§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)This Supplementary Vote of £8,400 for the Royal Irish Constabulary has been rendered necessary by the employment of a number of that force in the county and city of Dublin during the recent occurrences. It arises in this way. The original Estimate for subsistence allowances was £26,000. The amount required to meet that extra expenditure under that head would be £22,800, but there is £8,970 savings under other sub-heads. The additional sum required over and above the original Estimate is £13,830, and taking from that the Appropriations-in-Aid brings out the figure at £8,400, and that is the additional sum required. A large number of the Royal Irish Constabulary were on duty in Dublin, in the city and county, during the labour troubles. In the city of Dublin the total numbers employed were five district inspectors, thirteen head constables, and 488 constables, making in all 506. In the county of Dublin the figures were two district inspectors, three head constables, and 137 constables, making a total of 142. Taking the city and county together, the total was 648, or, roughly speaking, 650 officers and men. The question will naturally be asked why the Corporation of Dublin are 1979 not required to pay for this extra police force in the manner in which counties in Ireland have to pay for extra police over and above what is called the free list. The reason is a statutory one. The Constabulary Acts do not operate in Dublin, and therefore we were not in a position to make a charge upon the Dublin Corporation; consequently that question does not and cannot arise. The subsistence allowances in the city of Dublin are: District inspectors 15s. per night, head constables 5s. 6d., and men 4s. 6d. In the county of Dublin they are the same, except that the men get 3s. 6d., instead of 4s. 6d. per night. The whole of these 650 officers and men were not employed throughout the period, but on an average they were employed for something like three months; some were employed from August to January, some from September to January, some from October, and so on. That is quite sufficient to account for the extra Vote. Certain savings, as set out on the Paper, amounting to £8,970, have been taken in reduction of what otherwise would have been a larger Vote. These savings arise almost entirely upon pay, allowance, travelling expenses, forage, and transport. The bulk of the amount is due to the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary is not at the present moment at its full strength. On the 1st January, 1913, there were 10,177 sergeants and constables in the force, and on 1st January, 1914, there were 10,023, a reduction of 154. That is one of the main causes of the savings on pay, which amount to £5,116. There is also a saving of £2,000 on travelling expenses, and in all there have been savings as stated in the White Paper. On a Supplementary Estimate it would not be in order to say any more than that these men were required in the interests of peace, that they discharged their duty, and the cost has to be provided for.
Mr. HAZELTONWill the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Appropriations-in-Aid from extra police charges have been greater than were anticipated?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to that point. When a force is employed in a county over and above the free allowance, it is paid for by the county in which the police are unwelcome visitors. It was supposed that a large number of these men would have been removed from the three 1980 counties chiefly affected—Galway, Roscommon, and Clare—and that, therefore, the force would cease to earn the money which they do earn while discharging these extra county duties. I am sorry to say that it has not been possible or desirable to remove, at all events, the whole of the extra force in these counties, and consequently we have had a larger amount of money from that source than was expected a year ago.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move that Item D (Subsistence Allowances) be reduced by £830. The Supplementary Estimate is a large one, but I do not propose to discuss the question of amount, because, no doubt, it was necessary that law and order should be maintained. I propose to ask, however, why it was necessary to bring into Dublin these extra men. I want to safeguard myself from any imputation that I am in any way casting a reflection on the Royal Irish Constabulary, or that I am in any way desirous at any time of not having sufficient police present to quell any disorder that may arise. The question in my mind is, Did the Government do their duty at that time, and, if the Government had done their duty, would it have been necessary to come to this House for an expenditure of £26,000? I read with great interest reports of what was taking place during these disturbed periods, and it seemed to me, speaking as one who was not present, and whose only source of information was the daily Press, that a great deal of the disturbance was due to the action of the Government.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet cannot raise questions of policy on a Supplementary Vote.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe question we have to consider is whether we shall vote this £26,000. If I can show that the Government either took steps which added to that increase, or did not take steps which might have quelled the riot without spending this money, it would be a reason for our not voting this Supplementary Estimate. My contention is that the Government deliberately did a certain act, and that that certain act encouraged and made the riots. I submit, therefore, that I am entitled to show why, in my opinion, certain acts of the Government necessitate this Supplementary Vote.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet can see where that would lead. It would lead 1981 to Supplementary Votes being made the occasion for all kinds of discussions of policy, whereas it is clearly laid down that policy cannot be discussed on Supplementary Estimates. The only questions which arise here are whether constabulary were sent in too large numbers and whether the amount is a reasonable one for the numbers sent.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I recall to your memory what took place the day before yesterday upon the Supplementary Vote in regard to Somaliland? On that occasion there was a considerable Debate upon whether or not the policy of the Government in having there only a Camel Corps in small number, and of withdrawing Imperial forces from Somaliland had not led to the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate and to the death of certain people? It seems to me that here is an incident, not a general incident of policy, but an incident directly connected with the reasons for which the police were sent to Dublin. The police were sent to quell the riots connected with the strike, and Larkin was concerned in the strike. It is not a general question of policy; it is a question which arises directly upon this Vote.
§ The CHAIRMANThe opportunity for criticising the Government in regard to the matter to which the hon. Baronet refers clearly arises on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary. It could not come on the Vote for the constabulary, even if it had been the main Vote.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOf course I bow to your ruling. I have said enough to show that in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of many of my hon. Friends, the matter to which I referred was one of the real reasons why this Supplementary Vote has become necessary. Having done that, I have more or less achieved my object, and it is not necessary to allude further to it. I understand the Chief Secretary to give as a reason for the Appropriations-in-Aid having amounted to £5,430 more than was expected that in certain counties which are more or less disturbed he has been compelled to keep a certain number of extra constabulary, who are charged upon the county rates. If that is so, I do not quite see why a considerable part of this sum should not have been charged upon the Dublin Corporation.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI explained that.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman said that there was an Act of Parliament which prevented him from doing it.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThere is an Act of Parliament which enables me to charge the county with any extra force over and above the free list, but there is no such Statute enabling me to charge the Dublin Corporation for any extra police that may be necessary.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt would not be in order, because it would 'be a question of policy, to enter into the reasons why there; is one law for the counties and another law for the corporation, and I do not propose to do so. What I think I can do is to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he does not bring in a Bill to assimilate the counties and the corporations. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that matter can be dealt with under Home Rule. Home Rule is not yet passed. If it is passed this would give those concerned a good example, and would add a crown of glory to the right hon. Gentleman's already illustrious name. I suppose the riots did not begin until after this House had risen, and therefore, I think it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to have foreseen that it would have been necessary to send these police; but I would like to put one other question which I think will be in order: Supposing the right hon. Gentleman had sent earlier a larger number of police, and supposing he had instructed those police that they were to take strong measures, and were ruthlessly to put, down any attempt to intimidation which was exercised by the trade unions, would or would not that have had the effect of stopping the disturbance, and of lessening the sum of money which we are now asked to vote?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think yes. Of course, it is a matter of opinion, and no doubt my opinion is no better than that of the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, it seems to me that that was the sensible and businesslike course to have pursued, instead of keeping a smaller body of men there for a considerable time, and not giving them instructions to be sufficiently firm in the execution of their duty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly explain that before we come to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would 1983 not be in. order."] Well, I do not know, "he could try. I think, under the circumstances, and in view of the explanation that I have given, something might be said. I have no desire whatever to cast any imputation either upon the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary or upon the men of the Dublin police force, or in any kind of way to allow an impression to get about that I am against the maintenance of law and order. But because I think the Government were at fault I propose to reduce the sum by £830.
