§ [MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
§ SIR R. T. REID (Dumfries District)rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the recent serious disturbances in many parts of the country," but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
§ *MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen, he called upon—
§ SIR R. T. REIDI, in common with a a great number of gentlemen in this House, regret very much the necessity which has arisen for moving the adjournment of the House in reference to this matter. I expected that when my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition put his question in regard to these serious disturbances the answer of the Leader of the House would have shown not only an entire disapproval of these disgraceful scenes on the part of the Executive Government of the day, but also a determination on their part to guard the right of free speech, to which we have all been accustomed for so long, and which, I think, none of us are disposed to part with without a very strong protest. But, unfortunately the tone and substance of the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury was really more in the nature of a lecture to people who had not asked his advice than an indication that he was prepared to do his duty in preserving the right of free speech.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.If language means anything, I said in the most explicit, categorical, and unmistakable way that everything that could be done would be done.
§ SIR R. T. REIDThe right hon. Gentleman expressed himself in this way 941 —that he deprecated the disturbances. But it is his duty to have the offenders punished.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am really very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but he is misquoting my views. I said, among other things, that I deprecated very strongly these proceedings, but I said in addition to that, that the duty, as the hon. Member well knows, of preventing the disturbance and punishing offenders rested with the local authorities, and all the assistance we could give them in carrying out that duty would be given to them.
§ SIR R. T. REIDIt is not in the slightest degree my intention to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but the House has heard the whole of his answer, and I am entitled to hold and to express the opinion that that answer was not such an answer as ought to have come from a Minister of the Crown under the grave circumstances in which the question was put. ["Oh, oh!"] I hope, however, that at all events right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will respect the right of free speech in this House. Even if they are not prepared to respect that right outside the House, we are determined to assert our rights here in the matter. I wish to advert to the nature of these meetings and the nature of the disturbances which have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, in the first place—or at least I understand him so—as if these meetings were public meetings, and, in the second place, as though the disturbances had been confined to places in which attempts had been made to hold meetings. Neither of those assumptions is accurate. Let me advert to some of these instances. There was a meeting broken up at Mile End, when an attack was made by some hundreds of persons; railings and staircases were broken, and several people cut and injured. There was another wise at Thornbury, where a meeting was stopped by a mob of about 200 persons, who smashed the windows, and perpetrated various acts or violence. A local timber merchant sent a letter to the press giving his experience. He said that he was seized by about a dozen men, thrown violently to the ground, kicked and knocked insensible; that there was only one policeman on the spot; that he had about 1,400 942 yards to go through the main street to reach his residence, in traversing which distance he was knocked down twelve or thirteen times. There was another case at Exeter Hall, in which a meeting was convoked by tickets, the public not being invited. My right hon. friend beside me reminds me that the Government are expressly responsible for peace in the metropolis. In regard to that meeting, notice was given beforehand to the police and assistance was requested in anticipation of some disturbance. While a Member of this House was addressing that meeting there was a most violent attack by hundreds of persons, and a free fight took place, lasting about twenty minutes, in which blows were exchanged, and there was very serious danger to the women as well as to the men at that meeting. There were thousands of people congregated in the Strand, many of whom were riotous and disorderly, and I am not aware that any steps have been taken to bring before the magistrates the persons responsible for this disgraceful scene. There was another case in Edinburgh, an account of which was given in the Scotsman newspaper. A crowd of about 2,000 people contrived to force an entry into the Queen Street Hall, and I am sorry to say that amongst the crowd that took part in the attack were some of the Yeomanry Sharpshooters. Mr. Cronwright-Schreiner was present on that occasion—an Englishman from Cape Colony who married a German lady, and who came over to this country as a loyal British subject, with no desire except that of reasoning with the public in regard to the best methods of preserving the South African dominions to this country. He may be right or he may be wrong in his opinion; that has nothing whatever to do with the matter. He entertains honest opinions, which are shared by thousands of our fellow-countrymen in South Africa, and he is entitled to have—I will not say a hearing, because people are not bound to go and hear unless they think fit—but he is entitled to protection of life and limb while he is discharging the duty which is open to every citizen in a law-abiding country. This gentleman was roughly handled. He was chased to his hotel, where I am sorry to say the threats of force were so great that he was compelled to leave in order to prevent the hotel itself being attacked 943 and seriously damaged. There are a number of other places—
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)How many?
