§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Colonel CRAIGI desire to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary, and through him to the Government, to make still further improvements, especially as regards those officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have served for many years. The right hon. Gentleman held out some hope last Monday that it would be possible for him to go a little further if those of us who were interested in the matter could make a good case. In speaking, as I shall do, particularly on behalf of the county and district inspectors, I am doing so entirely on my own initiative, without any approach by them to me as a body, because I have felt for many years past that the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary were underpaid, when one takes into consideration the terms of their service, the onerous work they have to perform, and also the fact that the esprit de corps of the force depends at all times practically on these higher officers. The pay and allowances of the higher grades in the Royal Irish Constabulary have not been changed since 1882, and many of the regulations governing their allowances were framed in the year 1870, and although the rank and file—I do not grumble about this—have had their pay and allowances altered from time to time, and as recently as 1914, the higher grades have remained unchanged and are in the position to-day that the county or senior district inspector is something like £30 per annum worse off than the county or senior district inspector in the year 1882. It must also be borne in mind that the number of these officers has decreased. In 1882, or in 1870—I am subject to correction; I have had very little time to make careful inquiry—there were about 255, and the number to-day is only about 230, some thirty-six of whom are at present seconded for service at the front, so that you have these men entrusted with a larger area than when there were more men to perform the same duties. The 98 area works out at something like ninety-five square miles for a senior district inspector to superintend in 1870, and in 1916 something like 180 square miles. So that you have these men, actually in a financial position some £30 worse than they were in 1882, performing work which is necessitated by almost doubling the area of their control.
The Bill, as introduced by the Chief Secretary, is a great disappointment to these men. I have said over and over again, long before this Government, or even the last, came into power, that if ever a Unionist Government were returned, one of the first acts of absolute necessity and of justice which would have to be performed would be immediately to take up the case of these overworked, loyal men, who have brought and maintained the Royal Irish Constabulary to the high state of perfection at which it stands to-day. Long ago this question was a burning one that required almost immediate attention, but for one reason or another these cases have been shamefully neglected.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke)I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to say that the pay of these officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary has been reduced by £30 a year. I myself have inquired into the matter, and am not aware of any such reduction.
Colonel CRAIGI must have put my case very badly. To-day one of these higher officers—a county or district inspector—is on the whole £30 a year worse off, not because the Government have reduced his pay, but in consequence of some alterations in the system of Income Tax which were introduced not long ago, and also because the rents for lodgings or houses occupied by these highly paid officers have increased, not in one particular part, but all over Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to know a few of the particulars, I can give them to him, so that he may see that at the present moment they are really worse off. In the year 1882 the pay was £275—I am speaking of the financial position of first-class district inspectors of six years' service—to-day their pay is £275. Their lodging allowance in 1882 was £40 a year, and it is still £40. The servant's allowance was £45 on the first occasion, but now, taking off the Income Tax, employers' liability 99 and insurance charges, it is only £37 13s. 6d. The forage allowance was £50, and to-day it is £50. The stationery allowance was £3, and to-day it is £3. In the old days they used to receive from grand juries for Weights and Measures Act Duty an extra £10. These items brought up the total in 1882 to £423, while to-day the figures I have read out amount to only £405 13s. 6d. There is a further loss incurred through the nominal addition of £45, which is called an increase for taxable purposes These figures show that they are somewhere between £25 or £30 worse off than they were in 1882. In the old days they received free medical attendance for themselves and their families. That has now been cut down to medical attendance for the officers themselves only. In addition they have to pay a Motor Tax of £6 6s., a Petrol Tax of £10, and insurance against third-party risks £9, or a total of £25 6s. The men whose districts have been very much extended have to use a motor car. It is very strange that the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary should be placed in a worse position, as far as the Motor Taxes are concerned, than the local doctors. It is rather absurd that they should have to pay full taxes. If they get a Ford car or a car coming from abroad they have to pay the extra prices necessitated by the large increase in taxation—I think it is 25 per cent.—imposed on such cars coming into this country. All these things operate very much against the senior officers.
The Chief Secretary the other day held out hopes that, with the exception of the Inspector-General, this Bill would be able to cover all other ranks. I would point out to him that there is a great difference between these officers and the rank and file so far as bringing pressure to bear upon the Government or, in fact, on anybody is concerned. They are 10th to do it. They feel they are in a position of being absolutely at the mercy of the authorities. It is some thirty-two years since the whole scheme of their pay, pensions, and allowances was reviewed, and if they allow an opportunity like this, when a Bill is introduced for the very purpose, to pass, I can conceive that they will have to remain on the same terms for a very long period. I would therefore earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the hardships of their case; they are men who dislike, beyond anything else, bringing forward their grievances or making what 100 they consider to be petty appeals either to the Chief Secretary or to the Government. It is, therefore, all the more necessary for us to take a very independent line at the present time, because we want to do justice where justice is due, and we also want the Government to round off a Bill which has been introduced for the purpose of alleviating the distress which undoubtedly exists through all ranks of the force. If I address ray remarks on this occasion principally to the case of the higher officers, I hope it will not be taken that there are not many similar points with regard to the Bill itself which, when we get into Committee, will require discussion and adjustment. I have gone into the thing very fully. On the whole, I believe the Bill is one which will tide the Government over for a further period. But before the Committee stage is reached I hope the Chief Secretary will make an earnest endeavour, by consulting some of us on this side of the House who are familiar with the subject, if he cares to do so, or by consulting the district and county inspectors themselves, to increase the measure to such an extent that they at all events will get some of the benefits in these very trying times.
I would point out that the higher officers who take charge of a county or a very large district, sometimes covering 200 square miles, are in a very different position from men of non-commissioned rank. If one would picture anybody having power and authority in Ireland he must picture to himself a county inspector or a district inspector. We may have indifferent Inspectors-General or first-class Inspectors-General. We may have a weak Chief Secretary of a strong Chief Secretary. We may hare a Government which is not firm enough in its dealings with Ireland, but whatever the superiors may be, according to the chances which send them to Ireland, we always have permanently with us these trusted men, the county inspectors and district inspectors, to uphold law and order, and to make secure life and property. If the Chief Secretary will consider, as I am sure he has done—I am not by any means attacking the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not think I am—not only the trying times through which Ireland has more recently passed, but if he will look back to the year 1906 and remember that all through the South and West there was a considerable amount of disturbance—[HON. 101 MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is common knowledge; I am talking about 1906 and onwards. It will be admitted by all parties that these men had a great deal of hard work to perform, that they performed it without fear or favour, and that, in every instance, they contributed to the high name which the Royal Irish Constabulary bears to-day.
§ Mr. DEVLINWhat about your trusted men at Larne?
Colonel CRAIGPerhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue; he can follow me in Debate if he wishes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be deterred by any side-wind from doing justice to this class of public servant. I would ask him to bear in mind that by a circular letter of the Inspector-General, dated 6th January, 1915, it was definitely laid down that the Royal Irish Constabulary were part of the armed forces of the Crown. I understand that prior to that time there was some considerable doubt, even at headquarters in Dublin, as to whether or not they were a civilian force, but since January, 1915, it has been granted that they are a part of the armed forces of the Crown, consequently they should be treated on a more generous scale and a scale more approximating that of the other armed forces of the Crown. With regard to these higher offices in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the great desire of everyone is that they should attract the best men in Ireland. If you are to carry on the force in the way in which it has been reared, it will be necessary to put some small incentive before county and district inspectors beyond what they have now, in order to tempt into their ranks the best blood of the country and the best men, and something that will be an incentive to those serving in the ranks to try to obtain commissioned rank and rise up to these more favourable posts. When the Bill was introduced and printed we made a searching examination of its various terms. All ranks have been treated either more or less generously, but somehow they have all been dealt with except the higher ranks of county inspectors and the higher ranks of district inspectors.
