Commons Sitting of 1 March 1888

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Charles John Darling, esquire, Q.C., for Deptford.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1887–8); CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Vote 7; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Vote 5; CLASS VII. —MISCELLANEOUS, Votes 1 and 2.
PUBLIC BILL — Ordered — First Reading— Trawling (Scotland)* [155].

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL AND IMPERIAL FINANCE—INCIDENCE OF IMPERIAL TAXATION.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the proposals referred to in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, "for adjusting the relations between Local and Imperial finance," and in order to assist the House in arriving at a just conclusion as to the relative incidence of Imperial taxation on real and personal property, he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House a continuation of the Return (varied so as to exhibit the current rate of Income Tax) of "Imperial Taxation exclusively borne by Real and by Realised Personal Property respectively," presented by the Treasury in August, 1885, and in the concluding paragraph of which it is stated that—
  "It is quite certain that the figures which have been adopted for the purposes of this Return must approximate very closely to the truth?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am afraid I cannot
  1816
  agree with the hon. Baronet in thinking that it would assist the House in arriving at a just conclusion as to the relative incidence of Imperial taxation on real and personal property if I were to grant a continuation of the Return in question. The words he quotes from the end of the Memorandum annexed to the Return of 1885 as to the trustworthiness of the figures applied only, I am informed, to the figures relating to the Death Duties, and not, as the hon. Baronet appears to think, to the Return generally. I have studied the Return with some care, and I have consulted its compilers as to its value. They tell me that even in the less conjectural parts there was much division of opinion among them, and they had considerable difficulty in coming to any agreement; and I need not remind the hon. Baronet of the severe criticisms passed upon it at the time. To me, the figures given in the Return are very interesting, though I cannot help recognizing their conjectural and speculative character; but I think that Tables in which this conjectural element enters so largely should be published rather by private statisticians than on the authority of the Government—an authority which is apt to be misunderstood.

  POST OFFICE, DUBLIN (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—MISS M. A. GOUGH.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that Miss Mary Agnes Gough, a clerk who was employed for over 14 years in the Telegraph Department of the General Post Office, Dublin, was called upon by the Head of the Dublin Department to resign her position in October, 1886, and was reluctantly obliged to leave her employment without pension for having married some short time previously, no other complaint having ever been made against her; whether it is a Rule in the Postal Service to discharge ladies after such long terms of service as 14 years, and against whom no complaint can be advanced, except getting married, without pension; whether he can say if there are any ladies, late clerks in the Dublin Postal or Telegraph Departments, now in receipt of pensions, who, like Miss Gough, retired in consequence of having married; and, if so, why was Miss Gough differently treated; and, whe-

  1817
  ther, taking into consideration the fact that the health of this lady has been undermined by her long and faithful labours in the Public Service, he will consider her case, with a view to allowing her a pension?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is a Rule of the Post Office that any single woman holding an appointment on the Establishment must resign on marriage. In October, 1886, there being reason to believe that Miss Gough had married, she was asked to state whether this was so or not, and, on denying the fact, she was requested to put her denial in writing. Her reply was to send in her resignation. I regret that it will not be possible to grant Miss Gough a pension. If other ladies, formerly holding situations similar to hers, are now married and yet in receipt of pensions, these pensions must have been granted before marriage and under medical certificate as prescribed by Statute. Miss Gough, on the other hand, according to the certificate of the medical officer, who was intimately acquainted with her case, was before her marriage in good health.

  THE ANTHROPOMETRICAL SYSTEM.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any decision has been arrived at as to the use and advantage of the anthropometrical system in this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Careful inquiry has been made into this subject, and Reports have been obtained from the French Government showing the working of the system in France. I have consulted the Prison and Police Authorities in this country; and they are of opinion that, under the present system, the proportion of prisoners who are not recognized is so small that the necessity for any change is not by any means established. The proportion is estimated at 2½ per cent. I am still continuing my inquiries into the matter. Legislation would probably be necessary to carry any change into effect.

  POST OFFICE — ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, When will the Anglo-Australian Mail
  1818
  Contract be submitted for the approval of the House?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Three of the Australian Colonies being practically parties to the new Mail Contracts, and having agreed as such to contribute their share of the subsidy, it has been considered proper, before submitting the Contracts to Parliament for approval, to obtain from the Colonies in question a formal confirmation of the Agreement in this connection made on their behalf by their Agents General in London. When that confirmation has been given, the usual course will be taken in laying the Contracts before Parliament.

  BRITISH GUIANA — ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS.
  MR. CROSSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Wether the Ordinance (No. 5, of 1887) passed by the Court of Policy of British Guiana for the establishment of a town at Bartica, has been approved by the Crown without any modification of the provision for the payment to the Bishop of Guiana absolutely of one-third of the sums received for the lands formerly held by the Bishop at the pleasure of the Crown; whether, in that case, the grant has been converted into a permanent endowment of the Bishopric, contrary to the wishes of the unendowed Religious Bodies in the Colony; and, whether he will lay before Parliament Papers containing the objections of such Bodies, and the grounds on which the Crown has been advised to confirm the Ordinance without alteration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Ordinance has been allowed without any modification of the provision referred to. One Religious Body—the Congregational Union of British Guiana—petitioned the Colonial Legislature against the provision alluded to, on the ground that it would increase the endowment of the Church of England; but the Legislature considered that the Bishop, as representing the Church, had a vested interest in the land at Bartica, which had been held, first by the Church Missionary Society and afterwards by the Bishop, for a long period, and upon the

  1819
  improvement of which large sums of money had been expended; and they are of opinion that the provision made by the Ordinance was an equitable compensation on the resumption of the land for the purpose of forming a town. The Secretary of State saw no reason for differing from this view. There are very few Papers on the subject, and it scarcely seems one of sufficient public interest to warrant the expenditure that would be incurred in printing them; but if the hon. Member wishes to see them I shall have much pleasure in showing them to him.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND THE PADDINGTON TRUSTEES—SALE OF LAND.
  MR. AIRDasked the right hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (West or Epping Division), as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, Whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, being interested to the extent of one-third of nearly 100 acres of land in Paddington now unutilized, the Trustees of the Paddington Estate being interested as owners of the remaining two-thirds, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners decline to concur in any sale or lease thereof unless they receive the equivalent of one-half of the proceeds; and, whether there is any objection to their joining in a special case for the opinion of the High Court of Justice, with a view to the determination of the respective rights of the parties?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: The Question is in a form which is misleading as to the extent of the interest which the Commissioners have in the land referred to. That interest comprises a dormant value, not limited, as implied, to one-third of its proceeds. What would be an equitable apportionment of that dormant value is, according to the 3rd section of the Act of 1875, a matter for voluntary agreement; and the Commissioners have on several occasions offered, and are still willing, to refer this question to arbitration, suggesting as arbitrators the Earl of Selborne, Lord Herschell, or Lord Bramwell. Last year the Commissioners, when there was a prospect of a sale of the property, were prepared to concur in the sale on certain conditions stated by me in this House on
  1820
  March 15; and should any such sale be in contemplation now they would adhere to that offer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF JOHN AULD, A BANKRUPT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Auld, a bankrupt in Aberdeen, who was sent to prison on the 4th November last for contempt of Court, and has been kept there ever since; whether the said contempt consisted in the debtor's having, after having sworn that he had disclosed everything in his power with regard to his effects, alleged that he could not tell what he had done with one particular sum of money which he had received a year before; whether it is true that the Court of Session has decided that the Sheriff acted within his powers in committing Auld for contempt, and that the Sheriff has declared that it is not competent for him to consider whether Auld has been sufficiently punished by any amount of imprisonment, but that he should be "stultifying past decisions" were he to release Auld without any appreciable change in his position; and, whether, seeing that if the bankrupt's inability to answer the question is genuine he may be imprisoned for life unless the Crown interferes, he will order Auld's release and have him tried, if the facts seem to warrant prosecution, for perjury or fraudulent bankruptcy?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): My attention has been called to this case. The bankrupt uplifted about £170 from the bank, and professed to account for the disappearance of a large part of this sum—some £60—by pretending it had been stolen by someone who broke open a locked drawer in his house. Of this alleged theft he never informed the police. He further gave no explanation of what he had done with the other sums of £50, £10, £10, and £20, admittedly in his possession. After repeated warnings by the Sheriff he was committed to prison. The statement in the Question regarding the Court of Session's decision is correct. The Sheriff stated, when the case came before him again, that it was not competent for him to liberate the bankrupt unless he complied with the order for

  1821
  disobedience to which he was committed, and used the words quoted in the Question. It is not in my power to order the release of the prisoner, nor do I intend at present to raise a prosecution. I must point out to my hon. Friend that there may be quite sufficient ground for confining a bankrupt who withholds information which by Statute he is bound to disclose, while there may be no sufficient evidence in a criminal prosecution in which the accused is entitled to withhold all information.
  DR. CAMERONasked, why the man had been detained without any evidence?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The man is detained for refusing to answer questions which he is bound to answer.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE PROCLAIMED MEETING AT DROMORE— SENTENCE ON A BALLAD SINGER.
  MR. P. M'DONALD(for Mr. M. J. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If on the 6th January, the date of the proclaimed meeting at Dromore, County Tyrone, a ballad singer was summarily sentenced by two Resident Magistrates to a month's imprisonment for singing some verses in the street to an audience chiefly composed of members of the Constabulary Force; if he can state the grounds on which the proceeding was taken; if the conduct of the ballad singer constituted a breach of the Proclamation; and, will the Government order an investigation into the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: the man referred to was not proceeded against until after he had been frequently cautioned by the police. The ballad was of an inflammatory character, and calculated to incite a breach of the peace. The audience was not chiefly composed of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but of the public. The two Resident Magistrates before whom he was summarily tried ordered him to find sureties to be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned for one month. Failing to give sureties, he was committed. He was not charged with a breach of the Proclamation. The Government see no ground for making a further investigation into the matter.
  MR. DILLONasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could inform them whether all the ballad singers of Ireland were to have a censor to whom they must submit their ballads before they could sing them in the street?
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would lay the incriminating ballad on the Table?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— MISS DONNELLY, AUGHIOGAN NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the period which elapsed between the appointment of Miss Donnelly as temporary assistant teacher at Aughiogan National School, County Tyrone, and her examination by order of the Commissioners of National Education; if the delay is usual; and, if so, why; and, if, in the event of the non-success of candidates under such circumstances, they are entitled to any part of the salary for the period during which they are employed as teachers?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a period of about 11 weeks elapsed between the date of the appointment of Miss Donnelly and her examination. The delay appears to have been due to the absence of some information in the case which was not received from the manager until about five weeks after his notification of the appointment. Miss Donnelly has passed the examination, and is entitled to receive pay on the usual conditions from the date of her original appointment. Unsuccessful candidates are not entitled to salary for the interval between appointment and examination. Examinations of candidates are held by the Inspectors with the least possible delay; and it is, of course, the duty of a manager not to employ an incompetent teacher.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT) — EXAMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF LEATHER.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for War,

  1823
  Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the Report of the Judge Advocate General, on certain transactions connected with the inspection of leather at the Ordnance Store Department at Woolwich:—
  "Par. 12. The duty, therefore, of the viewer is to master the meaning of the specification, to compare it with the sealed pattern and sample, and then to see whether the articles supplied by contractors are equal in all respects to those contracted for. It is obvious that to make this viewing examination efficient, the specification and the sealed pattern and sample supplied by the Department should correspond, yet, strange to say, this essential condition is not fulfilled in many instances. In many cases there was a considerable difference between both the specification and the sealed pattern, and again between the sealed pattern and the sample……In a great many cases the sealed pattern attached to the specification was a very inferior pattern of the article described, and then again it often differed from the sample supplied to the manufacturer;"
  who was responsible for this state of matters; whether the contract business in other Departments is conducted in a similar manner; and, whether measures have been adopted to prevent the continuance of such negligence in the conduct of Government business?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The person responsible for the state of affairs described is primarily the Commissary General of Ordnance. It is quite impossible for me, within the limits of an answer to a Question, to describe clearly how we propose to meet the evil; but when I tell the hon. Member that we have some 1,400 specifications, patterns, and samples, he will see that the task of keeping them up to date is a heavy one. In answer to the second Question, I do not know how the contract business is conducted in all other Departments; but in the case of the Ordnance Store Department it does not seem to me that the system was at fault, but the way in which it was administered, and that is the point to which our reforms are mainly directed.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether it was not the case that the Judge Advocate General himself condemned the system?
  MR. E. STANHOPEthought that, the Judge Advocate General had not condemned the system so much as the administration of it.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked, whether there was any official specially charged with the duty of seeing that the sealed patterns and specifications were identical?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No; but I regard the Commissary General of Ordnance at the time as being primarily responsible.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY CONTRACTS— SPECIFICATION AND INSPECTION.
  MR. MATTINSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in accordance with the suggestion in the Report of the Judge Advocate General, the Government propose to modify the existing system of inspecting contract articles in the direction of casting further responsibility upon contractors, and reducing the present costly staff maintained for the purpose of detailed inspection, or what they propose doing on the Judge Advocate General's Report; whether the War Office purposes taking any, and what, steps to secure that the specification, sealed pattern, and sample supplied by the Department shall in the case of all contracts always correspond; whether, in regard to the method of storing hides, which has prevailed in the Ordnance Department for the last 20 years and more, and which the Judge Advocate General finds is "universally condemned by everyone acquainted with leather," he proposes to take any, and what, steps to compel the adoption of another and better method; and, whether he is in a position to give the name of the official who is responsible for ignoring the complaints which Mr. Crutchley states he frequently made on this subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already stated that I propose to strike off, either temporarily or permanently, from the list any contractors who persistently fail to supply articles up to sample, and an entire consignment may be rejected if a certain proportion of inferior articles is detected; but I do not think it possible to rely solely upon enforcing the responsibility of contractors in the case of warlike armaments, and for this reason. If troops are sent on active service and their accoutrements fail, it is no doubt

  1825
  possible to punish, the contractor; but, in the meantime, the safety of the troops may be imperilled. Some system of inspection will, therefore, continue to be necessary. I propose to re-organize the Inspection Department most thoroughly; and, indeed, provision is made for it in the scheme of re-organization lately adopted. The name of the official referred to in the last part of the Question is Captain Fenn; but the system has prevailed for many years, and was not initiated by him.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the Rule would be applied to the firms which supplied defective material and stores—namely, that their names should be struck off the list of contractors allowed to compete?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he desired that the questions raised in the Report of the Judge Advocate General should be dealt with, as a whole.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when he will be able to deal with the subject?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No; I am not able to say.

  SALE OF BEER—ADULTERATION OF MALT LIQUORS.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, The number of publicans during the year 1887 that have been summoned before a magistrate, and fined for the adulteration of malt liquors; and the number of publicans that have paid the full penalty of £50, without having to appear before a magistrate, and to which no publicity is attached?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The figures are rather interesting. During the year the hon. Member has alluded to 297 publicans were fined by the magistrates for the dilution, or other adulteration, of beer, and in 21 cases the full penalty of £50 was paid to avoid going into Court.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — BELFAST UNION — CHARGES AGAINST DR. SPEDDING.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that at a meet-
  1826
  ing of the Belfast Dispensary Committee, regularly convened, and held on the 10th February, 1888, to investigate charges against Dr. Spedding, one of the dispensary medical officers of the Belfast Union, it was resolved, after hearing the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Dougherty, Police Constable Stewart (who was called in to remove the doctor from the house of the dying girl), Mrs. Graham, Mrs. Campbell, and Mrs. M'Connell, by a majority of 14 to 7, that the charges were fully sustained, and that he be suspended at once pending the necessary action of the Local Government Board; is it true that, although the disclosures were disinterestedly made by these witnesses, the Local Government Board have not thought fit to enforce their authority, nor strengthen the hands of the Committee in their efforts; and, what action will be now taken in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It is the case that the Dispensary Committee on the 10th of Februrary decided by a large majority to suspend the medical officer referred to in consequence of the charges brought against him. He, however, having asked for an inquiry on oath into such charge, the Local Government Board directed their Medical Inspector to hold such inquiry. He did so on the 24th of February. His Report thereon was received yesterday, and will have the careful attention of the Local Government Board.

  SCOTLAND — REGISTER OF SASINES EDINBURGH—THE KEEPER.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether complaints have reached him that the name of the recently appointed Keeper of the Register of Sasines, Edinburgh, is now being used by a firm of practising legal practitioners in Edinburgh in all their business transactions; and, whether such a step is in conformity with the provisions of the Act 31 & 32 Vict. c. 64, s. 20?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The name of a private firm is often maintained, although the persons in the partnership may change. The Keeper of the Register of Sasines has fulfilled all the re-

  1827
  quirements of the Statute by giving up all personal connection with, or interest in, the business of the firm of which he was formerly a partner.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the firm had issued a Circular to the effect that—
  "We beg to inform you that our Mr. Finlay has been appointed Register of Sasines, and that we have assumed as our partner Mr. John Shaw. The business will be carried on under the old name?"
  MR. T. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he was not aware of the fact; but it was quite common to retain the name of an old firm, even though all the partners might be changed.

  PRISON COMMISSIONERS (SCOTLAND)— CLOSING OF CUPAR COUNTY PRISON.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Fife, and the Town Council of Cupar, and those of other neighbouring burghs, have petitioned the Secretary for Scotland against the Order of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland closing the county prison in Cupar on and after the 31st of March; and, whether, in view of these strong protests by the Local Authorities against the proposal of the Prison Commissioners, Her Majesty's Government will consent to postpone the operation of this Order, as regards Cupar Prison, until an opportunity has arisen to raise the question in this House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Secretary for Scotland, after careful consideration of the Petition of the Local Authorities, is unable, in the interests of the Public Service, to alter the decision he has come to.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM— LOANS OF WORKS OF ART.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether pictures and other works of art have been lent to Buncombe Hall, North Islington, by the South Kensington Museum; whether he is aware that this is not a public Institution under
  1828
  public management, but a private adventure, at the sole cost and risk of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), the so-called Museum (the charge for admission to which is 1d.) being a concert room in connection with, a coffee and refreshment room; whether he is aware that for some time after the Museum was opened admission was only obtainable by tickets from the hon. Member for North Islington; and, whether he will consider the propriety of such an application of public property to the private hall of a Member in his own constituency?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): A loan was made in 1886 to a temporary exhibition at Duncombe Hall, which, it was understood, had been organized with the view to the establishment there of a permanent Museum under local management, an undertaking being given that any profits from the temporary exhibition would be devoted to that object. When it was found that a permanent Museum under local management was not established, the loan was, in accordance with the Rules, withdrawn in July, 1887.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The grounds on which the loan was asked for turned out not to be well founded.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: The purpose in view was not realized.
  MR. BARTLEY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not a common practice to lend works of art to promote Science and Art Museums in different parts of the country; and, whether this is not one of the objects which the Department have in view?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I think my answer to the Question is conclusive. It was an attempt in that direction; but it was not consummated.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is there a single instance in which the Department has made a loan of this kind to the Member for a constituency, the admission to the Museum being in the hands of that Member?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I cannot answer that Question offhand. The loan was made before I entered upon my present Office.
  MR. BARTLEY: Might I ask, whether it is not true that a Committee was

  1829
  appointed to carry out that object, and that a Local Committee is being established at the present time with the object of establishing a Museum in that part of London?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: That does not affect my original reply, that these objects were withdrawn because the necessary conditions had not been complied with.

  POST OFFICE—CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY.
  MR. CAREWasked the Postmaster General, Why clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, when absent from duty owing to illness, incur a deduction of one-third from their pay; whether no deduction was made previous to the date of the transfer of the telegraphs to the Government in 1870; whether the present deduction is only made from the salaries of the main body of the staff, the higher paid administrative officers retaining full pay; and, whether he will restore the earlier Rule, and so place them on a footing of equality with other Civil servants?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Where large bodies of persons are concerned, it is found to be necessary, as a matter of administration, that some deduction from their pay should be made during absence from illness in order to check absence on false or insufficient pleas. This has not been considered necessary where the more highly paid administrative officers are concerned. Prior to the acquisition of the telegraphs by the State, I understand that some of the Companies allowed full pay during absence from illness and that others did not. On the whole, the Companies' Rules on the point were less favourable than those of the Post Office.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will commence their inquiries into the Revenue Departments of the Customs, the Post Office, and the Inland Revenue?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Commissioners that
  1830
  they see no prospect of being able to enter upon an examination into the Departments referred to during the present Session of Parliament.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—PURCHASE OF BOATS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, in regard to the purchase of new or second-hand boats for Highland fishermen, Whether the Secretary for Scotland intends to place any restrictions as to where boats are bought or built in making advances for the purchase?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): No, Sir; no restrictions are contemplated such as those referred to in the Question.

  CUSTOMS ESTABLISHMENT—OUT-PORT WRITERS.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will be able to announce the decision of the Government in the case of the outport writers, employed under the Board of Customs, who have been recommended to the Treasury for promotion?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Treasury have before them the case of the copyists at the out-ports recommended for promotion; but other points of organization are connected with it which have to be settled before a decision can be given.

  CUSTOMS (STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT) —REPORT OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the cause of the delay in carrying out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Statistical Department of the Customs; and, whether, in the retirements which may be necessary in carrying out the recommendations of that Report, the same Rule will be applied as laid down by the Treasury for the recent changes in the Inland Revenue?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Report to which the hon. Member refers is a confidential document, and I do not know how he became possessed of it. I am certainly not in a position to make any statement with regard to it.

  WAR OFFICE—ISLAND BRIDGE, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR(for Mr. MURPHY) (Dublin, St. Patrick's) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether "Mansfield stone," brought from the middle of England, is being used for the cut stone dressings of the barrack works at Island Bridge, Dublin; whether the best descriptions of various kinds of stone suitable for such work can be had in Ireland, and even in the vicinity of Dublin; and, whether steps will be taken to provide that Irish stone, and, as far as practicable, other Irish materials shall be used for the extensive barrack works at Grangegorman, Dublin, which are now about to be erected?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The quantity of stone used for dressings at the Island Bridge Barracks is insignificant; but it is the red Mansfield stone from England. The Secretary of State is advised that there is no stone in Ireland which can, from an architectural point of view, take its place. As far as practicable, the Grangegorman Barracks will be constructed of Irish stone and other building materials; but unless a stone of the same colour and quality as Mansfield stone can be obtained in Ireland the dressings must be obtained elsewhere.

  INDIA—GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any steps have been taken, in accordance with previous suggestions, to render the publications of the Indian Government more accessible; whether they are made available for sale at a reasonable price anywhere in London, or how they are to be got at; whether they are sent to the British Museum, or any of them are presented to any important Libraries and Institutions; and, whether the Secretary of State will now take steps to make the more important and interesting of these publications more accessible in this country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The agents for the sale of publications of the Indian Government are—Messrs.
  1832
  Allen, Waterloo Place; Messrs. Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill; Quaritch, Piccadilly; Stanford, Charing Cross; Whittington, Gracechurch Street; where they can be procured at a reasonable price. They are, also, sent to the British Museum and other Copyright Libraries in the United Kingdom. Scientific works and others of general interest are widely distributed to Institutes and individuals at home and abroad.

  INDIA—THE ANNUAL REPORTS—STATISTICS OF CRIME.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why statistics of crime (as distinguished from judicial statistics) are not given in the Annual Report regarding India presented to Parliament; and, whether such statistics are in any form presented; and, if so, whether he will see that they are in future presented, so as to enable the House to judge of the success or non-success of the present police system in keeping down crime in the various Provinces?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Table 153 of the Statistical Abstract gives the number of offences reported as well as of persons brought to trial. More detailed information is contained in the Provincial and Departmental Administration Reports, which are accessible at the India Office to persons engaged in the line of research indicated by the hon. Member.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—INCREASE OF THE SALT TAX.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, while in all other respects the increased Indian Salt Duty is brought into immediate operation, in accordance with the practice of this country, an exception is made in favour of British merchants whose cargoes afloat on the way to India are exempt, so that they will pay the lesser duty while they reach the profit of the increased price resulting from the new duty?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Yes; in compliance with Section 37 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII. of 1878).