§ SIR R. T. REIDThere are quite a number of them. The list I have here is by no means complete, but these are some of the places contained in it—Paddington, Sheffield, York, West Bromwich, Canterbury, Rams gate, Exeter Hall, Midhurst, Gloucester, Weston-super-Mare, Highbury, Northampton, New Cross, Peter head, Redruth, Leicester, Brierley Hill, Dundee, Glasgow, Gateshead, Derby, Norwich, and Reading. ["Scarborough."] There are other places to which I ought to refer, and one is the case of Scarborough. In Scarborough there was a reception—not a public meeting at all—in Messrs. Rowntree's café, a place known to everybody who has visited Scarborough. Every window in that café was smashed by an infuriated crowd, largely drunk, I believe, as most of these crowds are on these occasions. All the windows were smashed also at Messrs. Rowntree's grocery premises, and the riot continued until two o'clock in the morning, and, damage was done, according to the Westminster Gazette, which was estimated to be considerably upwards of £1,000. At last the Riot Act was read at about two o'clock in the morning, and the military were called out. I have given so far the references to a number of other cases, but these are the cases in which meetings took place, most of them private meetings, where evidently, by some organised mob, a terror for life and limb was created, and apparently the police were unable to offer an adequate protection at the time. Let me turn to other cases in which there was no public meeting at all, and I will only give a couple of cases. There was the case of Midhurst. At that place there was no public meeting, and no such provocation as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House suggests. There was a great deal of smashing of plate-glass windows, some women were injured, and there were placards published in the streets suggesting and inciting violence against persons who were called pro-Boers. [Ministerial cheers.] I do not know whether hon. Gentleman opposite think that is the way to discourage violence in the different parts of this country. As a 944 matter of fact, in most cases, the people who were attacked, whose windows were smashed, and whose wives and children were terrified, disclaimed entirely having any sympathy whatever with what are called pro-Boer views. They were persons who had been attacked sometimes in the newspaper press, and in other instances by the scurrilous falsehoods repeated about other men's opinions; but whatever their opinions may be, what possible right or justification is there for men or women in their own homes in this country being attacked by a riotous mob and being driven to fly for protection to other places outside the town? There was a disgraceful occurrence at Stratford-upon-Avon. There the rioting continued for two or three days. One night the wrecking was done upon a very considerable scale. Several houses had every particle of glass smashed, and in one house the furniture was largely destroyed. There were some gentlemen of the name of Bullard who were made particularly the object of these attacks. They had their house broken into, their windows smashed, and the inmates of the house were terrified. In this case there had been no meeting of any sort or kind, and Messrs. Bullard wrote a letter to the papers which will explain what their position was, and I will read that letter.
§ COLONEL MILWARD (Stratford-upon-Avon)Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Bullard are commencing legal proceedings, and under those circumstances is it desirable to discuss this point?
§ SIR R. T. REIDI do not think that anything I shall say will interfere in the least with legal proceedings. I am speaking on this question not as a matter of civil right between Messrs. Bullard and these who injured their property, but as a matter of public decency and public order.