There are two great objections to the measure as framed, one being that it discourages married men from entering these higher posts, because if a man is single he can afford to live at a much 102 reduced cost compared with a man who has to maintain himself and his family. The family grows up, and he looks for increased pay. They have to be educated, and a great deal of expense is thrown upon the married man's shoulders, all of which is escaped by a man who is not married. Therefore, the Bill seems rather to encourage the single man and docs not pay sufficient attention to the burdens that have to be borne by the married man. The second flaw in the Bill seems to be that it aims at cutting down pensions in the future. It appears that the Government intentionally framed the measure so that these men, who perform many services, after they have attained these higher positions, no matter what their pay was in the interim, when they retire will not have their pensions increased by the terms of this Bill. Both of these things are very bad for the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The steady married men who have settled down in their profession should be encouraged at all costs, and nothing should be done which would mean saying "Hands off!" to them by giving a preference to the unmarried men who make the Royal Irish Constabulary their profession.
Next I come to the question of pensions. I think it takes thirteen or fourteen years for a district inspector to rise to the first class and to get the benefits of higher pay. Surely if a man gets to that stage, after long and faithful service, he deserves some of the advantages in the shape of increased pensions which would follow an increase of pay. I do not think it would be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to in any way shirk the fact that pay later on counts for pension, and I do suggest that these officers deserve both increased pay and the consequent additional pension. The changes which some of my friends who have studied this question advocate are really very slight. They affect a very small body of men. It is almost impossible to say how many, because the number is constantly changing; but in these classes there are, roughly speaking, about 230 officers; a great many of them, who are of junior rank, are provided for under the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will therefore recognise that our request applies only to a very small number, and will represent very little when calculated in pounds, shillings, and pence. What we suggest is that the 103 county inspectors and the district inspectors should have about £40 per annum increase all round, and that that should count for pension.
The second point I am particularly anxious to make is in regard to the antiquated segregation of £50 per annum allowed for a horse and of £45 for a servant. We ask that those amounts should be amalgamated and treated together as travelling allowances, and that £45 should count for pension. This particular point may not be very easily grasped by the House at large, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is absolutely impossible now in large towns in Ireland—I do not care in what part—to get a servant for £45 a year, and to run a horse for £50 a year, with the present prices of fodder, particulars of which I have here. I may point out that the forage allowance was fixed in 1870; so, too, was the groom's allowance and the stationery allowance, the latter a very small matter. But these antiquated allowances make it totally impossible to keep a horse and servant for the sum granted by the Government. May I quote some rather interesting prices of forage obtained not from private but from Government contractors. In the year 1895 hay cost £2 per ton. In 1914 it cost £4 5s. per ton. Straw in the first year cost £1 5s. In 1914 it cost £3 1s. 8d. Oats cost £4 5s., as against £7 10s., and bran £4 5s., against £6 5s. In 1916 hay cost £4 15s., straw £2 15s., oats £10, and bran £11 6s. The total of these necessaries having thus risen to £38 16s., as compared with £11 15s. in 1895, yet the same allowance is now made to the district inspector and county inspector as in the year 1882. There is another point I should like to draw attention to, and that is the rent of the houses which these officers occupy. It has risen by at least 30 per cent.; therefore to talk about £95 covering these expenses is absolutely wide of the mark.
My next point is with regard to motor cars, which are permitted, in some parts of Ireland, to be kept in lieu of horses. It is well known that the full licence duties have to be paid for the cars, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot see the justice of making some concession in these matters, which, though they may appear trivial to us here, mean very much to those who are living in these times of high prices and high rents under conditions dating back so far. To them, I sub- 104 mit, it is a matter of most extreme importance. If anything could damage the force it surely would be that a man should get into debt—that he should fall under obligations to moneylenders, or that he should find it impossible to provide for his family and for the education of his children. We therefore ask the Government to carry their Bill a little bit further, and see that this small number of men shall not be made to suffer while others are benefiting under it. May I add that military officers have several advantages as compared with police officers. For instance, in regard to petrol, a military man, so far as I know, can still get a grant of petrol while on duty, while the police officer for whom I am speaking has to provide it out of the small grant allowed by the Government. And when they do arrive at the very height of their ambition, at almost the end of their lives in the Royal Irish Constabulary, they find that their pensions are calculated in some instances on a very unfair basis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration, seeing that he is in charge of the Bill, the bearing of these, as I consider, very unfair conditions in regard to the calculation of the pension on an average of three years prior to the grant. We find that in Clause 2, paragraph (4) of the Bill, where he deals with paragraph (c) of the Second Schedule of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act of 1883, he is doing away with the principle of calculating the pension when a man reaches a certain position—the principle of calculating the retiring allowance, not on the amount he is receiving at the time of the pension being granted, but on the basis of his pay for the preceding three years. I had this point submitted to me only this morning. I have not had time to look into it, but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, before the Committee stage is reached, should consider whether he cannot extend that provision to the higher-grade officers. It will require a small alteration of Section (12), 4 and 5 William IV., cap. 24, because it was under that Section and under that Act of Parliament that the calculation of pay was first made.
Over and above these points, which affect the higher grades, there is a feeling undoubtedly existing amongst those of us who have studied the question that advantage has been taken of the undoubted staunchness and loyalty, under all and any circumstances, of these men—advantage has 105 been taken in this particular instance to absolutely neglect them. I am not grumbling for one moment at the terms granted to the subordinates in the slightest degree. Personally, I would like to see the Royal Irish Constabulary getting doubly better pay than at present. I consider that the rank and file have a great many grievances still which require to be removed. But there appears to be no logical reason why the Government on several consecutive occasions, since 1885, who has found it necessary to revise the scale for the rank and file and junior officers, should now come forward and say that they have still further concessions to make and yet refuse to recognise at the same time the fact that those who are at the head of the force are suffering equally under the same disadvantages. I know the case of the men will be dealt with generously by the Government, but I do trust that in Committee the Chief Secretary will recognise that if the smooth passing of the Bill is to be assisted, it will be wise on his part to take into consideration the few remarks I have made on behalf of these officers.
There are many matters in the Bill which will require considerable discussion latter on, but I hope before the Committee stage is reached the right hon. Gentleman will consult someone—I do not care who—someone familiar with the conditions of service of the senior officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and try to come to some agreement whereby they may have some slight benefit as well as the rank and file under this Bill. I trust, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will, beforehand, consult the Chancellor of Exchequer, so that when we reach the Committee stage he may have a free hand. It will give great satisfaction to the men if this simple act of justice is done, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that his position and the position of the Government will be strengthened if, from the Inspector-General down to the lowest constable, the force is made contented by being assured that equal justice is meted out to all ranks.