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MRS. RYAN, A PRISONER FOR CONTEMPT.
  MR. PICTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Ryan, kept a prisoner in Limerick Gaol since June last for contempt of Court; whether her offence consisted in neglect to pay over to the Receiver of the Court of Chancery the proceeds of a quantity of hay valued at £30; and whether she excused herself by a difficulty in realizing, caused by the interference of the Court, with the mode of sale; whether her husband suffered 14 months' imprisonment for contempt arising out of the same transaction; whether Mrs. Ryan, when arrested, was separated from an unweaned infant to the danger of mother and child; and, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure Mrs. Ryan's immediate release?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: My attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Ryan. The facts are as follows:—An ejectment decree was obtained in the County Court against John Ryan, this woman's husband, for one and a-half year's rent—about £45—in July, 1884. The Receiver then made every effort to bring about an amicable settlement with him, but failed to succeed, and was ultimately obliged to put the decree into force, the 12 months' limit being about to expire. In July, 1885, possession was obtained through the Sheriff; Ryan and his family re-took possession of the farm, and, among other things, saved 30 tons of hay. Notwithstanding the exertions of the Receiver to prevent it, this hay was removed and sold by Ryan. Its value was at least £60. The Receiver then, with a view to take up the farm, obtained a conditional order of attachment against Ryan, who, however, was such a reckless and desperate character that it could not be served personally. It was eventually served through the post, and Ryan was arrested in June, 1886, and imprisoned for 12 mouths. Notwithstanding this, Mrs. Ryan and her sons and daughters remained in possession of, and continued to crop, the lands. An attachment was then issued
  1834
  against Mrs. Ryan and a son aged 18 or 19 years. The latter evaded arrest; Mrs. Ryan was arrested and committed to prison in June, 1886, for 12 months. It has, of course, been all along open to the Ryans to purge their contempt by surrendering the farm or coming to some settlement. This they not only failed to do, but in a letter written by a member of the family to the local Press expressed their intention of continuing in the possession of the farm, and that, aided by the League, they should conquer. The Executive Government had no power to interfere in the matter.
  MR. PICTON: Is it not a fact that Mrs. Ryan was prevented from disposing of this hay as she might have done; and was not it insisted that it should be sold by auction?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir. Mrs. Ryan, in defiance of the Receiver, sold about 30 tons of hay, which must have been worth at least £60.
  MR. PICTON: One part of my Question has not been answered at all. Is it not a fact that Mrs. Ryan was nursing a baby, which was not yet weaned, when she was arrested, and which was separated from her to the danger of both mother and child?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I did not see that in the Question. ["Oh, oh!"] I see it now. There was a young child. I do not know whether it was weaned or not.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION— EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will inform the House at whose request the military were called to attend tithe sales in Flintshire; what were the representations which induced the authorities to consent to their being sent; upon whom will the cost of the military ultimately fall; and, whether the cost is a legal charge on the county rate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The military were called out at the request of the Local Authorities, on the representation of the Chief Constable that their presence was necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order of the county. The cost, if any, will fall upon the police rate. I cannot undertake to give an opinion on a question of

  1835
  law; but I am advised that the rate may properly be applied to this purpose.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, was not the Local Authority the Court of Quarter Sessions?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was not aware whether it was the Court of Quarter Sessions or a Committee of the Court.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, was there any resolution of the Local Authority, or was action taken on the word of the Chief Constable alone?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was informed it was done on the representation of the Chief Constable, addressed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and thereupon the latter made application to the Military Authorities.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  MR. J. B. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table a list of the Resident Magistrates "of whose legal knowledge and legal experience" the Lord Chancellor has satisfied himself, as required by Section 1 of "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887;" and, also, a list of the Resident Magistrates "of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge" the Lord Lieutenant has satisfied himself, as required by Section 11 of the same Act of Parliament?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): A Return is being prepared by the Government, which will be laid on the Table, and which will furnish the information required by the hon. Member.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— THE TOWER HAMLETS ENGINEER VOLUNTEERS—BURGESS SHORT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as stated in the evening journal The Star, Mr. George Short, a retired printer, who in 1886 adopted the name of Burgess Short, was in that year, on the recommendation of Colonel Kirby, commanding the Tower Hamlets Engineer Volunteers, appointed lieutenant in that corps, being at the
  1836
  time some 48 years of age, and never having handled a rifle; whether Colonel Kirby recommended him in 1887 for a captaincy, and whether the War Office refused to promote him, on the ground that such promotion would involve the supersession of four officers equally or better qualified; whether he was introduced in December last by Mr. Morton, of the War Office, to General Lyon Freemantle as "the Editor of The Broad Arrow;" whether, in The Gazette of 9th December, 1887, he was appointed captain in the 3rd and 4th Battalion of the Manchester Regiment of Militia, passing over the heads of 11 lieutenants and six second lieutenants; and, whether he had previously served in the Militia?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: Nothing is known at the War Office as to the former name or profession of Mr. Burgess Short. He was appointed a lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets Engineers in 1886, being then about, 47 years of age. His promotion to captain in May, 1887, was refused, as he was not qualified, though he did subsequently qualify in August of that year. He called upon General Freemantle in November; but was not introduced by Mr. Morton, nor was General Freemantle aware that he was in any way connected with the Press. Upon the recommendation of the Commanding Officer of the regiment and the General of the District, he was appointed captain in 3rd and 4th battalions Manchester Regiment, on the 10th December, 1887. He passed over the subalterns, none of whom had, or have since, qualified for promotion, although there are still four vacancies for captains in the regiment which cannot be filled up. He had never previously served in the Militia, though he had been attached for instruction to a battalion of the Guards and to the 1st Manchester Regiment.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1887— SALE OF FOREIGN MEAT.
  MR. C. W. GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether offering for sale and ticketing foreign meat as British meat is an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act under Clause 3 (b) relating to "the country in which any goods were produced?"
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am not in a position to give an authoritative opinion upon the construction of an Act of Parliament; but I might call the attention of the hon. Member to the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, which enacts that every person who applies any false trade description to goods is guilty of an offence against the Act, and to the fact that the expression "trade description" includes any description, statement, or other indication, direct or indirect, as to the place or country in which any goods were made or produced; and that the expression "goods" is denned as meaning anything which is the subject of trade, manufacture, or merchandise.

  INLAND REVENUE—SALE OF JUDICIAL STAMPS FOR INDIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the contract for the supply of judicial stamps for India expires in the course of the next few months; whether there is any truth in the report that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, acting for the Secretary of State, are desirous of continuing the employment of the present contractors without any competition; and whether, some months since, the Secretary of State decided upon calling for tenders for the supply of these judicial stamps; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in sending out the conditions of tenders, and does it in any way arise out of any action on the part of the Inland Revenue or their Comptroller of Stamps?
  MR. KINGalso asked, Whether hitherto it has always been the practice of the Director General of Stores for India to send out all invitations to tender for Indian stamps (as in the case of all other articles) and to receive such tenders to be finally decided upon by the Stores Committee of the Council; whether, in the case of the judicial stamps, for which the contract is about to expire, this practice has been departed from, and the invitations sent out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the part of the Secretary of State; whether the tenders to be submitted are to be decided upon by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; whether it is intended by
  1838
  the Secretary of State that the Stores Committee and the Director General shall in future abdicate their functions in the matter of stamps in favour of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and their officers; and, whether, in the matter of contracts, anything more is required from the officers of the Inland Revenue Department as against the salaries paid them by the Indian Office for the general supervision of the manufacture, than that their technical knowledge shall be at the disposal of the Stores' Committee and the Director General, so as to enable them to arrive at a proper decision upon purely technical points?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The contract for judicial stamps for India expires in a short time, and the further supply will be open to competition among a limited number of selected firms. In 1886 the late Secretary of State made an arrangement with the Board of Inland Revenue, by which the latter were to act as his agents in, among other things, the renewal of such contracts for the supply of stamps as might expire from time to time. It is in pursuance of this arrangement that invitations to tender for the supply of judicial stamps for India have, since the Question was placed on the Paper, been sent out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The Board, however, acting in this matter as the agents of the Secretary of State, will take no step of importance without consulting him.

  ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—SAMOA.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any arrangement has been arrived at with Germany and the United States for the settlement of the affairs of Samoa; and, whether he can give any information as to the fate of King Malietoa, who was deported from Samoa in a German man-of-war?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No fresh arrangement has been arrived at with Germany and the United States for the settlement of affairs in Samoa. The Conference which met at Washington last June adjourned for the consideration of the several proposals submitted by the Governments concerned. In the meantime, the rights

  1839
  of British subjects in Samoa remain I unimpaired. We have no official information where Malietoa now is. He surrendered himself to a German man-of-war, on board of which he left the Island. It is stated in The Morning Post of yesterday that he has arrived at the Cameroons.

  WAR OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—DEFAULT FOR TENDERS.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government will make it an absolute Rule that, when contractors and others deliver goods according to tender, and those goods are found not equal to sample, the names of the said contractors and others shall be struck off the list of those to whom tenders are sent?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is seldom that each and every article of a contract is sent is up to the standard. Looking to the necessity of insuring ample competition, it is not possible to go beyond the Rule. I have already stated that contractors who persistently disregard the standard will be excluded from the list.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT)—RECENT APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after the remarks of the Judge Advocate General, in his Report concerning the Ordnance Store Department at Woolwich, as regards the appointment of Messrs. Hunt and Engleston, over the heads of Messrs. Dunn, Chase, and Orr, steps will be taken to promote the latter, or give them some compensation for being passed over; whether, after the statement of the Judge Advocate General that Sergeant Hawkins' "evidence is a tissue of falsehoods," and the declaration of "his extraordinary inability to tell the truth," Sergeant Hawkins will be continued as a viewer on the establishment; whether, after the threatening letter sent by Messrs. Ross and Company to Mr. Moody and Mr. Dunn, the two complainants in the Department, and the statement of the Judge Advocate General "that the letter was a very improper
  1840
  one, and there is no foundation whatever for the charges therein made," the said firm of contractors will be further dealt with by the Government; whether, of the 11 specimens of hides selected for examination, eight of them contained, glucose of from 20 per cent to 25·20 per cent; whether, as a matter of fact, glucose is a well-known method of leather adulteration; and, whether Inspectors and Viewers, who are admittedly incapable of detecting this mode of leather adulteration, will any longer be employed by the Government in that capacity?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have most carefully considered the responsibility attaching to all the individuals named in the inquiry before the Judge Advocate General, and I am quite prepared to state my decision. But I am sure that the House will see that a statement dealing with transactions extending over many years, and gravely affecting numerous individuals, cannot be made in answer to a Question. When I do so, I will deal with all the individuals mentioned by the hon. Member. The amount of glucose in hides is one upon which experts appear to differ very widely. The most recent Report puts the glucose at 10 or 12 per cent. It is a modern method of loading leather which seems to me to have been clever enough to deceive the Government Inspector. In the re-organization of the Inspection branch every effort shall be made to make it thoroughly efficient.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information as to the adulteration by a material which added nearly double the weight to the goods?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid that is a new point, and if the hon. Member will give me particulars I will give him the information I have.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will do so, and furnish a sample.

  WAR OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—RETURNS.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will grant the Return, standing on the Notice Paper for Friday, relating to Army Contracts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am afraid we cannot give this

  1841
  Return, because the material for it is not in our possession. I am exceedingly sorry that this is the case; and if the hon. Member will confer with me again, as he did the other day, I will explain my difficulty to him, and will give him every information which is possible on this point.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—NUMBERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the number of constables, and what is the number of officers of each grade, who have been added to the Metropolitan Police Force since the 17th of September last?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The hon. Member is aware that the strength of the London Police Force constantly fluctuates. Comparing the strength of the Force now and on the 17th of September, it is now greater by 292 men, of whom 157 are Inspectors, 111 sergeants, and 24 constables. The numbers in the ranks of Inspector and sergeant were at that time under the required strength.

  WAR OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—TENDERS FOR TWEED.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a firm named Messrs. Colbeck, having sent in tenders for the supply of tweed at prices varying from 5s. 6½d. to 5s. 11½d. a-yard, and the tenders having been accepted, that at the highest price being for 7,000 yards only, the firm nevertheless were paid that highest price for the whole amount of 73,000 yards; whether a contract was entered into with Messrs. Wilson and Son to supply tartan at 2s. 4½d. a-yard. Messrs. Smith and Son, former contractors for this article, applied to be relieved of some surplus stock, leaving the price to be settled by the War Office. Their request was complied with, but the price paid was not that of the current contract with Messrs. Wilson, but the higher price of 2s. 8d. under the expired contract with Messrs. Smith and Son; whether a firm named Messrs. Davies were paid 20 s., 16 s. 3d., 10 s. 6d., and 27 s., for the same articles, which another firm, Messrs. Thorp, had already contracted to supply
  1842
  at 14 s., 11 s. 11 d., 10 s., and 17 s. 6d., respectively; and, whether the War Office accepts the view of his duties taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his correspondence with them on these payments—namely, that his control extends to these and similar cases in which administrative action appears to involve a loss to the public?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: the hon. Member has misread the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Messrs. Colbeck tendered only at the prices of 5s. 11 d. and 5s. 11½d. The tender at 5s. 6½d. was by another firm, to whom an order for the quantity with which they could safely be entrusted was given. All the cloth Messrs. Colbeck offered at 5s. 11 d. was taken before the price of 5s. 11½d. was paid. When an order for 73,000 yards supplementary to the original supply contracted for—namely, 107,000, became necessary, it was given to Messrs. Colbeck as tried and responsible contractors at the price then in force; the other contractors at lower rates having failed on a previous occasion to carry out their contracts satisfactorily for this tweed. As regards the tartans, an effort had been made to break down what was practically a monopoly by Messrs. Wilson; and Messrs. Smith had been to a great expense in carrying out very satisfactorily a triennial contract for 9,000 yards per annum, at a price lower than that of Messrs. Wilson. When, however, the contracts came to be renewed in 1885, the latter tendered at a price still lower, and were accepted. Messrs. Smith then applied to have 3,000 yards taken off their hands; and, as there was every reason to be satisfied with the way in which they had done their work, this was permitted, according to many precedents, at the price governing their contract. The contract of Messrs. Thorp was comparatively an unimportant one for forage cap ribbons. They were new contractors, and their tender was much below all other competitors; but disputes arose as to measurements and other matters, and their contract was cancelled instead of being enforced against them. This is the usual course as regards new contractors, the object being not to deter firms from widening the area of competition as regards future

  1843
  supplies. The ribbons were obtained under another contract at rates higher than those of Messrs. Thorp; but lower than those which had obtained before they entered the field. The whole of these facts will, no doubt, be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. It is clearly shown by the correspondence at page 208 of the Army Appropriation Account that the Secretary of State does not accept the claim of the Exchequer and Audit Department to control his discretion in matters of administration; and that correspondence will be laid before the Public Accounts Committee.

  INDIA—GRAVING DOCK IN BOMBAY HARBOUR.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What steps are being taken to provide graving dock accommodation in Bombay Harbour for iron-clads and large mercantile steamers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Estimates and plans are being prepared, and schemes have been submitted by the Secretary of State to the consideration of the Admiralty.

  BURMAH (UPPER)—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated by Mr. Streeter at a meeting of the Royal Geographical Society on Monday night, that the Secretary of State has, by refusing to carry out the concession entered into by the Earl of Dufferin for the lease of the Ruby Mines in Burmah, caused a loss to the Indian Revenues in one year of 3¾ lakhs of rupees, or £37,500?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is impossible to state the exact loss to the revenues of the year by the working of the Ruby Mines having been postponed. On the other hand, the exhaustion of the mines has not commenced, and the revenue lost in the present year will, in ordinary course, be realized in years to come.

  INDIA—LICENSING OF IMMORALITY— WORKING OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of
  1844
  State for India, Whether it is the case that in the cantonment of Muttra the medical officer, under the Contagious Diseases Acts, reports complaining that—
  "The regimental matron lacks energy, and does not take trouble to attract good-looking women,"
  and suggests that—
  "She should be got rid of, and a more suitable woman appointed;"
  whether he further reports that—
  "If, as a precaution against venereal diseases, women are necessary to be entertained, steps should be taken to ensure that attractive women are kept;"
  and, whether similar recommendations have been made by the medical officers of any other cantonments?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on Tuesday, when I informed him that I had already stated last week that the Secretary of State has no information which corroborates such statements as that implied in the Question; but that he was in communication with the Government of India on the subject.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION— TITHE SEIZURES AND SALES.
  MR. J. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, at every tithe seizure and tithe sale which has taken place in Flintshire during the last six weeks, the "Emergency men" attending the solicitor to the Clergy Defence Association have invariably been armed with cutlasses and revolvers; whether the solicitor himself did, at a tithe sale held at Nannerch, in the said county, on Thursday, the 23rd February last, draw out a revolver, which he displayed to the people; and, whether he approves of such a bodyguard, who have not been sworn in as special constables, and who are so armed, following an irresponsible individual among excited people?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have no information on this subject beyond that which I gave to the House on the 23rd of February in answer to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and have nothing to add to what I then said.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—CROSSING SWEEPERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at Clerkenwell Police Court on Tuesday two crossing sweepers were charged by the police with begging, and that they were both discharged by the learned magistrate, who remarked, in the first case, that—
  "The prisoner seemed to get his living in a legitimate way as a crossing sweeper, and he did not see why the constable had taken him into custody;"
  whether these prosecutions were undertaken with his sanction or knowledge; whether the defendants were, or either of them was, detained one night in custody; and, whether provision is made for sweeping crossings by the Vestries, or any other Public Authority; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent the interference of the police for the future with crossing sweepers plying their occupation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): As to one of the boys alluded to, I have not been able to obtain any information. As to the other, the Commissioner of Police informs me that he was charged because, although he had a broom, he was seen begging and receiving money away from any crossing, and at a place where the roadway had not been swept. I had no knowledge of these prosecutions. I understand that the boy was detained all night in custody, no bail being offered. Vestries and District Boards have power, under the Metropolis Local Management Act, to appoint and pay crossing sweepers; but I am not aware that they have acted on this power. The instructions to the police, given in 1881, are that crossing sweepers who do not beg or run after people are not to be interfered with; but that if they annoy passengers by begging they may be charged.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE ASSIZES — NORTH EASTERN CIRCUIT.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government
  1846
  has been called to the fact that for the first time in the history of the North Eastern Circuit the Assize business has been commenced at Leeds instead of at Newcastle; whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Judges have been unable to finish the civil business at Leeds and have proceeded to York, it being stated that they will return to Leeds at a future date to finish the civil business; and, whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of an arrangement by which great inconvenience is caused to the public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; it is the fact that the Judges arranged to go to Leeds first, instead of to Newcastle this Circuit. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has no official intimation as to the second paragraph of the Question. If it should be found at Leeds, or elsewhere, that inconvenience has been caused by the recent attempt to discontinue the grouping of counties for criminal business without unduly prolonging the Circuits, the Judges will, no doubt, carefully consider the matter, and, if possible, remedy it, if that can be done without causing still greater inconvenience to other places.

  ARMY—PURCHASE OF ARTILLERY HORSES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as stated by the Auditor General in his Report, the authorized charge for Artillery horses purchased in England is £45, and for Cavalry £40; whether an offer was received from a Mr. Patterson, of Toronto, to land 400 to 600 suitable Canadian horses at Liverpool at a cost of £40 each; and, whether it is the fact that the cost of the horses and mules procured in Canada amounted to over £52 each, in addition to the expenses of the Committee despatched to purchase them; or, if not, what was the cost?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The authorized charge for horses is as stated in the Question. Mr. Patterson did make the offer quoted; but the offer in itself was no guarantee that the horses would prove suitable for military requirements. As the purchase was of an experimental nature, it was considered preferable that the purchasing

  1847
  officers should themselves view the conditions obtaining in the Canadian markets. Including all expenses, the horses purchased in Canada have reached £54, and their ages averaged 4 11–12th years. Those bought in the United Kingdom averaged £43, with an average age of 3 9–12th years. A horse is useless for military purposes till five years old, and costs about £25 a-year for maintenance. Consequently the Canadian horses, when they become available for service, will have cost £56 each, while those of home growth will have cost £74. The Canadian horses have given great satisfaction. Pending inquiries into their cost and other circumstances, I have stopped the further purchase of Canadian horses; but my military advisers now press me to decide whether it would not be desirable to keep touch with the Canadian horse supply by purchasing from there a limited supply annually.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—AGRICULTURAL AND DAIRY SCHOOLS.
  MR. COBBasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools, that a central normal school of agriculture, provided and maintained by the State, should be established in the neighbourhood of Rugby?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): A sum of £5,000 has been inserted in the Estimate of the Agricultural Department as a grant in aid for giving effect to such of the recommendations of the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools as may be adopted by the Government. The details are still under discussion, and the above amount is not intended to represent the final amount of the grant.

  BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE—POLITICAL SERVANTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Board of Inland Revenue last year addressed to a Civil servant in their Department a letter containing the following sentence:—
  "You cannot be permitted by them (the Board) to lecture on, publicly speak on, or take
  1848
  any public part in the discussion of Home Rule;"
  and, whether Sir Alfred Slade, Receiver General of Inland Revenue, was at that time a prominent member of the Primrose League?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The words quoted by the hon. Member were addressed to an officer of the Inland Revenue Service, and only gave expression to a Rule which is general throughout the Civil Service, in regard to all shades of politics. Sir Alfred Slade, Receiver General of Inland Revenue, is a Trustee of a certain portion of the funds of the Primrose League; but, as such, I do not consider that he can be regarded as a prominent member of the League.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—POLITICAL SERVANTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the following Rule is in force in the Customs Department:—
  "You are not to hold any corporate office, nor are you in any way to inferfere in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, beyond recording your vote, should you be so entitled, nor are you to be a Member of any Orange Lodge, nor to take part in any Party procession, nor belong to any Political Society, nor are you to subscribe to, or to be a member of, or attend any meeting of any Association for a political purpose, nor to subscribe to funds raised for such purposes,"
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member quotes a Rule which was altered by the Board of Customs in 1874, when the Revenue Officers Electoral Disabilities Removal Act was passed. Since that time the restriction as to "non-interference in the election of Members of Parliament beyond recording your vote" has been removed from the Rule.

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT, 1887— CHARGES FOR SEARCHING.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the First Lord of Treasury, Why the sum of 2s. 6d. is charged for searching the Registers under Section 12 of "The Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887," whilst only 1s. is charged for a similar search in the same office under "The Bills of Sale Act, 1882;" and, whether, considering

  1849
  that the Act was passed for the better knowledge and benefit of the trading classes, and that the sum of 1s. is specifically mentioned in the Act, it is possible to reduce the charge to 1s.?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The fee under the Deeds of Arrangement Act differs from that under the Bills of Sale Act, because it is imposed, not only for the search, but also for the extract taken from the Register. Under the latter Act there is one fee for search and another for extract; under the former Act one foe covers both.

  ARMY — CIVIL APPOINTMENTS FOR RESERVE AND DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, to encourage recruiting and to reward faithful service, a proportion of suitable minor appointments in the various Governments Departments can be allotted to reserve and discharged soldiers; and, if so, what that proportion will be?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question of the employment of reserve and discharged soldiers in the Civil Service is one that has been frequently under the consideration of the Government, who, as their Predecessors have done, admit the desirability of such employment being found, when practicable, for both soldiers and sailors. Whenever it is possible, the Rules for entry into the Civil Service have been relaxed, so far as regards the age limit, in favour of soldiers and sailors; but I think the House will agree with me that while such relaxation should be granted in regard to age, no such indulgence should be given with respect to other qualifications. The qualifications required for the minor posts alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend are not of a high order, and are only those absolutely necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties attached to the situations. Constant progress has been made in the direction of the more frequent employment of these men; and I think Members of this House would recognize such progress if they looked at the Rules governing entry into the Civil Service and noted the number of posts which, by relaxation of the age
  1850
  limit, have been thrown open to soldiers and sailors.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House what progress, if any, has been made in the Public Departments towards carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in 1876 and 1877, on the Civil Employment of Meritorious Discharged and Reserve Soldiers; and, whether, in view of the desirability of further popularizing recruiting for the Army, he can hold out hopes that the question will be further practically developed this year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, they had not made so much progress as they had hoped for in carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee. He had lately circulated a letter addressed to himself by the Duke of Cambridge, strongly urging on the Government the necessity of giving effect to those recommendations.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in moving—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to Supply be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to Public Meetings in the Metropolis,"
  said: I think that, in all probability, this will be the last occasion on which it will be necessary to make such a Motion, as under the new Rules it will be in the power of the Government to put Motions on the Paper is the order in which they will be taken.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1887–8).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1887–8).
    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (1.) £130, Supplementary, London University.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Expenses of Special Missions Abroad."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I need not say that I do not propose to enter into the merits of the Treaty which has been signed by Mr. Chamberlain in the United States. I assume for the sake of argument that the very best man was sent out. I will assume that the Treaty is the very best Treaty that could possibly have been signed, and I will also assume that the time chosen for sending the right hon. Gentleman out for the signing of the Treaty was the very best time, although it used to be a rule of diplomacy in regard to the United States that it was a radical mistake to treat with that country just before a Presidential Election, when the Ministry would probably not have a majority in the Senate to ratify the Treaty. I assume all this. My objections are entirely of a financial character. Diplomacy, I find, costs this country £241,000 per annum, besides what we pay for the Consular Service, and these diplomatists are engaged in political matters, and political matters alone. In the United States we have an eminent gentleman as our Minister, who has a large staff, and a salary in excess of that of the Prime Minister. I should like to know, then, why Her Majesty's Government should have considered it necessary to send out the right hon. Gentleman on a special Mission, instead of entrusting the negotiations of the Treaty to a gentleman of such high authority and character, which is obviously the fact seeing that our Representative receives so high a salary? I maintain that if it is necessary to send out special Missions, we ought do away with our permanent Legation, which, in the United States costs us £8,000 a year, or make use of it when it is found necessary to enter special Treaties. We have had many special Missions—that special Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff was a matter which came on for repeated discussion during the last two years. The objec-
    1852
    tion taken against that Mission was not that Sir H. Drummond Wolff was not an eminent diplomatist, but that he was sent to Constantinople and Egypt, and that at both places we had a permanent Representative of the highest class who could have done the business. I am opposing this grant not only because I object to these Missions as being altogether unnecessary, but also on the ground of their excessive cost. The House, no doubt, was surprised to find that so large a sum as £3,900 was put down as the cost of the special Mission to Washington; but the House will be more surprised to learn that this is not the whole of the expenditure. It will be found that the sum taken generally for special Missions last year also included part of the expenditure upon the Washington Mission.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIES (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): That was a mistake. The Vote of £3,900 covers the whole expenditure.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I can easily understand the right hon. Gentleman jumping up to correct that statement, because in itself it is so monstrous that it would have been too outrageous to ask for more. It appears that this sum of £3,900 is the cost of Mr. Chamberlain's Mission.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to allude to a Member of this House by his name, but must confine himself to the place which that Member represents.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I thought I was in Order, because I was only quoting. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) went out to the United States to undertake this Mission. The journey to America would cost, there and back, £180. [An hon. MEMBER: Second-class.] My hon. Friend says that that would be second-class; but it is not so; it would be first-class. Supposing that the sum amounted to £190, it would be necessary to account for the rest of the money we are asked to vote. The right hon. Gentleman started on his Mission on the 29th of October, and returned on the 1st of March. That would be 123 days. Reducing it further by the 14 days during which the right hon.

