SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 27 May 1881)

§ MR. CHILDERS: My noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish)
does not propose at this hour to take the Civil Service Votes, which, of course, would involve some debate; but I beg leave to ask the Committee to take the Vote for provisions, fuel, and transport in the Army Estimates, as that does not involve any contested matter. It is very important 1551 that we should, if possible, take that Vote now in order to have sufficient Supply, and later on, after the Irish Land Bill is disposed of, we may devote a whole of one or two evenings to the discussion of the Army Estimates, without having to take the items of this Department later than 10 or 11 o'clock. If the Committee will allow me to take this Vote, which does not involve any of the questions of Army Organization, I will undertake that the other Votes, which do involve questions of principle, shall be taken at such an hour as shall enable the House to discuss them fully. The only object we have is to enable that discussion to take place at a convenient time, and I trust the Committee will allow this Vote to be taken.

COLONEL STANLEY
These Benches are not much occupied at the present time; but, speaking for those who sit round me, I may say there appears to be nothing at all unreasonable in the proposal the right hon. Gentleman has made, and we shall do our best to support him. The House has already voted the number of men, and the establishments of the Services, and the right hon. Gentleman now merely asks to be allowed to take the Votes necessary to keep those establishments in existence. That seems a fair proposal, and although it would be too much to say of any Vote that it involves no controversial matter, yet after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that on other matters, which involve organization and questions of change, there shall be fair discussion at a future time, the proposal seems to me to be altogether reasonable.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
failed to discover any grounds for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) taking upon himself to answer for that side of the House. [Colonel STANLEY: I said—"Those who sit round me."] He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought there was very good reason to object to the Vote being taken at that time. It was a Vote for £3,411,000, and it appeared to him a monstrous proposal that it should be 1552 treated as if it were a mere flea-bite, and that they should vote nearly £3,500,000 as a matter of course, without inquiry, simply because the House had voted the number of men. He entirely objected to the proposal, and he should move to report Progress.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, the alternative course seemed to be, if the Committee did not take that Vote, that they would have to give a Vote on Account. The only question he wished to ask was, whether the Vote contained the necessary sums for carrying on the war in the Transvaal? He presumed that it did; but he also presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would have to come presently for a Supplementary Vote for that war. That being so, and seeing that this was the Vote they usually had to pass, and that, in his humble judgment, it would be far better to give the Vote as it stood than to give a general Vote on Account, which was not usual on Army Estimates, he should support the Vote.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the hon. and gallant Baronet was right. This was the ordinary Vote, and, of course, it would be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Vote as to transport in South Africa. He had selected this particular Vote as the one least open to discussion; but he would pledge himself that the House should have ample opportunity, not at a late hour, but at the beginning of a Sitting, for discussing Votes which raised questions of importance.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
reminded the Committee that a Vote of £3,000,000 would enable the Government to go on without other Votes till a late period, and the House would probably at the end of the Session be asked to give further Votes, and then adjourn at once. Would the one or two nights promised be given before the new Warrant for Army Organization, to which the Army were looking forward with such apprehension, came into operation? What the Army and the country wanted was more detailed information on the important changes about to take place, which were carrying dismay into the hearts of all the old officers in the 1553 Army. No doubt they would be all right; but the Army wanted to know, and it would be a great misfortune if the new Warrant came out on the 1st of July without the House having an opportunity of getting information upon it.

§ MR. CHILDERS
assured the hon. and gallant Member that he would lay on the Table, not at the end of July or the beginning of August, but as soon as the details were completed, full and ample information. Then, as to the further Votes, he should not allow the fact of this Vote being taken now to delay the other Votes fur a single day. The Army Estimate Votes could not be taken until the Land Bill had been dealt with; but he would undertake that the original intention of bringing on those Votes at the very earliest day should be adhered to. The House should have the most ample opportunity of discussing them.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
wished to point out the inconvenience of taking this Vote at such an hour without a special undertaking. The custom was to take a first Vote for £5,500,000, and that opened up all questions as to the men for the Army. This Vote preceded a long discussion on the whole details of the Army, and all those points would have to be dealt with on another Vote. By giving one Vote in Committee they would be unable to raise any general discussion at all, unless the Government would agree to allow it on other Votes under which general questions did not strictly come.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER
said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Vote, because he considered it most important. It was connected with forage and fuel and transport, which must be provided for as soon as possible. He hoped the Committee would support the Secretary of State for War, and pass the Vote. They had had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that they should have an opportunity on the Estimates of bringing forward all matters connected with organization, and he hoped the Committee would allow the Vote to be taken without any further debate.

§ MR. O'SHEA
asked whether the details of the new organization would be before the House before that scheme was carried out?

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the details in the second Memorandum would be laid 1554 on the Table before the new scheme was carried out—in fact, in a very few days. Whether the discussion could be taken before the 1st of July lie could not say, because that would depend on the progress made with the Irish Land Bill.

§ MR. O'SHEA
Will the House have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it before it comes into operation?

§ MR. CHILDERS
Certainly.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he did not think the answer of the Secretary of State satisfactory at all; and, as a general rule, when there was this agreement between the two Front Benches, he thought it was the bounden duty of hon. Members below the Gangway to oppose the Government. Nobody know better than the hon. Member for Swansea that the Government had all sorts of little arrangements—a kind of Masonic practices, only known to themselves, and only to be detected when the two Front Benches agreed. That agreement was the only intimation independent Members had that they had better be upon their guard. On that ground he should offer some resistance to the Vote. Another point that he considered objectionable was that the Secretary of State, having already had £4,500,000, should ask for the enormous sum of £3,500,000 at this hour of the night for a certain purpose, when he did not intend to apply the money to that purpose. The money was got under a name that would apply to all sorts of things, and therefore the money was being obtained under—well, not being obtained for the real purpose set before the Committee. The general principle on which the Government proceeded was thoroughly unsound, and one which Liberal Members would not agree to if a Conservative Government were in power. That was that every Vote of Supply, every English measure, every mortal thing that came before the House, had to be put off indefinitely until the Irish Land Bill had made progress. That was thoroughly wrong, for the Land Bill might not leave this House till the end of July or the middle of August.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, he must point out to his noble Friend that there were exceptions to the best established rules; and it was within their experience that the two Front Benches had been right when they agreed. He thought this was one of those occasions, and he should 1555 support the Government if they went to a division. He thought it would facilitate matters if the Secretary of State would assure the Committee that he would not take any Vote later than the middle of July.