§ Mr. DILLONThe hon. Gentleman has made an eloquent and powerful speech, which was from the beginning, however, purely on behalf of the higher officers of the constabulary in Ireland. I do not know that I would have intervened in this Debate at all if the hon. and gallant Member had confined himself to advocating generally an all-round increase of pay for 106 the constabulary in Ireland. But he went out of his way to make an extremely offensive observation, and to speak about disturbances and attacks upon property that were prevalent for so many years in the South and West of Ireland. He spoke of the uniform fidelity of the higher officers of the constabulary throughout the whole of those stormy and tempestuous years. I lived through those years. I took a considerable part in public life, and I have no hesitation in saying that the worst of those disturbances were largely due to the higher officers of constabulary in Ireland, to their want of judgment and tact, to their lack of skill in handling the force; and in many—in innumerable—instances the collisions—the bad collisions—which took place between the police and the people would have been avoided if the police had been handled with tact and discretion. Why docs the hon. and gallant Member confine his wide sweep of reminiscences to the South and West of Ireland? One would suppose that the trouble was confined to the South and the West of Ireland. Were the constabulary never in trouble in the North? Is it not a fact that in one riot in Belfast there has been more harm done to the constabulary than has been done in years throughout the whole of the West and South of Ireland? When I listened to the hon. and gallant Member pouring out floods of eulogy on the uniform and the unchequered, unclouded fidelity of these gallant men—I forget all the adjectives he used about these gallant men—there arose in my mind the memory of other days when his predecessors on these benches, the Members from Ulster, denounced these very men in this House as Morley's murderers, because they dared to protect the Catholics of Belfast against the Orange rioters of Belfast. I think the hon. and gallant Member was unwise to rake up these reminiscences, and I think he showed bad judgment. But since he did rake them up it would be unjust and unreasonable to expect that we who speak for the South and the West of Ireland could listen to such an harangue—
§ Mr. DILLONYou spoke about the disturbances which characterised the South and West of Ireland all these years. No such thing as a disturbance, I suppose, was ever heard of in the loyal city of Belfast. I was once in Belfast at a peaceable meeting where the Orangemen 107 attacked us, and while I was at dinner messengers came to say that 150 of these loyal men were taken wounded off the streets of Belfast and hurried to hospitals within an hour—150 of these loyal men who have so challenged the admiration of the hon. and gallant Member. He drew a most pitiful picture of the condition of the officers of this force. I confess that if this is to be commented upon at all I should be rather interested in the case of the men. I think if the Government are considering this question at all that it is the men who require better treatment than this Bill provides. However, I cannot go into that now, and I was only led to make this observation by the line taken by the hon. and gallant Member. In my opinion a vast deal of the trouble that has happened in Ireland in the past, and a vast deal of the bad feeling which at times has existed, disastrous bad feeling, between the police and the people, was due to some of these very officers upon whom the hon. and gallant Member has pronounced such a tremendous eulogy. His enthusiasm carried him away to such a degree that he declared they were the standby in Ireland for good government. He said that Chief Secretaries might come and go, and that we might have weak or incompetent Chief Secretaries, and other officers, but, thank God, we always had the county inspectors; they always remained, and so long as they get a free hand property and life and so forth is safe. That is not my experience. On the contrary, I think that property and life in Ireland has been frequently endangered by the want of tact, and the want of police capacity on the part of the county inspectors of Ireland.
In this connection I wish to say a word or two about the Dublin police. I am a citizen of Dublin, and have resided there nearly forty years, and I am bound to say that, although on more than one occasion I have been arrested by the Dublin police and carried off to gaol, I believe the Dublin police are a very fine body of men, and are deserving of good treatment from the Government. The Dublin police have very rarely been in hostile collision with the people. As far as my knowledge goes, and I speak now with very complete knowledge, because I have resided in the city for nearly forty years, they never have been in hostile collision with the people except it has been owing to what I would describe as misconduct on the part 108 of their superior officers. There once was a Head Commissioner of the Dublin police, Sir David Harrel, a man very well known in Ireland. He ruled the Dublin police for eight years, during a time of extraordinary political excitement, when the streets were frequently in possession of excited mobs, and when it was a period in Irish history of great political excitement. I heard Sir David Harrel boast—and this is an important test of the true spirit of a police officer—that throughout the whole of those years, although he had on more than one occasion to handle large, excited, and dangerous mobs—I remember well myself seeing huge bonfires lit in the streets of Dublin at night, so high was the state of excitement, a thing that would strain the forbearance of any police force—he boasted when he left that position to be promoted to the post of Under-Secretary that throughout those eight years no police officer in Dublin ever pulled his baton out of its sheath. That is not a boast familiar in the mouths of most district or county inspectors in Ireland. It shows the true spirit of the wise policeman, and it is enormously creditable to the man who made it.
On recent occasions—I will not go into details—bad blood arose, horrible bad blood, between the police and citizens of Dublin. I do not think that any greater misfortune can happen to a city than that there should be ill-feeling between the police and the citizens. It is impossible to maintain order, and it is impossible for the policemen to discharge their duties properly, if there is continual bad feeling between them and the citizens whom they have to police. On the recent occasion on which ill-feeling did arise, and serious collision and bloodshed took place in the streets of Dublin, I am of opinion that the whole of the blame was to be laid on superior officers of the police, and not upon the constables themselves. I do not know how far the limits of order would permit me to go into the subject of the present police situation in Dublin. It is an extremely critical position, and although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) has not had very long experience of Irish government, he realises the truth of what I say. There is an Amendment on the Paper which has not been moved. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member (Major Newman) proposes to move it, but, if he did move it, it would open this discussion.
§ Mr. DILLONThat is very strange, because it is an Amendment to adjourn discussion of this Bill until discipline has been restored amongst the Dublin police. I think the Chief Secretary ought to let us know, particularly in view of that Amendment being placed upon the Paper, what course—
§ Mr. DILLONI do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member proposes to move it.
§ Major NEWMAN indicated assent.
§ Mr. DILLONHe proposes to move it. Therefore I feel bound to deal with it. The hon. and gallant Member proposes to move—
That in view of the lack of discipline recently shown by a section of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, it is inopportune to immediately proceed with the further consideration of the Bill.
§ Major NEWMANA portion of the Dublin police.
§ Mr. DILLONMore than half: 600 I am told. At all events, it is a formidable proportion. That raises a very serious question. In view of the fact that according to my information the Dublin police complain of insufficient pay, I think they have a right to be put on a level with the London, Liverpool, or Manchester police. They have also other grievances, into which I do not propose to enter to-night, but I would point out that certain events have occurred in Dublin of the gravest possible significance, raising issues which perhaps it would be better not to have debated in this House, and I warn the Chief Secretary that they must be debated, and at considerable length, fully debated, unless we can receive some assurance that no attempt will be made to victimise the men who are on trial to-day. An improper course of procedure has been adopted in Dublin, so I am informed. Six men have been taken up, including, I think, the men who were dismissed from the police force for refusing to fire upon the people on that fatal day of the landing of arms at How the, and who were restored to their places after investigation by the Royal Commission.