    1853
    Gentleman was at sea, about 109 will be left. I think, if hon. Members will make an estimate of what the cost of this Mission has been during those 109 days, it will be found that it amounts to something like £33 or £34 a-day. The right hon. Gentleman has spent at Washington more than £30 per diem. Now, in Washington, as everybody knows, there are fixed charges. I appeal to any hon. Member who has been there, whether at Washington the charge is not about 5 dollars per diem—or £1—for lodging, and the same for bed? Then, allowing the right hon. Gentleman £1 a-day for wine, and £2 a-day for incidental expenses, the total would come to about £5 a-day. Well, here we have an excessive charge of more than £30 a-day, exclusive of clerks. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to spend even more than that if it is to come out of the pockets of the public. It may be said that the right hon. Gentleman was hospitable; but we have a Minister there—Sir L. Sackville West—who receives a salary which is intended to be expended in hospitality, and there was no reason why a Special Commissioner should also indulge in hospitality. Sir Charles Tupper was sent by the Canadian Government; but I should be very much surprised to learn that his expenses amounted to £30 a-day.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: He had 10 or 12 followers.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am speaking of Sir Charles Tupper himself, and not of his followers; and I want to know whether that gentleman put in his pocket £30 per diem? I certainly think that the charge is far too much, and that when we send out a gentleman on a special Mission it is not necessary that he should live like a Prince, and practise princely hospitality at our expense. I may be asked why I do not move the rejection of the Vote. I do not take that course, although I object entirely to special Missions. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Jesse Collings), who also comes from Birmingham, voted against the cost of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission last year; and I have no doubt he will vote with me on this occasion. When a gentleman goes out on a special Mission, we are always told that he is making noble sacrifices for his country.
    1854
    That, I am bound to say, is all claptrap. Gentlemen are glad to go out on special Missions, and obtain some sort of political position by negotiating Treaties, spending the country's money, and enjoying themselves. I trust that the Committee will refuse to sanction this expenditure, not only because the expenditure is excessive, but because this House ought, once and for all, to set down its foot upon special Missions for the discharge of duties which ought to be performed by our permanent Ministers. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,900, the cost of the special Mission to the United States.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman has directed his remarks chiefly to the question of special Missions. I think that course is greatly to be approved, inasmuch as he has not introduced any material topics beyond those of broad policy; and it is very right that the House should be informed of the reasons why these special Missions are employed. When the hon. Member spoke to me the other day in the Lobby about this Mission, as far as I can remember, I said that this Supplementary Estimate must be considered as in excess of the sum already provided by Parliament, but that there might be some balance from the general Vote which had not been absorbed. But, looking at the particulars, I find that that is not the case, and, as far as can be ascertained, the total expenses of the Mission of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) will be covered by the Vote now presented to the Committee. The hon. Member has said that the expense of this Mission is monstrous. Those who are acquainted with the usual expenses on these occasions will consider it a moderate amount; and I do not think that the expenses of any Mission was ever covered by so low a sum. It was the special wish of the right hon. Gentleman that the numbers of the Mission should be kept within the narrowest limits compatible with its efficiency. He was accompanied by the able head of the Treaty Department in

    1855
    the Foreign Office, and a very efficient clerk also from that Department. That was all. But I should like to show how small this Vote really is. Since 1880, it is very much the smallest Vote under this head, by a comparison between the Supplementary Estimates for special Missions during the past 10 years. The yearly average has been £27,000, whereas this year it is only £6,500; and if it had not been for the Mission of the right hon. Gentleman, and those of Mr. Portal to Abyssinia and Sir Frederick Weld to Borneo, no Vote at all would have been necessary. No doubt, it is very inconvenient to have Supplementary Estimates at all. The hon. Gentleman says that when we have a Representative at any foreign Court it cannot be necessary to send out a special diplomatist, and that we have already a very able diplomatist at Washington. But that has not been found in former years to obviate the necessity of special Missions. The special Mission of the Marquess of Ripon bridged over a very serious international difficulty. Special Missions are resorted to only after long negotiations of the ordinary character, when, for various reasons, such as national sentiment, matters have not been brought to a conclusion. It is then only right, and highly desirable, that fresh minds should be brought to bear upon the subject, and that a special conference, partaking somewhat of the nature of arbitration, should be brought together, by which a compromise and a settlement should be arrived at. In some cases serious difficulties have been avoided between nations by such means. In the present case, for a great many years differences, now happily brought to a conclusion, were the source of a great amount of friction between this country and America; and they had only recently threatened severe complications by Acts passed by Congress giving discretionary powers to the President to stop Canadian imports. It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the occasion was one for a special effort to be made in order to bring these unfortunate difficulties to a conclusion. The time chosen for the Mission was simply that at which the negotiations were ripe. The negotiations had been going on for years; but, happily, last autumn they arrived at that stage when they were
    1856
    ripe for a conference; it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to bring the matter to an end at the earliest possible time; and it would not have been right to have put off the conference because a Presidential Election would take place before it was completed. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take up the matter at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member said he was not going to discuss the nature of the arrangement which had been arrived at, and I certainly do not propose to enter into any details with regard to it, and the Papers which have been laid upon the Table this evening will be in the hands of hon. Members immediately. I believe, however, it will be found to be a just and honourable settlement, and its negotiation to have been marked by the most gratifying features. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham conducted the negotiations on the part of this country with very great ability and patience; and he was met by the Representatives of the United States in a most conciliatory spirit. The Canadian Representatives and Government have seconded Her Majesty's Government by giving up some things long considered as their inalienable rights, and all parties have exhibited a sincere desire to bring about a satisfactory settlement. The Treaty requires ratification in America, and, I hope, will be ratified; but in the meantime a modus vivendi has been established by which the provisions of the Treaty will come into operation at once and remain in force for two years, until it is ratified. It would be most unfortunate that a nation, than whom there is none we more desire to live on friendly terms with, should suffer itself in any way to be guided by Party spirit in reference to the ratification of the Treaty. It is a matter of international rejoicing and of congratulation for all who have the good of this country at heart that we have arrived at a settlement of this matter, and that the cordial relations which should always subsist between this country and the United States will continue unimpaired.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I was in America and in Washington while the Conference was sitting, and I certainly do not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton

    1857
    (Mr. Labouchere). I therefore feel bound to say a word or two on the subject. I have nothing to say in depreciation of the diplomatic talent of Sir Sackville West. I think that Her Majesty's Government were well advised in sending to America as their special Commissioner the best man they could lay their hands upon. Again, I say, apart from the wider and more difficult political considerations to which the Mover has alluded, in my opinion the Government did send about the best man that could be found. They could not have selected a man more grateful to the Americans than the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The Americans have recognized his tact, talent, and ability, and I believe he has achieved a success in the matter which few men in the country could have accomplished. No doubt there are some political considerations which still stand in the way; but it is an agreeeble surprise to me that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has succeeded as well as he has. He had to conciliate in these matters not only the United States, but also the Dominion of Canada. I think that Her Majesty's Government and the country are very much to be congratulated on the measure of success which has been obtained. It is a matter of great congratulation that a modus vivendi has been arrived at, and that so much has been done under the circumstances. I would not feel inclined to criticize too narrowly the expenditure which has been incurred. Nor am I in a position to criticize that expenditure. Those who are acquainted with America know that Washington is an extremely expensive city. The Americans themselves do these things handsome, and it is only right and proper that our Representative should do the handsome also. I presume that this Vote does not include any part of the expenditure incurred by Canada, and with regard to the expense of the Mission the personnel of the right hon. Gentleman, which numbered two or three persons only, was nothing compared to the splendid Mission which came from Canada, and which consisted of 10 or 12 Canadian officials. The following of the right hon. Gentleman was humility itself compared with the Mission from Canada. I think that what has been achieved is very well worth £3,900 and a great deal more.
    1858
    If it has unfortunately happened that the treaty has not been immediately ratified, that has been due to wider considerations not immediately connected with this fishery dispute. I can testify to this fact, that 999 out of every 1000 of the population of the United States do not care two straws for the Fisheries Question, but the interest in that question is confined to a single County in New England. No doubt it is the duty of the Government of the United States to consider the interests of that Country; but if ultimate success does not succeed the labours of the Conference, it will be due to other causes. I would suggest that there should be some standing system of arbitration upon questions of this nature, and I wish that the Mission of the right hon. Gentleman to the United States had been in the character of Arbitrator. I trust that the Committee will pass the Vote and that steps will be taken to make it impossible that difficulties of this kind should hereafter arise between ourselves and the United States.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There can be no doubt, Sir, of two things. In the first place, I think that when Her Majesty's Government selected the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) as their negotiator with the United States on the Fisheries Question, they chose a man of very eminent abilities and of very great competence, indeed, for the particular case with which they desired him to negotiate. Secondly, there can be no doubt also that when my right hon. Friend accepted that Mission, he did an act which the whole country recognizes as an act of public duty and public spirit. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has brought forward two points on which he desires the rejection of this Vote. He has argued in part that the cost of the Mission is excessive. Upon that subject I was very glad to hear what has been said by the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs without reference to the general question. I do not find myself in a position to say whether the precise sum in the Vote is singularly moderate and economical, or whether it is in excess of what was absolutely necessary. We are

    1859
    relieved very much from the difficulty which there would be in undertaking to pronounce precisely upon it by the fact that my hon. Friend did not found his main argument upon it, as he felt we were really not competent to discuss it, as we could not tell what the causes of the expenditure were. For my own part, I find myself entirely unable to enter into that question; but my hon. Friend has founded himself mainly upon the objection to special Missions taken broadly and taken altogether. In opposition to these Missions the hon. Gentleman has propounded the doctrine that as we had able Representatives—able diplomatists—abroad, they ought to be competent to deal with every question that may arise in the diplomatic arrangements with the Courts of the countries to which they are accredited. I own I am not able to adopt that proposition. It involves a strong interference with the traditions of this country. The Committee is aware that these special Missions have been by no means unusual. Questions have arisen which were entirely outside the ordinary business of the diplomatist, and it was desired that this country should be represented not only with particular capacity, but with particular authority. What I would further desire to point out is this—that the practice of sending these special Missions, so far as I recollect, has been particularly favoured by Parliament and the country in the case of the United States of America. Allusion has been made to the most recent case, that of Lord Ripon and his coadjutors, among whom was the late lamented Lord Iddesleigh. Going further back, I may remind my hon. Friend that there was a case of great interest, that of Lord Ashburton, which took effect in the Ashburton Treaty. That Treaty was made the subject of a debate and a Vote in this House, and it was criticized upon its merits. I am not now discussing the merits of this arrangement, though I am alive to the beneficial character of it. I am undoubtedly disposed to believe that, whatever happens in America, some progress has been made towards the final adjustment and settlement of this question by the proceedings which have taken place. When Lord Ashburton's Treaty was made the subject of discussion in this House it was objected to. The most decided Representative of
    1860
    economy in this House at that time, Mr. Joseph Hume, whose mantle has since fallen upon my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), so far from objecting to the proceedings with regard to it, made a Motion, which was carried by the House in distinct approbation of that Treaty. I think that that is an important precedent as far as regards the general discussion by Parliament of these questions. Undoubtedly, I bear testimony to the general reasonableness of the conduct of the Government in sending a special Mission on this occasion, because I believe unquestionably, and without the smallest disparagement of the abilities and experience of Sir Sackville West, that it was in the power of a special Envoy to represent this country with greater efficacy and greater authority on an occasion of this kind than could have been done by the unaided exertions of our ordinary Representative. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not able to adopt the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, although I am glad to think that on this and on every other occasion he has proved himself to be a very vigilant guardian of the public purse.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I only propose to say a few words. I also must congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on his vigilant guardianship of the public purse. That is a duty which hon. Members opposite below the Gangway very efficiently discharge. I wish to express my opinion of the services rendered, not to the Government alone, but to the country, by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. There can be no doubt that the undertaking of a task of this character in the middle of the winter was not the most agreeable to a Gentleman who had spent the greater part of the Session in attending Parliament. I desire, therefore, on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the country, to express our deep acknowledgment to him for the services which he has rendered to the State in bringing, as we hope, to a termination a dispute which threatened at one time serious consequences to the amicable relations of this country with a great and neighbouring people, with whom we desire to be upon the most

    1861
    intimate and cordial terms. It is unfortunate that differences of this character should have arisen to render a Mission of this kind necessary; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has observed, with very great force, that a Mission undertaken by a statesman of known ability and high position in this country with the object of arriving at a settlement of a question of this character was far more likely to attain success than if it had been undertaken by an ordinary Representative at Washington. I wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman in testifying to the great ability of Sir Sackville West; but negotiations had been in progress for a long period, and had been spread over many years, which Sir Sackville West was unable to bring to a successful conclusion. We believe that the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has brought about a settlement which probably could not have been attained in any other way. If that settlement is not made a permanent one at once, the right hon. Gentleman has secured an arrangement by which the causes of difficulty will, at all events, be removed for at least two years. That is a result upon which we may congratulate the people of this country and the people of the United States, our neighbours and friends, and also the people of Canada. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will at once agree to the Vote; and I hope that the hon. Member for Northampton will not press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am encouraged by what has fallen from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to take a Division upon this Vote, because they have congratulated me on my vigilant guardianship of the public purse. Under those circumstances, I think I can do no less than take a Division, in order that I may carry my argument to some practical conclusion. My feelings are in favour of special Missions, and I can well understand that they may be made a good system; but I think that if we go to the expense of sending out special Missions, we ought not to continue the expense of £241,000 per annum, which is the present cost of our Diplomatic Service. My contention is that if you are to pay these large amounts for spe-
    1862
    cial diplomatic duties performed abroad, you ought to reduce the permanent expenditure of the Diplomatic Service. Why should you have special Missions at all if you are satisfied with the men you have as your permanent officials, and to whom you give these large salaries? Under all the circumstances, I am afraid that I shall have to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
    MR. GOURLEY: I congratulate the Government on the success of the Treaty which has been obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I should like to ascertain the departure in the new Treaty from that of 1818, and also of the difference between the new Convention and those since 1818. There have already been four treaties in reference to the Fisheries Question, the last of which was in 1871. What I wish to know is how far the arrangements which have just been made at Washington are in harmony with either one or the other of these treaties, and whether the whole treaties are to continue in operation or to remain in abeyance. I should also like to have some information from the Government upon another point — namely, why the right hon. Gentleman was not authorized to settle the Alaska dispute which has arisen between this country and the United States? I am of opinion that the Government ought to have given the right hon. Gentleman full power to enter into that dispute, and I wish to know whether, as that was not the case, all questions with regard to the Alaska fisheries are to remain in abeyance, or whether they are to be referred to the mixed Commission said to form one of the provisions of the new Treaty. I want to know precisely what the arrangement is which has been arrived at between America and this country with regard to all the questions that were in dispute when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was sent out to America, and also what is intended to be done in regard to the Alaska question.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: There are two questions mixed up in the subject now before the Committee. One is the success or failure of the Mission which has been unnecessarily mixed up with another question—namely, the cost of the Mission. Hon. Members may have been pleased to hear

    1863
    the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). It was only one of the many instances of the magnanimity the right hon. Gentleman has displayed in his attitude towards the worst and most venomous of his political opponents. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman's magnanimity had any chance of being reciprocated; but, judging from past experience, I do not think there is much prospect of that. It appears to me that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have been, to use an Americanism, "a little too previous" in the speeches they have used this evening. They have spoken as if the Treaty was already ratified. Does the Under Secretary make it his business to read the telegrams which come over here from the United States? If not, I would advise him to spend 10 minutes every morning in studying the cablegrams which appear in The Daily News or some other trustworthy paper. Lately I have been reading The Daily News with very great attention, and I find that according to the cablegrams of the correspondent of that newspaper there that this Treaty, which the correspondent most strongly advocates, stands in great, if not of supreme, danger of being rejected by the Senate. I will not venture to prophesy, but if I were a betting man I should be disposed to enter into a wager with the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the Treaty being ratified. I think if the right hon. Baronet will exercise his own intelligence in the matter he will arrive at exactly the same opinion as I have. Why do I allude to that matter? It is for this reason—that it is most evident the Treaty will not be ratified. The First Lord of the Treasury has eulogized the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for his services; but the First Lord of the Treasury will be mainly responsible for the failure of the Treaty, if failure there be. Why? Because the right hon. Gentleman could not have made a more grotesque selection of a Representative than when he selected the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. It is one of the elementary principles of diplomacy that you should not send as your representative a person who is obnoxious to a large portion of the people of the country
    1864
    to which it is proposed to send him. In France there is a large Party who do not conceal their intention of waging war on the first opportunity, in order to restore to France Alsace and Lorraine. At the head of that Party is M. Paul Delarain. What would be thought if, in settling a dispute with Germany, the French Republic were to select M. Delarain, the President of the Anti-German League, to negotiate the matter? Yet that selection would not be more absurd than the selection of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to conduct the Mission to the United States of America. Anyone who knows the right hon. Gentleman well knows his infirmity of temper. There is no man who has a greater power of making enemies and making himself personally obnoxious. Just before the right hon. Gentleman went to America he added to his original sin by making two or three speeches which were most insulting and offensive to a large number of persons of great influence—namely, those persons who are Irish, either by birth or extraction. Possibly the First Lord of the Treasury thinks Her Majesty's Government can flout the Irish people of America, but he will find himself mistaken. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has spoken of his experiences in America. Let me ask him if he did not find that in that country one of the most potent forces was the Irish-American element. As I have said, it is one of the most grotesque infringements of all the rules of diplomacy to select a man for a special Mission who is personally obnoxious to the people of the country to which he is sent. But it is not merely to the Irish-American people that the right hon. Gentleman has made himself obnoxious. He is disliked in America by a large section of Native Americans, because of his action towards the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of his own Party, towards his Colleagues, and towards the Party to which he formerly belonged. Nothing has disgusted large masses of native American opinion more than the return which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has made for such magnanimity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition as we have seen displayed tonight. Then, if the Treaty should be rejected by the Senate, the responsibility will rest, in the first place, on the right

    1865
    hon. Member for West Birmingham, and, secondly, on the Government who were foolish enough, to appoint him. I believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were thinking more of their own political interests and of damaging the right hon. Member for West Birmingham when they selected him, than of settling this great question between the two countries. The First Lord of the Treasury has spoken of the great fitness of the right hon. Member for the task of negotiator. If I had to choose between the two, I think the First Lord of the Treasury would himself have been 10 times preferable to the right hon. Member. I will prophesy that the treaty will not be ratified, and I will lay the whole blame on the obnoxious character of the negotiator and the offensive speeches he has made. And now as to the expenditure. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury ever reads the American papers. I read them nearly every night, and I have been dazzled and astounded by the almost Belshazzarlike splendour of the feasts which have been given by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. All the fashion, all the statemanship, all the wealth, and, though last not least, all the beauty and luxury of America seem to have been invited to the bounteous and hospitable board of the right hon. Gentleman. If I could have known that this discussion would have been prolonged, I would have armed myself with a few extracts from the fashionable newspapers of America which depicted that Belshazzarlike splendour of the right hon. Gentleman's banquets. His hospitable turn of mind and his admiration for the wealth, fashion and beauty of America does credit to his taste. But at whose expense was all this done? The right hon. Gentleman took care to advertize that in addition to his other claims to public distinction, he is a very wealthy man. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) laughs. We all know how much importance to attach to anything which proceeds from the hon. Member who is the fides Achates of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. I would as soon go to Sancho Panza for the character of Don Quixote. Whether the wealth of the right hon. Gentleman was advertised by himself or not, we all know that he is a man of
    1866
    very large means. Why, then, did he not give these banquets out of his own pocket? What are we to think of the niggardliness of a man of such splendid wealth who, at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, spreads a bounteous banquet for every American who chooses to attend it? My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton frequently makes proposals for diminishing the expenditure of the country, and he is generally supported by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division and the Radical Party. At any rate, he has always had my vote, and. I want to ask the Radicals with what face they can vote against grants to Members of the Royal Family, who are not men with large business arrangements, who have no great means or fortunes of their own, and who are unable to support those emblems of vast wealth which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham always displayed? Thon how can they vote for giving the right hon. Gentleman this extravagant sum of £3,900 because he had been making a big man of himself at Washington at the expense of the ratepayers of this country? I was in America, and went all over that country for seven months; I addressed meetings in more than 100 towns, and I did it all for £350, and I enjoyed myself very well.
    MR. CAINE: Before we proceed to a Division I would like to ask the hon. Member who brought forward the subject why it is that, though he objects in toto to every kind of special Mission in every shape and form, when there is a Vote which contains throe special Missions, he selects one, and one only, for dividing the Committee against. Why did not the hon. Member object to all three?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps I ought to have explained that my objection is to special Missions where we have Envoys Extraordinary. In the other two Missions we had no Envoys Extraordinary.
    MR. CAINE: I regret that the hon. Member has not challenged a Division on the whole of these Missions, but has selected one particular item in the Vote. The hon. Member certainly made no attack on the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, but his speech was followed up by one of the most vitriolic and disgraceful attacks upon that right

    1867
    hon. Member which I ever heard made in this House.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, for the information of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), that the Papers to which I referred will be laid on the Table to-day and will be found in the Library to-morrow afternoon.
    MR. GOURLEY: I also asked a Question in regard to the Alaska disputes.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: There have been negotiations on that subject, and we have good reason to hope that they will come to a satisfactory result.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 314: Majority 246.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I rise to ask for some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the grant in aid to New Guinea, which amounts to £18,500; and, also, why this item appears in the Supplementary Estimates, instead of forming part of the ordinary Estimates for the Colonies in the coming financial year? Let me call attention to the phraseology of a note which decribes the arrangements come to by Her Majesty's Government. It says—
    "In the course of the proceedings of the Colonial Conference Her Majesty's Government undertook to provide, as a grant in aid on the first establishment of British Sovereignty, a suitable steam vessel for the service of the territory as soon as satisfactory arrangements were made for the administration of New Guinea by Queensland."
    I see the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in the House, and he will, perhaps, correct me if I am wrong. My impression is that the arrangements made at the Colonial Conference was that the Colonies were to pay £15,000
    1868
    a-year towards the administration expenses of New Guinea, and I apprehend that the ordinary course of procedure would have been to wait until the necessary Statutes granting this payment had been passed by the Colonial Parliament. One would have thought that it was certainly better to wait until the guarantee came. The note appended to the Vote goes on to say—
    "It is proposed to pay over this amount to the Crown Agents for the Colonies, to the credit of the Administration of New Guinea, and to arrange for the purchase of the vessel as soon as the arrangements are completed."
    That is to say, that we are going to pay over £18,500 to the Crown Agent who is not going to spend it on the vessel. I want to know what evidence the Government would have to show that all these arrangements will be completed, and that the vessel will be bought and paid for before the 31st of March? I am speaking in the presence of four right hon. Members of this House who have filled the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would ask whether the bringing forward of a Vote in this way is not in direct contradiction to the principle on which our financial arrangements have hitherto been conducted? I contend that this sum of £18,500 ought not to have been asked for in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, but that it should have been included in the ordinary Colonial Vote next year.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I submit that he has himself supplied the real answer to the question he put, because I observe that the words in the Estimate are "as soon as satisfactory arrangements were made for the administration of New Guinea by Queensland." That is precisely the reason why the Government ask for this Supplementary Estimate, because they believe that satisfactory arrangements have now been made for the administration of New Guinea. The sum stated in this Estimate is required now, and therefore could not be made the subject of the Estimates for next year. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the arrangement agreed upon at the Colonial Conference. All I have to say is that the agreement then entered into is being satisfactorily car-

    1869
    ried out. The Queensland Government have fulfilled the conditions set forth in the Act of last year; and, that being so, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should perform their part of the contract and provide the necessary sum for this steamer. It is essential to vote this sum of £18,500, which is required in the current year. I hope this explanation will be satisfactory.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I desire to know if it is not the case that the undertaking of Queensland does not depend on the assent of the other Australian Governments, some of which have declined to accept the arrangement?
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the agreement has not been carried out. The Act sets forth that the Colonies of New South Wales and Victoria should join with Queensland in a guarantee for the expenses of the administration of New Guinea, and the Government believe that satisfactory arrangements have been made.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have no great desire to intervene in this discussion, because we are all of us anxious to pass on to another matter; but I must say that the explanation of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies is very unsatisfactory. In the first place, Parliament has not been consulted, and when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I absolutely refused to give one sixpence towards these Colonization schemes. I am of the same opinion now. If the Colony of Queensland likes to embark upon such schemes, and is desirous of Colonizing New Guinea, by all means let her do so; but I object to the British taxpayer being made to pay for it. There has been no discussion in Parliament as to the desirability of making this expenditure. This is an Estimate which professes to be a Supplementary Estimate, but which is not a Supplementary Estimate in the true; sense of the term. It is an Estimate which the Government seek to obtain before the Estimates of the year are submitted to Parliament. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies is perfectly unable to say, as a matter of official knowledge, whether the Colonies of Queensland, Victoria, or New South
    1870
    Wales have ratified the agreement entered into or not. He says "he believes;" but how can he ask the House of Commons to vote money on his belief? We want absolute official knowledge and Papers before money can be voted by Parliament in this way. Who wants this vessel; is it the Government or the Crown Agents, or the Colonies? What check can you have upon the expenditure by the Crown Agents? Have you any guarantee that the Crown Agents will render any account of the expenditure? How do you know the money will be expended? Really money should not be voted in this hugger-mugger way by Parliament, without any inquiry. I protest against the whole principle of the Vote. Supplementary Estimates are bad enough in any circumstances; but here Her Majesty's Government are introducing a totally new expenditure into the Supplementary Estimates in order to induce the House of Commons unknowingly, so to speak, to vote the money. I protest, as being contrary to every principle on which the House of Commons has previously acted, against the Vote being brought before the Committee as a Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is some force made in the observations of the noble Lord. I think it is most unfortunate that this Vote, although it does not involve any considerable sum, is of so anomalous a character and raises a very nice and delicate matter of principle. It is inconvenient that such a question should come before the Committee at all in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, even if the facts were sufficently ripe to require our immediately dealing with them. I certainly am of opinion that Supplementary Estimates, except in the case of grave matters, ought not to be made the occasion for discussing questions of principle. I will not, at the present moment, give any opinion on the subject of the noble Lord's decision. The noble Lord may have been right or wrong in withholding his assent from the proposal made, but at any rate it was a very important subject, which ought to have come before Parliament without prejudice and without difficulty, and without the Committee having now to dispose of it at the fag end of the