§ COLONEL MILWARDI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he said that the house of Messrs. Bullard was broken into—
§ *Mr. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member must not interrupt in order to argue the case with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ SIR R. T. REIDMy information is derived partly from their own letter, and 945 I shall be glad if the House will allow me to read it. [The hon. and learned Member read the letter, in which Messrs. Bullard said they were accused of floating a Boer flag when there was an English victory, and of desiring that all the English in South Africa might be killed, but there was not a word of truth in the accusations. They added that they had only protested that the war was unnecessary, and might and ought to have been avoided, but the Imperialists of to-day did not allow anyone to have or to express an opinion against the war without being dubbed traitors to their country.] In that case there were two men sent to prison. I do not know myself how many persons have been punished in connection with the disorders generally, and it is impossible to learn this, because all those particulars are not published in the metropolitan press. But you may take your information from any newspaper you like, either Conservative or Liberal, in the places where these disgraceful scenes of disorder have occurred, and there is no law-abiding person who will doubt that some people ought to be punished. I believe very few indeed have been even summoned. There has been a good deal of drinking in connection with the business, and I think the keepers of public-houses who serve drink to an angry mob already too much excited with liquor ought to be brought to justice. I think those who have organised this disorder—for undoubtedly there are proofs of organisation in connection with many of them—ought to be brought to justice. Those newspapers—and there are not a few of them which have incited the people to do these things ought not to be forgotten in meting out justice, and certainly those people—most of whom are absolutely unable to pay for the damage they have done—who have inflicted such serious damage to property and disgraced the streets of so many of our towns with scenes of this kind ought to be brought to justice without any delay whatever. I wish to make one final observation in connection with this matter. Whether hon. Gentlemen agree with these sentiments or not is a thing which ought not to be allowed to weigh for one single moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House referred to times when he said it was impossible for his party to obtain a hearing in some parts of the country. I am not going to enter 946 into a historical discussion with the right hon. Gentleman. All I can say is this, that at that time, as now, it was the duty of the Government of the day and of those local officials who were responsible to enforce the right of public meeting in favour of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, and although the right hon. Gentleman's views may be for the moment the popular view, the time may come before very long when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends may again have to invoke the same rights we now claim on this side of the House. It is not for one party or one set of views that I claim protection, but it is for the preservation of that right of free speech for which this country has always been renowned. The scenes that have taken place and the disturbances which have occurred at public meetings and with private persons have been absolutely unprecedented in the recent history of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with this matter in answer to the question put to him in the spirit which we had a right to expect, and I hope that before this debate closes we shall have assurances from the Home Secretary that he will send a circular, in the first instance, to those responsible for public order throughout the country, pointing out the dangerous examples which these instances have afforded and the risk of their repetition; and in the second instance that we shall have the assurance of the Government that they will see that there shall be, I will not say punishment, because that is a matter for the judge or the magistrate, but that the persons who have been guilty of these excesses which have been described in all the towns where they have taken place shall be brought before the tribunals of the law, in order that the right of free speech, and not only that, but the right of peaceful and quiet residence in their own homes, may be assured to all law-abiding citizens in this country. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, BlackpoolI cannot help thinking that in what the 947 hon. and learned Gentleman has said he has somewhat exaggerated the case. I do not wish in the slightest degree to differ from him in the severe terms in which he has spoken of the riotous damage to property which in a few cases has taken place during the last few weeks. I certainly did not understand that the answer of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition was in any sense different from that which I now desire to express, namely, that the Government are prepared to support the local authorities in doing their duty by putting down such breaches of the law. I am very much surprised at the warmth with which the hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for having failed in their duty. Wherein have the Government failed in their duty? I regret as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman or any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House—and I am sure I am speaking for all on this side of the House—the rowdyism and ruffianism which have mixed with the enthusiasm which certain of our victories in the course of the war have brought about in some of our cities, and which have led to certain outrages which cannot be sufficiently deplored. But wherein have the Government failed in their duty? I know nothing of the cases of Mile End, Thornbury, and one or two other cases referred to by hon. and learned Gentlemen, but I know something of the cases of Scarborough and Stratford-on-Avon, in both of which there were disgraceful rioting and wanton destruction of property. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there was some organisation which brought about this unhappy state of things, I can assure him he is absolutely and entirely mistaken. Neither was there incitement by some local newspaper, which the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks ought to be prosecuted by the Government, nor was there incitement by any political club or organisation, and there was no knowledge that such things were about to take place. If I had known that this matter was to have been discussed to-day, I would have brought down with me the report I received from the authorities at Scarborough. I do not know that the matter is yet at an end, and I shall therefore speak of it with some reticence, but the report I have had 948 shows that there was no anticipation whatever that there would be any disturbance on that particular evening. The public meeting which Mr. Schreiner was announced to address was called for the next day, but on the previous evening Mr. Rowntree, formerly a respected Member of the House, and several of his friends held a reception in a café in one of the main streets of the town. I do not know if it was generally known that Mr. Schreiner was in the town. There was a rumour that he was coming. These things flew about, someone asked for the protection of the police, and the presence of the police in unusual numbers about the café where Mr. Rowntree and his friends were very likely may have called some public attention to it. At any rate there was a large crowd, and totally against the efforts of the police to prevent it, some persons not yet identified, but who, I hope, may be identified, flung stones and did some serious damage. There is no dispute whatever about that. After that the authorities did the best they could. The mayor being apprehensive of further disturbance and riot sent for the Militia, who came later on in the evening, and received a most cordial welcome from the inhabitants. I fail to see what more the local authorities or the Government could have done. The hon. and learned Gentleman finds fault with me or with the Government for not having prevented the smashing of these windows. I do not see how we could have done that, but I regret the occurrence very much, and I shall support the local authorities, if it lies with me, in any prosecution that may be possible for causing the damage.
