§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)I desire to raise a question of Privilege as regards the recent arrest of Members of this House, and I purpose to conclude with a motion that a breach of the Privilege of Parliament has been committed. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes; but it is very important that this question should be brought forward. The House of Commons used to fear the tyranny of the Crown; it used to fear invasions of its rights by privileged orders of society. No such fear is now entertained; but there is a fear lest a temporary majority may, for a few years, exercise a tyranny that may, perhaps; in some cases, become insupportable.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member seems about to refer to a case of Privilege, affecting, as I understand him, three hon. Members of this House. I understood from the hon. Member privately that the main purport of his Motion was to allude to the arrest of a certain Member of this House without any justification. If the hon. Member proposes to refer to the arrest of the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) and the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), he would not, in my opinion, be within Privilege. Privilege cannot be pleaded to an arrest on a criminal charge, nor to the administration of criminal justice. But with regard to the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) there is a clear case demanding explanation, and in that matter the hon. Member is perfectly within his right in calling it a matter of Privilege, and be taking precedence.
§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)I submit, Sir, with great deference, that the House 263 has not yet any information before it as to the case of the two hon. Members for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) and West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly). It would be very proper for the Government to give us that information, and if they are in a position to tell us that those hon. Members had been arrested on a criminal charge the Government would have the benefit of that fact. [Cries of" Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member evidently was not in the House when I read the official intimation that those hon. Members had been arrested on a criminal charge.
§ MR. PICTONOf course I will follow your ruling, Sir, and will confine myself to the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan; but I will venture to say that the House ought to bear in mind the danger that may arise from occasional excesses of power on the part of a temporary majority. The question is one of equal interest to both sides of the House, and to both political Parties, and they ought to be on their guard against such dangers. Last Thursday and Friday we had an experience in this House that I think must be without precedent since the days of Pride's Purge. All the doors and avenues of the House were haunted by officers of the law—constables and detectives—on the look-out to arrest certain hon. Members of this House. Any hon. Member who possessed the remotest resemblance, either in features, in form, or in size, to the Members wanted, had to use the greatest care in leaving the House or in coming in lest he should be pounced upon. The House during those two days seemed to be a kind of Alsatia or refuge for criminals. Outside the portals of the House the officers of the law were lying in wait to seize upon their victims. I suppose that I should not be in Order in alluding to an easy remedy for such a state of things; but I will take another opportunity of doing so. All, however, will see that there is considerable danger of mistaking one hon. Member for another, especially in the uncertain light of the gas; and, as a matter of fact, a mistake was made, and in broad daylight. The hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), having come down to the House early to attend to his correspondence, left the House again, intending 264 to return speedily. As soon as he had gone outside the gates of Palace Yard a detective came up to him and said—"I beg your pardon, Sir, but I have a warrant for your arrest." Then the hon. Member said—"Produce your warrant." The officer, however, was not in possession of the warrant, and called to a colleague and asked him to fetch it; then, without waiting for it, or asking the name of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, the officer persuaded him by gentle force to come with him some distance up Parliament Street. Of course, it was manifest to all around that the hon. Gentleman was under arrest. The mistake having been made known by another detective to Constable M'lntyre, who had hold of the hon. Member, that officer said to him—"I beg your pardon, if I have made a mistake, and I offer an apology." But the hon. Member for North Monaghan was something of the mind of St. Paul in similar circumstances, and he said—"They have arrested me openly, uncondemned, being a Member of Parliament, and now do they thrust me, Sir, aside privily? nay, verily." I think the hon. Member was within his right in declining a personal apology; but it was not for the individual Member who was thus affronted to take upon him-himself to gain the remedy that was due to the authority and dignity of the House itself. That is for the House itself, and for my own part, it is on behalf of the House, and not merely of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, that I am raising this question now. I should like to call attention to the exceedingly severe terms in which the House formerly condemned any attempt to obstruct, assault, or insult any Member coming to or going from the House. On the 12th of April, 1733, it was resolved—
That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing any Member of this House in his coming to or going from the House, or on account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the Privilege of this House, and a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and a high crime and misdemeanour.On the 1st of June, 1780, it was resolved—It is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House for any person to obstruct or insult Members of this House in coming to or going from this House.265 I think it will be agreed that this Resolution applies to the present case. It is clear that a mistake has been made and an apology offered for the mistake; but that mistake itself ought not to have been made. The officer might easily have obtained exact information; and why did he not produce his warrant? If he had done so Mr. O'Brien would have seen at once the name that was upon it, and would have shown that there was a mistake. I think the difficulty made about producing the warrants in some of these cases is scarcely Constitutional. When a subject of Her Majesty is suddenly informed that he is under arrest, surely he ought to have a warrant shown to him to justify his detention. The constable ought to have informed himself of the figure and likeness of the person against whom the warrant was issued with sufficient accuracy to prevent an act of injustice from being committed. I maintain that a gross insult has been committed upon an hon. Member of the House, and I trust that the House will not pass it by simply because the hon. Member arrested belongs to a particular Party. I remember that when I was at school, when we saw one boy pommeling another, we would cry out to the pommeler, "Hit him hard, he's Irish." That is the only apology I can offer. This boyish habit did not result from any confidence in the superior hardness of the Irish, but rather from a certain antipathy of race. I may say that those wore my unregenerate days. In a case like the present I am sure that the House will not allow any kind of distinction to be made between Irish Representatives and others; they will never think of literally applying the words of the Prime Minister—namely, that one of his Colleagues is worth the whole of the 85 Irish Members. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be treated with seriousness. We wish to take such a course as will insure that in the case of any hon. Member being, unfortunately, arrested the constable should produce his warrant at once, and make sure that he has got hold of the right man. The gross carelessness in this case, I think, is a fault which demands an ample apology, not to the individual Member concerned alone, but to the House itself. I beg, 266 therefore, to move the following Resolution:—That the wrongful arrest of Mr. P. O'Brien, a Member of this House, in going from the House, on Friday, Feb. 10, was a high infringement of the Privileges of Parliament.
§ MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)—I beg leave to second the Motion. If it had not been the case that I was present at the arrest of one of the three hon. Members, probable I should not have ventured to trouble the House. I feel very strongly that the House should take as strong a view as possible of this question, and treat as a breach of Privilege the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien). There are two circumstances in connection with the arrest of the other two hon. Members which, doubtless, you, Mr. Speaker, are not aware of, and which, with all respect, I should like to submit. The hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) maintains that he was actually within the precincts of the House at the time he was arrested.
§ MR. SPEAKERthe arrest of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Waterford is not before the House. It is my duty to keep the attention of the House confined to the particular question of Privilege raised—namely, the arrest of the hon. Member for North Monaghan. Of course, if the hon. Member desires to bring forward in a proper way the arrest of the hon. Member for West Waterford it is competent for him to do so; but it is impossible for him to bring it forward now on the particular question of breach of Privilege which has been raised by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton).
§ MR. M'LARENThen I will not proceed further with the remarks I intended to offer, but I will confine myself to the immediate question before the House. In the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan it is said not only were there detectives surrounding the House, but they were actually in the building within the precincts of the House; and, in these circumstances, I venture to think the breach of Privilege in the present case becomes a very serious one indeed. The police constables may be doing their duty by arresting Members of Parliament in the streets; but to arrest them when within 267 the precincts of Palace Yard, as in this instance, is to commit a still greater breach of Privilege. My hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan has Buffered a very serious indignity indeed, and was put to great personal inconvenience. It is no light matter for a Member of Parliament to be arrested in the street within a stone's throw of Palace Yard, and it is all the worse in this case, because the hon. Member was not guilty of any offence at all. A Member of Parliament ought not to be liable to be treated in the way complained of in respect of political offences, for it was merely a political offence, and not a crime, with which the hon. Member for North Monaghan was charged. Of course, if a Member of Parliament commit a crime he must be expected to receive the same treatment as other criminals; but in this case I think a distinction should be drawn between an arrest for the commission of a real crime and political offences. It is for the interest and dignity of Parliament to purge itself from all complicity with persons who are guilty of crime, and not to extend its indulgence to them; but my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan, although previously under a sentence of seven months' imprisonment, was even then guilty of no crime, but simply of a political offence. Surely, for an alleged offence on the part of the hon. Member for West Cork, the police were not entitled to drag the hon. Member for North Monaghan through the streets as if he were a common pickpocket. Although my hon. Friend has suffered this great indignity, I do not think that any hon. Member of this House or any man in the country will think the worse of him in consequence; nor even for the sentence of seven months' imprisonment which has been passed upon him. It is our duty to resent as strongly as possible the fact not only that he should have been arrested on a false charge, but that any hon. Member should be arrested for a political offence at all. I and many other English and Scotch Members are very proud to call Irish Members who are undergoing imprisonment our friends, and we feel that they should not be arrested on such charges. The Government will do well, instead of putting Irish Members in prison, to alter their conduct.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is not keeping to the Question before the House. He is discussing the difference between political and other offences.