§ Mr. DILLONI say that I am so informed. Is not that so? I am informed, I am not quite sure, and I speak under correction, that some of the men who are on trial are the men who refused to fire that day, who were dismissed for refusing to fire upon the people, and whose action was subsequently vindicated by the Royal Commission, when it was decided that the order to fire was illegal and that the police were perfectly justified when they disobeyed their officers. These men were subsequently restored to the police force, and, I am informed, they are now upon their trial.
§ Mr. DUKEI hope the hon. Member will not assume that any such thing has happened. It would amaze me to hear it. According to my views of the matter, the events of 1914 have nothing to do with the recent difficulty in Dublin, which, I am happy to say, has practically passed away. I cannot conceive that such a course will have been taken.
§ Mr. DILLONI think I have not made myself perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not for a moment mean to convey the idea that these men were being hauled up again in respect of what occurred in 1914. What I was informed was, that 500 policemen in Dublin joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and instead of hauling up the 500 men who are alleged to have joined that Order, six men were taken up and brought up for trial, and I am told they are on trial, and that amongst those six men—I do not know whether it is true or not; the right hon. Gentleman ought to know better than I do—were some of the men who were punished in 1914. They are not being tried now for what they did in 1914, but for what they are alleged to have done now. The right hon. Gentleman just used an expression of very great significance when he said that the difficulty in Dublin was nearly over. If he means that the Government are going to let these men off and not to inflict any punishment upon them, I think the whole discussion had better close, and things had better be pushed no further. I opened this matter because I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that he must dismiss from his mind the idea that the very serious trouble with the Dublin police is over if there is going to be any attempt to victimise the men who are charged with insubordination. That is an issue of very far-reaching importance, and if the Government pursue that matter and inflict punishment upon these 111 men the whole matter will have to be debated in this House in the fullest possible manner.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. GERSHOM STEWARTI do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Mayo into his detailed statement about the Irish police, beyond saying that I fully agree with him in his admiration for the constabulary in Ireland, judging from what I have seen whenever I have had the pleasure of going to his country. There is one thing he said with which everyone must agree—that the Royal Irish Constabulary are impartial; they use their forces equally against Orange men and Nationalists. My object in rising is to support my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Craig) in his appeal for some consideration for those officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are getting no benefit under this Bill. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his desire not to approach the Treasury for one shilling more than he can help at the present time. Still, there are certain reasons why he might ask for a little concession from the Treasury for these men. Theirs is a very difficult and delicate position. There is no one to speak for them in this House. There is no interest taken in them from this country. Therefore, I desire to say something in their favour. I do not want to go into past history of any sort in regard to the Irish police. They have done their duty right well in the past and in the recent troubles, and no doubt we can depend upon them to do the same should we have to face even greater troubles in the future. Of late years they have been specially troubled. The abolition of the Arms Act by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman adds very much to their responsibility. I was sorry to hear the accusation of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) against the senior officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that they did not carry out their duties with tact.
§ Mr. DILLONSome of them.
§ Mr. STEWARTI am glad that the hon. Member qualifies his statement, because I have always thought that their office was one which required courage, firmness, and tact, and that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, it might fairly be stated that those duties had been well discharged. I think it would strengthen the position of the right hon. Gentleman 112 and give him a sort of underlying stratum of support in Ireland if people could feel that loyal, honest, and genuine service was appreciated by the Government. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way, owing to the extremely high prices that these gentlemen have to face like the rest of us, which press especially on people with limited incomes, to give them something in the way of a war bonus, or an extra allowance of 10 or 20 per cent. on their salaries, say, for three years, subject to revision at the end of the three years. Figures supplied to me show that, owing to the large number of officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have gone to the front, you are now effecting a saving of £16,000 a year. Take an estimate of 200 of these men, with an average salary of £300 a year, in the higher grades. That is only £60,000; 10 per cent. on that is only £6,000, and 20 per cent. would be £12,000—that is, £1,000 a month to ensure a contented service. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might do that without doing violence to his conscientious objection to ask the Exchequer for more than is necessary. If there is a saving of £16,000 on the one hand, surely he can press the Treasury door open sufficiently to get a small allowance of from £12,000 to £15,000 on the understanding that the bonus would be only for a time, and that the matter should be gone into when the present high prices have passed away. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some further benevolent consideration to the appeal on behalf of these officers.
Mr. HAZLETONIt is very strange that in the speech to which we have just listened the only appeal which has been made to the Government is an appeal, following that of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Craig) on behalf of the senior officers and more highly paid officials of the police forces in Ireland. I would like to remind the House that there is provision in this Bill for the district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary; but it is our contention that not only are the county inspectors highly paid for police officers, but that there are far too many of them, and that the services of a great many of them could be dispensed with entirely with advantage to the country and economy to the Treasury. I would remind the Chief Secretary that a proposal in this direction was made as late as 1914, when the last Bill dealing with the police in Ireland was before the House. 113 Section 4 of the Bill provided in Subsection (1):"A county inspector may, if the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit, be appointed or assigned to two or more counties, or to any other area or combination of areas which the Lord Lieutenant may consider desirable." The object of that was to reduce the number of these highly paid unnecessary officials; but from that day to this I do not think that the Government has done a single thing to carry out the provision of the Act of Parliament of 1914. I think that this would have afforded them a suitable opportunity of doing now what they have neglected to do during the last two years. It seems a strange thing when we listen to the moving and pathetic appeals on behalf of county inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that advantage is taken of an agitation, started by the rank and file of the police in Dublin, to improve the position of these highly paid officials. The suggestion is made in an Amendment on the Paper which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that there has been indiscipline in that force. We know perfectly well that it is as a result of the agitation which the men have started that this Bill is introduced by the Government, and the higher paid officials of the force in Dublin, while they charge and condemn these men for taking part in the agitation, are themselves quite willing to take advantage of that agitation to secure increased pay for themselves. I am sure that the fact cannot pass unnoticed by the public in Ireland.
With regard to the provisions of the Bill concerning the rank and file, while I may have something to say, in connection with Clause 2 on the Committee stage, I do not desire to enter into what are mainly Committee points now, but I do not think that the Chief Secretary was quite correct in some of his statements to the House in his speech on the Finance Resolution which preceded the introduction of this Bill. He took as the standard of comparison for the Dublin police, not the London or Manchester, or the Glasgow police, but the Bristol police, and he said among other things, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the Bristol police do not get the 8d. per week boot allowance which the Dublin men receive. He might not have left it at that, but have gone on to point out that where the Dublin men get the 8d. the Bristol men only get a 1d. per week less. There are other points that I shall have to refer 114 to later on, but I do think that the Government would be wise in dealing with matters of this kind, whether it be with policemen or any other servants of the State, not to wait to do justice until the very eleventh hour, when they have almost created a position of revolt in the ranks of the officials, but to realise the extraordinary conditions that have arisen on account of the cost of living, and to deal with those matters when they arise. The main foundation for this Bill, as I understand it, is the increased cost of living upon the rank and file. It is absurd to say that among the more highly-paid officials of the constabulary or the Dublin police the increased cost of living falls with anything like the same incidence, and that, therefore, they ought to be given the extravagant increases which have been suggested from above the Gangway.
§ Major NEWMANI beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the question, and to insert instead thereof the words, "in view of the lack of discipline recently shown by a section of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, it is inopportune to immediately proceed with the further consideration of the Bill."