§ SIR R. T. REIDWill the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say—as I think I ought to say—that the motive power for this motion was that I and others sitting near me thought that the tone and style of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—although I entirely acquit him of that intention after what he has said—was precisely of that character which is calculated not to stop, but to encourage—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMay I ask you. Sir, on a point of order, whether the adjournment was moved on the tone and style of my answer?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that that was the subject. What he said was that it was the motive power which induced him to move the adjournment.
§ *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYI will leave that question to be settled by other authorities, but it certainly appears to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood the answer of my right hon. friend. But I am now dealing with facts, and I am endeavouring to show that the local authorities were not to blame, that certain rioters were to blame, and I hope their punishment may follow, and that Her Majesty's Government cannot be blamed. With regard to the Stratford-on-Avon case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says there was no meeting. There was a procession through the streets to celebrate the relief of Ladysmith, and certain young fellows got very noisy and demonstrative, and a large crowd passing down one of the main streets of that very quiet place made an attack on the windows and property of Mr. Bullard, who, rightly or wrongly, was an unpopular person with certain of the demonstrators on that occasion. There was no warning to the local authorities that anything of the kind was going to happen. No one justifies the action of these people, and it is a monstrous thing that a man's property should be damaged in that way. But with reference to the letter from Mr. Bullard, which the right and learned Gentleman read, there is another view of the case, namely, that Mr. Bullard had been rather aggressive on the occasion, and that if he had not done certain things he would not have been attacked. I do not want to press that for a moment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman having read the letter, I wish to say that in my opinion at any rate, having read both sides of the question, there is an answer to it. Some of the persons have been punished, and this very day some more of the ringleaders have been brought before the magistrates, and within a very short time Mr. Bullard is to prefer his claim for compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886. It is perfectly obvious that under such circumstances there is no room for the action of the Government, and I do not see what 950 more the Government could have done. I have expressed in answer to questions in this House, my sense of the necessity of impressing on local authorities the duty of seeing that the law is carried out, and that if there is rioting or damage to property, measures should if possible be taken to punish the rioters and to prevent the recurrence of the riots. Something has been said about the meeting at Exeter Hall at which the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth was present. It may be that the police were warned—I do not know whether they were or not—but I have not heard of any row or disturbance in the Strand. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that the police are not justified in being present in Exeter Hall to keep a meeting orderly. What they have to do if there is reason to believe that there is going to be a riotous disturbance either inside or outside the meeting is to be ready in sufficient force to stop tumultuous disturbance or injury to person or property. If I understood the complaint of the hon. Baronet the other night, it was that the police were a little late in arriving on the scene, whether because of the pressure of the crowd outside or not I do not myself know. The other cases are, I admit, serious cases. I have shown that they are being dealt with. The local authorities ought to be encouraged to do their duty to prevent such riots, and the destruction of property in the future, and in doing so they will receive the support of the Government. At the same time, I must say that when public feeling is so excited as it is at the present moment, and when it is obvious that meetings which at other times would be harmless are now likely to be provocative of disturbance, there ought to be some consideration for the maintenance of the public peace. I do not say it was used in these cases, but there have been occasions in which very strong language has been used in favour of those who are now our enemies. Whatever may be said about free speech, and no one favors it more strongly than I do, there are times when men's feelings are strongly excited, and when allowance ought to be made for it, and those who are calling these public meetings ought to feel that they have some responsibility cast upon them, and that they ought to be very careful not to endanger the public peace.