§ MR. M'LARENI will only say, in conclusion, that it is clearly proved there was no pretence for denying that an hon. Member has been arrested wrongfully. I hope the House will regard it as a serious breach of its Privileges.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the wrongful arrest of Mr. Patrick O'Brien, a Member of this House, in going from the House on Friday, 10th February, was a high infringement of the Privilege of Parliament."—(Mr. Picton.)
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)I do not propose to follow in any way the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren), who seconded the Motion, nor do I propose to deal with the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). I wish to repudiate in the strongest language possible the doctrine that any difference should be made as between the hon. Member who has just been subjected to an unfortunate indignity in consequence of a mistake, and who represents a constituency in the Sister Island, and any other hon. Member. No such idea certainly entered my mind, nor, so far as I know, that of any Member of the Government. I entirely agree that this I question of Privilege does not concern the individual Member whose personal dignity may have been assailed, or to whom personal discomfort may have been caused; the Privilege is really the Privilege of the House. Now, about the facts I do not think there is the slightest doubt. The hon. Member for Leicester has stated with perfect accuracy that there was a mistake. He went on to say that there ought not to have been a mistake. I entirely agree with him. I am hardly aware of any case in which a mistake can be regarded as permissible. It was a mistake, certainly, on the part of the officer in fault, but the mistake was not intentional. I hold in my hand a Report, carefully made by the heads of the police, which I instantly called for when I heard of 269 the circumstance. I am informed that the sergeant in question, Sergeant M'Intyre, was told—not himself having personal acquaintance with either of the hon. Members concerned—that the gentleman leaving the precincts of the House was the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly)—[An hon. MEMBER: Who told him?] A constable who was on duty in the precincts of the House informed him that that was the gentleman against whom there was a warrant. The sergeant followed the hon. Member, and, lifting his hat, addressed him interrogatively, "Mr. Gilhooly?" to which the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) nodded his head without making any reply. Thereupon the sergeant informed him that there was a warrant out for his arrest, and that he must consider himself in custody, and asked him to accompany him to Scotland Yard. The sergeant sent an officer to fetch the warrant, which was in the custody of another constable. Well, every police constable cannot have the warrant in his possession. The constable went to get it, and he came back in the course of a minute or two with the warrant in his possession. In the meantime the sergeant was informed that he had made a mistake, and that the hon. Member who was then in custody was not the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), but the hon. Member for North Monaghan. The sergeant immediately apologized to the hon. Member, and said he would not detain him any longer. I might add that at first the officer offered to convey the hon. Member to Scotland Yard in a cab. The hon. Member, however, preferred going on foot. I do not defend what has been done; of course, it was a most unfortunate and most regrettable mistake. The Commissioner of Police, the moment he heard of the circumstance, sent Inspector Littechild to the hon. Member to offer him a sincere and absolute apology. I—in so far as I represent the Police Force, though I take no blame to myself in the matter—I repeat, in the name of the Force and in the name of the Government, my sincere apologies and great regret to the hon. Member for the mistake that has been made. I do not know that anything more is called for from the House. I do not know that anything more is called for on the part of the Government. No 270 doubt, Members are free from molestation and arrest except in criminal cases. There was no intentional breach of Privilege. About that there can be no doubt whatever. The officer who made this unhappy mistake supposed he was dealing with an hon. Member with reference to whom no question of Privilege would have arisen, as there was a warrant in a criminal matter against him. There was no intention to commit a breach of Privilege of the House. The police having made their apologies, and I having offered apologies to the hon. Member on behalf of the Government, I leave it to the House to say whether the complaint made by the hon. Member is not now entirely met.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)What the Home Secretary has said is perfectly true. We are here not to consider the question of personal indignity offered to an individual Member, but what is due to the dignity of the House under the circumstances. The apology to the particular Member, whether on the part of the police or the Home Secretary—that is one thing, and may be adequate; but what the House has to consider is, how this transaction came to occur, and what precautions must be taken in the future against its occurring again; because I am afraid that we are at the beginning of a chapter at which these arrests of Members of the House of Commons are to become habitual. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in consequence of the policy in which we are embarked. At all events, it is of some importance that the Government should at least arrest the right man. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would care much about that, because he announces that people have been convicted when they have not been convicted; but it is desirable that we should have some precautions as to who is to be arrested at the instance of the Government among the Members who sit in this House. Now, the arrest was a singular one. The Home Secretary says that one sergeant, who did not know the person to be arrested, told another sergeant that he—the hon. Member for North Monaghan—was the person who ought to be arrested.
§ MR. MATTHEWSI beg pardon—I did, not say that. I said that a constable 271 professing to know the hon. Member who was to be arrested informed Sergeant M'Intyre that that was Mr. Gilhooly.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTWell, it appears I am mixing up two sergeants, instead of one constable and one sergeant. One constable, who does not know the man who is to be arrested, informs a sergeant that there is the man, whereupon the sergeant does arrest him, and arrests the wrong man. That is the state of things in which we all are at the present moment. I do not know how many warrants the Chief Secretary for Ireland may have out just at this moment; but anybody is liable to be arrested if some constable who does Dot know the individual to be arrested tells somebody else—"That is the person to be arrested." Now, in my opinion, this is a thing which ought to be inquired into by the House. We ought to know what are to be the forms and proceedings with future arrests of Members of this House. It is quite obvious that this is a serious matter. When the Government attempt to arrest a Member of this House, either within the precincts or immediately adjoining the precincts, surely it is not too much to expect that they should provide constables for that service who know the persons of Members. There should be no difficulty, I imagine, in securing the services of detectives or others who are acquainted with the persons it is intended to arrest. There seems, on the part of somebody or other, to be a very gross act of negligence and carelessness—that they should have employed for a service of this kind persons not properly informed on the subject. Instead of doing these things in this haphazard, ramshackle way, it is desirable there should be some understanding as to what course of proceeding is to be taken in arresting Members of this House. There is the case, exceedingly well known, of Lord Cochrane. There was no doubt whatever in his case. He was extremely well known. The proper course was taken—Lord Cochrane was arrested within the precincts of the House; but the Government of the day, regarding the arrest as a serious matter, took what I believe to have been the proper Parliamentary and Constitutional course of referring the question to a Committee of Privileges of this 272 House. It is only a night or two ago that the House appointed the Committee of Privileges. It is one of the first proceedings of this House to appoint the Committee of Privileges. It is to that Committee of Privileges, if there is any question at all with reference to the treatment of Members, that that question ought to be referred. That was done by the Government in the year 1814 or 1815 in Lord Cochrane's case. The Committee in that case reported that, after an examination of the circumstances, they were of opinion that there was no ground for taking any further action against the person incriminated, who happened to be in that case the Marshal of the Court. It may be that the Committee of Privileges here, having heard the circumstances, will arrive at the same decision; but the Committee of Privileges might do something else. They might recommend to you, Mr. Speaker, or the Government, certain forms and proceedings in the case of the arrest of Members of this House which might prevent the scandal which has been committed in this case, and would insure that we should have some approach to decency in procedure of this kind. That would be an extremely proper thing for the Committee of Privileges to inquire into. They would inquire, first, whether due caution and care had been taken in this particular case with reference to the arrest of this particular Member. They might, or they might not, come to the conclusion that it required no notice from the House under the particular circumstances of the case. Above all, the Committee of Privileges would do that which would be extremely useful to the dignity of the House and to the respect in which the House of Commons should be held in the country if they would recommend some course of procedure in the future which will obviate that which I feel is a great indignity and a scandal in the transaction which has taken place.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) sat down without indicating to the House what question of Privilege has possibly arisen which can be referred to the Committee. I will venture, in a few words, to recall to the mind of the House what 273 the position of the matter is. The police officer has made an unfortunate mistake. Her Majesty's Government—who, as a Government, can give no guarantee (any more than the right hon. Gentleman could give any guarantee when he was Home Secretary) that the police shall make no mistake—have expressed their regret for the mistake, and the Chief Commissioner of Police, through the mouth of the Home Secretary, has also apologized. Now, let the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the question of Privilege is that can possibly arise. The matter of Privilege was disposed of when the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) admitted that it was a mistake. He did not suggest that any superior or inferior officer intended to arrest a man who was not named in the warrant. The right hon. Gentleman is an esteemed lawyer, and I ask him what the form of proceeding is? First, there must be an offence against the Criminal Law. The police constable had nothing to do with that. Then there must be a charge, and there must be a warrant. There is the charge and the warrant; and a Member of Parliament, as you have said, Sir, to-day from the Chair—and, if I may be allowed, I endorse your statement—has no privilege or protection whatever. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is a great Constitutional lawyer, and he referred to the case of Lord Cochrane. That has nothing to do with this matter at all. Lord Cochrane, as a Privy Councillor, was sitting on one of the Benches of this House, or rather the old House.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI did not say that he was a Privy Councillor. He was not a Privy Councillor.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I referred to the Report of the Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the diary of Lord Colchester he will find that I am correct.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTHe gat on the Privy Council as a Councillor's Bench; but it did not follow that he was a Privy Councillor.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI do not think it necessary to go into this point, and I will assume that I was wrong there. Lord Cochrane was sitting is the House when arrested, and the question referred to the Committee of Privileges was whether persons sitting 274 in the House were liable to arrest, and did the arrest create a question of Privilege. The Report of the Committee was that there was no breach of the Privileges of the House; and Mr. Speaker Abbott laid it down that the House of Commons Chamber afforded no Privilege unless the Speaker was in the Chair and the Mace upon the Table. I appeal to the House, and to every lawyer in it, what possible question of Privilege can arise here? There has been a mistake—that mistake has been apologized for; and if the hon. Member desires to take proceedings he has a remedy. A mistake having been committed, and an apology having been made, no question of Privilege has occurred. So far as this House is concerned, nobody alleging that there is any real question to go to the Committee, I humbly submit that—unless the right hon. Gentleman will give the Government some prescription by which the Government can insure that no policeman will ever make a mistake again—as there is no matter for inquiry, after the explanation given by the Home Secretary, and after the illustrations given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, there is no question of Privilege involved. This being the state of things, if I am in Order, I will move an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton).