I confess that I put down this Motion in order to get from the Chief Secretary some information as to what has been happening in Dublin in reference to this indiscipline among junior members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force. As Members of this House are aware, this whole matter has been censored by the English Press. That is another reason why I put down this Motion. I do not think that these things should be censored as freely as they are, with the result that only a few people like myself, who do keep in touch with Ireland, and get letters and newspapers from Ireland, have been aware of what has been happening. I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the thing is important and must be gone into. I also agree with him that this House is perhaps not the very place in which to do that. But what are we to do? In an ordinary English shire or town police officers have got to look to the local authority. If they want an increase of pay, a war bonus or what not, they have got to go to the Watch Committee or some local authority. But in Ireland the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary have to look to the Treasury, and to this House, for any increase of pay 115 or war bonus. Therefore it is necessary that matters of this sort must be discussed in this House. The Chief Secretary says that he did not see my Notice of Motion on the Paper, nor did some hon. Members below me, but curiously enough several persons in Ireland have seen it, because I had two or three letters this morning wanting to know why I, who for so many years had been asking questions about additions to the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was now trying to stop this Bill being proceeded with, and, incidentally, stop increases of pay.
To my mind this matter is very serious. The hon. Member for Galway told us perfectly correctly that it is due to our action in this House that this has come about. We have procrastinated, we have put off the just claims of the police in Dublin and of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with the result that there has been among the Dublin police a defiance of authority, and I understand that some 400 of the junior members of that force have joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians. A member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on entering the force, has to take an oath, and he swears that he will not belong to any secret society in Ireland or any part of the world, with the exception of the Order of Freemasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear those cheers, which show that the Order of Freemasons are so popular in Ireland. I am a Mason myself, and I dare say other Members of the House are members of that Order. At any rate, it is a fact that the policeman takes an oath not to become a member of any secret society except the Freemasons. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is not a secret society, but it is semi-secret; its constitution, aims, methods, and so on are pretty well known. If it be only semi-secret, it is wholly sectarian; it is confined absolutely to the Roman Catholic faith. No one who is an Orangeman can become a member of that Order, and to that extent it is a sectarian society, and a semi-secret one. I openly admit that all the terrible oaths that formerly were taken have been swept away, and in its present constitution the Ancient Order of Hibernians is merely a sectarian society. They say our faith comes first, and other things come next; and, to my mind, in that respect the Hibernians and the Orangemen stand on the same plane; both are sectarian societies in the true sense of the term. A Roman Catholic 116 cannot become a member of an Orange lodge, and an Orangeman cannot become a member of a Lodge of the Ancient Order of Hibernians.
Both of those great societies are something more than sectarian; they are both great political assets of Ireland; they dabble in politics. If a candidate who is a Hibernian desired to be elected for one of the Divisions in the Ulster six counties and he wanted the support of the Orange lodges, I am afraid he would have a poor chance. Similarly, if an Orangeman wanted to be elected for one of the Divisions of the southern provinces of Ireland, he could not expect to have behind him the benefit of the Hibernian lodges. Surely it is unthinkable that those who are responsible for the preservation of the peace of a country like Ireland should allow a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or the Royal Irish Constabulary, to belong to one or other of these great sectarian societies. I dare say some members below the Gangway will argue about the Order of the Freemasons. At any rate, the Freemasons take no part in politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
§ Mr. DILLONThey ruled Ireland for fifty years.
§ Major NEWMANThey have done so, but the Freemasons now are a great cosmopolitan body, dealing only with matters of charity, and with nothing more. I am a Mason, and I know that in a lodge of Freemasons no word of politics is ever introduced, and hon. Members are very much mistaken if they think that Freemasons allow politics in their lodges. I do not think I incur any penalty by saying that, or stating that the lodges of the Order of Freemasons deal only with matters of charity. I repeat that it is unthinkable that policemen in Ireland should belong to either of those two great sectarian societies. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are three of them!"] A constable entering the Ancient Order of Hibernians has to take an oath. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read it out!"] I will if hon. Members desire it. On the initiation of a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians a number of questions are put to him—"Do you wish to become a member of the Order of Hibernians?" "What is your age, name, residence, and occupation?" "Are you an Irishman or of Irish parentage? Do you now belong to 117 any society, secret or otherwise?"[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the oath?"] If it is not an oath it is an obligation, and there is no great difference between an obligation and an oath. A member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians takes the obligation that he will, before all things, be a good Catholic.
§ Mr. FLAVINIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the constabulary know the age, the nationality, and the religion of every man in Ireland?
§ Major NEWMANThe police in Ireland may have that knowledge, but that is no reason why a member of the force should be allowed to become a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which involves his accepting the obligation of being a good Catholic as against other people. Where feeling on matters of religion runs high, it is absolutely wrong on one side or the other that such a course should be permitted, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will be able to tell us that the officers of the force will be met in a reasonable manner and that this Bill will proceed without endangering safety.
§ Amendment not seconded.
§ Mr. P. J. MEEHANIn connection with this Bill, I submit that there should be some consideration given to the position of the married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Anybody who knows how the cost of living has increased in Ireland and how every household expense has increased will readily see that this bears very hardly on the married men of the force. They get only an allowance of 2s. a week, or about £5 a year, for house rent. No member of the force in Ireland can get a house in Ireland at that rent, and houses such as they need cost about £15 or £20 a year. The allowance of 2s. a week, therefore, is absolutely inadequate, and it is the only allowance they get. We have further to consider that these married members of the force have frequently large families, and as a strong point is made about the necessity of increasing the population, the fact that these men have large families should be taken into consideration; besides, it is not much encouragement to members of the force to marry if they get only a miserable allowance of 2s. a week for house rent. These married members of the force have their families to maintain, and ostensibly 118 this Bill is for the purpose of giving them an increase of pay on account of the high cost of living. I suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should take the case of the married members of the force into consideration. It is very easy to give them 2s. a week more than the single man without putting any burden on the Treasury, and economy could be effected by reducing the number of officers. In some counties the county inspector has very few stations, such as eleven or twelve in Carlow. In Queen's County the inspector has charge of twelve stations. In County Cork the county inspector has charge of fifty stations. Why should there be a separate inspector in charge of a small county like Carlow? One man would be sufficient for County Carlow, Queen's County, and Kildare. Some district inspectors, a good many of them, would be only too happy to combine a number of stations.
§ Mr. MEEHANI understand he is Major Price, but he has never taken up the duties of his office. There are many district inspectors who would be only too glad to take on increased duty in adjoining districts for one-third or one-half the amount at present paid to officers. Additional outlay could be met by reducing the number of officers and officials. The county inspector has his staff, a regular entourage, who are absolutely unnecessary. By reform there you would save a very considerable sum, perhaps £50,000 a year, which would enable the Government to give the married men of the rank and file what they ask by way of increased wage. Another question which requires consideration has reference to pensions. Allowances which are made to superior officers of the force are counted when fixing the pension, but, in the case of the constable, any allowance which is made to him is not so counted in pension. Why should that be so? Why should any allowance which is paid to a constable not be taken into account in fixing his pension, just as in the case of the superior officer? Men who have gone out on pension receive only small sums, allowances not having been taken into consideration, and, in putting that point before the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him whether he could not make an increase of pension under the present Bill retrospective, at least for some period back?