    1871
    Estimates, which everybody desires to get rid of in order to proceed with another subject. That is not the way in which questions of importance ought to be disposed of. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies did not observe in the observation he made that he was speaking in flat contradiction of a material part of the official explanation laid before the House in which it is said:—
    "It is proposed to pay over this Grant to the Crown Agents for the Colonies to the credit of the present Administration of New Guinea, and to arrange for the purchase of the vessel as soon as the arrangements have been completed for the administration of the Territory by the Government of Queensland."
    Was it proposed to do that immediately?—[Baron HENRY DE WORMS: Yes.]—Very well. The official statement says "and to arrange for the purchase of a vessel"—that is not immediately—"as soon as the arrangements have been completed for the Administration of the Territory by the Government of Queensland." It appears to me first of all that the occasion for paying this money has not yet arrived. According to the statement of the Government, it has not arrived because the Government have not stated—that is directly stated—that the arrangements are yet made; and I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is prepared to strike out the latter part of the official note. If that is so, surely it is important. Nothing can be more at variance than that unless arrangements have been actually made, we should, before our liability arrives, and before the time for paying the money has come, pay over this money to Gentlemen over whom, as the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) has undoubtedly said, we have no control.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: It is to be paid to the Crown Agents for the Colonies, who are responsible to the Colonial Office, and therefore responsible to the Government.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Then if he is directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government, how in the world cm he be responsible to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the expenditure of money which is to be paid over to the credit of the Administration of New Guinea. Is the time come for paying this money or not? that is really
    1872
    the Question. If it has come and the Government tell the Committee so, then the principle of the policy can be debated; but if it has not come, then the proceeding is altogether premature.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Allow me to call attention to the wording of the Act which was passed in 1887. One of the clauses states—[Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: What Act?]—The Queensland Act. One of the clauses states that there shall be issued and paid to Her Majesty out of the consolidated revenues of Queensland, for 10 years after the passing of the Act, a sum not exceeding £15,000 in respect of the necessary expenses of the Administration of New Guinea. According to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, the British Government should provide a steam ship which would cost about £18,000 for the use of the Administrator of New Guinea.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Was that a guarantee on the part of Queensland alone?
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: It was an arrangement between Victoria and New South Wales and Queensland, but that arrangement as between themselves does not affect the position of Her Majesty's Government. The report of the proceedings of the Colonial Conference was in the hands of Members in July, and a debate upon the matter took place in this House in the month of September, when the whole question was thoroughly ventilated. I believe that in the event of New South Wales or Victoria not paying, Queensland would certainly have to pay. In the meantime Queensland, having fulfilled her part of the contract, it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to fulfil theirs. And the time for the payment of this £18,500 has arrived.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly clear and satisfactory to him, but it is not at all clear to me. The words, which had been already twice quoted, appeared to suggest that it should be a condition precedent to the payment of this money that a certain vessel should be purchased. But they were now given to understand that there was to be an agreement between three different parties, and Her Majesty's Government did not appear at present to be sufficiently

    1873
    informed that there was such an agreement. The money was to be paid at once, and the purchase of the vessel afterwards to be arranged for. After what had been stated it was evident there would have to be a Correspondence between this country and New South Wales and Queensland, to ascertain whether the Colonies had agreed in any common purpose. He asked whether it was possible within the financial year that this sum should be voted, and if it were so voted how were they to know that the money was spent in accordance with the statement laid before the House of Commons. What would be the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General with reference to the money if it were voted? He could not see how the money could be voted with justice to Sir William Dunbar unless there was before him more information than he had at present.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the history of the case was this—the Government promised that they would this year make provision for the sum of £18,500, and the Treasury were called upon to present an Estimate for that sum. The very question which the hon. Gentleman and some preceding speakers had raised had naturally occurred to his mind—he had asked what security would he get that on parting with this £18,500, the other portion of the contract would be carried out. And it was with that object that these words were inserted; they were inserted at his request to insure that when the money was paid they should not lose their control over it. The whole of the arrangements were expected to be completed within the financial year, and it was with that distinct purpose that the Estimate had been included.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was afraid that by the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury about retaining the control of the money he had destroyed his own case. The question was whether a certain ship would be paid for before the 31st of March that year. If it were not, then by no possibility under our financial rules could the charge be included in the Supplementary Estimates. Our system of voting money provided separately for the services of each
    1874
    year, and in accordance with that system they could only vote money coming in course of payment during the financial year. But this amount could not come within the financial year. Upon this principle the Government might just as well put into the Supplementary Estimates the pay for the coming year of officers in the Army and Navy, paying the amount to the Accountant General, and treating his receipt as a final voucher. It was true that the Government might in excuse say that they retained control over the money. But the very fact of retaining their control excluded the idea of a final payment and adequate voucher. The receipt of the Crown Agents for the Colonies would be no receipt at all, for they were servants of the Imperial Government. This question had become rather more serious than it at first seemed, because it was clear now that if they voted the money asked for they went against all precedents. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would say that the ship would be paid for before the end of the financial year, the matter would stand upon quite a different footing, but if the money was to be paid to the Crown Agents it was no payment at all under the Supplementary Estimates, and it ought to be withdrawn from them and put into the Estimates of next year.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, when this Estimate was put on the Paper the Government had every reason to believe that the ship would be paid for in the course of the financial year, but looking to the fact that they were under an obligation to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) an opportunity of making the Motion in his name, and having regard to the question which had been raised by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), he thought it would be better to withdraw the Vote and bring it forward at another opportunity.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he must express his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the very handsome manner in which he had met his objection.
    Motion made, and Question, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £300, be granted for the said Service,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (4.) £7,500, Supplementary, Temporary Commissions.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he would like to know when the Assistant Commissioners — who had been appointed to take evidence for the Tolls Commission—would make their Report. Many months had elapsed since the Commission was appointed, and from the want of this report the work was much retarded.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he had no control over the work of the Commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman desired it, however, he would make inquiries.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,240, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £5,658 for Orders of Knighthood, Medals, etc. If the Committee would look at the Estimate they would see that they were now asking for nearly double the amount of the original Estimate. He had no idea who received these distinctions and why they were received. He had been under the impression that no one received an Order of Knighthood who had not done something to merit it. He could not understand why anyone should be knighted because Her Majesty had reigned 50 years. The expenditure seemed to be excessive in any case. Surely the original Estimate was sufficient for the purpose without doubling it, and he would like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) to state on what basis the original Estimate was made; and whether application was made first to the Treasury, or whether the medals were scat-
    1876
    tered about profusely, and application to the Treasury made afterwards. He should have thought that a person receiving the insignia of knighthood would have paid for the insignia himself, because a piece of metal and a piece of ribbon could not cost very much, probably not more than 30 s.; indeed, that would be rather an excessive price. He had not had one of the medals conferred upon him; but he had seen them, and they appeared to be about the size of a 5s. piece, and their intrinsic value would be about 3s.; besides which a large number of these medals were of bronze. The medals were scattered in the most profuse manner possible; some on hon. Gentlemen opposite, some, he understood, on Ladies of the Bedchamber, and other such ladies; and he was informed that cooks and kitchenmaids had also received them. Surely it was ridiculous for the country to be asked to vote money for these things at all, but still more ridiculous that they should afterwards be called upon to double the amount. For these reasons he should ask the Committee to support him in the Division he intended to take on his Motion to reduce the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £582, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the hon. Member was entirely mistaken with regard to the medals which he believed had been distributed so profusely. The medals were not included in this Vote at all, or in any other Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Vote he would see "Orders of Knighthood, Medals, etc."
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that the title of the original Sub-head of the Vote had been preserved. The hon. Member asked whether the sanction of the Treasury had been obtained, to which he replied that the sanction of the Treasury was first obtained to the expenditure and the enlargement of the Orders given. The occasion on which these Orders were conferred was, no doubt, a very great one; hon. Members should bear in mind that this and the Vote asked for in respect to Westminster Abbey

    1877
    were the only sums voted by Parliament in connection with the celebration of the Jubilee. He did not think the Committee wished to discuss the details of the Vote, and after the explanation he had given he trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow it to pass.
    MR. PICTONsaid, it was almost amusing to observe the way in which these Estimates were presented. They had here a demand of £5,658 for Orders of Knighthood and medals, but not the slightest information was conveyed to the Committee as to the composition of the Vote. He asked where were the details of those Orders; who had received them; what had been done to deserve them; could the recipients not afford to buy the insignia themselves, and what was the cost of the particular insignia given to each individual? He contended that when Parliament was asked to sanction these payments there should be full information as to details. His experience went to show that what was meant by consulting Parliament about the expenditure of public money, was that the public money was spent first and the sanction of Parliament asked afterwards. As had been observed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the estimate of these insignia had been absolutely doubled, and he (Mr. Picton) said that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House were very much mistaken in supposing that Votes of this kind were regarded as trivial by the people of the country. On the contrary, they were closely watched; they created more irritation than they were worth, as everyone would know who had had experience and was able to judge of public opinion. But while these payments were made there were some important National Institutions which were starved. The expenditure on the British Museum was £5,000 below the Estimate, and he said it would be far more worthy of the dignity of that House to bestow £5,000 on the British Museum than upon such matters as were asked for in this Vote. He protested most earnestly that these Votes were being regarded with increasing dissatisfaction by a large section of the people, and he should, of course, feel it his duty to support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury
    1878
    has not replied to my questions—what were these insignia and what was their cost?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)said, he should not go into the general question that had been raised, because, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), the occasion did not arise for doing so on a Supplementary Vote, but there were some details which he was able to give. The largest expenditure was connected with the Military Order of the Bath, and amounted to upwards of £4,000; that on the Civil Order amounted to £1,900, and the remaining principal part of the expenditure was almost entirely upon honours conferred upon distinguished visitors from the Colonies who visited this country on the great occasion of last year's celebration. He reminded the Committee that the insignia were returnable upon the demise of the holder. Alterations in the Statute relating to the different Orders were being made, to which the Queen had given her assent.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to know what was the cost to the Treasury of the insignia of the Military Orders on which £4,000 had been spent. He had seen these insignia, but he had not seen the blaze of jewellery which one would infer belonged to them. He wanted to know the absolute cost to the Treasury of each of these Orders.
    Mr. R. T. REIDasked if the insignia had ever been returned?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, in almost every case, with the exception of certain foreign holders, they had been returned. The explanation he had given he trusted would satisfy the hon. Member.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he must again ask the hon. Gentleman for the particulars.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, the Collar of the Military Grand Cross of the Bath cost £356, and was returnable. The Badge £38 10 s.; the ribbons, stars, and other things came to about £20, and these latter were not returnable.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he now asked, whether persons were allowed to send in contracts for these things?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that when Gentlemen

    1879
    were appointed to Offices under the Crown as Cabinet Ministers they had to provide their uniforms at their own expense, and was it a fact that a man who was made a K.C.B. or a G.C.B. had to be supplied at the expense of the country with the insignia of the Order?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he had stated that these were returnable on the death of the holders, and were not the property of the Knights.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 238: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE METROPOLIS.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the Motion which I have to submit to the House runs in the following terms:—
  "That, having regard to the importance of preserving and protecting the right of open air public meeting for Her Majesty's subjects in the Metropolis and with a view to prevent ill-will and disorder, it is desirable that an inquiry should be instituted by a Committee of this House into the conditions subject to which such meetings may be held and the limits of the right of interference therewith by the Executive Government."
  I think I shall probably have the general assent of the House if I say it is almost a matter of course that a debate on this subject should take place in view of the action of the Executive Government and of the police, because that action has excited very considerable feeling in a large portion of the population of this country, and especially of this Metropolis. Rightly or wrongly, a feeling is somewhat widely entertained—a feeling of disquiet—that there has been a serious invasion of the accustomed right of public meeting, and that this invasion has received more importance, perhaps, from certain utterances that have come from those who are charged with the administration of Her Majesty's Government. I recollect that the late Attorney General for Ireland claimed,
  1880
  on behalf of the Executive Government, the right to interfere with any meeting which the Government deemed to be held for an improper purpose. That, I submit, is not the law; and I am glad to recollect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) at once challenged that statement. The Home Secretary also, in the course of the discussion which took place in reference to this very occurrence in Trafalgar Square, claimed, if I understood his language correctly, the right to judge, acting for the Executive Government, as to what was or was not a bonâ fide political meeting; and he claimed the right to interfere or not to interfere, according to the judgment of the Executive Government, as to whether the meeting in question was or was not a bonâ fide political meeting. Again, I enter my protest against that as being a correct statement of the authority given by the law to the Executive Government. With regard to the particular transactions in Trafalgar Square, which have been the occasion of this Motion, I understand that the matter stands thus—that Trafalgar Square is not within the Royal Parks Act of 1872, that it is not within the jurisdiction of the various Acts of Parliament giving authority to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that it is at this moment entirely without legal regulation in the matter of public meetings of any kind whatever. My Motion demands inquiry with a view to such legal regulation. Further, there is the fact that for at least 40 years the people of the Metropolis have been accustomed to meet in the Square for the discussion of their grievances, or what they consider their grievances, without interruption and without challenge as to the legality of their action—nay, declarations have again and again been made by Members of the Executive Government of the day that they were in their legal right in holding meetings there, so long as the right was exercised in orderly conducted meetings. I am not exaggerating the case in asserting that by the recent act of the Head of the Police Force of the Metropolis there is a peremptory and, so far as his will is concerned, a perpetual mandate proceeding from him, in the exercise of a supposed authority, forbidding any persons to assemble in

  1881
  Trafalgar Square, however lawful their objects or however legal their conduct may be. I will put before the House the grounds on which I challenge that act of the Chief Commissioner. I am aware, of course, that there are very marked divisions of opinion on this question of open air meetings in the Metropolis. I know that a large and influential class say that meetings such as were lately held in that square are in these days an anachronism, that they are no longer needed, that they are a nuisance, and that they ought be done away with. ["Hear, hear!"] I quite expected that that was the opinion on the other side of the House, but to that class I do not belong. There are others who believe that public meetings in the open air may be held at any hour of the day or night, on any day of the week, and in any place. In that opinion I do not share. I am for preserving and protecting the right of public meeting wherever it has been accustomed to be exercised; but I am for protecting that right by legal means, and under legal regulations, and so as to cause a minimum of public inconvenience. A statement has been made by some that this right of public meeting is but a Liberal fiction, and that no right of public meeting in the sense of open-air public meetings exists. As interpreting the spirit in which I put this Motion before the House, I will read to the House the words used by Mr. Baron Alderson upon the occasion of the trial of the Chartist Vincent in relation to an open-air meeting. He said —
  "There is no doubt that the people of this country have a perfect right to meet for the purpose of stating what are, or what they consider to he, their grievances. That right they always have had, and, I trust, always will have; but in order to transmit that right unimpaired to posterity, it is necessary it should be regulated by law and restrained by reason."
  The learned Baron may not have been quite right historically in his statement, but in the spirit of that statement I submit this Motion to the House. I may point out that if London were a self-governing community this question could hardly have arisen. It certainly could not have arisen in the form and under the circumstances in which it has arisen. For if London had been a self-governing community, it would, as owner of its own property, have framed regulations for the use and enjoyment of it. All that would have been left to the Executive
  1882
  Government would be the right which the law gives them, and which I do not seek to impair or to diminish in the slightest, on their own responsibility to interfere with any meeting unlawful in its objects, or which becomes unlawful by reason of the circumstances under which it is held. But London is not a self-governing community. In the case of London we have as regards open spaces a variety of authorities, some of them with overlapping jurisdiction—Local Boards, Vestries, Local Trustees, the First Commissioner of Works, and the Home Office. In one sense Trafalgar Square was "No Man's Land," for it was neither under the Royal Parks Regulation Act of 1872, nor under the Board of Works. It is urged by some persons that open-air meetings are matters which, in London, could properly be dispensed with. But I think the general body will agree with the views of the right hon. Member for Derby when at the Home Office. The following is a letter addressed by him to the Metropolitan Board of Works in August, 1883, with reference to Southwark Park:—
  "You are aware of my sentiments on this subject. It is hard to expect that working men who claim to meet for the discussion of their own affairs should be put to the cost of hiring rooms for the purpose, which, if the assemblage is large, is in London a very expensive business. There is not a village or a town in England which has not some open space where gatherings of this kind can take place, and it would be intolerable if the population of London, amounting to 4,000,000 of people, were destitute of such opportunities, which are naturally and legitimately desired. Both Parliament and the Crown have, in the administration of the Parks under their control, evidenced their opinion that public meetings conducted in a peaceable and orderly manner constitute a proper and even useful employment of open spaces in the Metropolis. I think it would be a matter of regret if the Metropolitan Board took a different view of the open spaces which are under their management. Unnecessary repression of this character creates discontent and disturbance, and so far from tending to public order is calculated to provoke irritation and tumult."
  I shall now have to trouble the House with a few words as to the historical creation of Trafalgar Square. In the course of the discussion which has taken place with reference to the Square sanction has sometimes been given to the view that Trafalgar Square is the private property of Her Majesty, and that in a legal sense it was like Hyde

  1883
  Park before the Parks Regulation Act was passed. Nothing can be more mistaken than that view. Hyde Park was originally called after the manor of Hyde, which manor was one of the possessions of the Abbey of Westminster which was confiscated by Henry VIII. From the days of that Monarch it remained for a long series of years the private property of the Crown, just like any other property. The case of Trafalgar Square was absolutely and entirely different. I am informed by Mr. Charles Harrison, who has given me his assistance in getting up this matter in detail, that the first important Act with regard to Trafalgar Square was passed in 1813. It recited that it was considered a work of public utility and would be a great accommodation if, among other things, an open square was formed opposite Charing Cross. There were contained in the Act various other schemes for widening other streets. For this purpose, in connection with the improvement of the private Crown estate—then known as Marylebone Park, but now as Regent's Park—Public Commissioners were appointed and public moneys voted, and the property which formed the first half of what is now Trafalgar Square, but originally known as Union Square, was acquired by a public Vote of Parliament, paid for out of the taxes of the country. In 1826 another Act recited that it was a public object and for the public accommodation that there should be formed an enclosed and open square for the accommodation of the public which comprised the present Square; and one of its clauses, while imposing on the Commissioners the duty of completing the Square, at the same time imposed on the parishes its preservation and support. This Act related to the eastern half of what is now the Square, and which was in 1826 the property principally of the then Duke of Northumberland and the Governors of Bethlehem Hospital. By 1844 the property was substantially in its present condition, and had been so made by the public and at the public expense for public purposes. In 1844 a Statute was passed upon which was based the theory that this Square is the property of the Crown in the sense of private property of Her Majesty. I deny it. I know that it has been said that the Crown is the trustee for the people; but it has also been said that those who
  1884
  went into Trafalgar Square against the will or without the licence of the Queen commit a trespass. My contention is strongly against this view. The Act of 1844 recites that the Queen was seised in right of her Crown in the place called Trafalgar Square, which is no more than saying that the freehold or the fee simple is vested in the Queen, and that statement in no way detracts from the public character that has been stamped upon Trafalgar Square by the history I have given. The power of control over Trafalgar Square was wisely given to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests without in any way detracting from the public character of that place which was so originally stamped upon it, and no regulations either of those Commissioners or of the Chief Commissioner can properly set aside or alter the rights of the public in reference to it. Indeed, up to the present time no regulations of any kind have been made in reference to Trafalgar Square under the authority either of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests or of the Chief Commissioner of Police. I attach much importance to the Statute of 1854. The scheme of that Statute was this. It mentions certain statues by name, two of which are in Trafalgar Square—that of King George III. and that of Lord Nelson—and it then goes on to place under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the statues situated in public places in the Metropolis, and "public place" is defined to be one to which the public had "the right of ingress, egress, regress, or thoroughfare." That is practically a statutory admission of the right of the public to enter, leave, and return to that Square. The statutory history of the square to which I have referred entitles me to say that this Square was created by public money for the public accommodation, and not merely for the advantage of those who happen to live in its immediate neighbourhoood, and that, while the freehold or legal estate remains in the Queen, the beneficial use and accommodation of it lie in the public, and are in no sense properly to be limited and restricted by the powers of management vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The First Commissioner's power of management was, and ought to be, in point of law and in point of expediency, limited with reference to its public use

  1885
  and character. Lastly, I have pointed out that no regulations restraining or affecting that use have been made. What is the history of the user of the Square following upon these Statutes? The history of the actual user of the Square by the public is still more remarkable. In 1844, as I have stated, the care and control of the Square was vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. In 1848, when Parliament was sitting, a Mr. Cochrane convened a public meeting in the Square with the object of protesting, among other things, against the Income Tax, and he was informed by the Police Commissioners that the meeting could not be permitted; whereupon Mr. Cochrane wrote to them to state that he had no idea that such a meeting in such a place was illegal, and that, in consequence of the Commissioners being of opinion that it was illegal, he would take no further part in it. The Commissioners thereupon at once wrote to him and informed him that he was under a mistake as to their grounds of objection to the meeting being held, which were not that it was illegal to hold such a meeting in Trafalgar Square at any time, but only when Parliament was sitting. It was on that occasion that Sir George Grey stated in this House that it was lawful to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square, provided they were legal and orderly in their character. The next occasion on which the question of the right of public meeting arose was the memorable one in relation to Hyde Park in 1866. Hon. Members will remember that it was suggested at that time, with a much greater show of reason, that the representatives of the Crown, under whose control the Park was placed, had a right to prohibit public meetings in it, asit was intended for the recreation of the people; and that, if a public meeting were held in it, the grass and flower beds would be trampled upon and destroyed. In the year to which I am referring, the point was taken that Trafalgar Square was the lawful and proper place for holding such meetings. It was then asserted that an open, unenclosed square like Trafalgar Square was not much used for the mere purposes of thoroughfare, and that, therefore, it was a most convenient place for holding public meetings. Sir George Grey went further even than that, because he stated in this House that, as
  1886
  long as the public meetings held in the Square were of a peaceable, orderly, and lawful character, the Executive Government had no right to interfere with them. That was undoubtedly a very important statement. The present Home Secretary and the Legal Advisers of the Government have access to what I have not—namely, a long current of opinions on the subject by distinguished Law Officers, and I should like to know whether, in the course of the long series of years since 1844, there is any instance of the Law Officers of the Crown advising the Executive to interfere with orderly meetings being held in the Square. I should like to know whether the Government can show that on any former occasion, either on his own Motion or on the initiation or suggestion of the Government, the Chief Commissioner of Police, by proclamation or notice or ukase—I care not which—has chosen, upon his own authority, to prohibit any meeting, however lawful or orderly, in Trafalgar Square. In 1885, when it was proposed by a Mr. W. J. L. Hooper to hold a meeting in Trafalgar Square to celebrate the release of Mrs. Weldon from prison, that gentleman received the following letter from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Police:—
  "4, Whitehall Place, S.W.,
  "Sept. 9, 1885.
  "Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 4thinst., I am directed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to acquaint you that it would be very inconvenient, both to the speakers at the proposed meeting and to the public, to have the meeting addressed from the steps leading from the pavement of the Square to the Terrace, and the blocking of this public way, which is unusual, might lead to disorder on the part of persons resenting it. The base of the Nelson column is not allowed as a platform for addressing meetings, and the usual and most convenient spot for such purposes is at the base of the wall at the north (or National Gallery) side of the Square. In many instances the promoters of the meetings bring with them a small portable platform to raise the speakers above the people, and this procedure is not interfered with by the police. The drivers of carriages in the procession should be instructed to obey the directions of the police, who would then arrange the empty vehicles at the north and west sides of the Square in the carriage way, so as to cause the least possible obstruction; and every assistance would be afforded to prevent disorder at the meeting.
  "I am, Sir,
  Your obedient servant,
  "C. L. BATHURST,
  "pro Chief Clerk."