§ Sir RICHARD COOPERWould it be in order to discuss the probable recurrence of this expenditure in the immediate future?
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member scarcely means that seriously.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI desire to make a few observations upon this subject. I think it is the first time in the history of the police since I have been in the House that I shall probably be telling with the right hon. Baronet who has moved to reduce the Vote. It will be, however, for an entirely different reason that I support him on this occasion. He has moved to reduce the Vote because he thinks that had more police been brought in earlier, and had they been given more definite instructions to batter the people than they were given—that had a few more heads been cracked in the earlier stages of these proceedings, then possibly there would have been less trouble later, and this account would not have been so much as it is. I am protesting against the amount of the bill for an entirely different reason. That is, on the ground that from my own personal knowledge of the situation in Dublin, being there for three weeks and during the whole of this trouble having been sent there by the Trade Union Congress to investigate, I am quite convinced, from my own experience and also from the evidence that was laid before the committee that held an investigation—of which committee I was a member—that it was the over-display of force that caused practically all this expenditure, and that caused a great deal of the trouble and disturbance that occurred in Ireland. In support of my contention that there were too many police sent, let me say that it is a well-known fact that the Lord Mayor of Dublin himself protested against the enormous display of force in the early stages of this 1984 business. He stated that it had aggravated the situation; that it had created difficulties that ought not to have been created; and that in every possible way it appeared to him that the police authorities, over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, as over other authorities in Ireland, had against the corporation's advice, and against practically all civilian advice, sent the police. The peculiar part of it is that not only the civilian voice from the people of Dublin in the shape of the Lord Mayor and the corporation, not merely from the side of the workmen, but, I believe, that from the employers, actually there were protests that this enormous display of force in the early stages of this business had aggravated the situation almost beyond control.
We get, therefore, this peculiar consensus of opinion: First of all, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, then the organised workmen of the City, and then the organised employers. They all agreed that the display of force was altogether out of proportion to the necessities of the case, both before and after. That is the evidence that was collected. I do not say that at a later stage of the proceedings there was not some necessity for a display of force, though even then I am given to understand by the Lord Mayor that the Dublin Metropolitan Police were quite capable of handling everything that had occurred during the whole of the proceedings. Had not the right hon. Gentleman, on the advice of Dublin Castle, introduced this aggravating element, and, in spite of the advice that I have referred to, decided that he would aggravate the situation by introducing these extra men, things would have been different. That is the extraordinary situation. One can scarcely see, and I should not imagine for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman himself wished to aggravate the situation, for it seemed quite difficult enough as it was. But there are the facts. The evidence from these separate and hostile sources, employers and workmen giving the same advice, is one of the most remarkable features of the case. Both agreed that there was such a display of force as aggravated the situation, and so made this extra expenditure necessary. The whole question, it has been decided that we have to keep the discussion to, is as to whether there were too many police, and whether there was the necessity for all these men being introduced. The evidence is entirely to the 1985 contrary. Is it not a positive fact that a great number of those men that the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon introducing into Dublin had no real police duties to perform at all? They were largely, in the later stages, employed, not in police duties at all, but really in assisting the employers. Is that not a fact? Is it not the fact that they actually removed goods, that they were not employed on police duty, but they were removing goods for the employers?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo; the only goods they assisted to remove were goods consigned to public offices, and to the lunatic asylum, and not for private people at all.
§ Mr. WARDThe House is going to be asked to vote for men performing police duties. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted part of our case, that these men were really used for the purpose of participating as one of the disputants in a great labour dispute. It would be outrageous if it were to be generally understood that against the advice of the local authorities and against the advice of everybody concerned in the good government of Dublin and the peaceful conduct of the dispute, the right hon. Gentleman and his officers can introduce any number of extra police, to the extent apparently of 600 into the centre of disturbance, relying on being able to come here with a Supplementary Vote and get the money for it. I certainly thought that there would have been some definite statement upon the subject as to who decided that these men should be sent to Dublin; as to who decided their numbers, and the purpose for which they were to be sent to Dublin. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would at least have told us the fact that all this body of police were introduced be fore there was a, single riot in Dublin. They were paraded some twenty-five on each side of the street in every street abutting on Sackville Street. They were drawn up in a long line all along Sackville Street. There was such a display of force that I should imagine was never seen before in any town belonging to the Kingdom.
§ Sir HARRY VERNEYHow many were there?
§ Mr. WARDBetween 500 and 600 men. It was a very formidable force. I am speaking of the time about two days after the dispute and a few days 1986 before the trouble had taken place at the arrest of Larkin. The hon. Member may not know that my information was got from Lord Aberdeen and from Sir John Ross, the Commissioner of Police. Of course, if the hon. Baronet knows better than either of them, I will sit down and listen to him.
§ Sir H. VERNEYWhat were the numbers?
§ Mr. WARDThe hon. Baronet had better let me proceed. As a matter of fact I was there. It was an outrageous display—
§ The CHAIRMANThe matter, I think, is now going beyond what I have already ruled as out of order. There was a general Debate on the Dublin strike on the Address, and it certainly cannot be allowed on this Vote. I am not quite clear as to the Dublin police, and how the case stands in Ireland as compared with England. We must, however, not go into a discussion of the merits of the Dublin strike, but simply discuss whether these constabulary ought or ought not to have been sent to Dublin.
§ Mr. WARDThat is exactly the only point I want to deal with, because my information on the spot was that this was a useless display of force which the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers brought in against the advice of every authority in Dublin, and that was what caused all the trouble and cost necessitating this Estimate. There is a suspicion that this force was not brought in for special police purposes at all, but I am not allowed to enter into that. But I suppose I am at least allowed to mention what they were employed at. The day I went into Dublin there were about twenty-five policemen at each side of every street. In Sackville Street there were squads of horse police drawn up as if the town was in a state of siege. It was difficult to know whether one was in a town governed by constitutional authority or somewhere where the Cossacks rule. We wanted to hold a peaceable meeting on a Sunday, and we begged the authorities not to use the police so that we might save expense, which now forms part of this Estimate, and the right hon. Gentleman for some days would not agree to the withdrawal of the police. Eventually he did withdraw the police that Sunday.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now infringing the ruling I already gave. There was a general Debate in the House on the Address on the matter of the Dublin strike. Other discussions of that matter will come up upon the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
§ Mr. WARDMy whole idea is to show there was no necessity for these police. The Dublin authorities themselves told the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers, because apparently they have no power themselves to prevent these police coming in. The right hon. Gentleman is the sole authority to say who shall come in so far as the policing of Dublin is concerned. It. was clearly against the advice of most of the authorities in Dublin that these extra men were brought in, and that this extra expense should be put upon the citizens, I think we should at least hear why in the Chief Secretary's opinion it was necessary to bring them in, and we should get chapter and verse as to why he went against the advice of the local authority in making this extra expense necessary in this Supplementary Vote. I have given my own opinion. I believe that these extra police were used merely as pawns in the game of the employers.