§ MR. CHILDERS
assured the hon. Member that he would not postpone the Army Estimates one single day beyond what was necessary; but, for the general purposes of the Government, he would have to ask their forbearance.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
quite agreed that these collusions between the two Front Benches were dangerous things. The fact was that the ex-Secretary of State for War had prepared a scheme which his own Government would not bring into operation, and he had put it into a pigeon-hole in his Office, and the present Secretary finding it there now asked the House to sanction what the late Government would not do. He thought the late Government were quite right, and showed great prudence; but the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the new organization before it came into operation, and he wished they could have an assurance to that effect.

COLONEL STANLEY
said, he wished to disabuse the mind of his noble Friend and some others of the idea that there was necessarily any arrangement be-the two Front Benches on this occasion. What caused him to deprecate undue discussion was that the House, having already voted the men and material of the Army, would stultify itself if it refused to allow the head of the Army to carry out the previous Vote. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate the progress of the Vote by letting the Committee understand that, not only so far as he was concerned, but so far as the Government were concerned, there would be an opportunity for discussion before the Regulations of the 1st of July were acted upon.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he would repeat the assurance he had already given that he would not delay by one single day these Estimates, and that he would do his very best to get them before July. He did not think he could be more explicit than that.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, that on this occasion he should support the noble Lord. Night after night these Esti- 1556 mates were pressed upon them at a late hour, because of the Irish Land Bill. They were voting away the money of the people of this country, and that was what they ought to consider long before the Land Bill, which would do no good at all. In the meantime, however, he wished to know if this Vote included the cost of transport in the recent operations in the Transvaal. If the right hon. Gentleman assured them that the Vote was absolutely necessary, he would not oppose it; but he had not told them so. He deprecated this hasty way of voting £3,500,000. It was a course which the Liberal Party would never allow others to follow, and the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that he would oppose such a course, and had opposed it when it was proposed by another Government.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he had never objected to any Vote of this kind when it had been declared to be necessary for the Public Service. The charge with respect to the Transvaal was for troops who had gone out in the early part of the year, and the other matters there would be an opportunity of discussing.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the Secretary of State had told them that this Vote was necessary, and on that ground he should support the Government. It was not in the least from any agreement between the Front Benches, but because it was absolutely necessary to carry on the Services of the country. A word about the Civil Service Estimates. It was an enormous temptation to the Government, especially when they had got a heavy Bill before them, to put off the Estimates to the latest possible time. He understood they were going to ask a Vote for six weeks on account for the Civil Service Estimates; and he understood, from the peculiar circumstances of this year, that that Vote would be granted to them. But he wanted to give the Government warning that they were not to expect another Vote on Account, and, having had the indulgence of the House so far, they must not ask for that indulgence again simply because they had a Bill before them which must go on. He should oppose any further Vote on Account, because it was time they resorted to the old practice, and that the Votes for the Civil Service and also for the greater Services should not be put off to a late period. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman 1557 was right in saying that under the previous Government he had never opposed a Vote which was declared to be absolutely necessary for the Public Service. At the same time, he was bound to say that when the late Governmerment did ask for Votes on Account they were opposed by a great number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and were requested to give up their Bills and go on with Supply.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he thought a good deal of the money expended on transport at home was wasted. There was £116,000 for the escort of prisoners, and his own experience was that there were more escorts going about than were necessary. This employment took the men away from drill and cost the country a great deal of money, and very often persons were taken up for deserters who were not deserters at all. If attention were called to this, several thousands of pounds might be saved. It often happened that men who were merely absent without leave were arrested and sent under escort. A large number of Roman Catholic men were sent out without any chaplain; and although the late Secretary to the Admiralty promised that when there were a large number a Catholic chaplain should be sent out with them, he (Major Nolan) believed the promise had never been executed, and he would like to know whether that was so or not.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, his attention had been drawn to the question of deserters, and as to the Roman Catholics he would take care that when there were a large number sent out, a Roman Catholic chaplain should be sent with them. A promise to that effect had been given in general terms, and in one case a Roman Catholic chaplain was sent with a troop-ship this year to South Africa. He believed that what had been done had been entirely satisfactory to those who looked after that question. The troop-ship expenditure did not come under this Vote. It was an Admiralty Vote.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
did not think the promise as to chaplains had been fulfilled, and he urged that if men of other religions had chaplains, the Roman Catholics should.

COLONEL STANLEY
said, that to the best of his recollection the promise was given, not by himself, but by the right 1558 hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer; but when the matter was looked into it was found to be impracticable. At the same time, as far as he was aware, the question had not been lost sight of.

§ MR. HEALY
reminded the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that some of the Irish Members wished to discuss the presence of soldiers in Ireland assisting in evictions. They could not attempt to do that at so late an hour, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurance they would be willing to waive the matter then. There was, however, another matter. Public feeling in Ireland was very high; there were Irish soldiers there who sometimes went out on the spree, and cheered Irish leaders. For that exceptional sentences were inflicted, and there was one case in which a young man of the 18th Royal Irish was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The Irish Members would also like to discuss the conduct of the Guards in Dublin, which was, beyond all doubt, a disgrace to the British Army, and a standing menace to every peaceful citizen in Dublin. There was a case the other day in which two or three of those roughs had knocked down and beaten a man, and the man could get no satisfaction; and there was the celebrated case of the man who was thrown into a canal by some Army Service Corps men and nearly drowned. There was a series of these cases, and, seeing the way in which troops were being poured into Ireland, and how careful the Government were that they should be English soldiers, it was important that the right hon. Gentleman should keep a strict watch over them. And when the right hon. Gentleman introduced Votes, it would be well if he would bring them on at a reasonable hour, so that they might be discussed.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the general points raised by the hon. Member might be dealt with on Vote 3; but he could assure the hon. Member that there was not, either on the part of the officers or of the superior authorities in Ireland, any desire to screen any soldiers who might commit any improprieties such as had been described. On the contrary, when such cases had come before them, they had rigidly dealt with them. It was not the case that the soldiers had 1559 been severely punished for cheering; but in one of the cases referred to the man had used language of a most treasonable character, which could not be passed over. The wish of the Army authorities was that discipline in all respects should be maintained. In regard to the case of the man thrown into a canal, the man appeared not to be sober, and when he was asked to pick out the men who had assaulted him he could not identify them. He did not know what more the authorities could have done than they had done in that case.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, he was interested on behalf of some of the Militia Staff-sergeants in Ireland, who considered themselves ill-treated; and he was anxious to know mere definitely when the Army Scheme would be brought under the attention of the House. He would not go into the details of the grievances of these men; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in consideration of his not doing so, to give same precise statement as to when the scheme could be brought before the House, so that there should be an opportunity of discussing the grievances, and urging them upon the House.