§ Mr. LOUGHI am glad that my hon. Friend who has just sat down has called attention to the position of the married constables of the force, compared with that of the inspectors. I think that the cost of living, owing to the War, is not sufficiently considered. I think some small extra allowance might be given to the married men, and also, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, for each child, at any rate as a war bonus. If the right hon. Gentleman has a difficulty about adopting that suggestion as a general principle, surely something might be done at this time of war to respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend. There is a general disposition to make this a useful and practical measure, and in that respect it is capable of great improvement. These men belong to a most deserving class, and I hope they will receive the recognition which they thoroughly deserve.
§ Mr. DUKEI think it will be convenient if I refer now to the matters which have been raised, and also to the observations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Major Newman) as to what happened in Dublin. What happened in Dublin was this. When it was known that the Treasury had sanctioned an increase of pay, then contrary to the prohibition of the Chief Commissioner of Police as to holding meetings outside, meetings were arranged to take place. That must be accounted for as a breach of discipline. Those who are acquainted with recent history in Ireland must, of course, acknowledge that the proper recognition of claims and the proper enforcement of discipline cannot be conditional one upon the other. It is a distinct police order that no men in the force, no matter what patronage they think they have or encouragement, shall procure a breach of discipline or commit a breach of discipline. Those who procure a breach of discipline must account for it. A great deal has been said with regard to the oath which they took on entering the police and as to whether they have broken it. I decline absolutely to believe that any body of men of the Dublin police have broken their oath. It is quite true that the Dublin police, as well as all Irish police, take an oath against the membership of political societies or secret societies. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Except the Freemasons!"] I believe there are very few men in Ireland—and I am sure the proportion in the police is not larger than anywhere else—who would so lightly regard 120 the sanctity of an oath that they would break it because of a dispute. At present, and until I have proof which does not exist, and that I do not believe to be forthcoming, I do not believe that the men of the Dublin constabulary in hundreds or in any considerable number have at all taken the course which is suggested. I have seen the statements in the papers, and my hon. Friend opposite referred to what he called the censorship. I have read so much in the papers which was untrue and so much which was mischievous, that if there was a censorship the class of publication that has taken place is a great reflection upon it. I cannot help wishing that people had an appreciation of the responsibility which rests upon those who are charged with any matter of government in Ireland, and cannot help wondering that they should rush lightly into reckless and alarmist statements about the relations between the police and their commanding officer. It is a very unfortunate thing that statements of that kind should be made, and it is a great pity that those who supply the public with information should not have facilities for ascertaining to what extent such alarmist information is well founded. As I say, I renounce the suggestion that any mass of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have broken their oaths.
With regard to the other matter of membership of societies, I regard it as an unfortunate thing that the oath against membership of societies has any qualification, and if hon. Members desire to alter that state of things, then, so far as I am concerned, they will find that my view is that there must be equal treatment for everybody in these matters of police discipline. The objection to membership of organisations on the part of those who are responsible for the conduct of the police is to membership of any organisation which may cut across the primary duty of the police. Taking that view of the matter, I have had it under consideration whether, without any regard to the oath under the Act of William IV. or to any of these matters, the proper mode of dealing with this question of membership of outside organisations is not to say to everybody who is in the police as well as to everybody who comes to join the police, "You must not join any outside organisation without the consent of your chief commanding 121 officer, because it is contrary to discipline." That, to my mind, is the sound mode of dealing with a matter of this kind, and I cannot help thinking that I should have the support of every Member sitting below the Gangway in this matter, and that whatever differences there may be as to the future political administration of Ireland that, at any rate, we shall all co-operate in seeing that the immediate future of Ireland is not disfigured either by insubordination of police or by disorder in any considerable body of the other citizens of Ireland.
§ Mr. DEVLINWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what he means as to not being permitted to join societies without the consent of their commanding officer?
§ Mr. DUKEI mean this. The general principle should be, at any rate with regard to organised and disciplined forces, that the members of that force ought to forego membership of other organised forces. Of course, nobody wishes that a man should be prevented from taking part in the administration of his church or of his chapel, or of any benevolent association if he is a member. If such course as I have indicated is taken, it will be necessary to trust whoever is responsible for the maintenance of order, and, at any rate, to trust the Minister who is responsible to this House in the matter, to see that no fantastic restrictions are put upon liberty. But there must be some restrictions. It is quite obvious you cannot leave it to the choice or caprice of individuals in organised forces to decide whether they will become members of some other organised body. With regard to the other matters, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to the fact that there were disciplinary measures taken. I am not aware and I do not believe that any member of the Dublin police who was foremost in organising insubordination the other day to the limited degree in which it existed is one of the members who was concerned in the transactions of 1914. I have no reason to suppose it has been the case, and if it had been the case, I cannot doubt but that it would have been brought to my notice. I would ask hon. Members to consider this. If a member were guilty of a distinct act of insubordination and defiance of authority at the present time which would be contrary to his membership of any organised 122 and disciplined force, would it be possible because he had done something else in 1914 which was not properly brought in question to decide that he should not be called in question for a breach of discipline now. It is quite obvious you could not proceed on those lines.
My desire, as I believe it is the desire of every man who wishes well to Ireland and to Dublin, is that these recent troubles shall pass away, and that there may be an end of them. When I am challenged as to why the Administration did not take summary action in respect of an unnamed body of men who were said to have joined a political and secret society, I say that we do not take action, where I am concerned, until we know there is ground for it. No action was taken of that kind. The only action that was taken was that men who conspicuously and knowingly had disregarded the discipline of the force should be called to account by their superintendents, and with regard to what the hon. Member for East Mayo says were six men—I was told the number was five—a certain number who had openly and conspicuously taken a part with persons outside the police in organising what was undoubtedly an act of insubordination have been brought to a disciplinary account by the Chief Commissioner. It would not be proper that I should in any way apologise for insistence upon the maintenance of discipline in the police force in Dublin.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORWhy should they be refused a sworn inquiry which they have asked for?
§ Mr. DUKEI do not know whether there is any authority for holding a sworn inquiry such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and unless there were some statutory authority taken to do so he knows it could not be done. I am told that one of the men concerned declared his wish for a sworn inquiry, and if there had been any means of holding such an inquiry I have no doubt it would have been given. There may be some cumbrous process of indictment for some offence of doubtful existence. It is clear that a breach of discipline existed in this case. That was plain beyond all question as I understand the facts. It was notorious that certain men had taken part in organising meetings which were not within the ordinary leaves for holding meetings. For offences of that kind there 123 must be disciplinary proceedings. If the House of Commons were not to hold in favour of the enforcement of moderate and reasonable discipline where there was a clear breach of discipline, then I should regard the attempt to hold the scales evenly between the contending interests in Ireland as absolutely hopeless. The position as to discipline is that which I have stated. Let me summarise it. I have no reason to believe that there have been wholesale adhesions to any political or secret society, whether a benevolent or maleficent society, of which I know nothing, and I have no reason to believe it is a maleficent society at the present time.
§ Mr. DEVLINNor at any time.