§ Mr. SANDYSAs I understand this Supplementary Estimate it nominally concerns a comparatively small sum of £8,400, but embodied in this Estimate there is also that method of bookkeeping to which attention has already been called in the course of previous Debates on the Estimates which preceded this one. Attention was called from time to time to the extremely unsatisfactory process of reducing the actual amount which the House is asked to pass without any explanation whatever, by means of this system of Appropriations-in-Aid. A most objectionable feature in every Supplementary Estimate, and in this Estimate, is, that in every case it refers to a matter—I am not going to discuss it on account of the Chairman's ruling—to which the people of this country who have to pay the bill attach much importance, and they may be under the impression, from the way the Estimate is drawn up, that the sum they have to find is £8,400, whereas the additional sum is no less than £13,830. That is the first reason why I shall have very great pleasure in supporting the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), if he goes to a Division, and I hope he will get the support of hon. Members below the Gangway.
§ Mr. SANDYSThe hon. Member opposite made an interesting speech, and gave us some personal reminiscences, to which. I propose to make some reference later on. I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Estimate is, on the face of it, very misleading. We are asked to vote a sum of £13,830 under the pretence that we are only voting a sum of £8,400. Of course, the vital matter in connection with this Estimate is the policy of the Government. I am not going to discuss that, because I understand from your ruling, Mr. Whitley, that that discussion is reserved for the salary of the Chief Secretary, and I think it will be a very interesting discussion when it takes place. But I might remind the Committee that by that time the right hon. Gentleman will have got the money and we shall be, as it were, shutting the stable-door after the horse is stolen. It is always the privilege of this House that it should exercise control in financial matters. It was by the exercise of that financial control we won our liberties from a despotic Monarch. Now that privilege of the House of Commons is disappearing, and that financial control rests unimpaired and unchecked and uncriticisable by us in the hands of a despotic oligarchy.
§ Mr. DILLONThat is due to your party, who passed the Closure Resolution.
§ Mr. SANDYSI think that is a very unmerited observation. I am quite welt aware as to the condition under which the Closure Resolutions were made necessary, and I have no doubt the hon. Member is perfectly well aware of the circumstances which made it impossible for the Government of this country to be carried on in. this House unless Resolutions of that kind, of a very stringent character, were brought into force.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. Are we entitled, upon this narrow Supplementary Vote, to discuss the Rules of the House with regard to procedure?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member was replying to an interruption, and I think I should not be justified in disallowing that. But, of course, he will not go beyond replying.
§ Mr. SANDYSI am very much obliged. It is necessary that we should be allowed to deal with interruptions of this character in the course of our speeches. They 1989 make it very much more difficult to follow the line of argument to which we wish to address ourselves and to bring our speeches to a satisfactory conclusion. I want to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Ward). He dealt with the situation existing in the city of Dublin when the police were introduced to deal with the riots, and he described what occurred. I believe he was actually present on the occasion, and no doubt he did his best to pacify the strikers in every possible way. The hon. Member had some conversation with various personages occupying extremely important positions in the city of Dublin, and I believe the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) was equally favoured with the views of several important persons. The hon. Member for Stoke told us, in the course of his speech, that he had an opportunity of discussing the situation, and the question of this large police force, with no less a person age than the Lord Mayor of Dublin. I think we are entitled to listen with very great respect to those views, although we get them second-hand, but they are none the worse for that, because I have every confidence in the statements made by the hon. Member. He told us that, as a result of his interview with the lord mayor, he came away with the impression, and the lord mayor told him quite decidedly—
§ The CHAIRMANI must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to Standing Order 19, which says that an hon. Member is not entitled to repeat his own words or the speeches of other Members. He seems to be giving us again what we have already heard.
§ Mr. SANDYSI will put it very briefly. The Lord Mayor of Dublin, as explained by the hon. Member opposite, thought that too many police were introduced into the city, and thought that the state of the city would be far more satisfactory if a large number of the police had not, as a matter of fact, been introduced, and that very much smaller numbers would have been sufficient to relieve the situation. I think that was a very good point, because the hon. Member, having been there and seen the whole thing, is entitled to speak, and certainly the suggestion he has made and put forward will influence me all the more in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. But there was a suggestion made by the hon. Member 1990 which requires some explanation by the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member actually suggested that some of these men, for whom we are called upon to vote this Supplementary Estimate, were not engaged directly in actual police duties, but were used by the employers. I think he went so far as to say that some, of them were engaged in removing goods.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI described how the Royal Irish Constabulary were employed throughout most of the time in guarding goods. It is a fact that they were in small numbers employed, not in carrying but in securing the safe conduct of goods.
§ Mr. SANDYSThat is not what the hon. Member said.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThat is what I say.
§ Mr. SANDYSThen I may take it that the hon. Member was incorrect when he said they were employed in moving goods?
§ Mr. BIRRELLCertainly.
§ Mr. SANDYSBecause I think that would have been an extraordinary state of affairs, and I do not for one moment see why we should be called upon to pay the bill for purposes like that. I think, on. the whole, evidence shows that for various reasons, to which I am not allowed to-allude now, but which we shall have an opportunity of discussing when the Chief Secretary's salary comes up, we may take-it that this force for which we are asked to pay this large sum of money might have been a much smaller force if the Government had pursued a different policy. I am not going to discuss that this afternoon. I think, at any rate, the larger force need not have remained in Dublin for two months. I think it is most regrettable to have to vote money and discuss it afterwards. I shall certainly support the hon. Baronet in the reduction he moves of the sum of £830, not because we can do very much, but as the strongest protest which lies in our power against the policy of the Government in connection with these riots, and against a system which enables the Government to slip out of an explanation at the proper time.
§ Mr. HAYDENI wish to ask for some information as to the counties from which the police forming this force in Dublin were drafted. The right hon. Gentleman 1991 said that certain counties were charged with subsistence allowances for extra police, and one of those counties is Roscommon, which for several years—as is admitted by all authorities and by all persons connected with the county, whether representing the Government or the ratepayers—has been in a perfectly peaceable and law-abiding condition. This county has been declared over and over again by Judges of Assize and by statistics—
§ The CHAIRMANThat question does hot come up here, and it must be brought up on the main Estimates.