§ MR. CHILDERS
had had no intimation of the grievances; but on Vote 5 he would give the hon. Member the fullest opportunity of discussing them. At present, however, he was not aware of the special points to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
considered it obvious that the Committee was not then in a condition to pass this Vote. Here was an hon. Member appealing to the Secretary of State foe War for an assurance about something, and when the Committee tried to ascertain what it was upon which he wanted an assurance they found it had nothing to do with this Vote. This was simply because the Vote had been suddenly sprung upon the House, and when not a Member of the Government had a copy of the Estimates in his hands. The right hon. Gentleman had had more than one-third of the Effective Vote voted to him, and he said he should have another £3,500,000; and he proposed that the discussion the Army Estimates should go on in the beginning of July. From the 1st of April to the lst of July was only three months, and he could not in that quarter have spent £4,500,000. The statement, 1560 therefore, that the money was absolutely necessary now would not bear investigation. He would further remind the right hon. Gentleman that he always had balances of millions under the control of the War Office. He did not seem to be so well acquainted with the details of his Office as he might be. At the end of the Appropriation Account in any year he would find in detail the account of all the balances standing to the credit of the War Office at the end of September, and he would find that these balances invariably amounted to £12,000,000 or £15,000,000. He did not say that all these moneys were immediately available for every purpose; but over and above the £4,500,000 he had had voted to him there were other funds available, and he, therefore, could not want funds, and would not be in want of funds for three months. There was no necessity, therefore, for this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said he had selected this particular Vote because it was non-contested. It was simply because it was the largest Vote he could ask for. If he wanted non-contentious Votes, why could he not ask for that for Divine Service or for some Non-Effective Service? These were not Votes on which contention could arise; but he wanted this because, having already got Vote 1, if he also had Vote 10 he would have all the money for pay and food and transport, and all the most contentious business connected with the War Office, except stores, would have passed. The question of the transport of troops was one upon which a large amount of discussion might reasonably be expended. Discussion might very properly be raised on such questions as stoppages of soldiers' pay, Colonial losses, fuel, forage, or provisions; and in the Appendix, page 193, there were figures connected with the Transvaal which suggested a number of questions. But if they passed this Vote, how were those questions to be dealt with? When they came to other Votes it would not be in order to discuss the points which might be properly raised on this. He therefore could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's observation that it was necessary that this money should be voted; and even if it were, it was the duty of the Government to have brought it before the House at some more convenient hour. It was now past 2, and it was not right 1561 or proper to pass a Vote of £3,500,000 at such an hour without discussion. It had been sprung upon the House without reasonable Notice, and they had no reason to suppose it would be proceeded with until the Civil Service Estimates had been discussed. If it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have money, why not ask for a general Vote on Account? Why not take half of this Vote and leave the other half as fair ground on which to raise discussion connected with the items? Half the money ought to be enough. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be able to accept that suggestion. Under those circumstances, he must challenge the Vote, and he did not think he could finish his remarks much before 3 o'clock.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the old idea was that no large sums of money should be asked for after 12 o'clock at night; but on this occasion, at five minutes past 1, they were asked for £3,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not name a particular day on which hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing questions connected with the Army, the Government having got into a mess with regard to their other Business. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this money was very much wanted; but the hon. Member for Queen's County had pointed out that that statement was very incorrect, and it was very strange that the Army was in a far better position, as far as funds were concerned, than any other Service. Only two months had elapsed since the Army got £4,500,000—a sum sufficient for four months; so that that part of the case entirely broke down, unless there was something kept in the background. He suspected there were large expenses connected with the Transvaal, and so on, which had to be paid off, and which the Government did not wish to have discussed till their other Business was practically disposed of. He would urge the Committee not to allow this new principle to be introduced of asking for large sums without the opportunity of discussion at this late hour.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County, that he had ascertained beyond doubt that the £8,000,000 balances at the War Office were not at their disposal, and that the money would run out about two weeks or more from this day. Therefore it was absolutely necessary to have this Vote. The hon. Member was a terrible tempter in suggesting that he should take a Vote on Account; but it was understood to be a canon in that House not to take Votes on Account for the Army Service.

§ GENERAL BURNABY
begged to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair. His reason for doing so was that this Vote comprised a great many soldiers' grievances—some of those shabby things which the Army were beginning to become alive to. For instance, he should like to know whether in the first item of £1,500,000, for the "Cost of Provisions," was comprised that portion of a soldier's rations which were deducted from his pay? It had been said by a general officer commanding the Home district that the notion that the soldier got his rations free was nothing but a "snare and a delusion." There was nothing which so disappointed a soldier as to find that the lump of meat and portion of bread he got was all he got, and that his evening meal—bread, tea, coffee, potatoes, vegetables, &c., had to be deducted from his pay to the amount of 1s. 11d. per week. He also should like to know whether, under the head of "transport," was included the cost of a soldier's funeral from the place where he died to the place where he was buried? The sum of 35s. had to be deducted from a soldier's effects and savings in the Regimental Savings' Bank, his effects being all his under garments, which the soldier had to pay for, and these were seized by the Paymaster after death, even to the shirt off his corpse, and sold by auction. Then, as to separation allowances for wives and families, he would like to know whether the Vote for "Cost of Provisions" included proper and full rations for those wives of soldiers married with leave and their children, when they were forcibly separated from the soldiers, who were fighting for their country? There were other things upon which the House should have full opportunity of discussion. He found that soldiers had to pay 1563 10s. for their own burial fees at the Brompton Cemetery; this went to the clergyman of the parish or district in which the death took place, and 1s. to the cemetery was also paid. But he did not see why the military chaplains should not perform the duties without any charge upon the soldiers; and he certainly was of opinion all fees should be paid by the State. Anxious as he was that the Vote should be passed, he thought it had been brought on toe late, and therefore felt himself compelled to make his Motion, as his only means of these grievances being made known to the House without loss of time.

§ MR. CHILDERS
explained that the question of troops having additional pay did not arise in any way upon this Vote. It was an entirely distinct question, and he thought the hon. and gallant Member knew that that was so. The question of the cost of soldiers' funerals was one which the Treasury had at this moment under discussion, having been taken up some time ago. That question, however, did not arise on this Vote, and the same remark applied to the matter of the chaplains' fees.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
suggested, in order to shorten this matter, that the Secretary of State should take—say, £2,000,000, and leave £500,000, upon which all these points could be raised; and, in the meantime, the absolute wants of the Department might be met. He must, however, admit that such a course would be unusual, and should not be taken as a precedent.

§ MR. CHILDERS
thought he had fully explained the points raised, and he observed that the hon. Member, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, must know that if there was anything that Committee set their faces against, it was the taking of Votes on Account for Army or Navy Services.

