§ MR. CHAPLINMr. Speaker, in the interests of Members generally, I wish to put to you a Question in regard to the Order passed by the House of Commons, which, refers to the free access of Members of this House. That Order was passed on the 5th of February last, and it runs as follows:—
Ordered that the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the sitting of Parliament; and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and also that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.I wish to ask you, Sir, if I am not right in supposing that this Order remains valid up to the close of the present Session?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Order is a Sessional Order, and is no doubt in force. Under the circumstances, I shall instruct the Serjeant-at-Arms to convey to the Commissioners of Police notice of what has occurred; and I regret that Members should have been incommoded by the exceptional circumstances of this day in approaching the House.
§ MR. CHAPLINThat being so, I will venture to put a Question to the Home Secretary; and, perhaps, the House will allow me, in explanation of what I have to say, to mention that I had occasion, not long ago, to be at St. Stephen's Chambers, and when I endeavoured to reach the House of Commons by the ordinary route across the road, I found so much obstruction that I did not attempt to proceed further. Fortunately, there is an underground passage, and 1754 having been defeated in my attempt to reach the House by one way, I was able to reach it by another. But I think the House will agree with me that it is not by underground passages that admission to this House ought to be obtained. I wish to ask the Home Secretary, whether it is with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, directly or indirectly, that this Sessional Order of the House of Commons has been violated and set at nought as it has been to-day?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTNo, Sir; it certainly is not with the sanction of the Government that the Sessional Order has been violated. Nor, in my opinion, as far as I have seen, has it been violated. The Order was given to the Police on Friday, and it has been substantially carried out, that the approaches to the House by Parliament Street, King Street, and Storey's Gate, were to be kept clear, that there was to be a line of police down the centre of Parliament Street to keep the approaches open for Members' carriages, and that there was to be another along the pavement on the right-hand side coming down. It was my duty to come down from the Home Office to the House at 4 o'clock, and I observed that two-thirds of Whitehall was then perfectly clear, and that any number of carriages could have driven down it. No doubt, there was some difficulty in getting down Parliament Street, owing to its narrowness; but there was a perfectly clear roadway kept down King Street and George Street. Therefore, substantially, I believe the orders given to the Police under the Standing Order have, under considerable difficulty, been well and properly carried out. I may add that I should be doing extremely wrong if I did not bear testimony to the extraordinary good humour and good sense of crowds of people in the streets. I am sorry that I was not present on Friday when the Lord Mayor put a Question with regard to the instructions given to the Police; but I would appeal to his recollection whether there has not been far greater disturbance of the traffic on the occasion of the Lord Mayor's Show? Difficulties occasionally occur even on occasions very unlike the present. All I can say is, that more orderly or better conducted people than I have seen today, I have never seen. With regard to access to the Houses of Parliament, 1755 although some Members may have experienced temporary inconvenience, there has been nothing serious to complain of as to any obstruction hon. Members have been subjected to in reaching the House.
MR. J. LOWTHERI do not rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of opinion as regards the conduct of the concourse of people he succeeded in bringing up to London to-day; but I would only ask, whether he is of opinion that the arrangements made by the Commissioners of Police under his authority have been such as were calculated to promote the general convenience of the public, and why the route of Parliament Street, Pall Mall, Piccadilly, and so forth, has been chosen, instead of other routes, which I need hardly indicate?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREPray indicate.
MR. J. LOWTHERAs the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) asks me to indicate them, I may say such routes as Birdcage Walk, portions of the Parks, Constitution Hill, and so forth, where there need be no disturbance or dislocation of the general traffic of the Metropolis, and no inconvenience to those engaged in commerce. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will account for the fact that this was not done.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI can account for it easily. I had nothing to do with selecting the route of the procession. I have no power and no right to interfere in the matter, or to dictate what route should be followed. The processionists could go along any street they thought fit. It was not for me to say that they should go down one street rather than another; and, therefore, as to the arrangements in regard to the route of the procession, I had no power to interfere with them. My duty was to see, if these processions took place, that peace and order should be maintained, and with the smallest possible inconvenience to the general traffic. Those were the orders I gave to the Commissioners of Police; and I took all the pains I could to consult with them as to the best method of carrying the orders into effect. It is unavoidable that a long procession passing down a street should cause some interruption of traffic where 1756 it crosses; but I was in hopes that the procession would have passed in two hours. I may remind the House that when the troops, a short time ago, came back from Egypt, the whole or most of these streets were stopped up for six hours. This only shows that when processions of this kind take place, there must be inconvenience to a certain extent. The business of my Office, and the business of the Police, is to mitigate these inconveniences as far as possible. As far as I know, and have been able to observe, the arrangements of the Police have been excellent. I have received a telegram, dated 4.19 P.M., from the Chief Commissioner, who says—"Head of the procession just arriving in Hyde Park. Great crowd. All very orderly." I have stated what my duty was in the matter. As far as I can tell, the Police have succeeded admirably in performing their duty.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSThe right hon. and learned Gentleman says he had nothing to do with the route, and that the arrangements were managed by the Commissioners of Police. But they had certainly to consult the Secretary of State as to properly carrying out those arrangements. Does the Secretary of State say that he was not responsible for the route?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOUTI consider that neither I nor the Police were responsible for the route. If I had undertaken to direct the procession, there might be some foundation for the statement that I am responsible.
MR. J. LOWTHERDo I understand that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Commissioners of Police have any power to direct through what streets the procession should pass?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTCertainly.
MR. J. LOWTHERThen may I ask the right hon. Gentleman under what power I could be stopped in crossing St. James's Street?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe right hon. Gentleman would not have been stopped unless his presence had been thought inconsistent with the preservation of public order.
§ MR. REPTONI know that several Members were unable to get along Pall Mall. No previous Home Secretary ever created so much confusion in the thoroughfare within my experience.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI am very sorry that the hon. Member should have experienced any inconvenience.
§ MR. REPTONI experienced no inconvenience personally.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTWhen the hon. Member speaks of no Home Secretary having produced such confusion in Pall Mall, I may remind him of a Home Secretary who, in 1866, produced far greater confusion.
§ MR. REPTONWhat I said was, that no Home Secretary had ever made such arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented me.
§ MR. CHAPLINAm I to understand from the Home Secretary that, in face of the Sessional Order which I have read to the House, he is still of opinion that no obstruction has been committed? I told him, and I repeat it, that I found considerable obstruction in coming to the House of Commons; and I have a right to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, in future, when Her Majesty's Government desire to promote a Liberal agitation, he will undertake to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons?
§ No answer having been returned,
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid: I beg to give Notice that, in consequence of the gross neglect of duty on the part of the Home Secretary, I shall put a further Question on Thursday on this subject; and if his answers are no more satisfactory, I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the matter.
§ MR. SPEAKERI could not allow a Question to be put in those terms.
MR. J. LOWTHERI beg to give Notice that, on the Vote for the Metropolitan Police, I shall call attention to the serious public inconvenience which has been the result of the arrangements made by the Government for the furtherance of a Party demonstration, got up, as it is generally believed, at their own instance, and that I shall move a reduction of the Vote.