§ *MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)The speech we have listened to to-night on this great question of public liberty has caused the greatest dismay in the minds of all constitutional persons in this House. The Home Secretary's unfortunate remark in regard to the disturbance at Stratford-on-Avon would seem to imply that if a man is unpopular in a district or amongst his neighbours from any cause whatsoever, an attack upon his person and his property is the less censurable on the part of the mob.
§ *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYWhat?
§ *MR. BROADHURSTWell; that it goes in extenuation of the illegal act.
§ *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYI entirely repudiate that; I most warmly repudiate it. I said that certain young men, enthusiastic over British victories, were marching down the streets and most unjustifiably took advantage of the unpopularity of a certain gentleman and broke his windows. I do not justify it.
§ *MR. BROADHURSTThe unfortunate attempt at correction by the right hon. Gentleman has only made matters worse. What the Home Secretary did say was this—[HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!] Let us have free speech here. The Home Secretary, with that mildness of manner for which he is renowned, said that certain young men were in an excited condition, and that they were marching about the streets, collecting larger numbers to the crowd, and that they unjustifiably attacked this house and this person; but he added, "You must remember this man was unpopular." [Hon. Members: No, no!]
§ *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYI said that this man was unpopular and held unpopular views, but I did not endeavour to argue that that justified what they did. I said that when the crowd were passing down the street, a flag was displayed, or something of that kind, and that they, or some of them, took part in an action which I deplore as much as the hon Gentleman.
§ *MR. BROADHURSTI think I am within the knowledge of the House, but I will not contest the Home Secretary's explanation. I had no intention to inter- 952 rupt or to prevent his wish to moderate the effect of the language employed by him in that unfortunate speech which he has just made. But if the unpopularity of any citizen is to be any excuse for an attack upon his property there is an end to public rights and public liberties. I remember when the Colonial Secretary was the most unpopular man in England in Conservative quarters; but would that have been any justification, or mitigation, or any excuse or explanation for an attack upon his property as well as upon his person? Why, the ruling is monstrous; and I never before heard such revolutionary views expressed in this House as have been expressed by the Home Secretary, and indicated—[Hon. Members: "Agreed, agreed!" and "Order, order!"]—and also substantionally expressed by the Leader of the House. The first duty of a Government in any civilised country is to protect its citizens in the exercise of all legal rights, and the moment the Government fails to discharge that duty it fails to been titled to the confidence and respect of its citizens. Now, the Home Secretary, of course, cannot be expected to know intuitively what is likely to happen on any given night, in any given place, and at any given hour of the night. But the Home Secretary knows perfectly well that for six months peaceable citizens have run great risks, and have on many occasions met with very rough and illegal treatment at the hands of riotous assemblies of people, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have learned some elementary lessons in offering protection to his fellow-countrymen during the course of these six months. I know what would have happened, and so does the Home Secretary know, if there had been a strike near the docks, or in the cotton district. [An Hon. Member: Or in Ireland.] I leave it to my hon. friends from Ireland to deal with their own country; but I know what would have happened had it been a body of trades unionists on strike. The right hon. Gentleman would not have waited for a second attack. If there had been an attack in one village he would not have waited till the next night for fear that there would have been an attack in another village. He would have had the troops down there, and these troops would not have been received with the enthusiastic greetings of welcome that the Home Secretary describes 953 the troops had been received with by the riotous persons assembled round the café at Scarborough. There would have been all the military force, even amounting to 1,000 soldiers, rightly and justly employed by the Government, to hold back the people illegally assembled and illegally acting contrary to the rights of the citizens and breaking the law. Why has there been no arrest here? If it had been 500 cotton spinners or miners congregated together they would have been arrested in batches, and some one would have been brought to law and made to answer for his riotous proceedings. The effect of this night's debate will be, I fear, if the country takes its lead from the two speeches made from the Treasury bench, that there is an apology for riotous action. I am not a pro-Boer. [Hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I am not a pro-Boer, but I am in favour of liberty of speech. I have been in public life for a great many years. I have taken part for more than forty years in proceedings at public meetings, and I dare anyone to say that I ever lifted my finger in the whole of my life to prevent the full and free discussion of any subject of public interest that might be occupying the public mind. What I and those who laboured with me have conceded to others we claim at the hands of the Government for ourselves. I do hope that some hon. Members of this House who can speak with great authority on constitutional rights will yet press home upon the Government the necessity of giving some semblance of their sense of the serious position into which this country has drifted, when public rights are denied, private property attacked, and citizens are unable to freely and legally entertain their friends on their own property without exposure to grave personal danger. I sincerely trust that a great lesson will be learned from these extraordinary disclosures, these extraordinary confessions on the part of the Government that have characterised the part they have taken in the debate this evening.