COLONEL STANLEY
desired to suggest another course. Before now, when he had been Secretary of State for War, it had been agreed, when Votes were being taken and particular points could not be answered, that the answers should be given on the Report. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would 1564 be able to answer all the points before the Report on Monday.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he had not the least objection to that course, although he thought he had answered every point that had been raised. He was most anxious to meet the objections of any hon. Member.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he was afraid the Irish Members could not assent to the suggestion, because a discussion on Report was a very different thing from a discussion in Committee. Although they had been prepared to go on with the Army Estimates in the ordinary way, they had no reason to expect that they would be suddenly called upon to discuss this Vote 10. But they were prepared to raise such questions as the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to dispose of in an hour or two. He was prepared to contest every penny voted for the transport or other expense connected with the service in which the troops were being employed in Ireland. He could not find words sufficiently strong to condemn that service, and he would be no party to voting money for it, unless they got an assurance such as would show that they were justified in allowing the Vote to pass. Then there was the question of transport to other parts of the world, and that opened up large considerations which could not possibly be adequately discussed at that late hour. The public could not know what took place, and it was very unfair that the Government should insist on going through the Division Lobby.

§ MR. BIGGAR
held that the proposal of the Government could not be defended, and said he could not remember an instance in which the late Government had insisted upon taking money at such an hour. The taking of Votes of public money should be in the presence of the representatives of the Press, so that what took place could be made known. If the criticisms upon Votes were not made known to the public, they might as well be passed with closed doors; and for Ministers to suppose that the discussion was to take place without being known to the public was a thoroughly untenable proposition.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he had been carefully considering whether it was possible, consistent with the financial Rules—and after careful consideration and consultation with his right hon. Friends around him he thought he could make a promise, without any grievous breach of Rules—that the hon. Member might raise a discussion on the question of expenditure in connection with the Army in Ireland on other Votes. He would take care that that could be done. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What Vote?] Not only as to transport, but as to recent expenditure of the Army in Ireland. He would not introduce any technical difficulty.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the objections he proposed to raise in regard to the Irish portion of the Army, or rather that portion of the Army in Ireland, was an objection which covered a great deal more ground than was covered by the question of transport. He objected altogether to that portion of the military system which was known as the relief system.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that question did not occur on the present Vote, and the hon. Member would have the fullest opportunity of discussing it.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, they could not separate the relief system from the question of transport. If they brought soldiers from one part of the country to another they must necessarily expend a certain amount of money in the transport.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, what he said was that they could raise the question of what the hon. Member called relief on three or four other Votes.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the difficulty was this—he had watched the proceedings in Supply with great care for some time, and he had seen more Members disappointed in their intentions in offering observations on particular branches of the Public Service by rulings from the Chair, with regard to the particular Vote on which they ought to offer their observations, than in any other way. The movement of troops was a subject that properly belonged to that Vote, because it was a Vote under which they supplied the funds which went to pay for those movements; and, as he said before, they could not separate the question of the transport of 1566 troops from the relief system. The way in which he regarded the movement of soldiers for a time in Great Britain and another period of time in Ireland was that particular aspect of it which could not be separated at all from Vote 10, and it was only under that Vote that he could properly raise it. If the present Vote was passed, and the question should be raised on another Vote, the Chairmnn would be obliged to rule that the question could not be discussed on the Vote concerning Divine Service. Therefore, he could not accede to the suggestion that those £3,500,000, which had not been discussed at all, should be passed without any ventilation of the question which naturally arose upon it, and especially in the small hours of the morning. He would explain to the Committee his objections to the Vote which were connected with the relief system. Under the present system of foreign reliefs, the regiments which go abroad were larger than those which are kept at home on the average. According to the Return which the right hon. Gentleman furnished the House with some time ago, it appeared that there were 43 battalions of 480 rank and file. When a regiment went abroad it was recruited to its full strength, and was maintained at that strength. When it came home it was allowed to go through the process of natural depletion until it had reached the lowest figure on the Home Establishment. Now, there were in the British Army a considerable number of Irish soldiers, and there were many regiments which were more largely composed of Irish soldiers than of either English or Scotch. What he wished to make his Irish Colleagues understand was this—that the Irish soldiers were made to bear a disproportionate share of the dangers and difficulties of foreign service, and that Irish soldier life was wasted and sacrificed, while English and Scotch soldier life was economized. That, he thought, was a very fair ground for objecting to the system of relief as at present carried out. The regiments which returned from foreign service, and which had a considerable period of home service before them, were landed in Great Britain—it was the exception when a regiment on its return from foreign service landed in Ireland. During a great portion of the tour the regiments were kept in Great 1567 Britain, and it was only when the time for foreign service came round that they were sent over to Ireland for their last period of home service, to be there recruited up to the full foreign strength, so that a disproportionate share of foreign and dangerous service fell upon the Irish recruit. Of the whole of the regiments, two-thirds were in Great Britain, and one-third in Ireland, and those which were peculiarly Scotch were treated more fairly in the matter. He would take the case of the Cavalry regiments first, not counting the three regiments of Household Cavalry, which had not been drawn out since 1816. There were 28, of which 7 were Dragoon Guards, 3 Dragoons, 5 Lancers, and the remainder Hussars; 16 of those were at home, 1 at sea, and the rest abroad. Of the 11 Cavalry regiments standing next for foreign service, there ought to be 7 or 8 in Great Britain against 3 or 4 in Ireland; but, two years ago, 6 were stationed in Ireland and 5 in Great Britain. Of those stationed in Great Britain, the only one that had gone abroad was the 6th Dragoons, and that was an Irish regiment; and although there were the 4th Dragoon Guards at York, and the 5th Dragoon Guards at Aldershot, both of which had been home since 1856, and the Enniskillens, which returned home 11 years later, those regiments had been allowed to be at home 11 years longer than the unfortunate Irish regiments. Thus there were the 1lth Dragoons, which were then at Manchester, had been sent over to Ireland simply because its time for foreign service was approaching. Of the 10 Cavalry regiments, which at the beginning of the present year stood presumably next for foreign service, no less than 7 were in Ireland—namely, 2nd and 3rd Dragoon Guards, 1st and 2nd Dragoons, and 7th, 19th, and 20th Hussars. One had since gone to Natal; and of the 3 regiments in England, 2 were the 4th and 5th Dragoon Guards, which had been kept at home for such a long time, and the third regiment was the 7th Dragoon Guards, which was now at Aldershot, at the fixed establishment of 444, so that of the 10 regiments, 3 were in England, 1 was certainly not going abroad immediately, 2 were peculiarly favoured, and all the others were in Ireland next for foreign service. With regard to Infantry, of the 19 regiments 1568 which two years ago had the longest home service, and which, therefore, stood first for foreign service, 14 were stationed in Ireland and 5 in Great Britain; and of the 14 stationed in Ireland, 11 had no local connection with that country. They belonged to brigades of which the depôts were in Great Britain. Among the 5 battalions in Great Britain was the 1st- 18th and the 50th-84th. The lst-18th, which one might have thought would have been stationed in Ireland, for its depôt was at Clonmel, that was sent abroad to Afghanistan. The 50th, which was English, was stationed at home longer than any other regiment in the Service. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what ground there was for keeping that regiment in England all those years, seeing that all the rest of the Army had to take its share of foreign service. He believed those regiments were, for some peculiar reason, favoured. [Mr. CHILDERS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He could assure him that the rumour was repeated in a great many messes. He should like to know why the 84th, which was in England two years ago, was now at the Curragh? All the regiments in Ireland—the 38th and the 77th—had gone abroad, 1 to the Colonies and the other to India; and of the 11 regiments or battalions now standing next for foreign service, 9 wore in Ireland, and of those only 1 belonged to a brigade which had its depôt in the country. All the others were English regiments, having their depôts in England. If they looked at the matter from an Irish brigade depôt point of view, they would see there were in Ireland 8 brigade depôts having each a depôt and 2 linked battalions. Then there was another point. Of the 8 Infantry battalions at Aldershot, the only one whose effective strength was kept above the establishment was the 2nd-18th. Why? Because it was an Irish regiment, and had to serve its linked battalion on Irish service. Thus it would be seen that while the regiments which were principally composed of Irish soldiers, which were properly at home only in Ireland, and which were fed from Irish brigade depôts, were for the most part abroad, the English regiments, which stood next for foreign service, were sent over to Ireland to be recruited up to full foreign strength. The effect was that the Irish soldiers in the British Army abroad 1569 were disproportionate in number to the English soldiers. Under those circumstances, the Irish Representatives were entitled to protest against a system which involved an undue drain upon Irish soldiers. They had no desire to see Afghans or Zulus subdued, or the Transvaal annexed, or the liberties of any people broken down, and they were very sorry to see their soldiers employed in such work. He should be very glad to see them engaged in defensive war; but he should prefer to see every Irishman removed from the Army into civil life, instead of having their faculties wasted as they now were. He raised this question now because the question of transport was involved in that of reliefs; but if the relief system was to be challenged, Vote 10 was the proper Vote to challenge it upon. But that was only one point arising on Vote 10. There were half-a-dozen other points; but that was not the proper time to raise them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would content himself with a portion of the present Vote, or make arrangements for an early discussion of all these details. There was a tacitly recognized rule that Votes should not be broken up in Committee; but some of the Army Votes were divided into separate parts, and he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should not now—not as a precedent, but simply because of the embarrassing circumstances in which he found himself—take half the Vote, in order to leave some ground upon which to bring forward all these points. If he would not consent to that, the Irish Members must continue to keep a House.

