the letter the rev. gentleman stated that before Murphy came up that night the soldiers were engaged somewhere near or outside the chapel, mimicking the confessional, one representing the priest, and another representing a girl supposed to be confessing to him. He need not say that an outrage more insulting to the feelings of the Irish people, or more likely to lead to a breach of the peace, could not have been committed. Would the Government undertake that the men who committed these outrages would be sought out and punished? They heard a great deal about disturbance in Ireland; but when provocation of this kind was given to the people, how was it possible that peace and order could be maintained in the country? How long more would these soldiers be kept in a town that was utterly free from outrage? The Chief Secretary for Ireland looked at him, as much as to say that he knew from his myrmidons that certain threatening notices had been posted up there. So they had, but he now stated advisedly that a deliberate attempt was being made by certain people in New Ross to induce the Government to proclaim the district; that the outrages reported were bogus outrages, got up by the enemies of the popular party in New Ross. He now challenged the Government to sift this matter to the bottom, and to withdraw these troops from the town where they were not required, and where their presence was a source of danger to peace and order. The hon. Member concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.

MR. HEALY, in seconding the Motion, said, all the ill feeling between the people and the soldiers in Ireland arose from the fact that the Government were now sending over English regiments instead of Irish regiments, which used to be popular in the country. Unfortunately, the Government did not seem inclined to trust Irish regiments at present, and the Englishmen they sent to Ireland despised the population, and insulted them in every possible way. He received a letter a few days ago from Birr charging the 28th Regiment, stationed there, with serious misconduct, and he intended to ask the Chief Secretary to investigate the very grave allegations his correspondent made. Again, that morning, they had a report of an outrage by Marines in Bantry. The Secretary of State for War, no doubt, only stated his account of the affair as it was represented to him. But it had not even an air of vraisemblance. It was not likely that one of these soldiers, who were generally pretty steady on their pins, would fall down and cut his knee in the way described. There was no necessity whatever for these soldiers in this district.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Redmond.)

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the practice of moving the adjournment of the House had grown very much of late years, and in some cases the right to make that Motion had been abused. There was no doubt, however, that in this instance the hon. Member had adopted a course which had been taken in no other instance. Generally, when a Motion of this kind was made, it was made on the sudden, in consequence of some unexpected answer, or in consequence of some excitement of the moment; but in this instance the hon. Member had come down with a number of cases in his hand and with volumes of notes of minute particulars relating to them, and fully prepared to move the adjournment of the House. In his opinion, that was a manifest abuse of the liberty of moving the adjournment of the House; and if such a practice were to become general it would be utterly impossible to transact Public Business. The hon. Member had asked him a definite Question with reference to an occurrence at New Ross, and he had asked the hon. Member to give him time to make inquiries into the matter; but now the hon. Member came down with a number of other cases, such as the priest and the girl who were interrupted in the course of confession, and of the two soldiers who assaulted a woman, of which cases he had had no Notice, and with regard to which he had received no information whatever.

MR. REDMOND

said, that he had only referred to those cases in reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no other outrages had been committed by soldiers in the district.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he must repeat that the course that had been taken by the hon. Member was extremely inconvenient. With regard to the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question, he could only say that inquiry showed that the soldiers were sober and that the carman was drunk, and that a scuffle having ensued between them, blows were exchanged after the carman commenced the affray. Eventually the matter had been settled by the carman receiving, he believed, the sum of £5 in compensation, on which he withdrew his complaint. In these circumstances, he did not think that he was called upon to re-open the matter. With regard to the case of the priest and the girl, he asked whether the former had made any complaint?

MR. REDMOND

said, that the priest had complained to him on the day of the occurrence.

MR. CHILDERS

asked whether complaint had been made to the military authorities?