§ Mr. HAYDENI think I can show how that question is in order. The point I want to make is that the ratepayers of certain counties are charged for sustaining a force of extra police in those counties, and into these very counties have been brought at the same time a number of police for whose subsistence we are now asked to vote the taxes of the country—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is suggesting an alteration of the law.
§ Mr. HAYDENNo, Mr. Whitley.
§ The CHAIRMANI think I am clear about the county of Roscommon. This is a charge which is laid down by Statute and cannot be altered without legislation.
§ Mr. HAYDENNo, Sir; it stands in this way: There are certain powers given to the Executive to introduce into those counties extra police and to impose a charge upon the ratepayers for those police. I am not going into the merits of that Act of Parliament, because I know better, but I want to protest against the ratepayers of those counties having to pay for police who at the same time are doing duty in Dublin.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, there were not any police from those particular counties imported into Dublin.
§ The CHAIRMANIf there were, it would not be a matter for this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. HAYDENDoes this Estimate not include an appropriation taken from the ratepayers of those counties for the subsistence of those men? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If you look at the Estimate you will see that it includes sums taken from the ratepayers of those coun- 1992 ties in order to reduce the amount of this Estimate, and I think to discuss that matter is in perfect order. Of course, if the Chief Secretary tells me that no police were drawn from Roscommon, Galway, Clare, or any other county upon which a charge is now being imposed for the maintenance of extra police in the county or city of Dublin during the strike, that will alter the case. I am assured by representatives of the people at home, including members of the county council who are called upon to pay this appropriation, that a considerable number of their police did duty in Dublin during the strike. Not only policemen, I am told, were taken from the county of Roscommon to do duty in Dublin during a strike, but a resident magistrate was also taken from Roscommon. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman's information clashes with my own, and I ask him to tell us how many policemen were brought from counties in Ireland upon which a charge is imposed for the maintenance of extra police. If these counties can spare police for this purpose, it is unfair to them to vote money towards this appropriation. That is the sole point, and I submit that it is in perfect order, because the people whom I represent have no right to be asked to vote for the maintenance of police doing duty in another part of the country to relieve the taxes of this country from their maintenance. The Chief Secretary made an observation which I think is scarcely correct when he referred to these very policemen in Roscommon, Galway, and Clare—
§ The CHAIRMANI have now had an opportunity of looking up the authority I had in mind for the ruling I indicated. It is perfectly clearly given by Mr. Speaker in a ruling on the 17th of March, 1911, in which it is laid down that it is not competent for hon. Members to discuss the policy in relation to an Appropriation-in-Aid and savings. That seems to rover the present case which the hon. Member is raising, and it shows that it is not competent for him, because there happens to be an Appropriation-in-Aid in reduction of this Vote, to discuss the question of the policy which has led to that appropriation.
§ Mr. DILLONMy hon. Friend was not discussing the policy—that is a matter which we have frequently discussed in this House and perhaps we may do so again. He was discussing a point which directly affects the amount of the Estimate, and surely if we are at liberty to discuss anything on this Estimate we are at liberty 1993 to discuss the action of the Executive Government, not in regard to a general question of policy, but on the question of the actual police force on the present occasion, which affects the amount of this Estimate.. The point raised by my hon. Friend is that the Estimate which we are asked to vote would be a different amount if the county which he speaks for were not assessed in respect of this particular, vote.
§ The CHAIRMANThat seems to me to be only an indirect way of doing what is against the Rule. If the hon. Member's contention were allowed, it would dispose altogether of the ruling of Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. HAYDENMay I ask the Chief Secretary where the 600 policemen came from; whether any of them came from the county which I represent, and why they were taken from that county which is alleged to be in such a state of disorder that it is necessary to keep extra police there, and impose an extra charge for extra police upon the ratepayers?
§ The CHAIRMANI think that would be introducing matters wholly extraneous, and it would open up the whole question of the state of Ireland, or of particular counties in Ireland, on Supplementary Estimates. I have already ruled more than once that that could not be allowed on a Supplementary Vote of this kind.
§ Mr. LYNCHI wish to ask whether it is competent for me to discuss the economy of the right hon. Gentleman, and to show that he has not used the funds at his disposal to the best advantage, and, consequently, that this sum we are now asked to vote is in excess of that which would be necessary if the right hon. Gentleman had exercised due economy in respect to that force? That is a subject which I want to raise in connection with the county I represent.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt appears to me that the discussion has been rather limited by your ruling. I have always understood that it was in order, in discussing a Supplementary Estimate, to give reasons why we should, or should not, pay the sum which we are asked to vote, and bring forward reasons to show why that sum should not be paid. Of course, I am not questioning your ruling, but it appears to me that the points we are now raising are extremely narrow, and I think it would 1994 be to the convenience of the Committee, if you, Mr. Whitley, would kindly tell us what subjects we are to discuss.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet is so great an expert on these matters that I shall not attempt to give him a lesson in that respect. With the exception of this afternoon, I think he has nearly always managed to keep himself in order. The question put to me by the hon. Member for West Clare is rather too indefinite, and I will deal with that matter "when it arises. These points of Order seem to me to be somewhat wide of the subject.
§ Mr. HAYDENMight I point out that this Supplementary Estimate is for the subsistence allowances of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary all over Ireland, not only in the City and County of Dublin during the strike, but over the whole of Ireland, and there is an Appropriation-in-Aid from several other counties? I submit that we should be at liberty to discuss the expenditure on this force as affecting other parts of Ireland, as well as the City and County of Dublin.
§ The CHAIRMANThat clearly is not so. This Vote, as the hon. Member knows, is for an
Additional sum required to provide for payments of subsistence allowances to members of the force absent from the station on duty in Dublin City in aid of the Dublin Metropolitan Police during labour troubles.Therefore we must be confined to that, and I must adhere to my ruling that we are not to discuss the policy or administration which has caused the increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid.
§ Mr. MOOREIt follows from your ruling, does it not, that if hon. Members are really in earnest about this, their only; remedy is to vote for the reduction?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not a matter for the Chair at all.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn the point of Order, I am afraid that, if we accepted your word, we should find ourselves in a difficulty in another way. I think you read out the words actually on the Paper, that this was a subsistence allowance to the members of the force absent from station on duty in Dublin City, and, I understood my right hon. Friend to say, not only in Dublin City, but also in Dublin County. He gave 1995 us the subsistence allowances, which are different, being 4s. 6d. in the city and 3s. 6d. in the county. I therefore submit that if we were to interpret your words strictly, or this Paper strictly, we could not discuss the question with regard to Dublin County?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member to that extent is right.
§ Mr. HAYDENI do not propose to pursue the point any further, except to ask the Chief Secretary, when he is speaking, to give some information as to the portions of the country from which those extra police were brought into the county of Dublin. It is a matter upon which we want to press him upon some future occasion, when we hope we may bring ourselves in order.