§ MR. CHILDERS
appealed to the hon. Member and to the Committee, whether, if questions which barely arose out of this Vote were to be discussed in such a way, it would be possible to expect the Estimates to be got through this Session? The hon. Member seemed to think that the Government wished to expose Irish soldiers to greater perils than other soldiers, and based his view on the fact that soldiers, on coming from foreign service, first returned to England, then were sent to Ireland, and from there sent on foreign service again. Regiments, on returning from foreign service, notably preferred spending their first years in England. That had been the case even 1570 since the Peninsular War. Then they went to Ireland, and formerly they went abroad from Ireland; but now a large proportion went from England. There was no intention in that system to do any injustice to Irish soldiers, and this was the first time he had heard that Irish soldiers disliked foreign service. He had always heard hitherto that they wished to go on foreign service. Then, the hon. Member said, a larger proportion of English soldiers ought to have been sent abroad to the Afghan and Transvaal Wars; then, he disapproved of those wars, and, therefore, did not wish to see his countrymen engaged so largely on foreign service. It was impossible for the War Office to lay down a rule that the sentiments of the regiments as to a particular war should be ascertained, and that regiments recruited from that part of the United Kingdom which approved of a particular war should be sent out. He should pity the Minister for War who had to carry out such a principle. The War Office proposed to carry out still further the battalion system; and, under that system, every regiment would have one battalion at home and one abroad. Under that system, every man and every officer would have, as nearly as possible, eight years' service abroad; and it was in order to carry that out that the War Office were increasing the regiments for foreign service. There was no intentional difference between the treatment of Irish and English soldiers, and the hon. Member's case must fall to the ground. He hoped the Vote would now be taken.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
maintained that there was a much larger proportion of Irish soldiers abroad than English soldiers; that Irish soldiers were systematically taken from Ireland and sent on foreign service; that English and Scotch soldiers were sent to Ireland; and that Ireland was occupied by foreign troops, while the Irish soldiers were sent to do foreign service. The other day the hon. Member for Aberdeen moved for a certain Return showing the number of recruits in Scotch regiments from the Scotch recruiting field. The Secretary for War made no difficulty about giving that Return; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) copied the Notice of Motion of the hon. Member, in order to obtain a similar Return as to Irish recruits. But the right 1571 hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) refused absolutely to give him that information. He refused because he know that anyone would, if the Return were granted, see at a glance the system carried on; and that the Irish soldiers were sent abroad to bear the dangers of foreign service, while English and Scotch soldiers were safe at home. If the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to make a clean breast of it, he would not have refused the Return.

§ MR. CHILDERS
replied, that the hon. Member for Aberdeen moved for a Return which only sought to ascertain the number of Scotch recruits, and it did not give one tittle of information as to what soldiers had gone abroad.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER
said, it was well known—and he spoke as an old soldier—that in many Scotch regiments there was a large proportion of Irish soldiers; and in the 92nd Regiment, which had most distinguished itself in the Afghan campaign, there were 200 Irishmen. It could not be held that the Irish soldiers were sent abroad to bear the brunt of battle, while Englishmen were sent where there was no war; for the regiments were sent abroad according to the roster, and no distinction was made. If a regiment was required for foreign service, it was sent, whether it was English, or Irish, or Scotch, and he repudiated the assertion that Irish soldiers were selected for slaughter. Irish soldiers were the most straightforward and plucky men that ever existed; but it was not right that it should be said they wore sent to be shot, while Englishmen were kept back.