§ *COLNEL MILWARDI apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs for interrupting him. All I wished was to call attention—I am not quite sure that he was in the House when it was stated—to the fact that legal proceedings were commencing in regard to the case of 954 Messrs. Bullard. The right hon. Gentleman read an ex parte statement, in which it was said that Messrs. Bullard's house was broken into. But there is another side to the case. I have seen in the papers, and I believe that evidence, at all events, has been tendered, that a great deal of the disturbance arose from the fact that as the mob approached Messrs. Bullard's shop young Mr. Bullard issued from the shop with a gun and struck a man across the head. I would like to say something about what the Home Secretary said in regard to the organisation of the disturbances. It has been stated that the disturbances were organised at Stratford-on-Avon by the Working Men's Conservative Club. I may say that strict inquiry has been made into the matter, and, so far as that club is concerned, the members are absolutely guiltless of any complicity in the matter, except, as has happened in London and elsewhere, that three or four voting men, elated by the news of the victories in which we all rejoice so much, started, marching down the street, singing popular songs. I am perfectly certain that there was no organisation whatever. The respectable inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon deeply regret the rioting which has taken place there. I do not think it was so serious as has been made out. If it was it has been condoned, as three persons have been punished, and two other persons have been brought before the magistrates. In behalf of the whole of the inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon, which is one of the quietest places to be found in England, I say that they deeply regret that there should have been any rioting or any injury to private property, and that while, in common with everyone, they rejoice at the turn events have taken in South Africa their earnest desire was that these rejoicings should not subject to loss any person, popular or unpopular, in the borough.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)I am very anxious not to say a word which would create more excitement in this House, because I do feel that the House of Commons ought to be the principal guardian of freedom of speech and of peace in all parts of the country. I, however, wish to state in a sentence the reason why I think the motion made by my hon. and learned friend was justified and was called for 955 I confess I was not satisfied with, the statement which was made by the Leader of the House in reference to these disturbances. He said, as I am sure every man in his position would say, that these disturbances were greatly to be condemned, and that the ringleaders in them ought to be punished. The Home Secretary also said—and so far it is satisfactory—that the Government feel their responsibility in the matter, and that they are prepared to discharge it. But the conclusion of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, seemed to me to be capable of an interpretation which would have the effect not of restraining but, I will not say of promoting rioting, but of discouraging the right of public meeting by people who hold opinions which are not popular with the majority, and which are capable of exciting rioting and outrages of this character. I hope I may have been mistaken in that interpretation, but I confess that it had the effect in my mind of asserting that people who do not hold the opinions which unquestionably are the opinions of the great majority of the people ought to abstain from public and even, as I understand, from private meetings. In my view nothing could be more injurious than that such an opinion as that should go forth with the sanction of the House of Commons. I say we ought to maintain that people who hold opinions which are unpopular ought not to be discouraged, but should feel that they have a right to express those opinions, and that all the power of the House of Commons and of the Executive Government should be employed in protecting them in doing so. It is because I think some of the expressions used by the right hon. Gentleman were capable of the interpretation of a warning to people who hold unpopular opinions not to express them, that I think it was necessary that this matter should be raised in the House, and it is only from that point of view that I shall support this motion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI gather from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as from an interpolated remark of the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment, that what we are really discussing is not so much what has occurred recently in the country, not so much these most unhappy attacks upon person and property which have taken 956 place at Stratford-on-Avon and Scarborough, as the style and temper of the reply which I gave a few moments ago to the House; and so accurately and happily did the learned Gentleman forecast when he came down to the House what would be the tone and temper of my reply, that, not