§ Mr. NEWMANThe hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) queried very strongly the number of constabulary employed in Dublin on certain occasions. If the hon. Member had been a free labourer working in Dublin during September or October last year, and he had had his head broken, he might have thought differently. I want to address myself really to the question of cost. Was the work done in the cheapest way? Was it the cheapest thing we could do to employ this great number and magnificent body of Royal Irish Constabulary? The Royal Irish Constabulary are quite distinct from the Dublin Metropolitan Police. One is a body in Dublin and the other is a body in the country, under different control, wearing a different uniform, and perfectly distinct. Was it the cheapest thing we could do to bring in this great number of the Royal Irish Constabulary? I dare say that a great many members of the Committee imagine that the Royal Irish Constabulary is a semi-military body, and that you can telegraph, say, to Galway to-day, and get them into Dublin in full marching order, with kits on their backs, rifles on their shoulders, and swords at their sides. That is perfectly wrong. The Royal Irish Constabulary, as a matter of fact, are really something like a police force. They are a body of men very underpaid, earning at the most 22s. per week, living in twos and threes, scattered about the country, with wives and families to support. You get these men up to Dublin, and you have to give them a large subsistence allowance in addition to their 22s. per week.
1996 There were employed 650 of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the cost was £13,830. That works out at £21 per head. That is an enormous sum of money. It is the wage of an agricultural labourer for more than six months. Therefore, surely the cheapest thing was not done when this big body of men were employed. Why could not the Irish Government have employed the military? You have in Dublin an enormous garrison, a garrison of several regiments of Infantry, a regiment of Cavalry, and some Artillery. Why were not those military employed? What do we keep the garrison for? They are in Dublin to keep law and order. They have been there for hundreds of years to keep law and order, and they will probably be there for hundreds of years more. I know exactly what hon. Members are saying to themselves. They are saying, "The one thing we object to is the employment of the military in strikes." To the average Irishman, however, a soldier or a policeman is one and the same thing. The Irishman does not mind whether a policeman or a soldier is employed, and on this work we might have employed the military, and employed them more cheaply. There would have been no subsistence allowance, and the thing would have been done quite cheaply.
What was the work? The work was practically that of escorting coal wagons through the streets of Dublin. That work could have been done far better by two or three privates, commanded by a sergeant. What good practice and training it would have been for the non-commissioned officers of the various regiments! What better for a young corporal than to take command of three men where initiative and energy are required. You would have killed two birds with one stone. You would have saved a great deal of the cost, and you would have given men and noncommissioned officers of the British Infantry practice. I say that we ought to have employed the military from another point of view. The hon. Member for Stoke talked about this large body lining Sackville Street. I quite admit, if you are going to line Sackville Street, that you want a great many constables, but surely, the military could have done that. What you really wanted was to draw a cordon round the disaffected districts, cutting the red-hand gang from the rest of the citizens. If you could have done that you would not have had these riots at all. We ought not to have employed these men 1997 of the Royal Irish Constabulary at all. We ought not to have had 208 injured. We ought to have employed the military, and, if there is a Division, I shall support the ion. Baronet.
§ Mr. BIRRELLMost of the speeches have been out of order, and I am afraid my reply is hardly likely to keep in it. I will not, however, keep my eyes on you, Mr. Whitley, so that I may do the most. I can without you interrupting. I have had a great deal of advice from different quarters of the House. I hope the Committee will recognise the difficult position of an Executive Officer. Every one of the bits of advice is inconsistent with the others, and each would have got me into a worst strait than I am in at the present time The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was very confident what was the right thing to do. He would have filled the streets from the very beginning with policemen, to whom he would have given instructions to act ruthlessly, and to reduce the population of Dublin from the earliest moment to a full sense of its weakness. Then the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) said, "If you had only prevented this absurd parade of force they made; if you had not flouted it in the ridiculous way that you did, why, then, peace would have been preserved, and these determined attacks upon the tramway cars would never have been made— the windows of the cars would not have been broken, the men would not have been knocked off their driving posts, and nothing of the sort would have happened. You tempted opposition by your parade of force. Then the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Newman) had a nice, peaceful suggestion to make, one which, I confess, fills me with pride and pleasure, being a martial man. It was that I should have employed the military, the soldiers, who would have done everything more efficiently—with the weapons at their command, I suppose. Their appearance on the streets, instead of being received with missiles and glass bottles, would have been heralded with applause and affection. I am very glad that I did not undertake that course, and I am very glad that I did not take the hon. Baronet's course, and I am very glad that I did not take the course recommended by the hon. Member for Stoke. I think that, on the whole, I did the right thing.
The hon. Member for Stoke told me one or two things, and I am quite sure that he would not have told me them if he had not 1998 received some authority for telling them. But I have heard to-day for the first time of the advice which I received from persons who may be called the parties to the disturbance. The men who were out on strike, who were attacking the tramcars, and who had their quarrel, advised me to have no more police: it was not necessary; Then the employers, I am told, also tendered to me the same advice. At all' events, I got the advice of the employers: "Do not mind, do not bother, all will be well, the Dublin Metropolitan Police are quite sufficient to meet the occasion." Then I am told that the Dublin Metropolitan Police resented the introduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ Mr. WARDI did not say that. I said that the Lord Mayor of Dublin himself informed the committee,, of which I was a member, that, in his opinion, the situation was aggravated by this display of force.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI beg the hon. Member's pardon. I misunderstood. In most towns the Lord Mayor speaks on behalf of the police force, and is a responsible person whose opinion would be very authoritative in such a matter, but, as you know, in Dublin, rightly or wrongly, the responsibility does not rest with the Lord Mayor; and it is easier for a person who has not got the responsibility to advise a particular course, or to say off-hand, "It is not necessary," than it is for people who are responsible. Certainly, the heads of the Dublin Metropolitan Police never approached me with any such opinion, I can assure the hon. Member; and, therefore, I do not really think that I can have been said to have been guilty of disregarding the advice of authorised and responsible persons on the spot. Therefore, keeping away from policy as far as one can, I do not think that the ranks that are going to be swollen in a Vote shortly on this subject will be composed of a consecutive thinking body of men, because I am bound to say that everyone of them individually will have a different opinion from his neighbour as to what the proper course was for the Irish Executive to have, taken.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThey will all have the opinion that the Government did wrong.