§ Amendment proposed,
§ To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets that an indignity should have been offered to the honourable Member for North Monaghan; but, considering it to have been a mistake on the part of the Police Officer, does not think it necessary to proceed further with the matter."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)I am rather surprised at one statement that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General made, that because the arrest was a mistake, as it was admitted to be by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), it was clear that there was no question of Privilege in the case. I cannot understand that argument. I maintain that it is impossible to contradict this statement—that the act of arrest of itself 275 was a distinct breach of Privilege. It was, in fact, an arrest without any legal process whatever. It may be that the circumstances under which that breach of Privilege took place—namely, that it was a mistake—may or may not be a sufficient reason for passing the matter by without further notice; but I entirely contravene my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, that it is the less a breach of Privilege because the arrest was made under a mistake. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the Home Secretary, having for himself and his Government, and also in the name of the Police Force, apologized for the mistake, that there ought to be an end of the matter. I will point out to the House that that is not the way in which questions of this kind have, so far as I know, in any previous case been treated by the House of Commons. It has uniformly been the course to refer all questions of this nature to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, whose functions are directed to this subject, and the reason is obvious—namely, that there shall remain a perfect record of the inquiry, and of the circumstances of the case which gave rise to such inquiry. Before such a tribunal the circumstances can be gone into, and they become a permanent record in the Report of the Committee. As to what the Committee may report in this case I do not venture to speculate. It would be impertinent to do so. I make no suggestion. They may be of opinion that, under the circumstances, no further action need be taken; but before I sit down I should like to make reference to another point in this case. After all, assuming it to have been a mistake—accepting that—it certainly was a clumsy and inexcusable mistake. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby did not mistake the position of affairs as explained by the Home Secretary, and the House will be good enough to bear in mind that it has no authentic account as to how the arrest was brought about, but merely the statement of the Home Secretary, who receives it merely from the constables without further inquiry. What an extraordinary statement that is—that the constable did not know the hon. Member.
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have already corrected the right hon. Member for 276 Derby (Sir William Harcourt) when he made that statement, and I would really ask the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell) to observe that the constable did know.
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe constable mentioned it to the sergeant.
§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELLIt appears to me that the explanation of the Home Secretary makes the matter more confused and difficult than it was before. The statement now made differs altogether from that which was originally-made. We have now the corrected and amended statement that a constable who did know pointed out the wrong man. It now seems that a constable, who did not know the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), pointed out the hon. Member for North Monaghan. (Mr. Patrick O'Brien) as the hon. Member for West Cork to a sergeant who did not pretend to know either one or the other. I should have thought that in this delicate and important matter moderate care ought to have been taken by the Police Authorities to put warrants into the hands of sergeants, police constables, or detectives, who had, at least, taken previous pains to identify the persons to be arrested. The extraordinary part of the story does not end there. It now appears upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) that the sergeant who proceeded to make the arrest, and thereby to commit an assault upon a Member of this House, and thus was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House, made the arrest without having possession of the warrant. Again, I say, that is a matter proper to be inquired into by the Committee of Privileges. We do not know yet where that warrant was; whether it was ever in the control or within easy reach of the arresting constable; we do not know in whose custody it was. It is certainly a new doctrine that an officer without the legal document in his possession, or within his reach, can arrest a man upon a warrant, that warrant being in the possession of somebody else. It seems tome, therefore, that this case, in accordance with the ordinary procedure of this House in other cases, ought to be referred to the Committee of Privileges to report upon. Such an inquiry would, at all 277 events, secure two things—first, an accurate statement, which we clearly have not now before the House, of the circumstances of the arrest; and, secondly, a permanent and authentic record of the opinion of this House upon the transaction and the circumstances attending the transaction.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I should not have intervened in this debate but for the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Attorney General asks what is the breach of Privilege to be inquired into. I will suggest that the breach of Privilege really consists in the insulting indignity put upon Members of the House in consequence of surrounding the House with a number of detectives not sufficiently instructed as to the persons they are to arrest, and acting upon information, perhaps, maliciously given. The explanation of the Home Secretary makes it clear that the information was maliciously given. The right hon. Gentleman has himself suggested that the constable wilfully pointed out another Member, knowing that he was the wrong man. [A laugh.] I am sorry that the Home Secretary should think it necessary to treat this as a laughing matter. I feel ashamed that on Friday the House of Commons should have put itself into a lower position than any Parliamentary Assembly in Europe, where precautions are taken to avoid the possibility of insult being offered to their Members. Our Parliamentary morality must have, indeed, fallen low, if hon. Gentlemen will permit insults to be offered to a fellow-Member simply because he is a political opponent, which they would not tolerate if offered to a Member sitting on their own side of the House. It was contended that the arrest without cause of a Member of that House being by mistake, there was no broach of privilege. I venture to deny that contention. In former days there were scores of cases where arrests had been made of servants of Members, which were defended on the ground that the guilty persons did not know they wore servants of Members. But in every case the House exacted an apology, and made the offenders pay the fees of the Sergeant-at-Arms. [An hon. MEMBER: This was only an Irish Member.] Oh, we are not in Ireland. I protest against 278 the whole unworthy fashion in which the arrests of Irish Members were effected, and against the carelessness shown by those who instructed the police of the dignity of that House. The constituents who send us here are more careful of the dignity of the House than Her Majesty's Ministers; and they repudiated the notion that, for some matter made criminal by the House, the House should be surrounded, and in its very Lobbies officers of the detective force should be placed, not for the purpose of protecting Members of the House, but of spying upon the whole of them in order to find out who is the unfortunate Member against whom a warrant has been issued. I am afraid that they have now made themselves a bye word in Europe by arresting the wrong man.
§ SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury)There were some words which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) from which I so dissent, that I wish to detain the House for a few moments. The question we have to determine is whether a breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed. I do not gather from my hon. and learned Friend what is the breach of Privilege which he states has been committed. [Cries of"No! "] It is true that the so-called arrest of a Member took place in the neighbourhood of this House. But as a matter of principle it would be the same if made in any other part of the country, however distant from this House—[Cries of"No!"]—yes; that is so in regard to such question of Privilege. My hon. and learned Friend does not base his suggestions upon the arrest having been made within this House, or within the precincts of the House. Even if it did raise a matter of Privilege, the point is whether an hon. Gentleman who is a Member of this House has been stopped in a public thoroughfare unintentionally through having been mistaken for another person. I venture to say that a Member has no more protection than the humblest subject of the Queen from a mistaken arrest in reference to a criminal charge. My hon; and learned Friend the Member for Hackney has confused two matters which are entirely distinct. Suppose there was an absence of warrant. That is not a question of Privilege, and would equally apply to the poorest person. 279 Suppose it is pointed out that the constable making the arrest did not know the individual who was to be arrested, and so makes a mistake; that applies equally to the humblest person. It may be a matter deserving of inquiry, or even, of censure of the delinquent, but it is not a matter of Privilege. What is the Privilege which has been infringed? [Mr. PICTON: Going from the House.] Now, I know what it is that is claimed as a Privilege. Will my hon. and learned Friend, or any Constitutional lawyer, assert that there is any Privilege for any Member, either inside or outside of this House, against a criminal process? The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has confused the well-known Privilege against civil process, which even applies to the servants of Members, with Privilege against criminal process.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me to explain? My point was that there was no charge, criminal or otherwise, against the hon. Member for North Monaghan.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESThat makes it clearer. Where, then, is the Privilege greater than the Privilege which attaches to the humblest man in the street who may be mistakenly arrested? I am astonished that an hon. Member should, under such circumstances, claim Privilege and the right to be protected from a mistake more than any other man who is innocent. There is no privilege on the part of Members of this House against being arrested on a criminal charge more than that which is possessed by the humblest of Her Majesty's subjects. And yet we are asked specially to protect hon. Members of this House from the liability of a mistake being committed. That is certainly not a democratic view of the question, and I hope the House will forgive me for having called its attention to what the real nature of the issue is.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)I rise, Sir, to speak upon the Amendment which has been moved by the Attorney General, and I rise, at the same time, to defend the Attorney General and the Home Secretary from their most indiscreet adviser. If there was a doubt whether this question ought to go before the Committee of Privileges, there can be no doubt now. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for 280 Bury (Sir Henry James) has struck at the whole Privileges of this House. He has said that Members of this House have no Privileges, covering that statement by an extraordinary fallacy with respect to criminal process, that they have no Privileges different from those possessed by any other person. Sir, I challenge that statement altogether. It is a statement without a shadow of foundation. The truth is that a Member of Parliament has Privilege against arrest altogether, and under all circumstances, unless it be for criminal process properly directed against himself. That is the doctrine. Here is a case of a Member of Parliament who has been arrested, there being no criminal process properly directed against him. Consequently, the whole doctrine of the Privilege of a Member of Parliament against arrest comes into full force. The moment you have not got distinctive criminal process he has Privilege from arrest. That is the doctrine of Privilege; and how so distinguished a lawyer as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury could have fallen into so palpable a fallacy I cannot conceive. You have a man in the position of my right hon. and learned Friend coming forward and denying what the Government have practically admitted. The Home Secretary did not dispute or deny for one moment that this is a breach of Privilege; but now the Liberal Unionists, who are always in advance of their allies, come forward. If there is some reactionary doctrine, something that will strike against the liberties of Parliament, my right hon. and learned Friend will always be to the fore. I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be led into these imprudent excesses. The Government are going quite fast enough; but if they took my right hon. and learned Friend for their counsel, they would have every man on this side of the House arrested. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] My right hon. and learned Friend has got a disciple already. As my hon. and learned Friend near me has said, the House of Commons has never dealt with these matters in this harum-scarum sort of way, and the wisdom of our ancestors ought to be protected as against an occurrence of this kind. It is seldom that the Privileges of this House have been attacked. There may have been 281 a question before the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury; but now we cannot escape an inquiry, because the Privileges of this House must be ascertained upon the challenge which he has made. I hope, therefore, that the course will be taken which was followed in the cases of Mr. Wellesley Pole and Lord Cochrane. In these cases the House, instead of discussing the matter on the floor of the House, consented to send them to the Committee of Privileges. Whenever a case of the kind has occurred, the House has, for the sake of its own dignity, referred it to the Committee of Privileges. The hon. and learned Attorney General put to me a very proper and pertinent question—namely, what it is I want to refer to the Committee of Privileges? I want to refer exactly what was referred in the case of Lord Cochrane—whether or not, in the circumstances, any action should be taken on the matter by this House? The Committee of Privileges in Lord Cochrane's case, having inquired into the matter, reported to the House that there was no call for the interposition of the House. That is exactly what may be reported in this case, not that I think the Committee, or any half-a-dozen Members of this House, would come to such a conclusion as that stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury—namely, that there has been no breach of Privilege committed. I do not think that, excepting my right hon. and learned Friend, there is a man in this House who would come to that conclusion. The Home Secretary did not come to that conclusion, for he admitted that it was a breach of Privilege; and until I hear someone who has, I will say that no one but my right hon. and learned Friend holds such an opinion. The case is this—whether, there being a breach of Privilege, it is such a breach as calls for the action of this House? It might be that the Committee would come to the conclusion that was come to in Lord Cochrane's case. Then there is this further matter to be referred to the Committee, and that is the taking of proper precautions that things of this kind shall not recur in future. I do not think that we can possibly accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General, more especially after the chal- 282 lenge thrown out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury.
§ MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)I hope the House will believe me when I say that if I had had my own choice I would have preferred some other occasion than this on which to address it for the first time, particularly as this matter is, to a considerable extent, personal to myself; but I feel that it is due to the House that it should, as far as I can, be put in possession of the full facts. I wish to make one very important correction in the version of my arrest which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), who, I presume, received his brief from the police officer concerned. The officer did not say to me that he thought I was Mr. Gilhooly. If he had done so, I think the House will believe me when I say that I should not have courted the company of the officer to Scotland Yard. What the officer did say—and in a low voice, too—just as I stepped from the Gate was—"I beg your pardon, Sir; I have a warrant for your arrest, and I require you to come with me to Scotland Yard." I said to the officer—"Produce your warrant," and the officer then called out to another who stood at some distance—whose name, I am told, was Sergeant Sweeney—"Go back for the warrant." Touching me on the arm, the officer then said—"Come this way, Sir." Well, I went, and accompanied the officer along the street. It may be asked why I did so without hearing the warrant read. I will explain. I am known in Ireland as what they call, in the Balfourian sense of the term, a criminal—aye, a double-dyed criminal. I have two sentences to serve with hard labour, and I would not be in the least surprised if I had a third added. But why do I expect a third? I will tell the House. On the conclusion of my second trial, when I was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment for telling the rack-rented tenantry of the counties of Kilkenny and Carlow not to pay their rack-rents, and for telling the tenantry of Lord Monck not to purchase land at 17 years' purchase with British money—rack-rents which would be equal to 30 years' purchase at a proper rental—when I was sentenced, and after I had appealed, 283 so little did I think myself a criminal that I walked from the Court and repeated to the people word for word the advice which I had given, and for which I had got three months' imprisonment. I afterwards said to my friends that I would not be in the least surprised if, before I reached Dublin, or before getting to London, at the outside, I was arrested again. When, therefore, the officer came up to me, I thought he was about to arrest me on a third charge. That is the explanation I have to give for accompanying the officer without demanding that the warrant should first be read. I was also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) had been pushed off the precincts of the House, and had been taken forcibly into custody, without the warrant having been read; and I was not, therefore, prepared for a street scuffle with the servants of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has offered an apology to me. I do not feel that any apology whatever is due to me. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the indignity which has been cast upon me. All the indignity which this infamous Government could cast upon me they have already cast, and I should not have troubled the House with this matter if it had been left to my choice. I am not wanting in respect for this honourable House and its great traditions; but I do not pretend to have that respect which British citizens have, and rightly have, for it. Holding that view, I asked the officer, and, as a Member of Parliament, I think I had a right to ask, what was the name of his superior officer. I think that many hon. Members of this House will think it worth while to try the issue as to what extent their Privileges were affected. While I respect British feeling as to the traditions of this House, I confess I am much more concerned about the dignity of the House which—please God—we shall soon have open in Ireland, and I must be content to leave to English Members, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), the duty of dealing with this case so far as it affects, or may affect, their liberties and the dignity of Parliament. I have nothing more to add. I have been very reluctant indeed, in the absence of 284 the officer who was the second party to the case, and who cannot be heard in this House, to push anything strongly against him. I should consider myself guilty of mean and contemptible conduct similar to that from which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) suffered at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when he had him under lock and key, if I were to attack the officer in his absence. I would prefer to meet him in another place, and face to face, and state my version of the case on oath before a British jury. I scorn to take advantage of him in a place where his voice cannot be heard. I wish, further, to lay stress on the fact that both the officer who arrested me and the officer who was sent back for the warrant refused to give me the name of their superior officer. Now, if they felt that their conduct was above-board in this case, and if Sergeant M'Intyre felt that he addressed me as Mr. Gilhooly, why did they hesitate to give me the name, and why should there have been the necessity for me to return to the House and appeal to the officer in charge of the police there to try and get it? I was arrested without a warrant. The officer who was sent from the Department to apologize to me subsequently told me in the Lobby that as he understood his duty, and as the Metropolitan Police understood theirs, a warrant delivered to any officer of the Metropolitan Police is a warrant to all of them. The invariable practice is that if they should catch their man they should secure him, even without the warrant. We are accustomed to that sort of treatment in Ireland, where we are a police governed people, but it is for hon. Members of this House to say whether they will suffer their liberties to be bandied about in that way. I thank the House for its attention. If it had been left to myself I would have chosen another opportunity for addressing it; but I cordially acknowledge the courtesy and attention with which I have been listened to.