  1887
  I have further to say that up to 1886, although there were a large number of meetings, many of them largely attended, held in Trafalgar Square, no serious disturbance occurred at any of them. In 1886, however, there was a meeting which was attended by unhappy consequences. We know that those consequences resulted from a misunderstanding on the part of the police of the orders which had been given to them. They believed they were told to assemble in the Mall, and the order in fact, was that they should assemble in Pall Mall, to be ready if they were required. The result was that a considerable number of persons—the fringe of the meeting—[a laugh]—well, I think so, and I perhaps know as much about the meeting as the hon. Member who seems to doubt it—a considerable number of persons acted in a disorderly manner. I am not going to say they were exemplary characters. Taking advantage of the circumstances in which they found themselves, they indulged in looting, and disturbances of a more or less serious character occurred. I will now refer to the evidence given in legal proceedings by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), whose courtesy I ought to acknowledge in giving precedence to me on this subject, Charles Bradlaugh, being examined, said—
  "He had known Trafalgar Square for 35 years, and during that time the public had passed freely over every part of it. He had never seen a notice exhibited stating that the Square was private property. Between 1855 and 1884 he had taken part in public meetings there. After 1860 he had frequently convened meetings there, none of which had been dispersed by the police or prevented. On the 31st of July, 1871, he was served by Inspector Clark with a written notice on behalf of the Commissioners forbidding him to hold a meeting. A meeting had been called by Mr. Odger, which had been proclaimed and which he doubted the legality of, and he issued a notice convening another meeting. The notice stated that force would be used if he attempted to hold it, and Inspector Clark, who served the notice, asked for an answer. He answered that the meeting was legal, and that any attempt to disperse it would be illegal, and that he would resist force by force. That was about 11 in the morning, and about 12 he served a notice on the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of Police to the same effect. He held the meetings. The Assistant Commissioner of Police was present. There was no attempt to disperse the meeting, although there was a large force of police present."
  I have shown that meetings have been
  1888
  held in Trafalgar Square since it was Trafalgar Square, that the legality of those meetings has been admitted by the action of the Home Secretary in 1848 and in 1866, and by the action of the police who have assisted in carrying out those meetings, and that no disturbance of a serious character has taken place. I now come to the unhappy occurrences of the 13th and the 20th of November last. It is true that previous to the 13th of November there had been a number of meetings held of a more or less disorderly character; it is true that these meetings were the cause of very considerable annoyance and inconvenience, and even possibly of danger to business and injury to persons whose premises surround Trafalgar Square. My object in this Motion, which I think the House will appreciate, would be while preserving the right of meeting in Trafalgar Square to preserve it under such legal conditions and authority as should minimize inconvenience to the public and give security for the preservation of order by those who are responsible for its maintenance. With reference to the meetings that were held before the 13th of November, if they were unlawful, I want to know why the Home Secretary or the Chief Commissioner of Police did not previously interfere with them? I do not understand it is suggested that the object with which they were called was unlawful. If they were made an occasion for the delivery of seditious speeches or of speeches inciting to breaches of the peace or disorder, I want to know why steps were not taken against the individuals for the offences so committed? I now come to the meeting of November 13, which I beg the House to observe—and which I would fain believe the Home Secretary failed to distinguish—was wholly unconnected with any of the meetings that had gone before. The meeting was called by a responsible body of men — the confederated Liberal or Radical Clubs of London—for an object which the Crown cannot and did not suggest was an unlawful purpose. Unquestionably it was an "improper purpose" according to the view of the Government, because it was to denounce their policy in Ireland. I wish the House to observe the dates. That meeting was resolved upon on the 2nd of November, and it was announced

  1889
  by posters on the 5th of November. It was under the management of the representatives of a large number of clubs and political societies in the Metropolis; and I recollect that at an interview which several friends and I had with the Home Secretary the Chief Commissioner of Police admitted that on several previous occasions the conveners of this meeting had acted in harmony with the police in preserving order; the Chief Commissioner willingly and gratefully recognized that fact. On the 8th of November was placarded the public notice setting forth that disorderly scenes had occurred in Trafalgar Square, and with a view to preventing the recurrence of such disorderly scenes—
  "I, Charles Warren, do hereby give notice, with the sanction of the Secretary of State and the concurrence of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works, that until further intimation no public meeting will be allowed to assemble in Trafalgar Square, nor will speeches be allowed to be delivered therein, and all well-disposed persons are requested to abstain from assembling there, as measures will be adopted to prevent any such meeting or the delivery of any speech."
  Let me say that if this notice has any legal effect at all—and I shall be surprised if any lawyer says the contrary—on the legality or illegality of the meeting, its lawful or unlawful character; it derives no additional force from the fact that it is stated to have the sanction of the Secretary of State and the concurrence of the First Commissioner of Works. The Home Secretary represents the Executive, and has no authority in the matter special or peculiar to him; his authority is derived from the general Common Law; and as regards the First Commissioner, even if he had any power, this notice is no exercise of his authority, and he had no power to delegate it to anybody else. This notice stands upon its merits or demerits, whatever they may be—upon the simple statement that "I, Charles Warren," forbid until further notice any meeting whatever. I am a little uncertain as to how to treat this notice. In the Police Court my able and learned friend Mr. Poland spoke of it as being an act of the Executive Government; but I observe that at the Old Bailey my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said there was not a tittle of evidence to show that the Government had anything to do with it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I must venture to correct the hon. and learned Member. What I did say was that the putting in motion of that notice came from the Police Authorities in the interest of public peace, but that there was no evidence that the Executive put the notice in motion, but that they approved the action of Sir Charles Warren on the statements laid before them by him.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I do not find from the report in The Times that he said the Executive approved what was done; but I do find the statement that the responsibility rested not on the Government, but on Sir Charles Warren, who, he goes on to say, was appointed by a Liberal Government; but, apart from that, he continued, there was not a tittle of evidence from which anyone could venture to suggest that Sir Charles Warren took action on the suggestion of the Executive. That, I think, is what I substantially said. Well, we now hear for the first time that the Government, if they did not take the initiative, did approve what was done. After this I am entitled to draw the conclusion that it was the act of the Government. First of all, what is the effect of that notice? Will any lawyer say that that notice makes the least difference as regards the question whether the meeting intended to be held would have been a lawful meeting or not? Would it not be admitted that that notice or proclamation had had no effect whatever in determining one way or the other the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the meeting? I beg the House to bear in mind the point on which I insist in this matter. I do not now question, and never have questioned, the right of the Executive to stop any meeting which they could satisfy any proper tribunal was an unlawful meeting, either because of its avowed object, or because it was calculated to inspire the minds of ordinary persons in the neighbourhood with fear. I admit that to be the law. But that is not what this notice does. What it does is to peremptorily forbid, until it is withdrawn, any meeting being held in Trafalgar Square, however lawful and however peaceable. I will notice the observation which the Home Secretary made the other night with reference to this point. The hon. Mem-

  1891
  ber for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) put a Question to the Home Secretary as to whether this ukase, as he chose to call it, was or was not still in force. To that the Home Secretary answered—"The regulations of Sir Charles Warren in relation to Trafalgar Square are still in force." Is the defence of the Government this—that this document is a regulation as to the use of Trafalgar Square? No. What, then, is the defence and justification in point of law? Again I say I admit the right of the Executive Government, upon their responsibility and for either of the reasons I have given, to prevent a meeting in the Square; but I deny the right of the Executive Government, and still more the right of Sir Charles Warren, to issue a Proclamation forbidding any meeting, irrespective of its character. Having got rid of the idea that this notice was one for the regulation of Trafalgar Square, by what is it to be defended? Let me remind the Home Secretary that the finding of the jury and the termination of the case at the Old Bailey gave no colour or legal sanction of any sort or kind as to the legality or illegality of future orderly meetings in the Square. A deputation waited upon the Home Secretary on the 11th of November, and I should like to read to the House what took place. The Home Secretary used this language—
  "The public have no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square. It is only by the sufferance and permission of the Queen that they do meet there. That permission is, of course, ordinarily extended, and would he ordinarily extended to any bonâ fide meeting, to any real political assemblage that came there for bonâ fide political purposes; but it is on sufferance and with permission, and Her Majesty (or rather the Office of Works, who speak for Her Majesty in the matter) has a perfectly legal right to withhold that permission."
  Now, I wish to know who made the Home Secretary judge, and who gave him, as the adviser of the Queen in these matters, the right of saying what is a bonâ fide meeting? This is very dangerous ground for the Home Secretary, and I venture to say there is no legal support for it. I deny that access to the Square is upon sufferance. The purpose for which the Square can be used, when access is obtained, is another and different question; but that there is a right of access to the Square I think is apparent. I have, I think, already made it clear
  1892
  that the public have a right of user of the Square, and the Home Secretary has no authority to take it away; but I will follow the matter a little further. Does not the Home Secretary see—do not all the legal Members of the House see—that even if a meeting was held on a place, and the persons holding the meeting were committing a trespass, that act of trespass would not necessarily make the meeting unlawful? People in those circumstances do not commit the offence of holding an unlawful meeting, but the offence of trespass only. And if you come to deal with the question of obstruction, it will be seen that obstruction will not make a meeting unlawful on that account only. It is not too much to say that you cannot hold a meeting in any public place at which you would not be guilty, in a greater or lesser degree, of obstruction which may extend over accustomed ways or footpaths. But will any lawyer say, if a meeting is held under circumstances which cause obstruction, that that fact necessarily makes it a meeting of an unlawful character? I deny it. The persons holding the meeting may be guilty of an offence for which they can be dealt with; but it is not the offence of taking part in or of holding an unlawful meeting. I should like to quote, on this question of public meeting, from an author whose opinions will be received with approbation by Dissentient Liberals on this side of the House. My friend Professor Dicey, one of the ablest and one of the most honest and candid of the advocates of our Dissentient Friends, says—
  "The right of assembling is nothing more than the result of the view taken by the Courts as to individual liberty of person and individual liberty of speech. There is no special law allowing A, B, and C to meet together either in the open air or elsewhere for a lawful purpose; but the right of A to go where he pleases, so that he does not commit a trespass, and to say what he likes to B, so that his talk is not libellous or seditious, the right of B to do the like with regard to A, and the existence of the same rights of C, D, E, and F, and so on ad infinitum, leads to the consequence that A, B, C, D and a thousand or ten thousand other persons may (as a general rule) meet together in any place where otherwise they each have a right to be for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner."
  The next step in the matter is the occurrence of the meeting itself. I think there are few men who have any doubt that if the authorities had permitted the

  1893
  meeting to be held undisturbed by the action of the police, although it might have caused inconvenience to some, it would not have resulted in any general tumult or disorder. But the course resorted to by the police, of stopping large masses of people who were on their way to the Square in the exercise of what they believed to be their long - accustomed right, undoubtedly had very serious effects upon the public temper, and ultimately upon the public peace. I am not going into this question, which is not pertinent to the Motion. I wish this Motion to be discussed apart from that point, and on its own merits. I will only say, with regard to it, that the Government based their contention as to the illegality of the meeting on three grounds—(1) that the defendants had taken part in a riot; (2) that they took part in a disorderly meeting, in which the police were assaulted; and (3) that the meeting was unlawful on the ground that it was calculated to inspire terror in the minds of persons living in the neighbourhood. The jury negatived the question of riot and the question of disorderly meeting, and found the defendants guilty on the third ground only. As to what took place on the occasion I forbear to say more than this—that the assault and riot having been negatived, I am sorry the learned Judge did not see his way, inasmuch as it was admitted by the Crown that the meeting was held in the assertion of what was considered to be a legal right—I am sorry the learned Judge did not see his way to allow the prisoners to stand out and come up for judgment when called upon. The finding of the jury must be taken as a justification of the action of the police in preventing the particular meeting from being held; but it is no justification in point of law or reason for this standing prohibition of Sir Charles Warren, which is now to be treated as the action of the Government, permanently and absolutely at their will and pleasure, to prevent all orderly meetings from being held in Trafalgar Square. Now, in this matter, I have to trouble the House with one word, and one word only, as to another ground of justification which is sought to be put forward. The only notice existing on the 13th of November was the notice of the 8th of November; but after the meeting of the 13th of November a further
  1894
  notice was issued by Sir Charles Warren, in which, citing as his justification—and I call attention to it—the Statutes of the 2 & 3 Vict. and the 7 & 8 Vict., he purported to make this order or regulation that no meeting is to be allowed to assemble or any person to be allowed to deliver any public speech in Trafalgar Square or in the streets or thoroughfares adjoining or leading thereto, and that no organized processions shall be allowed to pass along the streets or thoroughfares adjoining or leading thereto. What are the Statutes cited in support of this? They are two. I dispose of one of them by a passing reference. The Act passed in 1844–7 & 8 Vict.—gives certain authority, limited, as I have indicated, to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and now to the Commissioners of Works. The only section in the other Statute which has any bearing on this matter is the 52nd section, which makes it lawful for the Commissioner of Police from time to time, as occasion may require, to frame regulations for the route to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and for preventing obstruction in the streets and thorough-fares within the Metropolitan Police district, in all times of public processions, public rejoicings, or illuminations, and also to give directions to constables to keep in order and to prevent any obstruction of the thoroughfares in the immediate neighbourhood of Her Majesty's Palaces, the Public Offices, Parliament, the Courts of Law, the Police Courts, theatres, and other places of public resort, and in any case where the thoroughfares are thronged and liable to be obstructed. What does this Statute mean? It is not a Statute forbidding processions, but a Statute for regulating them. It is not a Statute forbidding public meetings, but it is a power given to the police to be exercised with the view of marshalling, so to speak, the traffic, so that there may be as little disturbance or inconvenience to the public as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say that it is within the competence of the First Commissioner of Metropolitan Police to forbid anybody from coming down Parliament Street, or to forbid any procession from going down the Embankment? I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's

  1895
  answer is to that question. I should like him now to give, even by a nod of the head, some indication of an answer, because I submit to the House that unless the power claimed is a power to the extent and of the kind that I have indicated, there is no more power to stop processions in the direction of Trafalgar Square by a general order applicable to all occasions than there is to stop them in any thoroughfare of the Metropolis. I have so far dealt with this matter very much on the legal grounds, but I confess that I do not think this is a question which the House can afford or ought to discuss in the mere language of legal pedantry. I am fully aware of the technical legal difficulties in the way, in many cases, of affirmatively establishing in a Court of Law the concrete right of open-air public meeting. But this is a question in which a right that the public have exercised in fact has been restrained by a peremptory mandate of the Government, which they are called upon to justify, not only in point of law, but on Constitutional principles. I submit they can do neither. If they want to have further powers to maintain order and to keep the peace, let them come to Parliament and ask for them, and my Motion opens the road to inquiry. If the existing regulations are inadequate, let them be strengthened; but do not by an indirect method or side-wind make an invasion upon a long exercised right of the public, or interfere with it in this peremptory and unconstitutional manner. I have pointed out that the question of the right to hold orderly meetings in Trafalgar Square was not raised in the case heard at the Old Bailey. There was a kind of assertion by the learned Attorney General that there was no right of access to the Square, which in his summing-up Mr. Justice Charles did not seem to endorse. I know, also, there was a suggestion of Mr. Justice Charles as to the non-existence of the supposed right of holding public meetings in Trafalgar Square. In so far as any such suggestion was made by that learned Judge, I say with all respect that it was a mere obiter dictum, because the question did not arise in the case. The ground upon which the verdict of the jury at the Old Bailey rested would have equally applied to any like meeting in any place—even in a
  1896
  place in which it was admitted there was a right to hold the meeting. But when the Government had the opportunity of having the question judicially determined as to whether there was or was not the right to hold an orderly meeting in Trafalgar Square, I say unmistakably—I do not say it offensively—that they shirked the question. I allude, of course, to the case of Mr. Saunders, a former Member of this House. Mr. Saunders attended at Trafalgar Square, having given notice to the police that he would, on the 8th and again on the 11th of November. He said that he claimed his right to go there and to speak to the unemployed in terms of sympathy, and I think he said terms of comfort. The police told him they would not permit the meeting. He said that he would hold it. He went to the place of meeting and began to speak. An inspector or constable desired him to desist. He said he would not desist, but would persevere until he was forcibly prevented. Consequently, the inspector or constable put his hand on him to stop him, and the meeting was then at an end. Mr. Saunders was brought before a magistrate and was defended—ably defended—by my learned friend Mr. Corrie Grant, and the representatives of the Government on that occasion showed the most anxious desire to withdraw the charge. Mr. Corrie Grant wanted to know what was the offence that had been committed; and I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to a very extraordinary thing—namely, to what Mr. Poland, a most able and competent counsel on the other side, said in his argument. In the first place, Mr. Corrie Grant said—"This is not a regulation under any Statute." Mr. Poland said—"It is quite clear it is not." Mr. Corrie Grant asked on what authority the prohibition rested—what section authorized it? Mr. Poland said—"No Statute. He does it simply as a servant of the Crown." So that we have here the old idea of private property, and that a trespass is committed by anyone going to the Square without or against the permission of the Crown. I had intended to allude to the case of the other public parks, and I shall be very short in my reference to them. The right of user by the public in other open spaces in the Metropolis than Trafalgar Square cannot be said to be in a

  1897
  satisfactory condition. It calls for inquiry as the Motion suggests. Shortly stated, these public places are of two classes—those which are outside the Public Parks Act of 1872, and those that are within that Act. Under the regulations framed in pursuance of the Public Parks Act of 1872 there are in London four places, and four only, so far as I am aware, in which there is the right of public meeting, and that right is given in rather a remarkable way. It is not expressly said that there shall be a right of public meeting, but that no public meeting shall be allowed to take place except within certain spaces and subject to various other conditions. Those four places are Hyde Park, Regent's Park, Victoria Park, and Battersea Park. Then, as to the places not within the Public Parks Act, they stand in this position. First, as to the licensing authority, where the Metropolitan Board is the primary authority for making bye-laws, the confirming authority is either the Secretary of State or First Commissioner of Works. Where the Local Board are the conservators, the confirming authority is the Local Government Board. Where the conservators are appointed from local residents, the confirming authority is the First Commissioner of Works. So that you have these various authorities, and not always acting in harmony. In regard to those places specially under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, there is a prohibition of a qualified kind against any right to hold public meetings in by far the largest number of open spaces in and around the Metropolis. I mean that such meetings cannot be lawfully held unless by the written consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works first had and obtained. This applies to a very large number of places, among which are—Blackheath, Hampstead Heath, Shepherd's Bush Common. Hackney Commons, comprising London Fields, Hackney Downs, Wells Street Common (otherwise Hackney Common), North Mill Fields, South Mill Fields, Stoke Newington Common, Clapton Common, and parcels of land at or near Dalston Lane, and Grove Street, Wormwood Scrubs, Shoulder-of-Mutton Green, Plumstead Common, Peckham Rye, Goose Green, Nunhead Green, Clapham Common, Brook Green, Eelbrook Common, Parson's Green, Toot-
  1898
  ing Beck Common, and Tooting Graveney Common. In all these cases the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works is to be obtained. It does not seem to me that the right which unquestionably the public of this country greatly cherish should be, as regards all these open spaces, so entirely at the will and pleasure of an authority which cannot be in any real sense of the words be called a Representative Body, and as to which I will only say further that it is not a Body which can be said to command universal confidence. In particular, I cannot think that the Government can be satisfied, or ought to be satisfied, with the position in which the question of Trafalgar Square rests. I cannot think they will consider it a satisfactory state of things that there should now be in 1888 so remarkable an interference by the Chief Commissioner acting for the Government—and now, as we are to take it, by the Government themselves—with a long-established right. It is not a state of things that the public will put up with, or ought to put up with. They claim the right, according to the custom by which they have exercised it, to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square. I have no doubt they are willing and anxious to have proper and sober rules for the conduct and regulation of meetings, so as to minimize and reduce, as far as possible, any inconvenience to the public. But this question, it seems to me, touches a much greater and a much broader question, apart from its strictly legal aspect and character. Speaking of liberty in this country, De Tocqueville said that he was surprised to find how little there was about liberty and of liberty in the law of the country, and how much there was of liberty in the Constitutional understandings and customs of the country. Our right of liberty of the Press, reduced to its elements, means no more than that a man, without previous licence, publishes what he pleases, taking the legal consequences, and submitting himself, in what he writes, to the judgment of a jury. So as regards this public right of meeting. I have avoided, arguing the question in any spirit—and I hope I have succeeded—of narrow, technical, legal pedantry. I desire to put it on broader and higher grounds than that. This question touches a right which the people of the country have long enjoyed, and which they

  1899
  deeply cherish. The exercise of that right has been of very great value in the past, and. I believe it will be of great value in the future. What has been the result of the exercise of that right in this country? The result has bean that while we have seen revolutions in other countries carried by violence and lawlessness and accompanied by crime, we have seen in this country revolutions as great and as wide-reaching as any which have occurred abroad, carried by peaceable means, because this country has lived and thriven upon the breath of free public discussion. The right of public meeting has helped to form public opinion; it has given voice to popular discontent; and I say that public discontent, even if it be unreasonable discontent, ought to have a voice. It has quickened the action of Legislatures—aye, and its action has quickened and roused the conscience of Governments. It has been useful in the past, so I believe it will be useful in the future; and, therefore, I hope the House of Commons will not, by vote or otherwise, do anything to impair, restrict, or weaken that power of expressing public opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, having regard to the importance of preserving and protecting the right of open air public meetings for Her Majesty's subjects in the Metropolis, and with a view to prevent ill-will and disorder, it is desirable that an inquiry should be instituted by a Committee of this House into the conditions subject to which such meetings may be held, and the limits of the right of interference therewith by the Executive Government."—(Sir Charles Russell.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I should like, at the outset of the observations I shall make to the House, to express my cordial concurrence with the closing remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). The importance and value of public meetings the Government fully recognize. We entirely admit the truth of his assertion—that it is desirable that popular discontent should find a free and open voice, and should not be driven to express itself in secret conventicles and other ways. I believe that no one in this House is more con-
  1900
  vinced of those somewhat—I say it without offence—elementary maxims to which he has given eloquent expression. But I believe in this question of Trafalgar Square, which has now arisen between the authorities and some part of the public, we have done nothing to impair any public right—nothing to diminish any real right of public meeting which exists in the Metropolis. Our action has been entirely dictated by what I may call police considerations—consideration of public order, the protection of persons and property, and what was necessary to be done in order to prevent a repetition of the scenes that happened not much more than two years ago, and which certainly were a disgrace both to this Metropolis and its civilization. No doubt there does lie at the bottom of this controversy some necessary inquiry into the legal position of Trafalgar Square. The hon. and learned Gentleman has disclaimed the use of mere legal pedantry in dealing with the subject; but, at the same time, artfully—I do not use the word in an offensive sense—doing that, he has led the way over a series of Statutes, seeking to produce upon the House an impression that there was some legal right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square. If that was not his intention or purpose, then the greater part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument had no purpose at all. Now, as to the legal right of meeting in Trafalgar Square, I absolutely challenge it and join issue upon it. I say that such a right does not exist in law or in fact. No such thing can be pretended directly or openly by a lawyer, even of much less eminence than the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman at great length through the Statutes. I shall shortly put the view which I found accepted at the Home Office when I entered it. It is this. Under the Statute of 1844 Trafalgar Square was not created the property of the Crown, and certainly it was not the private property of the Crown; but Trafalgar Square was recognized by statutory enactment as one of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, the ownership of which was therefore in the Crown. The reason of that, I apprehend, was that Trafalgar Square was made out of an old Royal property called King's Mews.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: No; only a very small part of it.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not strictly accurate in some of his facts; at least, they do not conform with the information I have been able to collect on the subject. Trafalgar Square took the place originally of a large building called the King's Mews and its appurtenaces, to which were added premises in part purchased by private and in part by public money. It is enough, however, to take one's stand on the Act of 1844, and I have no desire to lay before the House any technical or pedantic view of that Act. But how can anyone read that Act and understand otherwise than that Parliament intended to declare, as it does declare—
  "That the place or square called Trafalgar Square is by this Act vested in the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, her heirs and successors, as part and parcel of the hereditary possessions of Her Majesty."
  Then the Act goes on to vest—I wish frankly to admit that it clothes Trafalgar Square with a species of public trust—the management, care, control, and regulation of the Square in the Commissioners of Woods—now of Works—as representing the Crown, and they are required to keep it in order. Then comes the 3rd section of the Act, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer, but which throws light on the position of the Square. That section says that the clauses of the Metropolitan Police Act shall apply to this Act and to the Square, so far as such clauses and provisions are not repugnant or inconsistent with the Trafalgar Square Act. That section makes it impossible for any lawyer to say that Trafalgar Square was an ordinary street or thoroughfare at that time. The provisions of the Police Act apply to all thoroughfares and streets of the Metropolis; but without that express enactment the police could have had no more to do with Trafalgar Square than with any private garden in the Metropolis, and they could not have gone into it to exercise any of their ordinary functions. The view at the Home Office was that it was vested in Her Majesty for public purposes and public objects. The management was committed to a great officer of State, namely, the Commissioner of Works—the right and title of Her Majesty, so
  1902
  far as owning the ground was concerned, was left untouehed—in order that the Square might be best devoted to the public enjoyment and to the public advantage. At that time it certainly was not a thoroughfare, because the Act of Parliament contemplates that the Commissioner of Works may put up in it things which might be viewed as an obstruction. Things have been put up by the First Commissioner in Trafalgar Square which might be considered obstructions if put up in any ordinary thoroughfare. The statue of Sir Charles Napier was put up in 1858, the statue of Sir Henry Havelock in 1861, that of George IV. in 1845, and the great column between 1844 and 1847. Therefore things were put up in Trafalgar Square which showed that Parliament contemplated a condition of affairs inconsistent with the dedication of the Square as an ordinary highway, and that it was intended by Parliament that the public should have the use and enjoyment of the Square, possibly in a more complete way than they had the use and enjoyment of the Parks. Of course, I am not insensible to the contention which might be raised that subsequent user of the Square might have altered that condition of things and given the public a right of thoroughfare; but such a point has never been raised, has never been argued, and has never been decided. It would, indeed, admit of a good deal of argument; but I do not think it necessary to enter into that question, but I will take it the other way. If there be a right of user and of thoroughfare that only makes the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman the more untenable. It is undeniable that the right of public meetings in any street or thoroughfare, does not exist. It does not exist on the property of any private owner, but with the consent of that private owner. But nobody disputes that. Nor, on the other hand, would anybody deny that public meetings may be held—indeed they must be held—in places where they can be held, with the sanction of the owner. The right of public meeting is the right of expressing your opinions openly, publicly, on any subject whatever, whether you attack the Government of the day, or whether you defend it; but it does not mean that you may take possession of any place you wish for the

  1903
  purpose of holding your meeting. If, as I have said, you hold a meeting upon the land of a private owner, the consent of the owner must be obtained, and. nothing is more clear than that you have no right to hold a meeting in a public thoroughfare. That is the law. I listened to the hon. and learned Member to see whether he would say that there was a right of public meeting in the streets or thoroughfares. He did not assert it; he assumed it. I should have been glad to draw him into that assertion if I could, but he did not assert any right of meeting in a public thoroughfare or street. It would certainly be most monstrous to say that any number of betting men might meet in Fleet Street to talk over the result of a race. [An hon. MEMBER: They do it now.] I know they do; but they ought to be removed, because the place is not devoted to the purpose of public meetings, but to other purposes equally useful. The hon. and learned Member spoke of this point not having been decided at the Central Criminal Court, I take it to have been decided. The point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). And what did Mr. Justice Charles say? He said—
  "I have anxiously considered the observations which Mr. Asquith has addressed to you, and I can find no warrant for telling you that there is a right of public meeting either in Trafalgar Square or any other public thoroughfare. So far as I know the law of England, the use of public thoroughfares is for the people to pass and repass along them. That is the purpose for which they are, as we say, dedicated by the owner of them to the use of the public; and they are not dedicated to the public use for any other purpose that I know of than for the purpose of passing and repassing; and if you come to regard Trafalgar Square as being a place of public resort simply, it seems to mo it would be very analogous to that. Equally on the part of the public they have no right, although they may often do it without objection—the public have no right to hold meetings for discussion upon any questions, be they social, political, or religious. That is my direction of the law to you as far as regards the abstract right of the people to meet in public places."
  That is a very accurate definition of the law, and it would be very unfortunate if any discussion in this House would allow the opinion to prevail that the public have a right to meet in every public thoroughfare. However much one may desire that public meetings should be held—and no one desires it more than I
  1904
  —I must say that to allow them in public thoroughfares would be to land London and other towns like London in hopeless confusion. The hon. and learned Member went on to say—"Oh, but there have been meetings held in Trafalgar Square," and he gave the instance of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who—according to his wont—held a meeting there in defiance of the authorities. The hon. Member for Northampton—and I congratulate him—won the victory on that occasion. The public authorities, perhaps wisely and prudently under the circumstances, in order to avoid a collison said nothing about it, and allowed him to go on and hold the meeting. Our whole life, public and private, is full of examples of that kind. You have no right to crowd the streets with carriages for private parties of an evening; but the authorities do not interfere to prevent it, because the inconvenience is so slight. There are numbers of things which people have no right to do, and yet they are not interfered with. Meetings have been held for years in Trafalgar Square—held as of right—they were not unlawful on that account, though there was no right; but they have been passed over because in the circumstances of the time there was no reason for the Executive to interfere. The question is whether last autumn the licence which had been good-humouredly extended in other cases ought or ought not to have been withdrawn? Whether you view Trafalgar Square as Crown property or strictly as a thoroughfare, is there a right of meeting there, or is the public injured and is any right taken from them when a meeting is prohibited? But although I have admitted that any wise and prudent Government would not insist upon its right to interfere in all cases, and would overlook a harmless infringement of the law, I invite the House to say whether the condition of things was such last autumn that we were not bound to prevent the meetings from taken place? I must remind the House what the course of events had been. The House will not forget how the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) expressed his sympathy with the wretched creatures who crowded into Trafalgar Square at night for the purpose of attracting charity—they had no refuge at night, had neither food to eat