only was it a matter of common notoriety and knowledge that the adjournment was going to be moved, but he was prepared with a whole armful of papers. I was not aware that such an accurate forecast of the reply I gave to the House at question time could have been made, and as my style is apparently of so subtle a character I the more regret that in does not meet with the approval of Gentlemen opposite. By the courtesy of the press I have a verbatim transcript of the shorthand notes of the reply I gave to the House. I have re-read it during the course of the recent criticisms passed upon my reply, and I still say I see in that reply nothing to complain of. [Cheers.] I will not trouble the House with it again unless they wish to hear it. [Opposition cries of "Read!" and "No!"] I take it that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear it read again. [Cries of "Read, read!"] I have not the slightest objection. I said—
Every case reported to my right hon. friend the Home Secretary has been carefully examined, and every such unhappy occurrence will be examined. There is not the slightest evidence that there has been any organisation of these demonstrations, which are absolutely spontaneous in their character as far as the evidence which has come before my right hon. friend is concerned. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is the local authorities who are responsible both for the maintenance of orders and for the punishment of transgressors, and any aid which can be given to them in carrying out those duties, shall, of course, be readily afforded. I myself strongly deprecate these demonstrations, and I expect no good of them. I think that they are contrary to the best traditions of English life. For a large part of my political life I have belonged to a party which was unable to hold meetings in certain portions of the country; and therefore I am at least as anxious on this subject as the right hon. Gentleman who has been more fortunately situated than I myself could possibly be. I think that the, responsibility rests not only upon the local authorities and upon those concerned in these unfortunate proceedings, but also upon those who called the meetings. It must be remembered that public feeling is necessarily deeply stirred at the present time. In every district of the country there are persons who have lost near relatives or friends in the present war; and nine-tenths of the country—ninety-nine hundredths of the country—believe, rightly or 957 wrongly, that these meetings are called for an object which, if it were effectual, would render the recurrence of these great calamities possible. They think that in no other country in the would, and least of all the Transvaal itself, would such meetings be tolerated; and they are aware that the fact of such meetings being held is, by people who know little of our methods and traditions, used abroad as an indication of a divided country, and of a hesitating Government. In these circumstances, the tension of public opinion must necessarily be of a kind affording grave anxiety to those responsible for the public peace; and I venture to add that those who call these meetings ought to be careful lest they ask more of human nature than after all history shows that human nature is capable of giving.That is what I said. That answer contains three propositions. The first is that the local authorities and not the Government are the responsible persons in repressing disorder and punishing crime, and that the Government will give to them every assistance in their power in carrying out that duty. The second proposition is that these proceedings are in themselves deplorable, and that this interference with free speech is not only contrary, I am sorry to say, not to the universal, but to the best traditions of the country, but does harm and not good to the cause it professes to promote. The third proposition—which I understand is the one disputed—is that the right of free speech in this country is of a kind which ought not to make the persons who wish to give their views to the world absolutely oblivious of the conditions under which they speak and of the disorder to which their speeches may give rise, and of the public difficulties and dangers which may ensue. That proposition has never been disputed by any reasonable man. There was a question asked this afternoon by an Irish Member about some disorder which had taken place in Cork in consequence of a Protestant preaching in the middle of a Roman Catholic town. There are times and there are places in which you ought to be careful how you provoke disorder, whether by Roman Catholics preaching in a Protestant town, or Protestants preaching in a Roman Catholic town. That is an illustration. Is there no responsibility on a person uttering his views as to the time and place at which he utters them? I say there is a great responsibility.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)The Attorney General did not say that in his 958 answer. [Cheers, and loud Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir, I said so.
§ MR. LOUGH,amid loud Ministerial cries of "Order!" and Opposition cries of "Go on!" attempted to make some further remarks.