§ Mr. DUKEI do not want to discuss these matters. I do not believe that the men of the Dublin Constabulary, at any rate in any considerable number, have failed in any way in the primary obligation which they undertook on becoming members of the force. With regard to the question of discipline, I think the police in Dublin will find themselves safe in the hands of the Chief Commissioner, who was foremost in pressing upon His Majesty's Government the necessity for an amendment of the pecuniary position of the force. If he finds it necessary to take disciplinary measures, I believe this House will support him, and I believe that the great body of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police will recognise that he does nothing which is not just and considerate.
With regard to the other matter of the mode in which these concessions have been made, a great deal has been said about agitation and pressure and yielding at the eleventh hour. When I became Chief Secretary on the 1st August, I found in existence applications from all branches of the Irish Constabulary, both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, for a revision of their scales of pay. I was questioned about the matter in this House, and I promised my attention to it. Hon. Members knew by personal inquiries, the police themselves knew, and their officers knew what steps were being taken to find out what additions of pay were necessary on the grounds of justice. No pressure has actuated the Irish Office in its decision as to what amounts ought to be added to the previous pay of the police. An en- 124 deavour was made—and it was made without regard to the possibility which has been referred to on both sides of the Gangway that it would be disagreeable for the Government if concessions were not made—to ascertain what justice demanded, and when that had been ascertained, according to my view of the matter on the best examination that I could make of the facts, representations were made to the Treasury and Treasury consent was obtained.
I confess that I did regard it with something like resentment that on the day when I announced to Members of the House that that consent had been obtained, steps were taken to lead constables of the Dublin police into action by the holding of unauthorised meetings which might bring them into conflict with their superiors. I thought it a most unfortunate thing. It was not fair to the police. Fairness to the Administration I do not ask for; I confess I do not expect it. But it was not fair to the police. It was not fair to the City of Dublin. The position of the Metropolitan Police in the City of Dublin has been a trusted position. They are, as has been said, a fine body of men. They have been a body of men who could always be relied upon to perform their duty, and that they, when the Government was on the point of introducing a Bill to make at any rate concessions in the scale of pay, should be led by protestations that they would get nothing unless there was a little disorder, or an appearance of indiscipline, to indulge in some appearance of indiscipline, seemed to me a very lamentable thing. I hope that no permanent ill results will come from it. I do not believe that any permanent ill results will come from it; but I should like to say that if it is thought proper to tamper with the discipline of the police upon any occasion and I have to decide what steps should be taken in such a case, I will endeavour to see that the punishment shall not fall upon the police who may be misled, but upon those who tamper with their discipline.
With regard to the particular provisions of this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for East Down (Colonel Craig) spoke of the position of some of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I told hon. Members who questioned me about the proposals of the Government that the Government had been considering police allowances as well as police pay. The provisions for police pay must of necessity be sanctioned by an 125 Act of Parliament; allowances which are made from time to time can be varied without an Act of Parliament. I said, quite accurately, that, except in the case of the higher members of the two police forces—by which I meant those at the headquarters of the two forces—there would be an amelioration of their position by the proposals the Government were making. My hon. Friend referred to the position of county inspectors and district inspectors. I considered, with the officers of the forces, the position of every rank. I should like to say, in justice to the superintendents of the Dublin police, that they joined with the Chief Commissioner in pressing that there should be consideration of what they regarded as the too stinted pay of the men in the ranks. The men were absolutely misled when they were told in the course of the improper proceedings which took place that their officers were resisting the designs of benevolent people to improve their position. As I said, with regard to both forces, I made an honest endeavour to find out the position of the officers as well as of the men. I did not find that there was a state of things which called upon me to press upon the Treasury increases of pay for the county inspectors and certain of the district inspectors; but it was quite true that their allowances had been fixed thirty, forty, or more than forty years ago, and that the value of those allowances had decreased in the intervening time. That has been taken account of, but it does not appear in this Bill. That matter has been represented to the Treasury. Although it does not require Parliamentary sanction, there will be an amelioration with regard to those allowances which have shrunk in value. It will not go to anything like the length which the hon. Member for East Down recommended to me, but it will go proportionately, at any rate, to the length we have been able to go in respect of those members of the force less advantageously placed.
Colonel CRAIGIs the right hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate, more particularly before we reach the Committee stage, what those allowances will be? He will readily understand that if a statement of that kind is made it may materially assist us who have this matter at heart, and render it unnecessary for us to put down Amendments to the Bill.
§ Mr. DUKEI am not sure that I could give my hon. Friend detailed information of that kind that would not be misleading. I endeavoured to answer one or two questions about it when I was explaining the general proposals of the Government with respect to pay and allowances, and the effect unfortunately was that I misled my hon. Friends into thinking that nothing would be done.
Colonel CRAIGWe are all anxious to assist the passage of the Bill, but if we have no such statement beforehand we must begin to put down Amendments. If, on the other hand, the Chief Secretary could give us a rough idea of how these allowances are to affect the higher grades, obviously the necessity for putting down Amendments would be less.
§ Mr. DUKEThe difficulty about Amendments would be that you cannot move Amendments involving the expenditure of public money. I shall endeavour to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, but I do not think it would advance matters or save time at this stage if I embarked upon a statement from memory of the small alterations that are being made in the allowances. If I tell him that the allowances the value of which have shrunk are being dealt with in the same spirit as that which has dictated the increase of pay, I hope he will accept the statement. I was dealing with the suggestion that there was here a yielding to agitation and to pressure. The hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman) proposed that there should be no consideration of this measure of justice, as I have described it, until something had happened in Dublin. I am not quite sure what was the measure of time proposed by my hon. Friend. It was an indefinite moratorium. "It is inopportune to immediately proceed with the further consideration of the Bill." I do not regard the occurrences in Dublin, such as I have described them, as in any way absolving the Government from the duty of doing what they believe to be justice to the Dublin police. I do not believe that there is any such connection between the application of the police for an increase of their pay—which application was most reasonably and properly presented—and these recent misadventures. I do not believe there is any necessity to associate the demands of justice in regard to pay with any of these incidents. Therefore, I trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I cannot hold out the hope that 127 there will be those handsome alterations which various hon. Members have suggested to me. It is very pleasant indeed if you can make a bold raid upon the Exchequer when you have no responsibility in the matter. But if the House meets the demands of justice with regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary I think we must be content, without yielding to the ambitious propositions which have come from one quarter and another in the course of the discussion on the Bill.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONAs far as the Dublin Metropolitan Police are concerned, I understand that their pay is paid partly by the Corporation of the City of Dublin and partly by the Government. Is it proposed that the share paid by the Corporation of the City of Dublin shall be in any way increased, or is the whole of the burden to fall upon the British Exchequer? The Chief Secretary has anticipated one question that I was going to ask. I think everybody in the House was pleased to hear his statement that this Bill is not a Bill introduced, as one hon. Member put it, as the result of an agitation on the part of the men. If that statement had been accurate, the introduction of the Bill would have been a most pernicious proceeding and exceedingly unpopular with a great number of people. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that there is no foundation for that statement. If there had been any foundation for it, I should take a very different view of the Bill from that which I now take. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Bill had been decided upon and the sanction of the Treasury granted before these occurrences, which he describes as lamentable, took place. We must be further reassured by the right hon. Gentleman's statement that if there had been offences against discipline he was determined to deal with them. One cannot help remembering that it is not a very long time since we were reminded that it was entirely through the fault of the Government in not being sufficiently strict at first that terrible and serious occurrences took place in Dublin at a later period. With regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, I was rather surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for East Mayo in reference to the view held largely about the police capacity and tact of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ Mr. DILLONOf a certain number of the district and county inspectors.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONYes. I was rather surprised at the view which he held. I do not think it is held very largely in Ireland. Certainly it is not the view of people in Ireland whom I know. From them I have heard nothing but the highest praise of the way in which the Royal Irish Constabulary have done their work. I shall be inclined to support the Bill, and I only hope the Dublin Corporation will see their way to bear their fair share of this increased pay.