§ DR. LYONS
said, if the hon. Member had proved anything, it was that a most exceptional and complimentary distinction was conferred upon Irish soldiers. They knew that where fighting went on promotion was fastest, and he lead now to learn for the first time that Irishmen were backward on any occasion when fighting was going on. It had always been the boast of Irishmen that they claimed to be in the van. He would remind the hon. Member of the well-known lines of one of Ireland's most distinguished national poets, the late Thomas Davis— They rushed from the revel to join the parade, For the van is the right of the Irish Brigade. 1572 If it was known that Irish soldiers were more particularly selected to be sent to the field, that fact, so far from stopping recruiting in Ireland, would have the very contrary effect; and he was sure that if Irish recruits were habitually put into the regiments which were sent to the front, they would have a still larger increase of recruits than at present—3,000 in 1880, as compared with 1,400 three years previously—and the Service would be more popular than ever in Ireland.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he entirely dissented from such a statement.

§ MR. O'SHEA
said, the hon. Member was entirely mistaken with regard to the 4th Dragoon Guards, which was an Irish regiment.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
How many Irishmen?

§ MR. O'SHEA
said, he had no Return to show the exact numbers of the different nationalities at the present moment in the 4th, which was the Royal Irish Dragoon Guards. The regiment was notoriously more Irish than was altogether agreeable to the authorities in 1866 and 1867. But he must add, of of his own experience in the Army, that the general complaint of the hon. Member was not shared either by Irish officers or men.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
entirely dissented from the view of the hon. Member for Dublin that it was a point of honour with Irishmen to be sent to the front in those little wars in various parts of the world, which were very shameful wars. There was no honour whatever in shooting Zulus, or Afghans, or Boers, or in being snot down by them. Those men were fighting for the independence and rights of their country. It was admitted that they had been standing on the defensive against an unjust war, and against annexation, and it was no honour to send his countrymen to take part in such wars.

§ MR. BIGGAR
begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He thought it was time that discussion came to an end. The hon. Member for Queen's County had stated certain facts, and the Secretary of State contradicted his statement; but it was not alleged that those particular regiments had not been moved, and he thought if they reported Progress then, they could discuss the merits 1573 of the matter at a future time. It was desirable that they should know how the matter of selecting regiments for home service was done, and whether Irish regiments, more than others, were selected to be slaughtered, either by the enemies of England, or by unhealthy climates.

§ MR. CHILDERS
appealed to the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) whether what had been stated was the case? He (Mr. Childers) had answered him with respect to selection for a particular service, and had assured him that no regard was ever paid to their nationality; but that, under the present system, every soldier must take his turn at foreign service. And he did ask the hon. Member, after that statement—after he had told him that he could discuss the general question on other Votes—on the Vote for Quartermaster General—nay, he would entreat the House, not to postpone the matter any longer, but let them take the Vote.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he should be exceedingly glad to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who had been exceedingly civil in some things and exceedingly uncivil in others. He refused to give the information which his hon. Friend asked for a few days ago, and he now said he would give the information in general terms, but would not give a similar Return with regard to Irish soldiers which he had given with regard to Scotch soldiers. However plausible the right hon. Gentleman might be, he was not thoroughly candid.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
rose to Order, and asked if the expression used was courteous to the right hon. Gentleman?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he did not think the remark was courteous.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, however unwilling he was to say anything uncivil or un-Parliamentary, he did say that the right hon. Gentleman avoided explaining certain matters with respect to which his hon. Friend wished to know. On previous occasions he refused to explain the matter, and the result was that they did not know how matters stood. If he would say that he would grant the Return and the information before the 1574 light of day, that was to say, before the reporters, he would say he was candid; but if he refused that information when the reporters were present, and refused to discuss the matter until some uncertain future day, they were entitled to resist the Vote.

§ MR. CHILDERS
would appeal, not to the hon. Member, but to the whole Committee. He hoped he had been most candid up to now. The hon. Member asked why he objected to a certain Return, and he said plainly that if that Return was given it would not have assisted the hon. Member in the slightest degree; and he said at the time that if the hon. Member would go to him and ask for the information he wanted he would give him such information as he could, but the Return ho asked for would not have helped him in the smallest degree.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he asked for a certain Return, knowing perfectly well what he wanted it for, and the right hon. Gentleman would allow that he could judge as well as himself what he wanted it for. The Return which was granted to the hon. Member for Aberdeen with respect to Scotch soldiers was precisely the Return he wanted for his purposes, and he could not conceive any other Return that would suit him so completely. The right hon. Gentleman said that he might afford him some information, but was not willing to give him the Return, because he might use it in support of a Motion which he could not agree with. He said that Return would have vindicated his present position, and would have shown that Irish regiments were, to an undue extent, sent on foreign service. It would have proved that an undue proportion of Irish soldier-life was sacrificed in proportion to Scotch and English soldier-life, and that it was unfair to Irish recruits that they should have that undue share of foreign service. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Dublin to talk about honour. He did not for a moment recognize the honour of foreign service in wars such as the British Government had lately been carrying on.

§ MR. CHILDERS
observed, that the hon. Member had now explained very clearly what information he wished to obtain. He wished to ascertain the proportion of English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers who were sent on foreign service, in order to see whether his contention that an undue proportion of Irish soldiers were sent abroad was correct. He should be happy to give such information, and he hoped after that assurance he might be allowed to take the Vote.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
was glad that the right hon. Gentleman now consented to give the Return which he had previously refused.

§ MR. CHILDERS
explained that what had been previously asked for was a Return of Irish recruits in the particular regiments. He had an objection to giving that information; but he promised to give the proportion of all kinds of soldiers sent on foreign service, and he thought a more candid offer than that could not have been made.

COLONEL STANLEY
remarked, that he had no particular interest in the Return; but he thought the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was as fair a one for carrying out what was asked for as could possibly be made. Irish recruits might and did go to English and Scotch as well as Irish regiments, and he thought the Return in the form proposed would be the fairest mode in Which the information could be given. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's appeal would be listened to.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it seemed to him an extraordinary proposal that because the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to furnish a Return, the Irish Members, who objected to the whole system which had been adopted that night, should at once consent to vote £3,500,000 of public money. What he had asked the right hon. Gentleman for was a Return showing the number of Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Englishmen who were abroad and at home; but the right hon. Gentleman, although he knew the purpose of that request, refused the Return, and he refused a similar Return to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, because he knew it would afford information upon which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) might base a Motion.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he had refused for palpable reasons to give the number of recruits in each regiment; but he had now promised to give the precise information by which the hon. Member could test his opinion that an undue proportion of Irish soldiers were sent abroad. That was a totally different matter from the number of recruits in each regiment. There were continual transfers on one regiment to another, and he could give no information as to them; but he would meet the point upon which the hon. Member had spoken for half-an-hour.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the right hon. Gentleman offered information which was not asked for; and he thought the Secretary for War should at once give the Return desired without further quibbling.

§ MR. CHILDERS
denied that he had any desire to quibble, and repeated that he was prepared to give the precise figures as to the number of men sent abroad.