MR. REDMOND

said, that he had been asked to take the matter up.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that it was the duty of the priest to have made a complaint to the military authorities, who would have inquired into the matter. If the soldiers had done anything wrong, it was the duty of the person injured to make an application to the officer in the first instance, and he would have inquired into the case. As to the second Question, apparently the case to which it referred was not brought under the notice of the commanding officer. And yet the hon. Gentleman, without Notice, moved the adjournment of the House, thereby causing great delay. He hoped that the answer he had given to the hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory, at all events, to the House.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had complained bitterly of the practice of moving the adjournment of the House; but it was no uncommon thing even for right hon. Members to come down prepared to move adjournments of the House if answers were not satisfactory. It was not so long since a noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench had given Notice that he would come down the next day, and if a certain Question was not satisfactorily answered, would move the adjournment. Was it not true that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the £5 which had been paid? That fact should make him more inclined to make further inquiries into the matter, so as to provide for justice being done. The question was not a question between the men and the soldiers, but it was a question affecting the public of Ireland, and the payment of £5 had not changed the character of the case; therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiries into the matter.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had complained bitterly of the adjournment being moved, and it was undeniable that the privilege of moving an adjournment of the House at Question time had been abused during this Session, and especially for about two months past; but the Government had themselves alone to thank for that, because, about two months ago, he had the first place on the Notice Paper for a Motion to put an end to this practice, and if the Government had come down to keep a House that night, his Resolution would have been passed with the greatest facility, and these Motions for adjournment could not have been made. They had been made very often since then, and had taken up a great deal of the Government time most unnecessarily, and had tended greatly to prolong the Session.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he trusted that the House would retain some means of entering a protest against Motions for adjournment. They placed the House in a most ridiculous position. They were asked to take the command of the Army, and he, as an humble Member of the House, protested, against being placed in the position occupied by the Dutch Commissioners during Marlborough's wars, as he knew nothing of the subject.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that when he complained of very grave outrages committed in Dungarvan by a body of troops, the only reply he got from the responsible Minister was an account read by him which had been communicated to him by the colonel of the regiment, who stood up for his soldiers. The people of Dungarvan, finding from the way in which the Question was answered, that no attention was paid to their complaints, formed a local popular police, which resulted in the removal of the riotous soldiers from Dungarvan. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put some check upon the conduct of those militarians in Ireland; at all events, he ought to be able to do so. And he ought also to be able to give better information than he had been able to do on the present occasion. It was a very disagreeable thing to the parish priest or to the people of the place to have to go to the barracks and make complaints to the officers about the soldiers; for the officers, as a rule, did not disguise the very slight respect they held for Irish opinion. In his opinion, the best way was for the people to make appeals direct to their Members of Parliament, who could bring the subject before the House.

MR. LEAMY

said, he thought it was hardly to be wondered that so many complaints were made about the soldiers in Ireland, when it was borne in mind that wherever a case was brought against a soldier it was generally dismissed by the magistrate. About six weeks ago, a tradesman and his wife and sister were walking through the streets of Dublin, when they were met by a couple of soldiers. One of the soldiers used some infamous language towards the women. The tradesman turned round and asked what he meant. The answer he got was a blow with a stick. He prosecuted the soldier. Four witnesses proved the case; the soldier, however, denied it. An officer came forward and gave him a good character, and the magistrate dismissed the charge, notwithstanding all the witnesses who proved the assault. The very next case on the list, before the same magistrate, was one in which a labourer was charged with assaulting a soldier. The labourer denied the charge; but the magistrate held it was proved, and he passed sentence of seven weeks' hard labour. The course that was being pursued now by the soldiery in Wexford was very similar to that pursued by the soldiery sent there by Castlereagh to precipitate the rebellion. The soldiers insulted the priests and their religion, until at length the men of Wexford rose to arms and made such a splendid resistance, that the name of Wexford has become an inspiration and a hope. If, at the time, every county in Ireland had done as well as Wexford, his hon. Friend would not have been under the necessity of coming here and asking foreigners to redress outrages done to the people of Ireland.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he wished to explain that he had not said anything about the payment of £5 as compensation in his reply, because nothing had been said about it in the Question. What he said was that the carman had settled with the soldiers.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was of opinion that the practice of moving the adjournment of the House was the only safeguard which the Irish Members had that any attention would be paid by the Treasury Bench to their applications. Mischief was likely to arise when soldiers were placed in a position where they were not required, and when they acted the part of a riotous mob in a peaceable town, the charges made against them for their misconduct ought not to be allowed to be withdrawn simply because a particular complainant might not choose to appear.

MR. REDMOND

said, he would have thought the Secretary of State for War knew sufficient of the incorrigible character of the Irish Members to prevent his taking up the time of the House by addressing lectures to them. As the right hon. Gentleman had not promised to re-investigate that case, he would certainly press his Motion to a division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 191: Majority 180.—(Div. List, No. 352.)