§ Sir EDWARD GOULDINGI desire to support the Bill. I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend has introduced it as one of his first official acts. I regret very much, however, that he has not seen his way to deal with the district and county inspectors. I suppose that the consideration which really kept him off that part of the question was the obligation in regard to pensions. He has given us an assurance, however, that he will deal with the allowances. Those allowances at present are totally inadequate. They were, as my right hon. Friend staled, fixed thirty years ago, since when the whole position has changed, the whole conditions of living have altered, and the whole circumstances attending the upkeep of the position of these men are different. I hope my right hon. Friend will stand by his old generous disposition, and that when he comes to deal with the allowances of these county and district inspectors, as he has not been able to give them an increase of salary, he will see that the allowances in regard to forage, servants, and labour are put on a generous scale, and do something to meet the really legitimate demands of this very deserving class.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. DEVLINI am bound to say that we have all been deeply impressed with the very powerful and clear address which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has delivered in favour of not tampering with the police and those who are supposed to be the custodians of law and order. I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave utterance to what are undoubtedly his heartfelt feelings, though I confess that I am not aware of any occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has 129 been equally eloquent when attempts were made to seduce soldiers from their loyalty to the recognised Government, and constitutional authority as given by Acts of Parliament passed in this House. He has told us that this agitation amongst the police was only instituted when it was found out that these concessions were being made to the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Those of us who are in Ireland know prefectly well that this agitation for improved conditions and better wages has gone on continuously for a period of over three months, and that these police, like almost every other section of the Irish police, were driven into what may be regarded as an extreme coarse in order to force the Government into what the Government of Ireland have never done, even in their treatment of their own public servants—examined the case with which it had to deal on just and equitable lines and so avoid being forced into concessions consequent upon violent agitation in the country.
§ Mr. DUKEI do not think I can allow that to pass. Immediately on my appointment I took these matters in hand, and before the recent occurrences these proposals were before the Treasury. On the day that the first of the disorderly meetings was held these proposals had actually been sanctioned
§ Mr. DEVLINI accept the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the proposals were actually sanctioned. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took up these questions with every good intention, but concurrently with the operation of this good intention, there was what, in my judgment, is of more importance than the good intentions of any Chief Secretary, and that was the militant organisation of the men themselves. I must say that principles have been laid down in this House to-day that are extraordinary. They are principles which would strike at the very root and foundation of organised labour in these islands, for it would mean that men who feel that they have a just grievance are not to be permitted to organise and to put forward their views in any form which they believe to be most effective for their purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has told us that he hoped that concessions would not be made to the demands expressed in the form in which the demands of these men are expressed. 130 Every one of us in this House, and elsewhere, knows that the dominant forces in this House, and outside, just concede to the working classes, whether they are sweeps or policemen, precisely what the working classes are strong enough to demand. For myself, I may say here that practically all I know about these men joining the Ancient Order of Hibernians was what I read in the newspapers. If you lay down as a universal principle of equality that men who are in a police force of this character are not to join societies, then complete and absolute liberty should be conceded to them.
I am not going to make any attack upon the Freemasons. I know nothing whatever about them. I have no doubt that they are all that members of that organisation in England have described them to be. But I cannot blind myself to the fact that Freemasonry in Ireland is a large political organisation—is a most powerful and scientific political machine. Every one of us knows that it eats into and corrodes the whole social and political life of Ireland. Everybody knows it. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is ignorant of it. I could give him a list of appointments made to Government offices in Ireland. In every branch of the public service where Freemasons decide—at all events, if they do not decide look at the statistics and consider!—I think it will be found that every position above the position of crossing-sweeper, although the Irish people are overwhelmingly Catholic in the three provinces of Ireland—90 per cent. are Catholics, or the great bulk of these positions are held by those who are hostile to our faith and our aspirations. We in Ireland do not want anything from you. We do not want any mercy. We do not want magnanimity. We want justice, and we want equality.
§ Mr. DEVLINThe hon. and gallant Gentleman says money. The difference between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself is this: I am here to plead for the poor policeman and the wretched toiler who needs defence, and who needs a man to stand up for him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stands, as he has always stood, for the rights of the rich and the powerful, for ascendancy and a dominant force. Of course we want money. We want our own money. We 131 want our own Government. We want our own police. We want to be an integral, useful, and powerful part of your Empire. We want the right to conduct our own domestic affairs according to the purposes, instincts, aspirations, and genius of our own people. If we did, it would be a better thing for you in this as in every other thing concerning Ireland. Trust the people, and allow us not only to run our own country, but run it on our own money! I did not intend to intervene in this Debate at all, but while I am on my feet I want to emphasise a point which has been raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare. How is it, when complaint is made against a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or against a soldier, that these men are entitled to a sworn inquiry and yet a sworn inquiry is refused to members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police? I do not know by what methods these complaints are adjusted, but I say here that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take note of the matter, and, if possible, deal with it, if he can within the compass of this Bill, when we come to the Committee stage. I think every policeman against whom complaint is made in the City of Dublin is entitled to precisely the same tribunal to determine the complaint as a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or a member of His Majesty's Forces. I hope, also, he will deal with this question of policemen joining societies. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he will support it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he is manifesting great courage.
§ Mr. DUKE dissented.
§ Mr. DEVLINVery well, I will take it so, and I will say that he is manifesting great courage. He says he will boldly and determinedly battle with the powers of evil that present themselves to him. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he wants complete equality in the forces of the Crown, if he wants it in the constabulary, it is not for him to put on us the onus of doing it. Let him take his courage in both hands and do it himself, and say to these men that they cannot belong to any society. Though I know perhaps less about the Metropolitan Police or of the Royal Irish Constabulary than any man in this House—I know only what I read in the newspapers—I say to him 132 frankly that it may be all right, and there may be a misinterpretation of the conditions that exist, but undoubtedly an attempt has been made to drive these men out of the organisation which they think they ought to join and which they think it is legitimate to join. We do not hear the hoary falsehoods repeated here about the Ancient Order of Hibernians which have done duty on many other occasions. Countless men of this organisation are to-day fighting in France and Flanders, and they are amongst the most valorous and courageous. When the call was first made for support in this War the entire funds of the organisation were invested in the War Loan. We heard to-day from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken that he knows now that there was no oath. He did not read for us that precious document that has done such powerful duty in many a well-fought contest in English constituencies. This organisation has lived and fought down every allegation made against it. Yet only Catholic people, where the land is predominantly Catholic, are denied any share in the administration of the government of their own country. The police feel that this is a vehicle through which they can have their grievances redressed. If you say it is not you have no right to give liberty to other societies and other organisations whose judgment is hostile to them. That is the demand I make. I apologise to the House for intervening at this stage of the Debate, but I thought it my duty to do so.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]