§ Mr. BIRRELLAll that I admit, and I am prepared to say off-hand the same of any Government of which the hon. Member 1999 might be a Member. I should like to say a word with reference to a question raised, whether it was in order or not, by the hon. Member (Mr. Hayden) as to the counties and places from which this police force, which was removed to Dublin or to the county of Dublin, was taken, because, without going technically into the question, it seems to me to be, if not in order, so closely connected with order as to justify a passing reference. I have here before me the list of all the counties from which the police were drafted into Dublin City and Dublin County, and I can assure the hon. Member that neither Roscommon nor Clare, nor Galway, have any of—
§ Mr. HAYDENWould the right hon. Gentleman mind reading the list? It would be very instructing to us.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI did not wish to encounter the opposition of the Chair by speaking at too great a length, but I have got it here, and I will show it to the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Read it."] Well, I will read it till I am interrupted. East Riding of Cork 14 men, drafted on the 18th September, and, on the 19th, 9 more; that makes 23. West Riding of Cork 9, Donegal 24, Kerry 11, Kildare 8, Kilkenny 8, Longford 5, Tulla-more 3, Mayo 7, North Tipperary 3, Water-ford 1, and Carlow 10.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member desires this information he had better put down an unstarred question.
§ Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNI submit that the information which the Chief Secretary is giving is relevant to the Debate. Is not the question that this Committee has to consider whether the Chief Secretary was justified in employing constables from these counties; whether he did not leave the counties unprotected, and whether serious consequences might not have resulted therefrom?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is distinctly not within the scope of the present Debate. I do not say it is out of order to ask where the men came from, but it is not in order to deal with the state of the counties from which the men were drawn.
§ Mr. HAZLETONWould it be in order to ask why men no longer wanted in counties in Ireland, like Galway, were not sent to Dublin instead of from the counties they were taken from?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is the very question upon which I wish to avoid a discussion.
§ Mr. CLYNESThis item of expenditure which we are now discussing is not peculiar to Ireland. We have had quite a number of similar charges incurred in industrial districts in this country. The first observation that occurs to me is that the: Labour Members have heard already from two hon. Gentlemen that have addressed the Committee from the other side what, to them, are sufficient reasons why they should keep out of their company in the-Division Lobby. There has been a suggestion that, instead of importing policemen to deal with the state of things which has been described soldiers should have been brought in to prance about and to keep* the poor in their place.
§ Mr. NEWMANI never said "keep the poor in their place." I said "to escort coal carts, and do work of that sort."
§ Mr. CLYNESI have my own opinion as to the effect of importing soldiers on occasions of this kind. The hon. Baronet who moved the reduction did so because, in his judgment, the Government were not stern enough, and because they did not, at an earlier stage, import a larger force of police for purposes of repression. Are' we expected to accept the invitation of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they call upon us to accompany them into the Lobby in support of a proposal of that kind?
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe did not ask the hon. Gentlemen to come into the Division Lobby with us. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) told us he was going into the Lobby, and it was very kind of him, but we did not ask the Labour Members to do so.
§ Mr. CLYNESI think I am within the recollection of the House when I say that allusion has been made to the companionship of Labour Members with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn the contrary, my hon. Friend behind me warned the Labour Members not to come into our Lobby.
§ Mr. CLYNESI will venture to express the hope that a warning of that nature is-not at all necessary. We have had sufficient experience to teach us what is the right course to take on these questions. I want somebody to tell us how it is that 2001 hon. Gentlemen opposite choose their places in this matter of law and order. Is it their opinion that order is only to be maintained when it is a question of trade unionists having to be put down? Is law and order only to be respected when it is enforced by means of constabulary imported for the purpose of assisting employers in the course of an industrial dispute? This dispute was less a strike than it was a lock-out.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot go into the question of the Dublin strike.
§ Mr. CLYNESI thought that hon. Members have said so much on this question that I might be allowed to make a few observations in reply. I only want to say, so far as free labour is concerned, that the employers in this instance would not permit labour to be free. That was the initial cause of this dispute.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member now is trying to get round my ruling.
§ Mr. CLYNESIt seems to me that this item of expenditure is one of a considerable number of such items that have been incurred in connection with efforts to strengthen the side of the employing class in these unhappy labour disputes. The main body of the working- men in Dublin did not strike. The authorities, whether at Dublin Castle or in any other place, should have regard to the causes of these disputes before spending such vast sums in bringing in military or police, as they have done in so many instances. I think the Chief Secretary would have been acting in greater harmony with the traditions of his party if he had had regard to the right of public meeting and to the right to strike.
§ The CHAIRMANI have said many times that matters of this sort must be raised on the Chief Secretary's salary, and not on the Vote for the constabulary.
§ Mr. DILLONI will not attempt now to discuss the policy of the Government in dealing with the Dublin strike. I hope we may have another opportunity of debating it, and, if we do, I should like to say many things by way of criticism. Of course I recognise that, after your ruling to-day, that subject cannot be dealt with. However, one or two things have been said in the course of this Debate which, as you did not rule them out of order. I am entitled to comment upon.
2002 First, I wish to say a few words with, reference to the speeches of the hon. Member who spoke from these benches and who took the Government to task for bringing in constabulary when they required an extra force to deal with the condition of the city of Dublin, and who urged that the military should have been employed instead of the extra police. The hon. Member used very extraordinary language, and, when challenged by the hon. Member who spoke last, recommended that the military should be employed for the purpose of escorting coal carts and work of that character. He also said that the soldiers should be employed because they were cheaper than the police. That is not a very complimentary or wise way in which to speak of the military.
§ Mr. DILLONThis is a very extraordinary Debate, on account of the-contradictions that are coming out. I was resident in Dublin nearly the whole the of the strike, and I hardly ever went out without seeing a large force of military guarding a long procession of coal carts. In fact, a great body of the military were kept busy in supplying themselves with coal.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAnd why should they not have coal?
§ Mr. DILLONI am not suggesting that they ought not to. What I am saying is, that it was hard enough for them to have to handle their own coal, yet it was an ordinary everyday sight in the streets of Dublin to see large bodies of military, with strings of carts, bringing coal to various buildings in the city. When the hon. Member says, by way of advice to the Irish Government, that they ought to employ the military instead of the police when extra force is required, I think he must know very little of the experience of the Executive Government in these matters. We in Ireland have had a good deal of experience. I have seen the military employed in the streets of Dublin doing the duty of the police, and a more distressing and deplorable spectacle I have never witnessed in my life. A military force is singularly unfitted to do police work, and should never be so employed, except in the last emergency. The occasion to which I am referring was the famous strike of Dublin police, when the 2003 city policemen refused to work, and the streets of Dublin were left absolutely without police protection. The military were turned out to do ordinary police work, and the hon. Member seems to suggest that they should have been again used on this recent occasion. The use of them had most deplorable results, both to the morale of the military and to peace and order in the streets. Pandemonium reigned, and the soldiers were wholly unable to maintain order in the streets. The condition of things was simply indescribable, and I cannot understand how anybody with real experience of executive government could make such a suggestion. The military were again employed in Dublin to do police duty on the occasion of the great railway strike some time ago, with results not at all satisfactory, and I do not think, therefore, there is the, slightest confidence to be placed in the hon. Member's criticism or in that piece of advice.