  1905
  nor work to do—and the largest sympathy was felt for them, and then came the meetings of the unemployed. The meetings in the case of the unemployed were attended during the months of October and November with a growing danger of riots every day. Language was used of a seditious and dangerous character. I might quote language which was used at them, and which grew each day more and more violent and threatening. A certain organization was introduced into the movement, and speeches were made more and more likely to provoke disorder and tumult. I do not attach too much consequence to those speeches, but they are not to be altogether disregarded. Many things are said by excited public speakers, perhaps not meant to be acted on. But one could not altogether overlook the language used day by day, and which amounted to threats of violence if relief could not be obtained for the unemployed from the constituted authorities—relief for distress, which was truly alleged, I believe, in many cases. One person advised that they should go to the National Gallery, because he had tried it once himself with 200 men and had frightened the people there out of their senses. Another advised that 30,000 men should go to the Lord Mayor with lumps of granite in their pockets. Another said that if the Lord Mayor would not do so-and-so they would "terrorize the old scoundrel." [Cries of "Name!"] The author of this last observation was Mr. Allman, who afterwards admitted that he was paid so much a week by the Society for the Unemployed. We did not prosecute that sedition; we did not treat it as seditious; we did not think it worth it. Another orator said that pressure should be brought to bear by firing London in 400 places at once, while another urged them to carry sticks.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any names? If he will give the name of the man who said that, I think I can identify him with the police.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northampton suggests that the police employed people to make seditious speeches?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The person who threatened to fire London I am prepared
  1906
  in an inquiry to prove has since been seen in company with the police on more than one occasion, and not in custody.
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is a new thing to me that to be seen in company with a policeman in the street is a matter of suspicion—
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Not in the streets.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I did not know they were banished from society—
  MR. BRADLAUGH (again rising amid loud cries of "Order!"): I must ask the leave of the House to repeat what I said. My words have been misrepresented.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope the hon. Member for Northampton will not cause me to detain the House longer than I can help. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying. Not only were there these seditious speeches, but there was also this feature about what took place last autumn—that Trafalgar Square was made use of by the persons who came there day after day as a sort of central fortress from which they organized processions which went round the City and West End, inspiring terror as they went, and causing the shopkeepers to shut their shops hastily and give up business for that afternoon, and from Trafalgar Square these people organized visits by so-called deputations to various public authorities. Early in October a visit was paid to the Chief Magistrate, Sir James Ingham, and The Standard office, by persons who insisted upon having work given to them and not relief, and who refused to accept the ordinary relief which persons in distress are content to put up with. A visit was also organized to the Lord Mayor, in which very inflammatory language was used, and in which black flags and red flags and caps of liberty were carried, and emblems which recalled recollections which I should think no inhabitant of London would wish to see revived. A visit was afterwards paid to Alderman Knight, who put off the deputation with some good advice. Those who led the crowd then advised them to pay visits to the Queen and to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to make him disgorge the £15,000 which they said he received, and then to help themselves to the shops. On the Sunday on which I had specially inter-

  1907
  posed in order that the meeting might take place there came that degrading and disgusting visit to Westminster Abbey, in which the procession which went there desecrated the place they visited. Then came a visit to the Board of Works, in which the procession threatened the members of the Board that they would come in their thousands and compel them to give them work. They made the announcement that they would continue visits of this sort until their demands were granted. I need hardly tell the House what the effect of this was upon London. I received—for it is my unhappy lot to receive all such complaints — protests and complaints from various bodies in the town. A deputation of Oxford Street traders, who desired that their names should be concealed—and I call the attention of the House to that significant fact as showing the terror inspired—implored to be protected against the inconvenience caused by these riots which were going on. The diamond merchants around Trafalgar Square called attention to the disorderly and riotous mobs which were going there with the sole object of robbery, and said that they would be obliged to close their shops if this went on; the fear of these mobs kept away their lady customers, and they themselves were in danger of their lives; they had to fear not only the loss of goods, for which they might obtain compensation, but also the far greater loss of their trade. The Royal College of Physicians complained that members of their institution were unable to go out owing to the riotous crowds, and that there was fear for the valuable property in their College. On the 11th of November a deputation of bankers, hotel-keepers, and merchants came before me. All represented to me that there was a daily loss of trade to them—that customers were kept away from London, and that trade was paralyzed by a state of things of that sort, from which the working men were the first and the largest sufferers, owing to the cessation of employment caused by it. Lastly, there was a Memorial signed by some thousands of ratepayers in the neighbourhood of the Strand, who represented that the assembling of crowds, largely consisting of rogues and vagabonds, was seriously affecting their trade, and who asked the Executive Government to prevent valued privileges of
  1908
  public meeting from being converted into criminal licence. I had as long as it was possible—and I acknowledge fully my responsibility—adhered to the policy, not of preventing the meetings and processions before assembling, but of watching and controlling them, without any further interference with them. But in order to follow these sporadic processions, which it was absolutely necessary to follow, from 1,000 to 2,000 police had to be in Trafalgar Square. The Police Force was getting worn out; they were getting harassed and irritated; so that another consideration came into view—of which hon. Members opposite will feel the weight—namely, that the defenders of public order and property might have got out of hand. There have been complaints made, justly or unjustly—I will go into that question another time—but if you once allow the defenders of public order to be harassed by the repetition of duties which are almost intolerable, by having to stand by while they are being hooted and abused and even pelted, and by having to accompany disorderly processions, you produce a temper in your Police Force which is extremely undesirable. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the evidence which was given by Sir Charles Warren and which was unchallenged. That evidence only repeated to the public what I had on other occasions heard from Sir Charles Warren. He pointed out that for more than a month, from the 5th of October to the 13th of November, the police had had to watch meetings which were a source of danger to the peace of the neighbourhood, and that, having regard to the character of the people and the continued meetings in that place, he thought that it would have taxed the power of the police to keep them under control, and that it was absolutely necessary that these processions should be followed by the police. Those who attended the meetings were organized to act by signals, and to march out at a signal in an organized body. Those who organized and invited these meetings may be perfectly respectable men who wish to meet to express their views, but they cannot help the dangerous classes coming uninvited, though I think that all the speakers were not reluctant to see the dangerous classes there. You cannot help them attending these meetings and forming part of them, and thus

  1909
  adding to the danger of obstruction and to the danger to public peace and property. That was the situation which was growing upon the notice of the authorities and of the public during October and the early part of November. Now, will the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney say that the right of public discussion is advanced by all this saturnalia of disorder?
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said not a word in defence or justification of disorder.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I did not mean to trouble the hon. and learned Member to rise. I know he did not say one word in defence of such proceedings; but I have to say many words about them, because the facts explain the action of the Government. In defence of the action of the Government it will not do to leave all these facts out of view. It had, I repeat, become unsafe in London to allow persons to go on being massed day by day in the very centre of accumulated wealth, in the midst of the most crowded thoroughfares, in a place where the preservation of order among thousands of persons was a task of the greatest difficulty, and where only a sheet of plate glass stood between the depredators and goods of the greatest value. And if the operations and precautions of the police are hampered by enormous crowds by whom they are surrounded, I should like to know how better protection could be given to persons and property? I should like to know, too, what judgment the hon. and learned Member himself would have passed upon the Executive if, by an unlooked for and unlucky chance, the events of February, 1886, had been repeated last autumn? The hon. and learned Member has quoted one precedent; let me quote one also. At a time when the hon. and learned Gentleman was Attorney General, for two days after that 8th of February, when London was looted, Trafalgar Square was closed to the public, just as it was last November. I say the same thing might have occurred again at any moment last autumn, and it was only by incessant vigilance, by the extraordinary activity and zeal of the police, that I believe London was saved from some similar catastrophe; and I assure the House that the strain on the force by the incessant vigilance
  1910
  they were obliged to exercise bacame at last intolerable and unbearable. I had apprehensions that the force might break down under that strain. That was the position of things. Were we, in that position, entitled to issue the notice which the hon. and learned Gentleman has read? He challenged me to defend that notice. I defend it fearlessly, absolutely, and on all points. I say that we should have failed in our duty to the State and to this town if we had not put a stop to those meetings. I say that we had a full legal right to do it; we were interfering with no right of the public when we said—"You shall not hold meetings in Trafalgar Square." It was not necessary that we should wait to see whether a particular meeting was unlawful or not. No meeting has a right de jure to take possession of Trafalgar Square, and occupy it to the exclusion of the rest of the public. A meeting that claims to do that is not unlawful in the somewhat fallacious use the hon. and learned Member made of the term. Of course, it is not necessarily unlawful in the sense of being riotous; but it is unlawful in the sense that it is trespass. A meeting convened for the most decorous, prudish, and regular object in the world, conducted in the most perfect order, is not unlawful, it is true; but it cannot lawfully come and be held in my garden if I say it is not to be held there, nor can it lawfully be held in a public thoroughfare, and, for that reason, it cannot insist upon being held in Trafalgar Square. It is true, it may be guilty only of trespass and only of obstruction; and it is quite true that neither of these vices of trespass or obstruction constitute an unlawful assembly so as to fall within the penalties that attach to unlawful assemblies, but they fall within the Law of Trespass. The meeting is unwarranted, if it is not an unlawful assembly in the technical sense of the law. The hon. and learned Member asked what is the meaning of the notice? As I read the plain words of the Trafalgar Square Acts, the Commissioners of Works have the management and regulation of the Square, and it rests with them, subject to any right of way that has been acquired—which certainly has not been ascertained as yet, if any such right exists—to manage and regulate the Square. They represent Her Majesty, who has the ownership of

  1911
  the Square in trust for the advantage of the whole and not a section of the public. In both capacities the Commissioners of Works have authority to say—"We will not permit a meeting to be held here either to-day, to-morrow, or next day. It is not a right belonging to any body of persons whatever, and we, for reasons that we think sufficient, do not intend to permit the thing in future." We of the Executive went to the Commissioners of Works and said—"Will you, in so far as you are justified, authorize us in excluding meetings from the Square until further notice?" We had that authority, and the act is justified on that ground. It is also justified under whatever powers belong to the Commissioner of Police under the Police Regulation Act. Of course, we all know that a notice does not make any meeting unlawful which was otherwise lawful in itself; but it has a perfect avail to make any attempt to hold a meeting unauthorized in the sense that those who have the ownership and control of the Square say—"We do not choose that it shall be done." It has also the effect of a warning to the public that it is considered an obstruction to the thoroughfares, which, although winked at and overlooked on many previous occasions, was not going to be winked at and overlooked on this occasion or the occasions following the 8th of November. I will not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his criticism of my speech on the 11th. I abandon the speech to him. I intended to say to the deputation what I have been saying to the House—namely, that while permission to hold meetings had been very naturally and properly, in my judgment, conceded time after time when it did no harm, yet that the time had arrived when it did do harm, and when it was manifestly being abused. I say that the anxiety naturally caused formed an abundant justification for putting, not mere technical rights, but solid, substantial, legal rights into operation, and thereby to put an end to a public mischief and a public danger. Did subsequent events justify our action or not? The hon. and learned Gentleman challenged me on the subject of processions, and he asked me if the Executive could stop processions going along the streets. It does not become me to construe Acts of Parliament in opposition to the hon.
  1912
  and learned Member, whose reputation stands so deservedly high. From the plain words of Section 52, I should have thought that processions, whenever they are liable to lead to obstruction, may be regulated and dealt with.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Regulated, not prohibited.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. and learned Member says "regulated," but not "prohibited." But if regulation does not go the length of prohibition, of what use is it to stop obstruction? The power of regulation is a power which must avail to this extent at least, that it shall enable the Commissioner to overcome an obstruction. When a procession is marching through London, filling both carriage way and footway, how is he to overcome it but by stopping or dispersing it? It stops all traffic one way and heads it back in the opposite direction. It can only be regulated by dispersing it and breaking it down. [Cries of "No, no!"] I should like to put hon. Members who dissent into the field against such an obstruction, and see how they would regulate without dispersing it. And now I come to the events of the 13th. Lamentable events they were I entirely agree. Nobody viewed them or heard of them with deeper concern or distress than myself. I think, however, the distressing character of that day was not due to the action of the authorities. I do not like when men have been convicted to even seem to press upon them at all, especially when one of the defendants is a Member of this House; but I cannot help saying that it is difficult to read the evidence given on that occasion and not see that—rightly or wrongly—those who had got up this meeting had formed a deliberate design of carrying Trafalgar Square by force and in spite of the action of the authorities. I am not saying that they are not people entitled to have their particular opinions; but one of the organizers—the secretary of the Federation—declared that he had got 60,000 or 70,000 men in the field ready to come in 60 or 70 organized processions to bear down on Trafalgar Square at the same hour, and the defendants who were convicted were manifestly waiting for those processions, and had since boasted in letters and speeches that "if our men had come to the scratch we should have carried the

  1913
  Square—like a dose of salts," is the elegant expression. And how was the "plan of campaign" defeated?—[Murmurs.]—I do not mean any offence to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. How was that plan defeated? Why, by stopping the processions; and what were they? Why, a procession of men, some of whom were armed with oyster knives, with which they stabbed the police; some had gaspipes; some had sticks — [An hon. MEMBER: How many?]—and these sticks had nails in them. These were the component parts of this organized procession, all converging on Trafalgar Square, all led to the attack by the gallant cry of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham)—"Now for the Square." After that came the final rush. That may appear to the hon. and learned Member a perfectly lawful and peaceful assembly. It appeared to the jury—and I humbly agree with them—to be an assembly obviously unlawful.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I said that I accepted the verdict of the jury, that it was an unlawful assembly, and that the Executive were justified in stopping that particular meeting.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am very glad to hear that.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I said so in my speech.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I beg pardon. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, in referring to the finding of the jury, put it on some technical grounds, which my ingenuity did not enable me to master. I say the jury found this to be an unlawful assembly; that it was organized, and attempted by force to break into Trafalgar Square and overpower the authority of the police. No one can read the evidence and fail to see that that was the deliberate design, cleverly contrived, skilfully commenced, and only defeated by the courage and self-devotion of the thin line of men who met these processionists at every point, and prevented them, in the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman, "from becoming an obstruction." That is the moral I draw from the trial resulting from the occurrences of November 13, after reading the evidence on both sides with, I hope, as impartial a mind as any of the jury who
  1914
  tried the case and found the verdict. I will not discuss the question as to why there was no verdict for riot and assault. The learned Judge left it open to the jury, if they thought that the people went there for the purpose of carrying the Square by force — but did not succeed—to take the lenient view and convict them only of unlawful assembly, and not of riot. If these people had proceeded to any material extent in the execution of that purpose it was a riot; but the Judge left it to them to say whether the processionists had made it a riot. He left them to take the lenient view, and they took it. I am glad they did, as I am always glad, in trials of this sort, when the least harm falls to those involved. I invite the House to say that the Government acted rightly, instead of adopting the Resolution the hon. and learned Gentleman has pressed upon them. But it was not only in this trial that we had the fullest justification for prohibiting the meeting and the processions coming to the Square. Both juries and the magistrates concurred in finding that the proceedings were unlawful. There were 126 persons brought before the magistrates summarily. Of these 27 only were discharged. In 22 cases there were appeals to the Sessions, and in two cases only was the conviction quashed. In seven cases indictments were heard at either the Surrey or Middlesex Sessions, and none of these prisoners were acquitted, but all were convicted by the juries. Two cases were sent to the Central Criminal Court, and in both convictions were obtained. That makes a total of nearly 160 cases in which the juries, magistrates, and Judges vindicated the conduct of the authorities and held the meeting to be unlawful in every respect,
  MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to which meeting his figures refer—the 13th or 20th?
  MR. MATTHEWS: These are the convictions up to the 21st of January, 1888, and they cover all the charges made since the 13th of November, The butcher's bill is 112 police injured, more or less seriously, some of them being injured for life. It is a little remarkable that the hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech has said a good deal about the right of public meeting, and has given the House an interesting his-

  1915
  torical view of Trafalgar Square, but he said little or nothing about the Motion he has placed on the Paper. I hardly heard a word addressed to it. He asked the House to affirm—
  "That, having regard to the importance of preserving and protecting the right of open public meetings for Her Majesty's subjects in the Metropolis, and with a view to prevent ill-will and disorder, it is desirable that an inquiry should he instituted by a Committee of this House into the conditions subject to which such meetings may be held, and the limits of the right of interference therewith, by the Executive Government."
  I submit to the House that the conditions under which meetings may be held and the limits of the right of interference are fixed by the law. For centuries there have been a series of authorities uniform and, I think I may say, one developing and explaining the other, by which the conditions subject to which meetings in this country can be held, and the limits and the rights of interference with them by the Executive, have been settled in the interests both of liberty and order. Illustrious Judges have laid down rules of law applicable to the subject, and those rules are perfectly clear. I quite agree that the application of law to the facts is very often difficult—to ascertain the precise moment of time when a meeting, by reason of obstruction or riotous conduct, ceases to be a lawful and becomes an unlawful assembly—that that is a criterion of facts often difficult to determine. I grant that; but all the Committees in the world will not assist you in deciding it. The conditions under which meetings may be held are perfectly clear. The meeting must be for a lawful purpose. It must be held in a place into which yon have got a right to go—either by the assent of the owner or otherwise—and it must conduct itself in an orderly manner; and if it fulfils these three conditions the Executive has no right to interfere with it; and it is absolutely free from all control or check or interference from the Executive. On the other hand, if one of those conditions fail, if the right to the place of meeting is not clear, if the man who has the right to the place says—"You shall not come here," then they will be treated a; guilty of unlawful assembly; and if the purpose of the meeting is unlawful, it is not only the right but the duty of the Executive and the magistrates to inter-
  1916
  fere and to prevent its assembly if they are warned in time, or to disperse it while it is being held if they could not interfere sooner. I have said that it is not only the right, but the duty of the Executive. Onerous as that responsibility is—and nobody is more convinced of that than I am, after the experience of the last winter—painful as it is, difficult as it is, it is one that must be exercised by the Executive—and for which, it must answer to Parliament and the Courts of Law, if need be—and it is one from which no Committee of Inquiry can relieve the Executive, or ought to attempt to relieve it. These things are so plain, Sir, that I cannot help thinking that is the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman said so little about his Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman felt it was an indefensible Motion. Let me suppose that this inquiry has taken place; let me suppose that every regulation that is suggested about Trafalgar Square is made; let me suppose that, after a great deal of labour, a set of rules are drawn up for the regulation, control, and harmony of meetings in Trafalgar Square. Let me suppose all these things done. Can it be denied that, if the instant after all these things are done, such disorderly scenes as took place last October and November arose at one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's regulated meetings, it would be the duty of the Executive to interfere? Can it be denied that if such disturbances arose in his well-manipulated, committee-regulated meetings in Trafalgar Square, it would be the duty of the Executive to step in and say—"This must not goon longer?" We think that there is abundant protection both for the interest of the public and for the safety of the public in the law as it stands. We can only meet the Motion as a Vote of Censure on the conduct of the Executive, and as such we must ask the House to meet it with a direct and emphatic negative.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was aware a good many hon. Members desired to take part in the debate, and he would, therefore, take care to confine his observations within as narrow a limit as possible, in order to enable the London Representatives to speak on a matter of such great importance to their constituents. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the

  1917
  Home Secretary deserved some little notice, as it appeared to him that what the right hon. Gentleman had delivered had been little less than the funeral oration of the right of the public to meet in the open air in the Metropolis. That right had been enjoyed for many years; it had been abused in very few instances; and yet they had heard from the right hon Gentleman the Home Secretary what was equivalent to a declaration that it was to be destroyed so long as the present Government remained in power and not to be revived again. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) wished to say a word or two in regard to the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary announced this remarkable intention—the grounds on which he announced the intention of the Government to resist the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). The right hon. Gentleman said that Trafalgar Square was the property of the Crown, and quoted an Act of Parliament for the purpose of showing that it was vested in the Crown—a matter which, in point of law, everyone must admit. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) did not think it was a very wise policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to rest their acts and their conduct on the ground that the soil of Trafalgar Square was by Statute vested in the Crown. The place was not all vested in the Crown until the Act, which had been quoted, was passed, and the place had been embellished and laid out wholly at the public expense, and, as the Act recited, for the public convenience. It seemed to him to be rather an unwise thing to say that it was absolutely at the mercy of the Crown—theAdvisers of the Crown—whether public meetings should be permitted to be held in a place which had been entirely laid out, and, indeed, constructed at the expense of the public. Then the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Police Statutes. He did not know—it was a very delicate question of law, and he was not sure whether it had ever been decided—whether the Police Acts enabled the Government to put an end to meetings in Trafalgar Square; but this he would say, that anyone who read these Acts impartially would come to the conclusion that it was never intended to do anything of the sort. These Statutes related
  1918
  solely to the regulation of traffic and processions, and he should be most certain that the Parliament who passed the Police Act would be very much surprised indeed if they had been told that the habit and freedom of public meeting was intended to be interfered with by the Act. What the right hon. Gentleman chiefly relied upon was a few phrases used in speeches at a few meetings before the 13th of November. It was a pity the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to the long series of years during which the Square had been dedicated to public meetings. For 40 years meetings had been held constantly in Trafalgar Square, and with the exception of the meeting of the 6th of February, 1886, and the meetings which took place at the end of last year, there had been no instance of disturbance or interference with order. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had greatly exaggerated the disturbances which took place at these meetings. He had given them descriptions of a most dramatic kind, embellished with language of a most epigrammatic character. He had multiplied one stick with nails in it into a whole host and multitude of sticks with nails; he had used his whole power of picturesque description in order to inflame the imagination of the House, and make hon. Members believe that a very saturnalia had taken place in Trafalgar Square. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) had been at some of these meetings, and had heard the language used. He did not agree with that language; but, speaking with every respect for hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was bound to say he did not think the language used at these meetings was any more violent than the language often used on Conservative platforms to describe the opponents of the Conservative cause. He was sure that a few expressions scattered here and there in the course of a number of speeches was a very scanty excuse for endeavouring to put an end to the old custom of public meeting as it had been enjoyed in Trafalgar Square. One word more in reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had discussed the meeting of the 13th of November, which ended so unfortunately. For his (Mr. R. T. Reid's) part, he was very sorry the right hon.