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)I have before me, in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), a warning against the consequences of widening the field of debate which he was so completely successful in effecting, and I shall en- 285 deavour to avoid following the example that he set, I think with unfortunate consequences. But when I came into the House I had had some conversation with one or two of my friends, and it appeared to me that obviously this was a case which it would be convenient to refer to the Committee of Privileges. But I did not see that there was any matter likely to be of a contentious character which could enter into the consideration of the question. I will do this act of justice to the Government, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews)—that, so far as apology is concerned, I think he has made every apology which possibly can in fairness be expected from him; and so far as vindictive or penal proceedings are concerned, there is no reason why we should entertain the thought of them at all. I have seen, not very long ago, a disposition to establish the doctrine that apology does not purge offence. I think that a very dangerous innovation, and I am glad that on this occasion the Government have adopted a doctrine of a more rational and more merciful character. Now, I wish to put this to Her Majesty's Government—as they will see, in no contentious spirit—that since this discussion began, the grounds for this reference has been greatly widened, and I think that after hearing the statement just made by the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) of the facts, according to his view of them, the right hon. Gentlemen the Home Secretary will see that they are so seriously in conflict with the statement made by himself, that this of itself constitutes a just and reasonable ground, without the least imputation on the right hon. Gentleman, for sending this matter to a Committee of Privileges. We have here before us three points. We have the point that a Member of this House was without cause arrested. He was subsequently released, and no vindictive proceedings are contemplated. But the fact is that a Member of this House was arrested when in a position which has always be recognized by the House as entitling him to special regard and protection—namely, while on his way to or from the performance of his duties in Parliament. The second point before us is that in this very grave matter of arresting a Member of this House on his way to or from the performance of 286 his duty, the officer of police proceeded without being in possession of the warrant. That is a grave fact in this case. Will the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) say that the police officer not in possession of a warrant was entitled in law to make an arrest? I do not put the question in any captious spirit; but I am imformed by high legal authorities that the arrest could not be properly and legally made by a man not in possession of a warrant. If not in possession of the warrant he could not be absolutely certain of its existence at the moment. It ought to be shown whether an arrest can be made without the production of the warrant. Although the officer was not in possession of the warrant, yet he was cognizant of the name of the person whom he had intended to arrest. That person was Mr. Gilhooly. He said that he had a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Gilhooly, and that the hon. Member made some sign which made him take it that he assented to that being his name. That is an important matter, because if the hon. Member gave the police constable to understand that he was Mr. Gilhooly, it would have gone very far indeed to dispose of the whole question. But the most important fact is now denied on what we have always been accustomed to consider the highest authority—namely, the deliberate assertion of an hon. Member in his place in this House. I really think that on these grounds alone Her Majesty's Government ought to allow this case to be referred to a Committee of Privilege. But I must, say that after the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), upon which I congratulate the Government, it does appear to me that the necessity for such a reference is most urgent. We are all concerned in it, for there is no saying how far the doctrines of my right hon. and learned Friend are to extend. My right hon. and learned Friend says that except as to civil process there is no Privilege of a Member of Parliament against arrest other than what is possessed by every other member of the community. If that proposition be true, it is a most grave proposition—namely, that any hon. Member of this House, any one of us, at a time when any criminal process whatever is out against anybody, it does not signify whom—that 287 is perfectly irrelevant to the question of Privilege—whether it was by mistake for another Member or not, any one of us may be arrested in mistake, and there is no question of Privilege involved; and the only question, I suppose, is whether he has a remedy by a civil action for false imprisonment. How far does my right hon. and learned friend mean to carry that doctrine? Does he mean to deny personal Privilege altogether? He appeared to denounce it as in itself odious and indefensible. It is odious and indefensible if it be regarded as attaching to us in our personal and individual capacity. But it is because of the great functions which we discharge—it is because it is necessary for the public interest that there should be the free discharge of those functions, free access to and from their discharge—that is the reason why we are surrounded with Privilege. The doctrine of my right hon. and learned Friend appears to me to imperil our liberty. According to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, what constitutes a breach of Privilege? He says—what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Attorney General do not say—that there was no breach of Privilege here, although a Member of Parliament was taken into custody, there being no authority or warrant whatever for his arrest. That, in the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, constituted no breach of Privilege. Upon what does he base breach of Privilege? My right hon. and learned Friend's doctrine appears to be that no man can commit a breach of Privilege unless he knows that he is committing, and intends to commit, it. Is he prepared to lay down that as a general proposition? If not, what has he to show for the assertion that there was no breach of Privilege in this case? There was an act done, which act, apart from the motive, was a breach of Privilege—namely, the arrest, without cause, of a Member of this House. The arrest without cause of a Member of this House is a breach of Privilege, and that which, in the case of an ordinary person, is false imprisonment, is in the case of a Member of this House a breach of Privilege. With all my right hon. and learned Friend's ability, with all his astuteness, all his legal knowledge, with all his zeal to out-Herod the Government, can he find any doctrine which will cover his 288 statement that this was no breach of Privilege, except the doctrine that there cannot be breach of Privilege unless there is intention to commit it? If he holds that doctrine he must be prepared to carry it out to all its consequences. The hon. and learned Attorney General referred to the case of Lord Cochrane. In the case of Lord Cochrane, the arrest took place within the four walls of this House at a time when the House was not sitting. The Question was raised as to what this House is, as to the Privileges of Members when the House is not sitting, and the Committee had to inquire into that Question. The Committee was appointed in that instance whether there was a breach of Privilege or not. I humbly submit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury, as he is the only man in this House who has spoken in this debate and denied that there has been a breach of Privilege, that in deference to the precedent of Lord Cochrane's case—and as the Government have not denied that there has been a breach of Privilege, and as high legal authorities in the House have asserted that there has been a breach of Privilege—I submit to my right hon. and learned Friend that he ought to allow this case to go before the Committee of Privileges. I put it to him—however confident he may be in his opinion that there was no breach of Privilege here—that he must show us why there was no breach of Privilege when an illegal act was done against a Member of this House within a sphere recognized as coming within the range of Parliamentary duty; and if in the case of Lord Cochrane, when there was not only a criminal process, but there was nothing except the bare and shadowy notion that the benches and cushions and walls of the House might by some spell impart a Privilege at a time when the House was not in living practical existence, the matter was yet referred to a Committee of Privilege in order to ascertain if there had been a breach of Privilege committed, surely in this instance the case should be so dealt with. Therefore I contend that there are two grounds on which that course should be followed. Those who think with my right hon. and learned Friend that there was no breach of Privilege in this instance, may yet, in deference to the general opinion, admit that there 289 is in the case fair matter for inquiry. There is also the ground of those who think that an incident has occurred which may lead to very inconvenient consequences. I should be the last person who would wish to press unduly on any member of a Force to which, in my opinion, the Metropolitan community is under the deepest obligations. But I must say it was a very careless proceeding, and not merely a purely innocent error. The officer proceeded without his warrant, and he proceeded in circumstances where his statement of the case which he has given to the Government is diametrically in contradiction on a most material point with the statement of the hon. Member. In these circumstances, I do not myself understand why there should be any sentiment on one side of the House or the other involving the advocacy of extreme doctrines, or the advocacy of any doctrine whatever, to lead to excitement. It is, it seems to me, a matter of plain prudence, in which we ought to proceed as men of business, not willing to extend our Privileges beyond just bounds, and at the same time believing that, they rest upon a just and broad foundation—upon a foundation of public necessity and public interest. Therefore, we ought to ascertain—supposing it is a breach of Privilege which has been committed, and supposing the Committee find that it has been committed, or whatever view the Committee may take of it—whether it is not desirable, after some careful consideration, to see that the recurrence of similar incidents may be avoided. We are not in a position to move an Amendment, because the original Motion has been made, and the hon. and learned Attorney General has moved an Amendment; but we are in a position—if the hon. and learned Attorney General should find it necessary to persevere without seeking any accommodation in the matter, and if his Amendment is carried—to move as an Amendment this proposition—
That the circumstances attending the arrest of the hon. Member for North Monaghan be referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House to consider whether any or what action shall he taken thereupon and what measures shall be adopted to prevent such occurrences in future.It will be admitted that they are grave and inconvenient occurrences leading to 290 debate in this House, and making it a matter of propriety and prudence, as men of business, that we should endeavour to obviate all risk of similar inconveniences.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)Although the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has just read are not, of course, formally before the House, they contain a suggestion which I have to say at once the Government cannot accept. It is a suggestion which I may be allowed to point out does not touch the Question before the House to-night. Those words do not say that there has been any breach of Privilege committed at all, and they actually amount to a reference to the Committee of Privileges to provide the means of doing that which it is absolutely impossible can ever be done—namely, if a warrant is issued against one person you are to secure the whole police from making any mistakes in arresting another. It is very inconvenient that there should be warrants out against Members of Parliament at all. It is still more inconvenient that those Members should take a course and adopt expedients which render it probable that mistakes of this kind should arise. But under any arrangement, in any circumstances, such mistakes are possible. The Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons could do nothing whatever to prevent their recurrence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said that he did not propose to widen the field of debate, and that he would discuss the matter in a calm and businesslike way. Indeed, he gave an effectual rebuke to the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who had turned on the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) the moment he sat down, and attacked him with great violence, declaring that no one in the House had ventured to endorse the proposition that there was not a breach of Privilege. The right hon. Gentleman never gave the House or any Member of it the opportunity of endorsing the propositions of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. If he had been good enough to wait until someone on the Government Bench had had the opportunity of speaking, he would have 291 found there were plenty ready to endorse the propositions of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThat was not what I said. I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated exactly the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that there was a question of Privilege, and that nobody could doubt it.