If an extra force was required in Dublin —I suppose I am not entitled to discuss that question, although it seems to me to lie at the root of the whole matter—I say that the Government had no choice at all but to fall back upon the constabulary. The question really is whether that extra force was required. On that I should have a good deal to say if the limits of discussion were wider. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) declared that the constabulary who were brought in acted as agents of the employers and moved goods into the city. I have taken a very intense interest in this matter, and have followed very closely all that took place in regard to the strike, not as an eye-witness but in the public Press and from private information I have received, and no evidence has ever come before me nor can I recall that any charge was made even by the leaders of the strike that the imported constabulary were used to move goods or acted as gents of the employers, unless the hon. Member for Stoke considers that travelling on the tramcars and on the coal carts constituted such action. It does not follow because a policeman is sitting on a cart, that he is taking part in the removing of goods. For three months we in Dublin had this spectacle presented to our eyes every day: that hardly any carts of any kind of goods were moved into the city without, police guards of some sort. Of course, the police men were sitting on the carts and travel- 2004 ling on the tramcars, but I never saw them handling goods, nor have I over heard it alleged that they did so. If they did so, undoubtedly some hon. Member ought to state it to the Committee, because it would be a monstrous thing to call upon the Committee to vote the subsistence allowance for any policeman who handled goods for the employers of Dublin. That is quite a different thing from protecting carts going through the streets.
If I were permitted to criticise the action of the Executive, I would be obliged to make a very much longer speech than I propose to make to-night, and I should have a very great deal to say. Seeing that for two or three months in the city of Dublin, whatever the merits of the strike were, no man could move goods through the city without a police guard or else without having a revolver in his own possession, there can be no doubt that the danger to men engaged in moving goods was extremely great. I say that quite apart from any question as to the merits of the strike or the action of the Executive. I do not know that even the Leader of the Labour party would complain of adequate police protection being given to men taking goods through the streets so long as that protection was of a moderate and not of an aggressive character, and was confined to protecting the lives of men and preventing carts being thrown into the river or goods being thrown into the street, as was very frequently done. That is the situation as I understand it. It appears to me that we are labouring under extraordinary difficulties in discussing the present Vote. We are asked to vote a considerable sum of money for the maintenance of policemen who were moved into the city of Dublin, and, so far as I have been able to discover by listening very closely to the Debate, we, are utterly debarred from discussing the question as to whether or not the Government really required the police, because we are prevented from discussing the action by which the Government alleged that those police were required to be moved into the city. Here is a sum of money put down and we are told, "You cannot discuss it; you must either vote the money or refuse to vote it." We are asked to vote it without having any real statement as to whether or not the police were necessary. I submit, as I am bound to submit, to this ruling, but I am bound to say after a long experience of thirty years in discussing Supplementary Estimates in 2005 this House, the ruling has considerably narrowed our capacity for doing it.
§ Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNI also find myself in considerable difficulty owing to the Chairman's ruling, but I take it that in this Debate that we have to start with the fundamental assumption that we are not allowed to consider whether 650 men which was the number brought into Dublin, was too many or too few. Am I wrong in that?
§ The CHAIRMANI have certainly not laid down any ruling of that kind. Whether the Chief Secretary was justified in bringing the men in, their number and the cost is the essence of the matter.
§ Mr. GWYNNIn that case I do not see how we can discuss the number of men that was needed without some considerable reference to the circumstances which led to their being brought in. I leave that point to be taken up by someone else, because it is not the matter to which I wish to address myself. I am proposing to consider this—I think it follows logically from your various rulings, Sir, which I personally cannot, with great respect, reconcile—that we are bound to discuss the matter on the fundamental assumption that the 650 men were needed: I think I may at least be allowed to say that we are entitled to congratulate the Chief Secretary on having got his 650 men so very cheap. Here was a town, a large town no doubt, which needed an extra force of 650 men to be suddenly imported into it, to be kept there for a period of something like six months—I am not sure it did not exceed six months—yet the Chief Secretary has been able to accomplish that for the comparatively insignificant total of £8,000.
§ Sir F. BANBURY£13,000!
§ Mr. GWYNNSome of that is put on the ratepayers and we are not allowed to discuss that. Therefore, from the point of view of this Committee, we are only faced with an expenditure of £8,000.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I point out to the hon. Member that that is wrong: £13,000 is really the expenditure, because if that £13,000 had not been expended the £5,430 would have gone to the Old Sinking Fund, where it ought to be.
§ Mr. GWYNNPossibly I am wrong on that point, but we should still have to admit that the Chief Secretary met the 2006 need at a very low figure. How was it that he was so able to meet it? He has been permitted to tell us in part where the men came from. I think we may congratulate him on the fact that he was able to get the men, for the simple reason that if it had not been for the general success of his administration, I presume there would have been moments when he could not withdraw 650 police from East Cork and the other counties he mentioned without leaving those counties in a state of some difficulty and danger. At the present moment it appears, so far as we are informed, that 650 men have been withdrawn from a given range of counties in Ireland, and nobody in those counties has been a penny the worse. Admitting that these 650 men were needed in Dublin—that is a matter we cannot discuss—I think it has been demonstrated that they were not needed, where they would have been otherwise. In other words, I think the Chief Secretary has been able to supply police cheaply in an emergency owing to the fact that Ireland is supplied very extensively with police in the ordinary course of things. That is a valuable admission to result from this Debate.
Another thing has been brought to the notice of the Committee, although incidentally, by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), who speaks, it is true, for an English Division, but who, nevertheless, speaks as an Irishman with a great knowledge of Irish feeling. He put it to the House that in an Irish dispute of this kind it made no difference whether you employed soldiers or constabulary. His implication was that in an English or Scotch or Welsh dispute it would matter very materially, and would affect the whole temper of the situation to which of those two courses you had recourse. I am inclined to think he was right, and that no extra ill-feeling would have been engendered in Dublin by the mere fact that soldiery were employed instead of the police. But what follows from that? I quite see that if I were to pursue that subject into its remoter issues I should find myself out of order, but, as things stand, I am glad the Chief Secretary decided to bring in the police instead of employing the soldiers. I am very glad that it was so easy for him to bring the police away from the rest of Ireland as it was; I am very glad it has been proved that, generally, Ireland is in such a condition that she does not need the police with 2007 which she is provided at the present time, and I am exceedingly glad that the. Chief Secretary is going to give us detailed information by way of question as to where exactly these police came from, and which were the counties that for six months were left with a largely reduced police force without any perceptible increase in criminality or disorder.