  1919
  Gentleman had made any reference—or, at any rate, such a pointed reference—to the defendants who were tried for what took place on that occasion. No one would dispute here, and he hoped no one ever would dispute in the House—certainly he never should—that it was not only right, but the absolute duty of the Government, to maintain order, and to put an end to meetings which became disorderly or assembled in a disorderly way. He thought the Government would not be worth their salt if they did not interfere to prevent turbulence and to protect the public. That was a very different thing from saying that, because at one or two meetings in the course of 40 years symptoms of turbulence had been shown, therefore they were to issue a Proclamation putting an end to public meeting in Trafalgar Square altogether. If the Government merely confined themselves to saying that when the meetings exhibited symptoms of disorder such as would lead a man of "reasonably firm mind" to apprehend disorder and tumult, they would stop those meetings, he should have no words but those of commendation to apply to their conduct; but what he did object to was saying that, after a long series of quiet and orderly meetings held in Trafalgar Square, because one or two were disorderly, the Government were to be at liberty to put an end to meetings being held there—to take advantage of some technical and legal argument to justify putting an end to the privilege that had been enjoyed for many years. He had no desire to underrate the difficulties surrounding this question of meeting in Trafalgar Square. He was quite aware that there were the interests of tradesmen to be considered, and he was by no means one who sneered at tradesmen. Tradesmen had to pay high rates, and had to maintain their wives and families as well as other people, and, of course, were entitled to protection. He did not dispute for a moment that the interests of these people had to be fairly considered in dealing with the right of meeting in Trafalgar Square; nor did he deny that there might be obstruction, and even danger, to many of them in disorder. That was precisely what they had to guard themselves against. Nor did he dispute that these meetings in Trafalgar Square might in some cases cause
  1920
  interference with traffic; but the difference between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was this: he, in common with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney, believed that with careful consideration and fair inquiry these defects could fairly be met and obviated, whereas the Government did not choose to inquire at all, but preferred by one stroke of the pen to abolish the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square altogether, without attempting to reconcile that right of meeting with the rights of persons such as those he had described. The real question that was to be considered by the House was not a question of legal pedantry nor a question of mere naked legal right. It was a question of the wisdom of the policy of the course the Government had pursued, or that they ought to pursue. Nor did the question turn upon whether the Government were right in regard to their action as to one particular meeting, but whether they were right in pursuing a policy which they had, he might say in perpetuity, declared it to be their intention to pursue—namely, that of putting an end to all open air meetings in Trafalgar Square under a claim of law which would equally entitle them to put an end to all open air public meetings in London. Practically the contention of the Government placed all rights of open air meeting in London—or if they preferred to call them customs, he was altogether indifferent to the word used—absolutely at the mercy of the Executive Government, and he thought that it was not uncharitable to hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that they had less love for big public meetings in the Metropolis than those who sat on the Opposition side of the House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, if that statement touched the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would withdraw it. In his view, valuable as was the right of open air public meeting in all parts of the country, it was exceptionally valuable in London; in the first place, because there were few open spaces available where large meetings could be held, and again because those who were in the habit of attending these open air meetings were often so poor that they could not go to the expense of employing public halls. Then again it was essential that the people of London

  1921
  should have the right of open air meeting, because they had grievances which were most acute and affected enormous numbers of them. He would not, of course, enter into the question of what these grievances were. It would be sufficient to refer to the existence in London of vast multitudes of people honestly wishing for employment, but unable to obtain it. He knew that this was a topic which enlisted the sympathies of hon. Members on all sides of the House. Then they had the fact that among the municipal authorities of London, some were corrupt and most were incompetent, and that there was no central Government in London at all. He need not refer to that which was the subject of debate the other night—such evils as the sweating system, under which people had their lives and almost their souls destroyed by working for starvation wages under insanitary and demoralizing conditions; and still less need he refer to that flagrant grievance in London—namely, that the dwellings in which the great part of the population resided had been condemned as a scandal to civilization over and over again within the last five years, not only in this House but by a Royal Commission; yet the evil was today as bad as it was five years ago, and, seemingly, would be as bad five years hence as it was now, unless a powerful agitation were got up in regard to it. The question was when, inasmuch as agitation could not under the circumstances of the case be confined to meetings in large halls, the evils under which London has suffered were to be reformed by lawlessness or by Constitutional methods. He thought that within the last few years they had learned a good deal as to the consequences of refusing to listen to moderate agitation. They had come very near teaching the people in some parts of the country, notably in Ireland and in the Highlands of Scotland—and he trusted they were not going to teach them the same thing in London—the fatal lesson that mere remonstrance or attempt to Constitutionally reform their grievances would do nothing until there had been some open defiance of the law which would arrest public attention and precipitate reform. The Government seemed to him to have improved upon this lesson, because they were now adopting a
  1922
  course, the effect of which would be to put a stop on the part of a large portion of the population to the right of expressing their grievances at all, inasmuch as they could not express them unless they were allowed to assemble in public meeting. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) could only say himself that it was from that point of view, and in that spirit, that he certainly should support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. The object of the Committee proposed was not as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary suggested, to disarm the strength of the Executive or to deprive them of a single weapon they possessed for the purpose of maintaining "ordered freedom," which was the only kind of order he desired to see maintained in this country, but it was for the purpose of investigating and obtaining the opinion of the most competent persons as to whether it was not desirable that they should, safeguarding all legitimate private and trade interests, and, of course, the property and person of Her Majesty's subjects, not only in Trafalgar Square, but elsewhere, refrain from taking away from the people of London their right of open air meeting in a place used for the purpose for so many years, which might too soon be followed by taking away from them the right of public meeting in other places. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary entirely misconceived, or seemed to him to have misconceived, the object and spirit and purpose with which this Motion had been brought forward. Those who supported it desired to see order always fairly and properly enforced, and to see turbulence repressed in London; but they also desired to see the poorest of the population of the country, which were the poor of London, allowed an opportunity of ventilating their grievances in the accustomed manner, in the hope—perhaps the vain, hope—that those grievances would obtain recognition at the hands of the public and the application of a remedy.
  MR. C. HALLsaid, if he did not follow his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. R. T. Reid) in the able and sympathetic remarks he had just addressed to the House, he trusted he would not think that it was because ha (Mr C. Hall) did not feel with him in a good many of the

  1923
  remarks he had made. He thought if this question could be discussed in the way his hon. and learned Friend had discussed it—as an abstract Resolution, and without reference to what had taken place, and especially without reference to the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—there was very much in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend which would meet with the acceptance of many of those on his (Mr. C. Hall's) side of the House. But they had to consider what was the history of the case which had led to the Resolution which was now brought forward and proposed to the House of Commons. If the House would bear with him for a few moments, he should like to call its attention very shortly to what took place only a few days ago. He was very glad that Her Majesty's Government intended to meet this Resolution with a direct negative, because in whatever words it was framed, and apparently it was concocted by the combined art of all on the Front Opposition Bench, it was nothing more nor less, and it was intended as nothing more nor less, than a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. What was the history of the case? They had not to look back for many days for that history, and to learn what its origin was, because he found that on the Monday before Parliament assembled the daily organ which represented hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—The Daily News—had an announcement in leaded type that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), on behalf of the London Liberal Members, would give Notice of an Amendment to the Address raising the question of Trafalgar Square and the conduct of the police, and that the form of the Amendment thus to be moved was settled at a meeting of the London Liberal Members on the Friday. This announcement appeared in The Daily News on Monday, and on Friday night the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney addressed a meeting of his constituents at Hackney, and stated that there was one subject which ought to be brought before the attention of the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment, and that was the question of the right of public meeting. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to elaborate what,
  1924
  in his opinion, at that time were the points relating to public meetings which were of importance. What were they? He (Mr. C. Hall) had taken the trouble to look into the reports of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches in The Daily News newspaper, and he found that he had put in the forefront and in the van of the question as regards the right of public meeting the conduct of the police and of Sir Charles Warren. He said that he would bring this matter forward at the unanimous request of his Colleagues, the Liberal Members for London and the surrounding boroughs; and he (Mr. C. Hall) thought the House would find that the hon. and learned Member had determined to take this step, not only at the request of his Colleagues, the Liberal Members for London and the surrounding boroughs, but after consultation with the Liberal Leaders. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that his Motion would demand an inquiry by the House of Commons into the action of the Executive and the police, not into an abstract question of the right of public meeting. The two points with regard to which he would demand an inquiry were in relation to the meetings of November 13th and 20th—he would demand an inquiry as to what would be the just and proper limits according to law of Executive interference with the right of public meeting. His hon. and learned Friend did not stop there. He went on to point out what the bases were upon which he wished to make this attack, which was nothing less than an attack upon Her Majesty's Government and the Executive. This was what he based it on. He said that a body of evidence had been furnished to him, which, if true, would show that there had been a very considerable amount of unnecessary violence on the part of the police. That was the first point his hon. and learned Friend made. He said that he thought that the attitude the Government had assumed with regard to Sir Charles Warren—whose name as the head of the police was received with loud hisses—certainly deserved a searching inquiry. Then his hon. and learned Friend proceeded to deliver what a right hon. Gentleman opposite would call a considerable number of platitudes as to the desirability of maintaining a good feeling between the police and the public. He

  1925
  said it was important if the police failed in their duty or exceeded it, that public opinion should promptly condemn them, and all the more so because of the responsibility and power that belonged to them. Then his hon. and learned Friend went on to remark that what the public desired to see was "right regulated by law and not by the capricious will of an Executive officer." ["Hear, hear!"] He heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Hear, hear!" but who was the capricious officer? Was that meant to be an attack upon Sir Charles Warren, or was it not? Was that meant to be an attack upon the police of London, or was it not? He (Mr. C. Hall) maintained that from the beginning to the end of his speech at Hackney, his hon. and learned Friend's remarks were an attack upon the police and on Sir Charles Warren. It did not end there. His hon. and learned Friend said that he should bring the matter forward at the unanimous request of his Colleagues, the Liberal Members for London and the surrounding boroughs. They found, however, that someone else was taken into counsel—no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—for they found that, making a speech to his constituents at Derby, on the same evening the right hon. Gentleman stated that the action of the police in London would have to be inquired into, but he would not touch on the subject, as it was in the hands of that very great lawyer, the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney. That was on the 17th February, and on the next day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) returned from his visit to the South, which they all rejoiced to see had benefited him so much. On the evening of his return the right hon. Gentleman held a meeting of his supporters, and amongst the distinguished persons present on that occasion was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. He (Mr. C. Hall) could almost imagine—if it were not presumptuous in so humble a Member as himself to do so—what the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian were when he saw in the daily papers on his arrival in England that his trusted law officer was about to embark in a crusade against the
  1926
  police of the Metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman would think that an attack upon the conduct of the police in Ireland would be all very well—that it would be safe to say anything about the police at Mitcholstown—but that an attack upon the police of the Metropolis was a very different thing. Well, Parliament assembled on the 9th, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney got up and gave Notice of an Amendment. But was the Amendment he moved the Amendment he promised his constituents at Hackney—was it a motion for a searching inquiry into the conduct of the police and the condemnation of that capricious officer of the Executive, Sir Charles Warren? No, it was nothing of the kind, but it was an Amendment practically synonymous with the Resolution under discussion, and he (Mr. C. Hall) could not help thinking that it was drafted in that shape by the advice of an "old Parliamentary hand." The searching inquiry had vanished into thin air. The attack upon the police had gone by the board, and he could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend—whom he regretted was not in his place—could not help feeling, perhaps, somewhat relieved that the pressure of his friends the Members for the Liberal constituencies in the Metropolis and the surrounding boroughs was not able to urge him on to his original intentions. He (Mr. C. Hall) could not help thinking that it was a case in which—
  "Those "behind cried 'forward,'
  And those in front cried 'back.'"
  The hon. and learned Gentleman comes into the House, and, Janus-like, says, "I find no fault with the preservers of the public peace," and then he goes to his constituents, who hiss the very name of the police and Sir Charles Warren, and says, Janus-like, "See how I sympathize with you, and see what I have done to bring the brutal conduct of the police before the House of Commons;" and no doubt he would have liked to have been able to say, "When my resolution is moved in the House, you will see how I have succeeded in bringing the whole of this matter before the House of Commons." That would have been an attitude which might have been taken by an irresponsible person, but it seemed to him (Mr. C. Hall) that it was hardly the face that ought to be worn by an ex-

  1927
  Minister of the Crown. What were the terms of the Resolution his hon. and learned Friend had submitted to them? He would deal with them very shortly, because he apprehended that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had practically demolished the first half of the Resolution. The Resolution begged the question entirely. It spoke of the right of Her Majesty's subjects to attend open air meetings in the Metropolis, and he hoped the House would bear this in mind, that after his hon. and learned Friend had given notice of such a very temperate Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian suggested that the Government should give his hon. and learned Friend a day for the discussion of this question. What was the question? It was not a question of condemning the police; it was not a question of condemning Sir Charles Warren; but it was an abstract Resolution with regard to the right of public meeting or the alleged right of public meeting in the Metropolis that was to be discussed. But this served as a very good peg for enabling irresponsible Members who sat below the Gangway on the opposite side to make an attack upon the police, and he ventured to say that it had been designed for that very purpose. The ex-Law Officer had kept that attack in the background. He introduced the Resolution in a manner worthy of an ex-Law Officer and of a proper Constitutional question; but it was only a peg for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who at any rate had the courage of his convictions, and the hon. Member for North-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), to hang charges upon and to make attacks upon the police which this ex-Law Officer would take credit for when he next went to see his constituents at Hackney. What were the terms of the Resolution? It said—
  "That having regard to the importance of preserving and protecting the right of public meeting for Her Majesty's subjects in the Metropolis."
  An hon. MEMBER: Open air public meeting.
  MR. C. HALL: Yes; he was obliged to his hon. Friend for reminding him that those words had been put in the Resolution since it first appeared in print. He ventured to think that he
  1928
  should wait in vain for any hon. Gentleman of any legal experience on the opposite side of the House to declare that there was any legal right whatever for any open air meeting in the Metropolis except in such parts with regard to which there were special legal powers. Though his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney had thought it advisable to refer to what had been laid down by Mr. Justice Charles—a judge of great eminence—he (Mr. C. Hall) did not think it worth while to read all that the learned Judge said with regard to the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman was about to say, "there is an obiter dictum," but he changed his mind. He said, "there was something—but that had nothing to do with the case." As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out, the point was clearly raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), and Mr. Justice Charles said this—
  "I can find no warrant for considering that there is any right to hold public meetings in Trafalgar Square or indeed in any other public place in the Metropolis."
  That was a clear proposition which he ventured to say no lawyer would controvert in this House for one moment. He should wait to hear any hon. Gentleman on the opposite side say that that was not sound law. He had another authority—not so high as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby perhaps, but still a very high authority—an ex-Law Officer, one of Her Majesty's Opposition. If it were not an authority, at any rate it was a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. Only a few weeks ago he was consulted at a meeting of the Homerton Liberal Association as to whether or not they could insist on holding meetings in Trafalgar Square. What was the excellent advice he gave them? He said that they had better not insist upon the right of meeting there, because the legal right of the people to meet in Trafalgar Square was very doubtful. Now, what was the second part of the Resolution — if the House would bear with him while he went into it? It was this—"What were the conditions under which such meetings might be held?" He apprehended that the conditions were very simple. If meetings were to take place they must be of such a nature that they would not dis-

  1929
  turb the public peace—they must be of such a nature that they would not lead persons of ordinary temperament to fear a breach of the public peace, and they must be of such a nature as not to interfere with the legitimate user of the public place by the people who were entitled to use it. There was only one other point in the Resolution he proposed to address himself to, and that was the last branch of it — namely, what were the limits of the right of interference with open-air meetings in. the Metropolis by the Executive Government. How could these limits be ascertained without reference to the circumstances of the case? The question of interference by the Executive, by the police, or by any one, must depend upon the facts of any particular case. He (Mr. C. Hall) apprehended that it was clear law that the police authorities were bound to interfere directly they had reason to suppose that a breach of the peace would ensue, and that if they did not interfere they were liable to most severe penalties. That had been laid down over and over again. If any rigid rules were to be framed by the House he ventured to think that it would be a very bad thing indeed for all parties, because it would do away with the elasticity of the Common Law. Directly they had rigid rules they found men of ingenious minds setting to work to drive a coach-and-four through thorn, and directly they laid down those rules they did away with the power of referring to and being guided by the Common Law. Now, he said at the outset he was very glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government intended to meet this Resolution by a direct negative, because he considered the Resolution a perfectly idle one. It was idle, because the law on the subject was perfectly well known and ascertained. The law could be ascertained by any hon. Member of the House if he consulted an elementary text book on the subject. The Resolution was mischievous, because its discussion was a waste of the valuable time of the House. But, on the whole, he was not sorry the Resolution had been proposed. The reason for its being brought forward was not far to seek. It was necessary for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do something to make good their brave words in the Recess; it was necessary
  1930
  after the tornado of abuse and the whirlwind of vituperation that was poured on the Government from week to week and day to day all through the Recess, for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do something to attack Her Majesty's Government. What arrows had they got in their quivers? It was alleged there had been a breach of Privilege because an hon. Member was most unluckily mistaken for some one else. That was the first attack; and this was the second attack. Her Majesty's Government would be able to withstand such attacks. Although this was an idle and mischievous Resolution, he was not sorry it had been brought forward. He was not sorry it had been brought forward, because it would give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of showing that they were determined, without fear or favour of class or persons, to maintain law and order in this country. He was also not sorry this Resolution had been brought forward, because a vote on this Resolution would give the people of this country an assurance that it was not the Executive alone, not the police alone, who were determined that those disturbances should be quelled, but that a majority of Parliament by its voice made declaration that, as there was the duty of maintaining peace among the nations of Europe, a duty of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) approved, so, too, there was a duty no less important—the duty of maintaining peace and order amongst the citizens of this great country, and that in the performance of this duty Her Majesty's Government would be supported by all save those who loved, disorder as a means of adding to their small stock of political capital.
  MR. HOWELLwas afraid the discussion was going to resolve itself into a technical discussion on points of law which were not properly understood, and upon which they were by no means in agreement. So far as he was concerned he was not prepared to admit the statement of law which had been made upon this subject. He knew he ran a great risk in making this statement. If it were true that a little learning was a dangerous thing, it was especially true when applied to law; but he had endeavoured as one who had taken a great part in public open air

  1931
  meetings for a number of years past to understand the law upon this subject, and he absolutely denied the correctness of the statement of the law as laid down by the Home Secretary. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to place them in this peculiar position, that unless the statutory law of the land had stated that a person had this or that right, no such right existed. He (Mr. Howell), on the contrary, declared that the people of this country had a right and a legal right unless there be statutory law to the contrary. They had heard a great deal about the Common Law; he was not prepared to admit that the reading of the Common Law by the previous speaker was exactly in accordance with what that Common Law was on matters of public meeting. He had consulted the work of one who was supposed to be an authority on this matter, not for the purpose of this debate, but long years before this was anticipated to arise, Broom's Commentaries on Common Law. Broom laid down the principles in regard to the right of public assembly, and a great number of other things touching the law of public meetings. He said not one single word in regard to no such right existing unless that right had been defined by law. He (Mr. Howell) went a step further, and asserted that the House itself was legislating Session after Session as though the right absolutely existed until put down by statutory law. He called the attention of hon. Members to the Private Bills which were passed in connection with municipalities and public authorities. Session after Session Committees of the House were appointed for the purpose of investigating those Bills, and to see if they went beyond the ordinary law of the land. It was only during the last Session that he opposed a Bill brought in by the Corporation of Over-Darwen; he challenged one particular clause in that Bill, and, rather than be called upon to fight for the Bill, the clause was struck out, and the Bill was allowed to pass. Now, what point was involved in the Bill? Simply the right of public meeting, and the right of procession through the streets. Every municipality in the Kingdom, before they could interfere with this kind of thing, especially when it had been established by long usage, had to bring
  1932
  in a Bill giving the Police or the Local Authority the right of interference. No such statutory law existed in regard to Trafalgar Square, and none had ever existed. Hon. Gentlemen had referred to the past history of that Square; but no one yet had referred to the matter who had perhaps so wide an acquaintance with the subject as he had himself. He called for many years most of the large meetings held in the Square. The meetings were threatened with prohibition more than once, and on one occasion he believed a prohibition was issued; but the meeting was permitted to be held — that was to say, it was not interfered with. If a right existed at that time to interfere with meetings in Trafalgar Square, why was not the prohibition carried out; why wait until the present moment to give effect to the prohibition? That was not the first time that they had some rather sad scenes in Trafalgar Square. He well remembered that in 1878 there were scenes of disorder, and that that was the first time, perhaps, that meetings in Trafalgar Square were called in question. All meetings held prior to that date, and the great number held since, had not been complained of because of their disorderly conduct. Many people had their theories as to why the meetings on that occasion were disorderly. They knew that on that occasion men went about the streets breaking peoples' windows, and went as far as Harley Street with the intention of breaking the windows of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Some people knew pretty clearly where the money came from to call this disorder into existence, and who it was that instigated the disorder which continued for several weeks. That, however, was ancient history, and he would come down to the more recent meetings, which, perhaps, led absolutely to the prohibition and to the scenes of bloodshed which followed. Matters commenced at the beginning of 1886, and singularly enough, a very odd circumstance occurred. There were two sets of persons, both hating the Liberal Party, who were paid to get up a meeting at one and the same time. Like two sets of persons bargaining in an auction room one against the other for some particular article, those two sets of persons, though paid practically by the

  1933
  same parties, happened to come into collision. That was a favourable opportunity waited for so long by the Tory Party in order to put their foot down on meetings in Trafalgar Square. The question was dealt with, and dealt with in a way that was not satisfactory, at any rate to some. Some of them challenged what was done on that occasion; but the present Chief Commissioner of Police was appointed as a man, singularly enough, who was going to put an end to all this disorder. Persons prophesied that this was to be the particular man to put an end to the disorder; but he put an end to the disorder in a way that did not satisfy the prophets. With that he (Mr. Howell) had nothing to do; but with regard to the scenes of disorder which had taken place in the Square, allow him to say very solemnly to the House that they could not be charged upon the Liberal Party, allow him to say very distinctly that they could not be charged upon Members generally who spoke and sat upon the Opposition side of the House, and that they could not be charged upon the political clubs of London, who called the meeting for the 13th of November. It was very important that that fact should be borne in mind, and, in order to ease the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary upon that point, he would cite an instance which took place in his own constituency. His conduct was called in question with respect to this very matter; he was not in favour, as perhaps some hon. Gentlemen knew, of the meeting which was held on the 13th November, and he was still less in favour of the meeting which followed on the 20th November. His conduct was called in question, and he was blamed very severely by a great number of persons, and he went to face his constituents upon the matter. He happened, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said of himself just now, not to have expressed himself very carefully on the occasion, and he was supposed to have said something that led some people to believe that he imputed to them a desire to go to the Square for the purpose of creating disorder. Now, the club to which he referred was one of the largest clubs in London, and, so far as this particular meeting was concerned, one of the most determined. If there was any club in London
  1934
  which was determined to run any risk in order to assert what it believed to be an honest public right, it was the club to which he referred; but it was supposed he had blamed thorn, or blamed someone in connection with it, for some of the scenes of disorder which took place in Trafalgar Square, and as one man they rose to resent that imputation. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had spoken about oyster knives and a great number of other formidable instruments which were taken to Trafalgar Square. He (Mr. Howell) said, and said advisedly and with some knowledge of the facts, that none of those instruments of torture were taken to the Square or attempted to be taken to the Square by the men who were responsible for calling the meeting. As he had said before, he had called some of the large meetings in Trafalgar Square; he would refer to one meeting which took place not absolutely in the Square, but in consequence of which the Square had to be taken possession of. It was the largest meeting ever held not only in London but, perhaps, in any part of the world, the largest, taking it from beginning to end, especially as regarded the procession which passed through the streets of London. Hon. Members of this House had an opportunity of seeing the effect of the great demonstration in 1884; one of the most intelligent officers of this House, who know what he was speaking about, estimated the numbers which he saw from the Clock Tower at something like 500,000 of persons. He (Mr. Howell) thought that that estimate was not very far short of the mark. Now, he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that on that occasion there was not a single shop looted, not a window broken, not a single plant in Hyde Park destroyed, no injury whatever was done, end therefore scenes of disorder were not, it was clear, a necessary accompaniment of meetings in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere. What he thought was that the police should have done their duty in regulating the meeting in Trafalgar Square. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to see the difference between regulating and suppressing; but it seemed to him (Mr. Howell) that the two operations wore absolutely opposite, and that they could not regulate a thing if they suppressed it. The police ought to have

  1935
  regulated the meetings, and to have taken care that any persons who showed a disposition to be disorderly were apprehended. That, he took, to be the duty of the police, and if they had been content with that, they would have had at their backs in support of their policy the great majority of the working men of London. It was a matter of very great importance that the populace should be on the side of the police. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the irritation felt by the police, the police, who were the paid servants of the public, and who had a right, in the words of the Proclamation or the Police Orders which were issued in 1866, to take no notice of those wild expressions which were sometimes used. It was better for the police to feel and pocket, as it were, a certain amount of irritation, than it was to irritate the great mass of the populace, and have them against the police. One hon. Member had already spoken of the possibility of teaching London how to disregard law. He (Mr. Howell) felt more strongly upon that point than perhaps many Members; but having himself conducted, and successfully conducted, a great number of meetings at which there had been no terror and no disorder, he should be extremely sorry that his name should ever be associated with scenes of disorder either in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere. He was particularly anxious that the right of public meeting should be preserved, raid he was as anxious as any hon. Member opposite to see law find order preserved; but the right way of preserving order and of maintaining law was to have the people on the side of the authorities, and in that way to give them justice. When they did justice towards the great mass of the people they would be always sure to have the people on their side. The people of this country had not yet learned, though he was sorry to say that they seemed to be fast learning, that the only way to get justice done by this House was to create scenes disorder. [Cries of "No, no !"] Hon. Gentlemen had not attended so many meetings as he had. If they had, they would have heard sometimes, in large public meetings in various parts of London, and in various parts of the country too, that the men who were applauded most were not those who tried to prevent the assembly
  1936
  when there was a possibility of disorder, but those who rushed in at the time of the disorder, and who had since suffered for having so rushed in. It was a very dangerous thing for the Government, and a very dangerous thing for the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the good government of the country, to cause a suspicion to exist in the minds of the people that the only way whereby they could get their rights was to ally themselves to the party of disorder. The Liberal Members for London were not at all likely to forget that they had as great duties to perform as hon. Members opposite had in endeavouring to maintain order and in endeavouring to maintain peace; but they did want to see, at the same time, that the ancient right, a right which had been enjoyed for so long a time without any danger to the public peace, should be preserved to the people. His opinion was that if on the occasion in question the police had done their duty, if they had only acted in accordance with the instructions issued to them in 1866, there would not have been the scenes in Trafalgar Square they all had to deplore. He certainly thought that the scones that took place in the Square recently would not have taken place under the Predecessor of the present First Commissioner of Police. There seemed, however, to be a determination to get rid of Colonel Henderson, the most humane man who had ever presided at Scotland Yard, but who was not thought to be severe enough with the people. Hon. Members opposite might be able to applaud today the action that had been taken by the Government in resisting this Motion for inquiry; they might be able to prevent an inquiry; they might possibly even be able to prevent the holding of meetings in Trafalgar Square; but, as sure as he was speaking to the House to-night, it would re-act not in their favour but against them; and, sooner or later, the people of England would re-assert the right they had enjoyed for so long a time, no trusted that this question would not be decided upon mere technical points of law; he did not think that if the law stood as stated by the Home Secretary it would be recognized by the great mass of the people as being a just and equitable law. The only way in which the Government could settle this question of the right of