§ MR. LEAMY
objected to the Vote of £3,500,000 being taken at such a late hour, and stated that, no matter what information the right hon. Gentleman was willing to give, he should oppose the Vote. He begged to move that the Chairman should leave the Chair.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he was sorry that no arrangement seemed to be possible in this matter; but he could not see why the Return, which was an exact copy of the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, should not be granted.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to learn whether the recruiting of the last few years would fill up a certain number of kilted regiments, and to ascertain that he asked for a Return of the number of recruits. He did not ask for any information as to the recruits sent abroad; but the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wanted a Return of the numbers of Irish, English, and Scotch sent abroad. That information must be got not from the Recruiting Office, but from the Quartermaster's Office.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
pointed out that the Return obtained by the 1577 hon. Member for Aberdeen not only showed the number of recruits, but also their destination, and he himself had asked for both classes of information. He contended that there were too many Irish recruits; and he found from a Return issued by the Quartermaster that whereas, in 1869, there were 1,403 recruits in Ireland, the average number for the next five years was 2,250, and for the following five years, from 1874 to 1879, it was 3,260. Unfortunately, these recruits increased not only in absolute numbers but in disproportion to the population; and while the population of Ireland was rapidly decreasing the number of young men drawn off by the British Army was increasing annually. Ireland could not afford to lose those young men, and recruiting ought to stop in Ireland during the suspension of the liberties of the people.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Question before the Committee.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
admitted that, but explained that he was merely replying to the observations of the Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman thought he ought to be content with a Return showing the number of Irishmen who had been sent abroad, and he should be very glad to have that Return; but he could not understand what objection there could be to giving him the information he asked for in the first instance—namely, the number of Irishmen, the number of Scotchmen, and the number of Englishmen who were now abroad.

§ MR. CHILDERS
I have not the slightest objection.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
repeated that what he wanted was the number of English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers now abroad, and the number of English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers who were at home. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have so much difficulty.

§ MR. CHILDERS
reminded the hon. Member that he had already promised to give information as to the number of Irishmen sent abroad in each year, but he could not furnish such information as to recruiting.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, his own personal wishes as to the form of the Return were a matter of slight consequence; but Mr. Childers seemed to 1578 expect, after the concession he had made, that those who objected to the whole principle of the system which had been pursued that night would now agree to the Vote. They were asked to vote away £3,500,000 of the public money in the absence of many hon. Members who were best qualified to deal with the subject. The majority of the military Members were unaware this Vote was coming on, and, in their absence, the House was taken at a disadvantage. A whole volume of Returns would not alter that part of the case. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Monstrous.] The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was monstrous; but he objected as a Member of the House to the passing of this Vote, and would not give way because his personal feelings had been salved by the promise of a Return.

COLONEL STANLEY
ventured, reluctantly, to interpose. He had probably had as much to do with Estimates as any Member of the House; and he must say that, although occasionally a difficulty had arisen, he had never yet known a Committee disregard an appeal made by a responsible Minister of the Crown, that the money was absolutely necessary for the Public Service. He hoped no private feeling would be allowed to interfere on this occasion. It was not the fault of the Government that the Vote had to be asked for at 5 minutes past 4 in the morning; and as to Notice, although he was no friend of the Government, he was bound to say he noticed that this Vote was on the Paper that morning. This discussion was very inconvenient, and he could only suggest that further questions on the Vote should be reserved to the stage of Report.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
disclaimed any idea of personal discourtesy to Mr. Arthur O'Connor; but the word which escaped his lips exactly expressed his thoughts. It was stated hours ago that it was necessary for the Public Service that this money should be voted, and that it should be done without taking a day from the Irish Land Bill; but the hon. Member for Queen's County wished to have a day taken from that measure. The hon. Member had, for three quarters of an hour, urged his demand for a particular Return; but having obtained it, he was not satisfied, and the position he now 1579 took up was that he did not wish to see a single Irish soldier recruited, and, therefore, he opposed the Vote. He (the Attorney General) protested against that state of obstruction to the Public Service.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order in imputing to him obstruction?

THE CHAIRMAN
I must say that those continued Motions of the same kind look to me very much like obstruction.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he desired the Chairman to decide the point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN
I have heard nothing from the hon. and learned Gentleman that was out of Order.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he intended to convey that these proceedings did obstruct the Public Service, and it was on that account that the word "monstrous" escaped him just now. The matter became one of physical endurance; and as the Government had no choice but to continue the contest, he hoped the Committee would support them.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, he should give the right hon. Gentleman his most cordial support, and he could bear testimony to the admirable temper which the right hon. Gentleman had shown. He must, also, bear witness to the intelligent criticism which Mr. Arthur O'Connor gave upon military matters. He had often listened with much attention to the hon. Member's remarks on that subject.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
wished to explain that he had never spoken on military matters before.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
was sure he had frequently heard the hon. Member do so. As to the Return which the hon. Member had obtained, no doubt it would contain valuable information; but he thought that now the Vote had received adequate discussion.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, he at first objected to the Vote being taken after 1 o'clock; but now he felt it his duty to support the Secretary for War. He would tell the hon. Member for Queen's County that he had some sinister reasons for asking—

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
rose to Order, and asked whether that remark was Parliamentary?

THE CHAIRMAN
I do not think that remark is quite Parliamentary.

§ MR. ONSLOW
would withdraw the remark, and would say, instead, that there was something behind the scenes which induced the hon. Member to want the Return. As a Constitutional Member, he objected most strongly to the remarks which the hon. Member had made. If an Irishman was recruited he was recruited for the whole Empire, and it was no matter what part of the world he was sent to. It was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had promised the Return, because it would not do much good one way or the other; and the Return had been forced upon the right hon. Gentleman simply because hon. Members below the Gangway wished the baneful effects of the Land League to be brought to bear on the troops. It was time that other hon. Members should speak their minds firmly against those hon. Members who were not sent to Parliament for the true interests of Ireland, but for a particular purpose. The course taken by the hon. Member for Queen's County was, he thought, detrimental to the interests of the Empire, and he should support the right hon. Gentleman in carrying through the Vote.