§ Mr. BOOTHThere is one question I should like to ask the Chief Secretary with reference to the wearing of numbers by the police. The Metropolitan police, wearing numbers, can be identified. Considerable opposition was manifested against the introduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary, because they were strangers, having no local pride in the good name of the city—it may be unjustly, and it may be there was a prejudice against them that they did not merit. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there could not be some arrangement that if they should be drafted into the city in future they should wear some number or some means of ready identification, so as to put them on an exact level with the Metropolitan police, by whose side they are working.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI am sure the Committee have been waiting anxiously to hear the views of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) with regard to the Vote before us. He was present at the time of the strike, and we were ail anxious to hear his views; but he has not given us a lengthy speech upon the topic, and now leaves the Chamber without any reference to his actions upon that occasion. After the rulings the Chairman has given, it is impossible for me to attempt to keep within the bounds of order; therefore, I shall not at length discuss the Vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) suggested to the Chief Secretary that he should have used soldiers. That has been criticised by various Members on the Irish Benches. I do not agree with my hon. Friend, and I find myself for once in my life in absolute and complete agreement with the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon). It is only in the last resort that soldiers should be called in to do what is really police work. But what I really rose to do was to call the attention of the Committee to a most remarkable interruption which was made by the Chief Secretary during the hon. Member's speech. He said that the 2008 soldiers had declined to do the work. If they had declined, they must have been invited by the Chief Secretary to do work which was evidently police work. I have risen with the express object of inviting from him an explanation of his interruption.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe explanation of my interruption is this: I did not ask the military authorities to do the work, but I am perfectly well acquainted with their views on the subject, and have heard them expressed on countless occasions, and I know very well their aversion to take upon themselves police duties. There was no occasion to ask them.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI said soldiers always declined.
§ Mr. JOWETTThe hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) suggested quite rightly that Members on these benches were not averse to reasonable precautions being taken in a time of trade dispute for keeping the public peace and for the protection of life and property. As I understand, what took place during the period in which this-money was spent, the show of force was far greater than was needed for the precautionary measures which the hon. Member referred to. We had it on the authority of the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward), who was present at the time, that large numbers of police lined the streets, twenty-five on each side, and if the numbers that he indicated correctly represented the numbers which were actually used at the time, it followed that much more was done than was needed in the matter of precautionary measures. In fact, the use of such a number of police must impede the orderly conduct of a labour dispute by preventing peaceful picketing, which is under the present law thoroughly permissible.
§ Mr. DILLONI strictly confined my reference to the assertion that the police handled goods, and I was referring simply to the constables engaged in that task.
§ Mr. JOWETTI misunderstood the hon. Member. The hon. Member (Mr. Ward), again speaking from personal knowledge, went further than the statement as corrected by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), for he said that constables had actually been employed in handling goods, and in 2009 answer to a question I put to him privately as he sat in his place he assured me that I had correctly understood him. Be that as it may, there are other matters that certainly should weigh in the decision of any Member occupying these benches as to whether they should allow a single penny to be voted for these expenses or not. These matters that I am thinking of were beyond dispute. It is beyond dispute, for instance, that if we vote this money we shall be voting money for conduct which cannot be excused in any civilised community. It is on record, even the very prejudiced and unsuitable and ill-balanced Commission placed it on record, that the police went into the homes of poor people—
§ The CHAIRMANI have ruled several times that points connected with the conduct of the police under the authority of the Chief Secretary must be raised on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
§ Mr. JOWETTMay I put this consideration? Is it not a fact that one of the chief constitutional rights that we, as representatives of the people, have in this House is to demand the consideration and re
| Division No. 24.] | AYES. | [5.55 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Doughty, Sir George | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Du Pre, W. Baring | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Ashley, W. W. | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Falle, B. G. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fell, Arthur | Malcolm, Ian |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry |
| Barnston, Harry | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Barrle, H. T. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Moore, William |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Mount, William Arthur |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gibbs, G. A. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Gilmour, Captain John | Newman, John R. P. |
| Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Bigland, Alfred | Goldman, C. S. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Bird, Alfred | Goldsmith, Frank | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Blair, Reginald | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Grant, J. A. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Greene, W. R. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gretton, John | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Butcher, John George | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Campion, W. R. | Harris, Henry Percy | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Carlile. Sir Edward Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cassel, Felix | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cator, John | Hoare, S. J. G. | Royds, Edmund |
| Cautley, H. S. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Horner, A. L. | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Sandys, G. J. |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Stanier, Beville |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Courthope. George Loyd | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Jowett. Frederick William | Stewart, Gershom |
| Craik. Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of | Swift, Rigby |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Denison-Pender, J. C. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
§ dress, if possible, of grievances before voting Supply? I quite understand that in this case, owing to it being Supplementary Estimates, the money is spent, but, if I understand rightly, the same principle applies, and we are entitled to state our grievances. We are entitled to make complaints, and the complaint I have to make is that the Dublin police, to whom we pay this money, behaved in a perfectly brutal fashion, and that the man Nolan, for instance, was murdered by a police baton.
§ Mr. O'MALLEYI am not going to give any advice to the Chief Secretary as to what should be done or not done in regard to the Dublin strike, but I should like to enter my protest against the employment of extra police in Connemara recently, and against a baton charge—
§ The CHAIRMANThat does not come in on this Vote.
§ Question put, "That Item D (Subsistence Allowances) be reduced by £830."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 248.
2013| Touche, George Alexander | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Tullibardine, Marquess of | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud | Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Valentia, Viscount | Wills, Sir Gilbert | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Watson, Hon. W. | Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) | |
| Weston, colonel J. W. | Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green.S.W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. |
| Wheler, Granville C. H. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) | Banbury and Sir A. Griffith-Boecawen. |
| White., Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Field, William | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Fitzgibbon, John | Millar, James Duncan |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Molloy, Michael |
| Alden, Percy | France, Gerald Ashourner | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Ginnell, Laurence | Mooney, John J. |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Morrell, Philip |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Glanville, Harold James | Morison, Hector |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Muldoon, John |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs) | Greig, Colonel James William | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hackett, John | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Hancock, J. G. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hazleton, Richard | O'Dowd, John |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W) | O'Malley, William |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. | Hinds, John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hogge, James Myles | O'Shee, James John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Holt, Richard Durning | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Pirle, Duncan V. |
| Clough, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Pratt, J. W. |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Joyce, Michael | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kelly, Edward | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Radford, George Heynes |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kenyon, Barnet | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kiloride, Denis | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Cullinan, John | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lardner, James C. R. | Reddy, Michael |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Leach, Charles | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Delany, William | Lundon, Thomas | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Robinson, Sidney |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke) |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | Maclean, Donald | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Dillon, John | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Rowlands, James |
| Doris, William | Macpherson, James Ian | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Duffy, William J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas.. Bridgeton) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Manfield, Harry | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J E. B. |
| Essex, Sir Richard Waiter | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Sheeny, David |
| Falconer, James | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Shortt, Edward |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Meagher, Michael | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook. |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Waring, Walter | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Stratus, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Watt, Henry A. | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Webb, H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glassgow) |
| Tayler, Thomas (Bolton) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Tennant, Harold John | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Whitehouse, John Howard | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Toulmin, Sir George | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Verney, Sir Harry | Wiles, Thomas | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Walton, Sir Joseph | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
§ Postponed proceeding resumed on Question [25th February]