§ SIR EDWARD CLARKEMy hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) said that in his judgment no breach of Privilege had been committed, and I say so now. With all respect to the right hon. Member for Derby, and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, they seem to me to have missed the point and the meaning of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. He said there is no privilege for Members of this House in criminal cases anywhere; but out of respect for the authority of the Chair and the order of proceedings of this House, no arrest can take place within the walls of this Chamber while the House is sitting. There would be no need for it, for the officers of the law could wait at the doors of the House and make the arrest as the Member concerned was leaving it. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby agrees with me. Therefore, I submit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury was perfectly accurate in saying that in criminal cases there is no question of Privilege at all. If he had been a private person walking through Parliament Street, and had been mistaken for the hon, Member against whom the warrant had been issued, there would have been just as much and just as little right to invoke the Privilege of Parliament as there is in the present case. The Privilege of Parliament is a special and peculiar immunity from process on the part of the Members of this House. That immunity does not exist when a criminal process has been issued and a warrant is in existence. That being so, and inasmuch as this was a warrant issued in a criminal case, and the arrest was made by mistake on a criminal charge, I hold with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for 292 Bury that there cannot be a question of Privilege in it. What is the question to be referred to the Committee of Privileges? There is no dispute as to the facts. The hon. Member who began the debate (Mr. Picton) said there had been a mistake on the part of the police. That mistake was apologized for at once, and since then in a more formal manner. What is there to ask the Committee of Privileges about. It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that that which would be ground for an action for false imprisonment in the case of a private person is ground for invoking the Privilege of Parliament in the case of a Member. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman will not find in any book of authority the smallest shadow of foundation for such a distinction as that. These matters are within the knowledge of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman said that on the main point there was controversy. With all submission I think that is not so. The hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) told us himself the incidents of his own arrest, and he said that he was spoken to in a low voice. It may be that he did not hear the name which was suggested to him by the officer who spoke to him. There is no other matter in controversy at all, and nothing on which the Committee of Privileges can pronounce. I support the Amendment which the hon. and learned Attorney General has moved. I hope the House, having heard now the statement of the hon. Member principally concerned—seeing that he has no desire to press the House to take penal measures against the person who made the mistake—will consent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General and pass to the discussion of other Business.
MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has suggested that when an arrest is made the warrant must be in the hand or pocket of the officer making it. That view is quite contrary to all practice. The rule is that the warrant must be in the possession or under the control of the person making the arrest. That is exactly what occurred here. The officer had the warrant under his control, though not in his possession, for he was able to send another officer 293 for it. As to the main question, if the right man had been arrested there would have been no broach of Privilege, for the arrest was on a criminal charge. Inasmuch, however, as the arrest was made bonâ fide by the officer, who believed the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) to be a certain person, and it is conceded by both sides that a mistake had been made, the arrest, which would otherwise have been a breach of Privilege, loses that character, and I cannot refrain from asking whether there is really any question that the House can possibly consider?
§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)I think, Sir, if this had been a question of the arrest, even by mistake, of an English Member, hon. Members opposite would have been in less haste to deny that it was a breach of Privilege. I wonder why it was necessary for the Government Front Bench to wait till it had been fortified by the legal opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) before it came to the conclusion that there had been no breach of Privilege. This is certainly a case in which an hon. Member has not been arrested on a criminal charge. No one pretends that there was any criminal charge against the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), who was arrested, unless they accept the principle, "once a criminal always a criminal," and that the quality which has been attached to my hon. Friend by the judgments of the removable magistrates in Ireland will continue to attach to him during the rest of his natural life. I cannot see how it can for a single moment be suggested that there is any question of proceedings or arrest in any criminal matter or cause. I complain of the arrest, and of the manner of the arrest, and the proceedings of the Government in reference to it. I say, at the commencement, that if it had been an English Member who had been arrested, not only would the question have been treated as one of breach of Privilege, but the Government would have taken care, and the Detective Department would have taken care, to send a member of the Force who at least knew the hon. Member who was to be arrested. It is because there is an opinion abroad that Irish Members are to be treated like vermin that the Government would not take the trouble 294 to see that the Irish Member to be arrested is the right man. How do you effect these arrests? You effect them as if you were arresting some common street rowdy. I am complaining of the method of the arrest of my hon. Friend—a method which may be extended to any of us. The arrest of my hon. Friend was forcibly carried out, and my hon. Friend was taken to the police station as if he were a common thief. My hon. Friend, immediately he got his foot outside this building, was pounced upon when he was outside the precincts of Westminster, and he was dragged through the streets like a thief, without the police knowing or caring whether they were taking the right man into custody. Sir, I protest against this, and also against another matter which has been disclosed in the circumstances connected with the arrest of my hon. Friend. Sir, it used to be the custom, before the Speaker was provided with a residence here, for hon. Members, on the call of "Who goes home?" to accompany the Speaker, in order to protect him from thieves and robbers; but now it appears that hon. Members have to obtain protection from the detectives who are waiting ready to pounce upon them immediately they set their feet outside the gates of Palace Yard, without even knowing whether they may not be arresting the wrong man. I also protest against another practice which the Government are initiating, and which has been disclosed by the circumstances connected with the arrest of my hon. Friend. I do not blame the police in the matter—I do not blame the detectives. They are only imitating the spirit of their masters. If the Irish detectives who carried off one of my hon. Friends to Ireland the other day had not known of this spirit they would not have refused him all opportunity for obtaining refreshment on his long journey from London to Waterford, and have dragged him before the magistrates faint with hunger. I draw a great distinction between the conduct of the English police and that of the Irish detectives. I do not attach any blame either in regard to discourtesy or misconduct to the English police. All I say is that there is a marked difference between their conduct and that of the Irish detectives. What has just been disclosed as to the new departure of the 295 Government in reference to these arrests? We all know that at the commencement of every Session a Resolution is passed by this House directing the officers of the London police to make provision for securing the free egress of hon. Members; and I am sure that hon. Members will join me in testifying to the ample courtesy which constables stationed both inside and outside of this House have always extended to hon. Members in reference to that part of their duty. They are a special class of men chosen for that purpose; and it is with much pleasure that we see the same faces year after year, both at the entrances to the House and in the Lobbies. But, I would ask, what is the duty that has now been imposed upon those men by the Government? It is that of spying about the House. They cannot avoid doing what they are ordered to do; and in pursuance of the new practice initiated by the Government they have to spy after hon. Members, and to give information to the detectives at the gates with regard to those against whom there may be warrants. Sir, I protest against this. I believe that if the opinions of those officers were known, they would support my protest against such foreign duties being thrust upon them. I may remind the House of the case of one of its hon. Members who was pushed back from the steps leading to the passage beneath the Clock Tower at Westminster Bridge by an officer in uniform who had been placed there for the purpose of facilitating the ingress and egress of hon. Members. I say that it is the duty of the Government, when English or Irish Members have to be arrested, to send some person to execute the warrants who is able to identify the Members in question. Is it too much to ask of Her Majesty's Government that hon. Members shall be allowed to leave the House without being pounced upon by the detectives in plain clothes and dragged off to Scotland Yard? Some men are naturally of a nervous disposition, and the shock of such an arrest might kill them, while others of a hasty disposition might be tempted in the heat of the moment to commit acts of violence. Since Irish Members are likely to be arrested in large numbers, and since the place chosen for their arrest is of all others at the gates of Westminster 296 Palace, let them be arrested by those who know them. Do not call upon the constables here to spy about and assist the detectives in the discharge of their duty. I think I have said enough to show to the House that there is a question of breach of Privilege involved in this matter, if there be any Privilege whatever accorded to a Member of this House to come to it or go away from it without molestation. It is true that if there be a criminal warrant out against an hon. Member and he is arrested under it, he can claim no Privilege; but there was no such warrant against my bon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan, for the warrant was against another hon. Member, and therefore, in his case, there clearly has been a breach of Privilege. This question should be looked at as one concerning the whole House, and not merely as affecting Irish Members. The practice adopted lately by the Government is a most inconvenient one, and is likely to give rise to similar occurrences, and as Members of this House I submit that we ought to be free to go and come without molestation by Irish detectives. I am surprised at the line that Her Majesty's Government have taken in reference to this matter, and I hope that even at the eleventh hour they will see the propriety of referring the question to a Select Committee, and of agreeing to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). They never ventured to deny that there was a question of Privilege involved until they were fortified by the opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and now they think that they are wiser than you, Sir, who have permitted this discussion to take place as a matter of Privilege. If there is no question of Privilege involved, why are we discussing this question at the present moment? We could not have gone on with this discussion in the position in which we are unless a question of Privilege had been involved. We have now the Front Bench asserting—in opposition to the Speaker—that there is no question of Privilege involved. It is quite possible that the House might not have decided to take action against any particular person in reference to this question of Privilege; but in consequence of the Front Bench opposite denying, in opposition to the ruling of 297 the Speaker, that there is any question of Privilege involved, a much graver issue has been raised. I think that, at all events, the Government might have consented to the matter being referred, if not to the Committee for Privileges, to a small Committee to inquire into the circumstances.