  1937
  public meeting in Trafalgar Square was by taking, if they would allow him to use the expression, the bull by the horns, by bringing in a Bill as they brought in the Parks Regulation Bill; that was the way in which they might regulate meetings in Trafalgar Square. He verily believed that further attempts would be made to re-assert this right, and be made in such a way as might become extremely dangerous to the public peace, extremely dangerous to the police whose duty it was to maintain order in the Metropolis, and extremely dangerous to the whole of the community. He urged upon the Government, as the easiest possible way out of their difficulty in regard to this matter, to assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), whatever they might do with regard to other Motions on the Paper. It seemed to him that the Government could in that way relieve themselves of a great difficulty, for it must be borne in mind that the First Commissioner of Works was supposed to lend the high authority of his name to the meetings which took place, meetings which led to these scones of disorder. The poor people took it for granted that, when a Minister of the Crown said he had no right to interfere if he wished, and that he did not wish to interfere if he had the right, they had a right to assemble in Trafalgar Square. They certainly interpreted the words of the right hon. Gentleman in that way, especially when, they were in conjunction with the words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the effect that the intention of the Government was not to interfere with a bonâ fide political meeting. It would be some comfort, perhaps, to the Home Secretary to know that it was upon the supposed assent of the Home Secretary as to the right of a bonâ fide political meeting to assemble in Trafalgar Square, that members of London clubs called a meeting in Trafalgar Square for the 13th of November, and held that meeting even in spite of the remonstrances of some of their friends. He (Mr. Howell) wished to have this right preserved to the people of London; to take it away would be one more proof given to this country of the value of unholy alliances. Working men's clubs would build—it would stimulate them to
  1938
  build—still greater halls in which to organize themselves very much more completely, and he should be glad to see that done. If it were done, and if the Bill which he had introduced to provide for a more complete system of registration were passed, there would be less need for public meeting in the open air, the people would be able to decide all questions at the ballot-box. But, he asked the House to hesitate before they put their foot down upon the right of meeting in Trafalgar Square, which meant, practically, the right of meeting in all the open spaces of London except those specially exempted in the Parks Regulation Act.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid, he represented that part of London immediately contiguous to the scene of these meetings and he asked the indulgence of the House for a few moments on that account. His constituency included not only the House in which they were now assembled, but also one of the most cherished possessions of Englishmen — Westminster Abbey. It was, perhaps, not unnatural that he should offer to the House an illustration of the results that might be looked for from these meetings, an illustration of what had already indeed taken place, because he claimed that it was the results which flowed from these meetings which was the title for the suppression of the meetings. On the 23rd of last October there was a meeting held in Trafalgar Square. For a considerable period up to that time the police had prohibited meetings in that place. The police then changed their policy and permitted meetings on the Sunday, on the ground, he believed, that the traffic on a Sunday was not such that it could be seriously interfered with by the gatherings. On the 23rd of October a platform was erected in the Square facing the National Gallery, and from it several speakers addressed the meeting. All of a sudden the crowd rushed away from Trafalgar Square, down towards Westminster Abbey. This was the day of what he might call a permissive policy all round, and this crowd rushed in through the northern entrance of Westminster Abbey. He could best describe what followed by reading the words of the official report: —
  "The following are amongst the various acts of indecent behaviour and brawling by which

  1939
  the so-called unemployed molested, vexed mid disturbed the clergymen ministering on the occasion, and the congregation—namely, shouting, swearing, hissing, booing, talking, hustling the congregation, standing on the backs of the benches already occupied, clambering up on the monuments, interrupting the service, waving handkerchiefs as a signal to boo and hiss, wearing of hats, smoking pipes, spitting about, and other disgraceful acts."
  And this was free speech. [A laugh.] Hon. Members opposite laughed; but he asked them if they were prepared to go to their constituents and say that this debate had not been raised in the interest of free speech. Unquestionably the results which flowed from the central acts and subject of this debate had direct reference to the question of free speech. He had read the account of the proceedings at Westminster Abbey with shame and indignation that that ancient and venerable church should have been so foully polluted and that a community of men practising their own form of religion within their own walls should be subjected to such an unmanly outrage. [An hon. Member: What was the date?] The 23rd of October. Let him give another illustration of free speech. It had often happened that a crowd had been amassed on the occasion of these meetings in Trafalgar Square, ostensibly for the purpose of listening to addresses. All of a sudden the speaker's voice ceased, the red flag or the black flag, around which the people were generally congregated, had gone down, and as if by a pre-concerted movement, the crowd had rushed off down some thoroughfare faster than the police could follow them, hooting, yelling, breaking windows and carrying terror and panic into every house in the vicinity. Was that free speech? No: it was meant to terrify and it did terrify. As long as such a state of things was permitted to be possible, it was a mere mockery to talk of the liberty of the subject. There was no question of free speech here; it was a question of the right of every law-abiding person or community of persons to the protection of the Executive Government in their life and property, their business and trade, and the peaceful pursuit of their daily avocation. It was a question upon which he claimed that any and every Government, no matter to which Party it belonged, was bound to speak with no uncertain voice. The incidents to which he had referred were mere
  1940
  illustrations of the danger and inconvenience which had been found to arise from these meetings in Trafalgar Square, and the point he wished to impress upon the House was that that danger and inconvenience was always immiment in these meetings in Trafalgar Square, was in fact inseperable from them, whether they were held on sufferance as under the present law, or under a new law which should legalize them altogether, whether they were hold with or without the supervision of the police. That danger and inconvenience and terrorism being always imminent, these meetings were inherently and de facto unlawful assemblies. Now, what was an unlawful assembly? The legal giants had stood face to face in the arena; but he was not going to hesitate to quote a very well-known definition of an unlawful assembly—
  "Any meeting assembled under such circumstances as, according to the opinion of rational men, is likely to produce danger to the tranquillity and peace of the neighbourhood, is an unlawful assembly."
  He would give his authority for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). The definition he had read would be found on page 1 of 9, C. B. & P. The observations of Mr. Justice Charles at the last trial at the Old Bailey had been quoted. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had referred to them; but he omitted to call attention to the very important words which exactly bore out the definition he (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) had just given. Mr. Justice Charles said—
  "An unlawful assemblage is an assemblage which attempts to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a manner as to give other persons a fear of a disturbance of the peace."
  He could quote authorities to show that the meetings in Trafalgar Square for the last two years had certainly come under that category; but before he did so, he wished to say a word or two upon another question of law. It was often said that the House of Commons took very good care of itself in the matter of public meetings. By an Act of Charles II., any meeting of more than 10 persons for the purpose of presenting Petitions was made illegal; but by the Act which was quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), the Act 57 Geo. III., it was recited —

  1941
  "It is highly inexpedient that public meetings or assemblies should be held near the Houses of Parliament or near His Majesty's Courts of Justice in Westminster Hall on such days as are hereafter mentioned,"
  and the days mentioned were those upon which either House of Parliament should be Sitting, or on which the Court of Chancery, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas or Exchequer, or any of them, or any Judge of them shall be sitting, and the Act went on to declare illegal on those days any meeting composed of more than 50 persons in any street, square, or open place within a distance of one mile of Westminster.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the hon. Gentleman had omitted to read the material part of the section.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid, he was sorry he had only transcribed the part he thought applicable. He assured the hon. Gentleman he had no intention of suppressing anything. If the hon. Gentleman was able to answer him, he should be very happy to listen to him. What he had quoted was cited at the time of the Chartist trials, and it had since been relied upon. The House, recognizing the danger and inconvenience which was likely to arise from these meetings, took very good care to protect itself; but the House, so far as the necessity for such protection went, was but a counterpart of every business and trading family in the Metropolis. He put it to the House to say by what justice they refused to the humblest shopkeeper or the humblest private dweller in this vicinity, the protection which they were so jealous to claim for themselves. Next to the House of Parliament the Courts of Justice wore to be protected. Every meeting was illegal which was held during the sittings of the Courts of Justice within one mile of the Courts of Justice. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, the Act said so; and Trafalgar Square was certainly well within a mile of the Courts of Justice. Before he came to the proof that these meetings were, and always must be, unlawful, he would like to say one word with regard to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). That Motion the hon. and learned Member for the Chesterton Division of Cambridgeshire (Mr. C. Hall) had described as a Vote of Censure on the Government, as undoubtedly
  1942
  it was. The question was therefore a Party question. Further, the Motion must mean one of two things—either that the existing law required to be defined and expounded, and that was to be done in the terms of the Motion by a Select Committee, or it meant that there was no satisfactory law and that a new law ought to be made. In the first place, he ventured to urge that it was not the duty of a Select Committee of that House to expound or define the law. Secondly, if a new law was wanted, why, as his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) had asked, did not the Government bring in a new law? He (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) asked why, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted that, he did not bring in a Bill to legalize these meetings. The issue was whether or not it was advisable that these meetings should beheld in Trafalgar Square. He had in his hands a diary of the meetings which had been hold in Trafalgar Square during the last two years, with extracts from some of the speeches as well as a full record of the events which took place. But, although it would make his case very much stronger and enable him to prove that these meetings were necessarily dangerous and threatening in their nature, he would not trouble the House with reading the diary at length. But he would like to offer to the House the conclusions which were to be drawn from it, and first there was one specific detail in the diary of events to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Motion made a great point of the announcement by a number of clubs published on the 5th November, that a meeting would be held on the 7th of that month. It appeared that something important happened between the date on which the November meeting was convened and the date on which it was forbidden. It was said that the meeting would be disagreeable to Her Majesty's Government, and immediately after that Sir Charles Warren issued his order forbidding that meeting. He did not charge the hon. and learned Gentleman with a wilful mis-statement, but there was in that statement a suppression of the most, important facts in connection with those two announcements. At a meeting on the 2nd of November, Allman made a speech to a large crowd in Trafalgar

  1943
  Square, in which he called upon his hearers to stand shoulder to shoulder and fight the police. Again, he said they would continue to meet every day and urge the Government to do something for them, until the 9th of November, when they would have a final demonstration and a big row and if necessary a big riot. On the 3rd of November another meeting was hold in the Square in which the people were told to reserve themselves for to-morrow. On the 4th Allman and Lynch were arrested. The people were advised to strike a blow to terrorize, stagnate the whole trade of the City, and to unsheath the sword of Liberty. On the 6th of November the people were kept moving on by the police, and a constable was attacked by a man who, when arrested, had an open knife in his hand. These were the events which led to the issue of the regulations by Sir Charles Warren, and they had a most important bearing on the whole case. They happened between the announcement of the meeting and the announcement by Sir Charles Warren, and he thought it would have given a better view of the whole case if the hon. and learned Gentleman had read these extracts as leading up to the issue placed before the House. The conclusion which he drew from the diary of meetings in Trafalgar Square was that there had been no fettering of free speech by the Government, and no prohibition of meeting until riot had actually occurred. A riot had occurred in February, 1886, and that was a period in which there was no suppression at all in the sense referred to in the terms of this Motion. In the present case the police were hustled and assaulted; the public had been clearly warned that the mob was organizing, but in spite of what was done the mob grew more numerous and their language more threatening and violent, until it was obvious that a repetition of the riot of 1886 would take place. He claimed that what he had related with regard to these meetings in Trafalgar Square, established his premise, which was the central point of his remarks, namely, that there was so much danger attendant upon these meetings that they constituted unlawful assemblies. Free speech was not the prerogative of any political Party in the State. He attached due weight to the motives of hon. Gentlemen
  1944
  below the Gangway opposite, who had stated that evening that they would facilitate the Closure Rules. If he placed himself by anticipation in the time to which those hon. Members looked forward, namely, when they would be able to turn this weapon, which the House in the interests of free debate had placed in the hands of the Government, against Members on those benches, then he could see a thousand reasons for the employment of free speech. But they did not claim that that right should be exercised under conditions which would inflict serious loss, danger, and inconvenience upon any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. For these reasons he earnestly congratulated Her Majesty's Government on their having looked upon this matter not from a Party point of view, but from the broad and solid basis of justice to the community, and, moreover, he congratulated Her Majesty's Government on having offered a firm and decided opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite
  MR. BRADLAUGH, who had given notice of the following, as an Amendment to Sir Charles Russell's Motion, at end, add—
  "And that, in the opinion of this House, it would ensure much greater confidence in the administration of the Law if a full and public inquiry were granted into the alleged unlawful assembly in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, November 13, 1887, and the conduct of the Police in connection therewith,"
  said, without discourtesy he would not enter into the full discussion of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). The hon. Gentleman quoted as an enactment that which was not one. The hon. Member had told the House that it had been enacted by 57 Geo. III., c. 29, that no meeting whatever could take place within a mile of Westminster when Parliament or the Law Courts were sitting. That was simply not a fact. It was perfectly true that some meetings must not take place. These meetings were specified, and it was in kindness to the hon. Member that he asked him to complete the quotation in order to save him from making a blunder. He would not reply further to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Read."] It was not absolutely necessary that legislators should know Statutes; but they had scarcely a right to oblige a Member at that hour

  1945
  of the night (11.20) to read a Statute to which he had referred specifically, and ignorance did not justify interruption.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid, that he preferred very much to be thoroughly sat upon, and as he had been challenged to read the quotation he should now very much like to hear the hon. Gentleman read it himself.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he fancied that the operation to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had already been performed, and perhaps the hon. Member would now allow him to proceed. He wished to address himself to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews), and he did so with some misgivings, because none could deny the eloquence which the right hon. Gentleman brought to bear upon the subject. He regretted that it was the eloquence of the Advocate rather than of a Member of the Executive intrusted almost with judicial duty. The right hon. Gentleman left a number of important points put to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) without reply. The right hon. Gentleman made no answer in commenting on a letter sent from the Chief Commissioner of Police to the manager of Mrs. Weldon's meeting, although on the face of it it distinctly recognized the right which he denied. The right hon. Gentleman made no answer to the habitual user of the Square for more than 30 years as a right except to say that it was by licence and permission, when the facts quoted were facts of distinct disproof of any such licence or permission, and of distinct assertion of the user of right. The right hon. Gentleman took no notice of the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney as to the advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown, which was quoted by Sir George Grey in that House, and which was in the Home Office for reference. The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to suggest that there was any mis-statement, but he left Sir George Grey's declaration that he had been advised that the public had a right of meeting in Trafalgar Square entirely untouched. Sir George Grey, on the 24th July, 1886, said that when the meeting was about to be held in Trafalgar Square he stated, as far as he was
  1946
  informed, that it was a legal meeting; that any meeting at which language was held that was calculated to produce a breach of the peace was illegal, but that a meeting held to discuss Parliamentary reform was not in itself illegal; that he gave directions to the police in regard to that meeting; and that he begged to inform an hon. Member who asked what means he had taken to preserve the peace that he gave directions to the Commissioner of Police that he was not to interfere with the meeting as long as it was legally and peacefully held. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, again, had entirely avoided the challenge put to him by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney as to why he did not allow the case of Mr. W. Saunders to be tried. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman why he did not. He would suggest that the Law Officers of the Crown pointed out that, although Mr. Saunders had disobeyed the proclamation and held his meeting in spite of the right hon. Gentleman, it was not an unlawful meeting, and that the question which would have to be tried would be whether it was unlawful from being held in Trafalgar Square, and that the right hon. Gentleman was advised that he would be beaten on that issue, and, therefore, he abandoned the prosecution. The matter which had to be considered on his Amendment differed very considerably from the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney; although his Amendment was in no sense hostile to the hon. and learned Member's Motion, but only an addition to it. There were two questions before the House for the expression of its opinion upon them. One of those questions was whether there was a right of public open meeting in England. He said, clearly, that there was. Was there such a right in the Metropolis? Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Attorney General for the Duchy of Cornwall (Mr. C. Hall) said, he contended that there was. Was there such a right of meeting in Trafalgar Square? Notwithstanding the declaration, unqualified and unmeasured, of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, he equally contended that there was. But if there were not it would be a sad thing for this country. The only phrase, which lingered in his memory,

  1947
  of the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, was that free speech was of no English Party. That was true. It was only 160 years ago that the Conservatives—the Tories as they then called themselves—were pleading for what he should plead that night. It was because at that time they were denied the liberty of public meeting and were harassed when they tried to exercise their right, that they pleaded before the mother of Parliaments for affirmation for them of that of which they would to-day deny the use to the people. He asked hon. Members differing from him in politics to reflect on the great difficulties they put in the way of men who might hold strong views, but who desired to guide their fellow - countrymen wisely and peacefully in seeking useful reforms, if they took away from the people of England the only outlet and safety-valve which the poor had for making known their grievances to the world. The hon. and learned Member for South Hackney had dwelt on the great value of the right of public meeting. Now, he did not pretend that that right had always been wisely used by himself, but he did pretend that he had done his best his whole life through to keep it peacefully, orderly, and law-abiding. When he had thought that right unfairly challenged he had insisted upon it against the Government itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was good enough to congratulate him that he had been successful. But if the right hon. Gentleman had proved that he had been successful in over-riding the law that would not have been a matter for congratulation across the floor of the House. It was matter of congratulation, because he had kept to the legal right and he had been content always to argue the questions raised step by step before the tribunals of the country, which he found did justice without reference to who was the man that was pleading before them; and he said that equally when he was defeated and when he was successful. Well, because some men might use violent language, was that a good reason why the whole right of public meetings should be withheld and denied? If that was attempted they might provoke an uprising which would require far stronger brains and stouter hearts to meet it than were possessed
  1948
  by the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. He interrupted the right hon. Gentleman in order to ask him for the names of the speakers whom he quoted. He was sorry to say with the exception of one name the right hon. Gentleman did not give them, because he alleged that one particular speaker, who urged the setting fire to London in several places, was the speaker whose speech gave the Government the right to interfere with this meeting. He told the right hon. Gentleman his excuse for his interruption, that if he could identify the name he was prepared with evidence to show that the speaker who used that language had been seen in company with the police, but not in custody. The right hon. Gentleman, with a skill of tongue which he did not possess, said that he did not know that the police were not fit company; but surely the right hon. Gentleman hardly misunderstood his suggestion. What he was prepared to do if the name be given—it was difficult to make a charge upon it until he knew the name—was to show that the man who was in custody in connexion with the Trafalgar Square meetings was dismissed by the magistrate, and that, while in custody, he pointed out from a window overlooking the yard to Mr. Burleigh—a reporter of the Press—a man in plain clothes with the police in the yard, who, he said, was the man who used those words in the Square. The communication he had received might be untrue; but the writer stated that he was prepared to make the statement in a formal way so as to subject him to prosecution for giving false evidence. While not committing himself on the subject he was ready to hand the letter over in order that an investigation might be made, provided he was first furnished with the name of the person who was supposed to have made the speech. As to the right of meeting, he pointed out that the late Lord Derby, speaking in the House of Lords on July 24, 1866, said:—
  "There is no desire on the part of anyone to interfere with that which is the right of British subjects—namely, to assemble for the discussion of political and public questions wherever they do not infringe upon public or private rights."— (3 Hansard, [184] 1372.)
  But there was such a desire manifested that evening. The Government, as he

  1949
  understood, claimed for the Executive the right to guess when a meeting ought to be stopped. [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman claimed for the Executive that whenever they had reason to think that a meeting would be unlawful they might stop it. The Executive should have no such right. If they had such a right Parliament should take it away, because it placed all meetings at the mercy of the Executive. The Executive ought to have a right to interfere if the avowed object was unlawful, or at the moment when the breaking of the peace had begun at the meeting. The Executive ought to have the right to arrest any persons guilty of seditious speaking at the meeting; but the Executive had no right whatever to imagine that any public meeting, however numerous, would be unlawful, and, therefore, to prevent it; still less had it the right to fasten upon one meeting the sins of another, or upon one set of men the sins of another set. It was a matter of common knowledge in Europe now that one Government, at any rate, had not hesitated to employ agents provocateurs in Geneva in order to utilize them against the men whom they were endeavouring to punish in Berlin. Although he was quite sure that it would be too dangerous an experiment for any Government to get found out at in this country today, he could not forget that our Parliamentary record showed that within the space of 60 years such dangerous and wicked experiments had been made and had been exposed by Committees of the House. In the charge of Baron Alderson in the case of Vincent, quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, it was stated as distinctly as words could be that—
  "There is no doubt that the people of this country have a perfect right to meet for the purpose of stating what are or even what they consider to be their grievances. That right they always have had, and I trust always will have."
  It was because he (Mr. Bradlaugh) adhered to that view that he intended to charge upon the Government that night the mischief which arose out of the Trafalgar Square meetings. The Government first vacillated, forbade and then permitted, changed its mind and purpose, now threatened and now did
  1950
  not, took notes of treasonable and seditious language, now prosecuted those who were misleading the people, and then punished the people who had no part in the utterances. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been good enough to give the House the limits of the right of public meeting, saying that meetings must be held for a lawful purpose in a place where the public have a right to meet. And then the right hon. Gentleman built on that definition the conclusion that Trafalgar Square was not a place where the public had such a right. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) believed that Trafalgar Square was a thoroughfare and something more. It was also a place of public resort. It was not a thoroughfare for traffic over which carts and carriages might go; but it was like Hampstead Heath and Primrose Hill, a place where people might resort to amuse themselves or in the exercise of their political rights. For the last 50 or 60 years progress without violence or collision had been possible in this country, because successive Governments, except, unfortunately, in Ireland, had allowed all sections of the community to express their opinions, however strong, with the greatest possible freedom. The agitation for the Charter, which might have been revolutionary, was thus a movement of reform, and the bulk of the points of the Charter were now the law of the land. There was scarcely any great reform which had not been achieved by the outside pressure of the people, and there had been many great crises in our history where the voice of the people had gone for truth, for peace, and for progress, when the Government of the moment was for war, for hindrance, and for retrogression. In the Metropolis they had a population larger than that of Scotland, and where were their buildings in which they could meet? They were too few and too costly. But for a mere accident in his own case it would not be possible to get a hall in the Metropolis. On one occasion he was in St. James's Hall when the gas went out, and he managed to keep the audience quiet; since then he had been very much favoured by the proprietors. But St. James's Hall would not hold more than 5,000 people. There was a population of over4,000,000, and there ought to be some place where

  1951
  the people could assemble in the exercise of their political rights. Mere numbers should not carry terror; they did not create terror when they wanted them to welcome Royalty in different parts of the town. He had been present at 40 or 50 meetings in Trafalgar Square, and he admitted the great responsibility of those who called them there. It was a right which should not be lightly used. He was quite ready to admit that the Government should regulate those meetings, and the Government, ever since the Parks' Regulation Act of 1872, had the power to lay down regulations for them, but had never done so. The meeting in question was convened by the Federation of the London Clubs. He was sorry not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in his place, because the right hon. Gentleman had in the Provinces spoken of those clubs with great contempt, saying that they were in debt. The London Working Men's Clubs concerned were not rich, but they were not so much in debt as some clubs—which could be named—were. It was a libel to say that these clubs were only houses in which five or six men could live. The right hon. Gentleman spoke also of them as places where a few men met to drink. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer libelled these London Working Men's Clubs. Last night he (Mr. Bradlaugh) attended one club with 1,800 members, with lecture hall which would hold some 500, with library and reading room, and this not the largest club even in that district. The members of these clubs had rough hands, but they were men who worked to live. He knew those working men, he was born amongst them, he belonged to them; and, so far as he could, lie would defend their rights. The meeting of November 13 was called by the Federation of London Clubs, which were not the drinking houses the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented them, but embraced some 30,000 or 40,000 men. At his own meetings in Trafalgar Square he had had 2,500 stewards chosen from these clubs, and that was the way in which he had been prepared to resist illegal force if used against him. He admitted that if the police were on the spot first the people had no right to
  1952
  break in; he had never encouraged people to break the law, but to stand by their rights. With regard to the Acts of Parliament relating to Trafalgar Square, the quotations from and references to these by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney has been entirely ignored and evaded by the Home Secretary, who repeated the fallacy that the bulk of the Square had been formed from the private property of the Monarch. This was not so. There were plans specifically referred to in the Statutes, and these plans showed that the bulk of the land had been private property, and that the King's Mews only formed a very small portion of the land. That private property had been bought by public money in order that there might be an open space, which the right hon. Gentleman now wished to close by his more will. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it right to introduce the name of the Sovereign and to speak of the Sovereign as the private owner of the land. The Sovereign of this country had no rights, except by the law, and the user of Trafalgar Square was not in the Sovereign to hold or to withhold. The Home Secretary is reported in The Times of December 12th to have stated to a deputation which waited on him at the Home Office, that "The public have no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square. It is only by sufferance and permission of the Queen they do meet there." And to-night he has talked of Her Majesty as the private owner on whose sufferance only the public might use the Square. At Bow Street Mr. Poland held the same monstrous doctrine, and contended in Mr. Saunders' case (The Times, November 18th) that "no person had any right to make speeches in Trafalgar Square," "it was the property of the Crown," and that the proclamation of Sir Charles Warren was "under no Statute, but under the Common Law, and as an officer of the Crown." The Crown had no right to interfere with public meetings in this country, except where Statute gave it to the Executive representing it. Personally, the Sovereign had no other right than the law defined. The Sovereign was the chief magistrate and first servant of the State, but the law was master alike over the Sovereign and the meanest of her subjects. The right hon. Gentleman had attached

  1953
  importance to the 3rd Section of the Act, which incorporated the Metropolitan Police Act. But the Metropolitan Police Act gave no power to the Commissioner of Police to prevent meetings in Trafalgar Square. All it did was, by Section 52, to make it lawful for the Commissioner of Police from time to time, and as occasion should require, to make regulations for the route to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and to prevent obstruction in the streets and thoroughfares, and in all times of public processions, rejoicings, or illuminations, to give to the constables instructions to prevent disorder and to prevent obstruction of the thoroughfares in the neighbourhood of Parliament, the public offices, courts of law, theatres, and other places of public resort, and in any case where the streets might be thronged or liable to obstruction. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; regulating it, but not forbidding it, and the best proof of that was contained in the 9th rule in the next Section. When there was any great procession, the Chief Commissioner of Police had imposed upon him the duty of making such provision as would render as little as possible the necessary obstruction consistent with the happening of that event. He contended that there was nothing in the decisions which had been pronounced which gave any sort of credence to the claim made by this Officer of the Crown to prevent meetings. It was impossible for any great theatrical performance to be held without causing some obstruction; but the Chief Commissioner had no right to
  1954
  prevent the performance taking place, or to bludgeon the people. The Commissioner was only to do his best to make the obstruction cause as little injury as possible to the people. At that hour (two minutes to 12 o'clock) he thought that he would not be consulting the convenience of the House in entering upon another division of his speech; and he, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member could not properly under the circumstances take that course; but if he spoke till the hour of adjournment, he would be entitled to resume on the next occasion.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that he had once resolved that he would never speak to occupy the time of the House for the mere purpose of passing time; but it would be an absurdity for him to commence another division of his argument at that time, and he would, therefore, only thank the House for having listened to him.
  And it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hunter, Bill to prohibit Trawling in Scotland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hunter, Mr. Macdonald Cameron, Mr. Barclay, and Mr. Esslemont.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155
  House adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.