§ MR. CHILDERS
Perhaps, as a decided appeal has been made to me, I may be allowed to answer it. I think I ought to sum up how the question stands. When the Vote was proposed, after a somewhat discursive conversation, which I endeavoured to answer, the hon. Member for Queen's County rose and, for nearly an hour, addressed the Committee on one question. His object was to prove by statistics that an undue proportion of Irishmen were sent on foreign service. That was the alpha and omega of his speech; and he complained that I had refused to give him a Return from which he could have ascertained the facts, and therefore he would have to speak at greater length than he would otherwise. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I appeal to other hon. Members whether that was not the case; and I will go as far as to say that the whole of his argument was that an undue number of Irishmen wore sent on foreign service. He charged me with having refused to give him certain information, and I stated that I would 1581 give him the facts; and now he wants a totally different Return about recruiting, because he wishes to destroy recruiting in Ireland. He says distinctly he does not wish an Irishman to be recruited in Ireland. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR dissented.] The hon. Member may shake his head as long as he likes; I say that he has said that several times. He said distinctly, and he has said it on a previous occasion, that he wished to prevent any Irish recruit entering the Army. I am addressing 70 or 80 men of honour, who know that these were the precise words of the hon. Member; and if that is his method of argument, I say I will not for one moment descend to help the hon. Member to what I believe would be destructive to Irish recruiting, and would stop the source from which I believe we get the best soldiers, I tell him distinctly that he is trying to get information to carry out that object. He says that he now wants a recruiting Return as the foundation of some of the facts he wants to elicit as to the proportion of Irish sent abroad. I will give him that proportion; but I will not help him to do what is detrimental to the Army. Then comes the question—Are six or seven Irish Members, who are the heart and soul of obstruction in this House; who have obstructed on former occasions, and brought about the necessity for "urgency;" who have done their utmost to obstruct Public Business—

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
rose to Order, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in imputing to Irish Members a distinct and flagrant violation?

THE CHAIRMAN
It is not a violation of the Rules of the House to speak of obstruction when obstruction exists. There is a special Rule of the House for preventing obstruction.

§ MR. R. POWER
wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman could point to any vote he had ever given in support of obstruction?

§ MR. CHILDERS
That is not a point of Order. The obstruction is now coming from the source from which it has hitherto come. It is only a repetition of past obstruction; and the country, when it knows what has happened tonight, will only see that the obstruction, which was postponed for a short time, is renewed, and that that obstruction is 1582 directed against the Land Bill. I know perfectly well with whom we have to deal; we have to deal with those who are repeating a course which the House had to condemn by establishing the Rules of Urgency under which we had to conduct Business for some time. What are we to do now? The right hon. Gentlemen have appealed to me as to the taking of this Vote. We are prepared to carry on this debate, and I think if we do so the country will justify the measures which it will be necessary to adopt to put a stop to this obstruction. But then the question arises, Are we to expose the officers of the House, who have already been here a long time—including Mr. Speaker himself, who is waiting outside—to this inconvenience? I put that to the majority who have voted in these divisions. If they express the opinion that, in spite of the desire we all have to spare the Speaker and the officers of the House, it is our duty to go on, we will go on. But I hope the majority will clearly show whether they expect that to be done. If, on the contrary, they think we should give way, most reluctantly we will give way; but I and my Colleagues are prepared to sit here through the night.

§ MR. R. POWER
protested against the violent and extraordinary speech of the Secretary of State for War, and, observing that he was determined to vote with the Government on the Land Bill, objected to the language of the Attorney General. He objected to £3,500,000 being voted away at half-past 4 o'clock in the morning; and if the Government wished to beat them by physical force, the Irish Members were also prepared to remain all night. But if neither side would give way, both sides would only make fools of themselves.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persist with this Vote. In former times this Vote would have been granted as a matter of course; but if the House was to be met by this unprecedented obstruction to the Public Service, hon. Members ought to be prepared to make a personal sacrifice to support the Government.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
urged the Government to give some promise upon this subject.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he certainly ought to except the hon. Member (Mr. R. Power) from any imputation of gene- 1583 ral obstruction, and again expressed his readiness to furnish information as to the proportion of Irish soldiers sent abroad, and to undertake that the subject should be discussed on a subsequent occasion.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that, while leaving the Attorney General free to indulge in any expressions he chose, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had been unjust to him. He repudiated entirely the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he wished to embarrass the Government, and that he desired to prevent recruiting in Ireland. He had put a Motion on the Paper declaring that the House was of opinion that recruiting ought to be suspended in Ireland pending the restoration of the Constitutional liberties of the people of that country; but he had not said that he would endeavour to prevent recruiting in Ireland. The Return which the right hon. Gentleman had promised would furnish all the information he had asked for; and he asked the House to accept the assurance that he had not taken up the opposition that evening from a mere wish to obstruct, but because he felt that the Vote ought not to be taken without examination and discussion. That was not the way in which the people's money ought to be taken, and the Committee were not justified in passing the Vote in the small hours of the morning. But, having regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Waterford, he would be willing to accept an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that another opportunity should be given for the discussion, and would only ask the right hon. Gentleman in future to be less ready to impute motives.

§ MR. CHILDERS
replied, that four hours ago he could have been more charitable. However, he accepted the suggestion, and promised that an opportunity for the discussion of these questions of the movements of troops should be on Vote 4.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
thought they were now very near a settlement, and they had, in fact, reached that point half-an-hour ago, when the Attorney General interfered with his furious war-charge, and threw the whole matter into confusion. Personally, he wished to repudiate any desire to defeat or delay the Land Bill.

§ DR. COMMINS
also repudiated that imputation, and regretted the injudicious interposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General.

§ MR. R. POWER
regretted the misunderstanding that had arisen, and, after the very satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman, would appeal to his hon. Colleagues to let the Vote pass.

MR. LEARY ,
in withdrawing his Motion, said, he intended no obstruction; but he objected to the Vote being taken at so late an hour.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he was at first against the Vote; but as the Government appeared to be in a difficulty, and as the Secretary for War met them in a courteous and satisfactory way, he was inclined to give way. But he did protest against the language of the Attorney General, and would tell him that language of that kind had no effect upon the Irish Members. He had been suspended twice, and he should not mind if he were suspended thrice. All the House could do was to turn the Irish Members out; but those Members were there in discharge of their duty, and they should discharge that duty, no matter whom it displeased.

§ MR. BIGGAR
would like the Chairman to qualify his charge of obstruction, which he thought was not warranted by the facts. The conduct of the Irish Members had been perfectly bonâ fide.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
did not care a straw, as far as he was personally concerned, about the charge of obstruction, because he had never obstructed. But he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the question of reliefs was only one of various questions arising out of this Vote, each of which would give rise to a considerable amount of discussion. However, as the hon. Member for Waterford had come to an understanding with the Secretary of State, he, would not now move reductions of the Vote, as he had intended to do, by the amounts for the transport of troops to Ireland, Natal, and the Transvaal. At the same time, he was not altogether satisfied with that understanding, and if he could have persuaded his hon. Friend to consider a little longer before entering 1585 upon that undertaking he would have done so. A great wrong was done to the country, and a dangerous precedent was set when, by dint of sitting a number of hours, a majority could force a minority, which had taken the trouble to study the matter, into voting under these circumstances £3,500,000 on the Army Estimates.