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)I rise, not for the purpose of protracting the debate, because I think it has been made abundantly clear that a breach of Privilege has been committed in the arrest of the hon. member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien). That the breach of Privilege was committed inadvertently and unintentionally is not less clear. The real question to be considered is what course the House ought to take, and I submit that the proper course is that this question should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, before whom the whole circumstances of the case could be laid, and who would report what course the House ought to take. At any rate, that Committee would be able to point out whether the Privileges of this House have been rashly violated. This course is not without precedent. The case of Lord Cochrane was substantially like the present. Lord Cochrane had been arrested in his place as a Privy Councillor, but at a time when the House was not sitting, and it was plain that no breach of Privilege had been committed; it was also plain, as the Speaker ruled on that occasion, that the offence—if an offence had been committed—was not likely to be repeated. Lord Castlereagh, at that time the Leader of the Tory Party—a Leader whom the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of that Party in the House may be expected to regard as worthy of some admiration—however, said that if any Gentleman entertained a doubt upon the subject, and if any hon. Member conceived that the Privileges of the House had been violated, it was only proper that the circumstances should be fully inquired into, and an adequate investigation made. Mr. Tierney, who was Leader of the Opposition on that occasion, approved of that proposition; and Mr. Speaker Abbott—your Predecessor, Sir, in that Chair—gave an important ruling upon the matter which, I think, meets the objection of the Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker said that, in his opinion, it was quite clear that Lord Cochrane 298 had been returned to Parliament, and that he had come down to the House in order to go through the necessary form for taking his seat, and that, whatever might be the form of the inquiry, it should be directed to ascertain whether a breach of the Privileges of Parliament had been committed or not. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House will see fit on the present occasion to follow the course which was adopted by his Predecessor in the case of Lord Cochrane.
§ THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)As the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) has thought fit to appeal to me. I will at once respond. There is no parallel between the case of Lord Cochrane and that of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Patrick O'Brien). In the case of the hon. Member a mistake was made by a police officer in arresting him, and for that mistake an apology has since been made by the officer who committed it and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this House. Nothing more could be extracted even by the operations of the Committee of Privileges. But then, Sir, it is contended that an inquiry should take place by the Committee of Privileges in order that mistakes may never be committed in future. It is admitted on ail hands that no Member has any Privilege as regards criminal process; while it is also admitted that he is privileged as regards civil process. There is, therefore, no question in dispute, and the matter comes to this—whether there is to be an inquiry as to an accident which has been amply apologized for, with a view of steps being taken to prevent its repetition. To take a wider interpretation of the hon. Member for Cork's (Mr. Parnell's) words, we are to inquire how hon. Gentlemen are to be relieved from the presence of officers in this House—
§ MR. PARNELLI did not say anything of the kind.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI am the last person to wish to attribute to the hon. Member anything contrary to what he said. I wish to give a correct and moderate interpretation of the hon. Member's language. He complained that the Government called upon the officers of police in this House to do a duty from which they themselves, at least, would 299 desire to be relieved. On the part of the Government I repudiate any charge of that kind.
§ MR. PARNELLDo you deny the facts?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHwe impose no duty whatever upon the police of this House. The police are discharging' their duty in the protection of Members of this House, and in the protection of this House itself against the designs of persona who might expose Members of this House and the House itself to serious danger.
§ MR. PARNELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny that the police officers in the House of Commons were directed by their superior officers to report when certain Members of this House, who were afterwards arrested, were going to leave the House?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI say that the Government have imposed no such duties whatever on the police. The facts of the case are these. Warrants are in the hands of the police. The police act upon them, and it is their duty to give effect to them, and they never apply to the Government for directions as to the means by which they are to carry out and discharge their duties. The Government have no knowledge whatever of the modes and methods adopted by the police in discharge of their duty.
§ MR. PARNELLThe Commissioners of Police have.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI know nothing whatever of the Commissioners of Police, of what instructions they give.
§ An hon. MEMBER: The Home Secretary does.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI say that the main duty of the police in attendance in this House is to see to the safety and protection of Members of the House under circumstances fully requiring such protection. The question has travelled widely from the original Resolution I moved by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). That hon. Member moved a Resolution which it was simply impossible for the Government to accept. An indignity has been offered to the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), which we deeply regret. We have apologized for that indignity, and we say that, the facts having been fully stated and admitted, there really does not remain any question which could be considered by the Committee of Privileges. We must, therefore, ask 300 the House to accept the Amendment of the Attorney General.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)I rise as a private Member of the House to refer to the question from a private Member's point of view. The matter is not one which solely affects the hon. Gentleman who has suffered the indignity referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has sought to establish a distinction between the Government of the day and the police employed in this House, and has declined to accept any responsibility for the action of the police. If it be the case that the Government have no responsibility for the action of the police, I want to know why the Government have taken upon themselves the duty of coming down here and making an apology to a private Member? Surely it is no more difficult for the Government to make an apology to a private Member than it is to make an apology to any other section of the House. Therefore, they cannot but feel that responsibility rests upon them in some measure for the action of the police. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary undertake to say that he had no knowledge of the instructions given to the police in reference to the arrest of individual Members of this House? We want an assurance on that subject. We have all gloried in the traditions of this House, and we know the way in which the Privileges of the House have been regarded in the past. We believe that an inquiry is necessary, because we think it ought to be placed on record now that we are equally jealous of those Privileges in regard to the humblest Member of the House. I confess that it is a poor consolation to any hon. Member who has suffered an indignity to be told that it has been inflicted upon him simply because of a mistake of the police. I think it devolves upon the Government to clear the police of this matter; and, so far from believing that there is no case for inquiry by the Committee of Privileges, I concede that it is the bounden duty of the House to institute an inquiry into the matter. An apology has been made, first, by the superior officer of the police, and, secondly, by the Home Secretary; but that does not satisfy us that there might not be the same motives at work by which some 301 further indignity might be offered to a Member of this House. I think it ought to be enough for the House to know that an indignity has been perpetrated, and, having charge of the dignity of Parliament, it ought at once to assent to the Motion that the Committee of Privileges ought to inquire into the matter in order that it may be cleared up. The mere fact that we have roaming about the Metropolis and the neighbourhood of this House such odious creatures, in my eyes, as detectives constitutes a reason wiry the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, in order to prevent such an event as this from occurring in future. At any rate, we ought to make a protest against this, if we are at all jealous of the ancient Privileges of Parliament.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)Before you put the Question, Sir, I venture to suggest to my hon. Friends above and below the Gangway that the best course to attain the object we have in view would be to allow the Amendment of the Attorney General to become the Main Question, and we should then be able to divide on an Amendment to that Motion.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
Question proposed,
That the words 'this House regrets an indignity should have been offered to the honourable Member for North Monaghan, but, considering it to have been a mistake on the part of the Police Officer, does not think it necessary to proceed further with the matter ' be there added.
§ Amendment proposed to the said Amendment,
§ To leave out all the words after the word "but" to the end of the Amendment, in order to add the words "the circumstances attending his arrest be referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House, to consider whether any or what action should be taken thereupon, and what measures should be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future."—(Mr. John Morley.)
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 151: Majority 95.
305| AYES. | |
| Ainslie, W. G. | Ashmead-Bartlett, E. |
| Aird, J. | Baird, J. G. A. |
| Amherst, W. A. T. | Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Banes, Major G. E. |
| Barnes, A. | Dugdale, J. S. |
| Barry, A. H. Smith- | Duncan, Colonel F. |
| Bartley, G. C. T. | Duncombe, A. |
| Barttelot, Sir W. B. | Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H. |
| Bates, Sir E. | |
| Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks- | Ebrington, Viscount |
| Elcho, Lord | |
| Beadel, W. J. | Ellis, Sir J. W. |
| Beaumont, H. F. | Elton, C. I. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. C. | Ewart, W. |
| Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. | Ewing, Sir A. O. |
| Bentinck, W. G. C. | Eyre, Colonel H. |
| Beresford, Lord G. W. De la Poer | Farquharson, H. R. |
| Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J. | |
| Bethell, Commander G. R. | Fergusson, right hon. Sir J. |
| Bickford-Smith, W. | |
| Biddulph, M. | Field, Admiral E. |
| Bigwood, J. | Fielden, T. |
| Birkbeck, Sir E. | Finch, G. H. |
| Blundell, Colonel H. B. H. | Fisher, W. H. |
| Fitzgerald, R. U. P. | |
| Bolitho, T. B. | Fletcher, Sir H. |
| Bond, G. H. | Folkestone, right hon. Viscount |
| Bonsor, H. C. O. | |
| Boord, T. W. | Forwood, A. B. |
| Borthwick, Sir A. | Fulton, J. F. |
| Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C. | Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E. |
| Bristowe, T. L. | Gent-Davis, R. |
| Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. | Giles, A. |
| Gilliat, J. S. | |
| Brookfield, A. M. | Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T. |
| Brown, A. H. | |
| Bruce, Lord H. | Gorst, Sir J. E. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B. | Goschen, rt. hn. G. J. |
| Gray, C. W. | |
| Burghley, Lord | Green, Sir E. |
| Caine, W. S. | Grimston, Viscount |
| Caldwell, J. | Gunter, Colonel R. |
| Campbell, J. A. | Gurdon, R. T. |
| Carmarthen, Marq. of | Hall, C. |
| Cavendish, Lord E. | Halsey, T. F. |
| Chaplin, right hon. H. | Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F. |
| Charrington, S. | |
| Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S. | Hamilton, Lord E. |
| Hamilton, Col. C. E. | |
| Clarke, Sir E. G. | Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B. |
| Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N. | |
| Hanbury, R. W. | |
| Coddington, W. | Hankey, F. A. |
| Coghill, D. H. | Hartington, Marq. of |
| Colomb, Capt. J. C. R. | Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M. |
| Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E. | |
| Heath, A. R. | |
| Compton, F. | Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards- |
| Corbett, J. | |
| Corry, Sir J. P. | Herbert, hon. S. |
| Cotton, Capt. E. T. D. | Hermon-Hodge, R. T. |
| Cubitt, right hon. G. | Hervey, Lord F. |
| Curzon, Viscount | Hill, right hon. Lord A. W. |
| Dalrymple, Sir C. | |
| Davenport, H. T. | Hill, A. S. |
| Davenport, W. B. | Hoare, S. |
| Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P. | Hobhouse, H. |
| Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T. | |
| De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P. | |
| Holloway, G. | |
| Dimsdale, Baron R. | Houldsworth, Sir W. H. |
| Dixon, G. | Howard, J. |
| Dixon-Hartland, F. D. | Howorth, H. H. |
| Donkin, R. S. | Hozier, J. H. C. |
| Dorington, Sir J. E. | Hughes, Colonel E. |
| Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C. | Norris, E. S. |
| Northcote, hon. H. S. | |
| Hunter, Sir W. G. | Norton, R. |
| Isaacson, F. W. | O'Neill, hon. R. T. |
| Jackson, W. L. | Parker, hon. F. |
| James, rt. hon. Sir H. | Pearce, Sir W. |
| Jardine, Sir E. | Pelly, Sir L. |
| Jarvis, A. W. | Penton, Captain F. T. |
| Jeffreys, A. F. | Plunket, right hon. D. R. |
| Jennings, L. J. | |
| Johnston, W. | Pomfret, W. P. |
| Kelly, J. R. | Powell, F. S. |
| Kennaway, Sir J. H. | Puleston, Sir J. H. |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. | Raikes, rt. hon. H. C. |
| Reed, H. B. | |
| Kerans, F. H. | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Kimber, H. | Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T. |
| King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R. | Robertson, Sir W. T. |
| Robertson, J. P. B. | |
| Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T. | Rothschild, Baron F. J. de |
| Knowles, L. | Round, J. |
| Kynoch, G. | Russell, Sir G. |
| Lafone, A. | Russell, T. W. |
| Laurie, Colonel R. P. | Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M. |
| Lawrance, J. C. | |
| Lawrence, Sir J. J. T. | Sellar, A. C. |
| Lawrence, W. F. | Selwin-Ibbetson, right hon. Sir H. J. |
| Lea, T. | |
| Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. | Seton-Karr, H. |
| Legh, T. W. | Sidebotham, J. W. |
| Lewisham, right hon. Viscount | Smith, right hon. W. H. |
| Llewellyn, E. H. | Smith, A. |
| Long, W. H. | Stanhope, rt. hon. E. |
| Low, M. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Lowther, hon. W. | Stewart, M. J. |
| Lowther, J. W. | Stokes, G. G. |
| Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A. | Sutherland, T. |
| Swetenham, E. | |
| Mackintosh, C. F. | Talbot, J. G. |
| Maclean, F. W. | Taylor, F. |
| Maclean, J. M. | Temple, Sir R. |
| Maclure, J. W. | Thorburn, W. |
| M'Calmont, Captain J. | Tollemache, H. J. |
| Madden, D. H. | Tomlinson, W. E. M. |
| Malcolm, Col. J. W. | Tyler, Sir H. W. |
| Manners, right hon. Lord J. J. R. | Vincent, C. E. H. |
| Walsh, hon. A. H. J. | |
| Maple, J. B. | Webster, Sir R. E. |
| Marriott, right hon. W. T. | Webster, R. G. |
| Weymouth, Viscount | |
| Matthews, rt. hon. H. | Whitley, E. |
| Mattinson, M. W. | Whitmore, C. A. |
| Maxwell, Sir H. E. | Wilson, Sir S. |
| Mayne, Admiral R. C. | Wodehouse, E. R. |
| Mildmay, F. B. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Mills, hon. C. W. | Wood, N. |
| More, R. J. | Wortley, C. B. Stuart- |
| Morrison, W. | Wright, H. S. |
| Moss, R. | Wroughton, P. |
| Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R. | Yerburgh, R. A. |
| Young, C. E. B. | |
| Mowbray, R. G. C. | |
| Muntz, P. A. | TELLERS. |
| Murdoch, C. T. | Douglas, A. Akers- |
| Noble, W. | Walrond, Col. W. H. |
| NOES. | |
| Acland, A. H. D. | Balfour, rt. hon. J. B. |
| Anderson, C. H. | Balfour, Sir G. |
| Asher, A. | Barry, J. |
| Asquith, H. H. | Beaumont, W. B. |
| Biggar, J. G. | M'Carthy, J. H. |
| Blane, A. | M'Donald, P. |
| Bolton, J. C. | M'Ewan, W. |
| Bradlaugh, C. | M'Lagan, P. |
| Bright, Jacob | M'Laren, W. S. B. |
| Bright, W. L. | Mappin, Sir F. T. |
| Broadhurst, H. | Marum, E. M. |
| Bruce, hon. R. P. | Mayne, T. |
| Brunner, J. T. | Menzies, R. S. |
| Bryce, J. | Montagu, S. |
| Burt, T. | Morgan, rt. hon. G. O. |
| Byrne, G. M. | Morgan, O. V. |
| Cameron, J. M. | Morley, rt. hon. J. |
| Campbell, H. | Mundella, right hon. A. J. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H. | |
| Murphy, W. M. | |
| Carew, J. L. | Newnes, G. |
| Cavan, Earl of | Nolan, Colonel J. P. |
| Channing, F. A. | Nolan, J. |
| Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E. | O'Brien, J. F. X. |
| O'Brien, P. J. | |
| Clancy, J. J. | O'Connor, A. |
| Cobb, H. P. | O'Connor, J. |
| Commins, A. | O'Hanlon, T. |
| Corbet, W. J. | O'Hea, P. |
| Craven, J. | O'Kelly, J. |
| Crawford, D. | Parker, C. S. |
| Cremer, W. R. | Parnell, C. S. |
| Crilly, D. | Paulton, J. M. |
| Crossley, E. | Pickersgill, E. H. |
| Dillwyn, L. L. | Picton, J. A. |
| Ellis, J. E. | Pinkerton, J. |
| Ellis, T. E. | Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L. |
| Evelyn, W. J. | |
| Farquharson, Dr. R. | Plowden, Sir W. C. |
| Finucane, J. | Portman, hon. E. B. |
| Flynn, J. C. | Price, T. P. |
| Forster, Sir C. | Priestley, B. |
| Fowler, rt. hon. H. H. | Provand, A. D. |
| Fox, Dr. J. F. | Quinn, T. |
| Fuller, G. P. | Rathbone, W. |
| Gardner, H. | Reid, R. T. |
| Gill, T. P. | Rendel, S. |
| Gladstone, right hon. W. E. | Richard, H. |
| Roberts, J. B. | |
| Gladstone, H. J. | Robertson, E. |
| Gourley, E. T. | Robinson, T. |
| Haldane, R. B. | Roscoe, Sir H. E. |
| Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A. | Rowntree, J. |
| Russell, Sir C. | |
| Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V. | Samuelson, Sir B. |
| Samuelson, G. B. | |
| Harris, M. | Schwann, C. E. |
| Hayden, L. P. | Sheehan, J. D. |
| Hayne, C. Seale- | Sheil, E. |
| Howell, G. | Slagg, J. |
| Hoyle, I. | Smith, S. |
| Hunter, W. A. | Spencer, hon. C. R. |
| Illingworth, A. | Stack, J. |
| Jacoby, J. A. | Stanhope, hon. P. J. |
| Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J. | Stansfeld, right hon. J. |
| Kenny, C. S. | Stevenson, F. S. |
| Kilbride, D. | Stewart, H. |
| Lalor, R. | Sullivan, D. |
| Lawson, Sir W. | Summers, W. |
| Lawson, H. L. W. | Sutherland, A. |
| Leake, R. | Thomas, A. |
| Lewis, T. P. | Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O. |
| Macdonald, W. A. | |
| MacInnes, M, | Tuite, J. |
| M'Arthur, A. | Warmington, C. M. |
| M'Cartan, M. | Watt, H. |
| Wayman, T. | Wright, C. |
| Will, J. S. | |
| Williams, A. J. | TELLERS. |
| Williamson, S. | Flower, C. |
| Wilson, H. J. | Morley, A. |
| Woodall, W. |
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Resolved, That this House regrets that an indignity should have been offered to the honourable Member for North Monaghan, but, considering it to have been a mistake on the part of the Police Officer, does not think it necessary to proceed further with the matter.