*MR. SPEAKER, interposing, saidThe hon. Gentleman has no right to interrupt an hon. Member who is speaking. He is not raising any question of order.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR, resuming, said: I can pardon the hon. Gentleman opposite when I remember his anxiety with regard to this question. He observes that the Attorney General did not say so. That is true. It is I who say so, and I presume that I have a right to an opinion which I have expressed not now for the first time in connection with such difficulties. The suggestion that the free public expression of opinion in this country upon the subject of this war has been repressed is really, I think, rather extravagant. In the newspapers of all sorts, in leaflets, in pamphlets, and in speeches, the views of those who are called, rightly or wrongly, pro-Boers, have been fully disseminated through the country, and, in my opinion, it is a duty thrown upon them to consider whether it is within their province—whether their consciences justify them in causing all this difficulty in the maintenance of the public peace by their choice of the occasion and place to express their opinions. It must be remembered, that, while there is and ought to be full circulation given to those views, they are views which, in the nature of the case, whether we like it or not, must be distinctly offensive to the great mass of the people of this country. I am told that the programme, in the form of a sort of catechism of the Peace Committee, runs as follows:—
§ SIR R. T. REIDWhat Peace Committee?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt runs: "What do you want to do?—To stop this war. When?—Immediately. Why?—Because we are in the wrong. How?—By confessing our sins, and doing right. What sins?—Lying to cover conspiracy 959 fraud in making false claims, bad faith in going back on our word, wholesale slaughter. How to do right?—To expose and punish the criminals"—I suppose they are the Government—"to compensate their victims"—I suppose they are the Boers—"and to make peace." That may be all right. All I say is, it is not agreeable to the majority of the people of this country.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)Boer money pays for it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThose are sentiments which hon. Gentlemen who support the motion would think it advisable to press on the attention of those who have just lost dear friends and relatives in carrying on this war! Therefore I think that the third proposition which I have enunciated, that there is an obligation on those who hold these meetings, is a doctrine absolutely sound in itself and in no way inconsistent with that freedom of speech which we certainly on this side of the House are as anxious to maintain as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He appears in the first place to have forgotten what the duties of the Home Department are. He appears to believe that it is in the power of my right hon. friend to send down troops and police from London to keep the peace at Stratford-on-Avon. The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake. Everything my right hon. friend can do will be done, but I must again say, at the risk of displeasing the right hon. Gentleman opposite or being thought to give him information upon a bit of political history with which he appears to be imperfectly acquainted—
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANEntirely unacquainted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUREntirely unacquainted—I say I could find him countless cases in London, in Scotland, in some of the mining districts of England, and at the present moment in Ireland, where it would not be possible to exercise that right of free speech which the right hon. Gentleman so greatly and properly values, but which has been so often interfered with by some of his best and most loyal supporters. I am sure no one regrets it more than he does, and I hope that when, by the natural evolution of 960 fate, he may be the head of a responsible Government, and his Home Secretary may be appealed to upon like occasions, he will do his best, as we shall do our best, to see that the right of free speech in every legitimate form is safeguarded in every part of Her Majesty's dominions.
§ MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)As I represent a division of Sheffield that has been affected by mob rule, I venture to say a word or two. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has laid down what I think is a very dangerous doctrine. He took for his illustration the question of the preachers in the city of Cork, and he said that freedom of speech must be conditioned by place, time, and circumstance. He has already told us that human nature can only bear so much. Well, if that means anything it is a justification for the Catholics of Cork doing something to prevent those preachers from the exercise of what I believe is their undoubted liberty, and they would fall back on the philosophic doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman as their justification. But I wish the right hon. Gentleman had come down from the region of philosophy to fact, and had told us where is a suitable place, and what is a suitable time for those of us who—you may call us pro-Boer as much as you like—do believe that this war was unnecessary, who do believe the war was unjust, and who still believe that we love our country as fervently—[Cries of "Oh!"]—yes, who love our country as fervently and enthusiastically as the Hebrews on the otherside—[Cries of "Order!"]
§ *MR. SPEAKERrequested the hon. Member not to make remarks of a personal character.
§ MR. MADDISONI, of course, Mr. Speaker, do not wish to transgress at all. I was led into that, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We believe that we love our country as fervently, and are just as good patriots as those who take a different view; and what I wish to know from the Government is not merely that they shall affirm in so many words that these outrages are to be deprecated—what else could they do?—but that they will give us some assurance that they will take the same steps to prevent riot and outrage as they take during 961 a strike. The right hon. Gentleman twitted my hon. friend the Member for Leicester with having said that he did not know what the duties of the police were. I do not profess to know what the duties of the police are particularly, but this I do know, that while I myself was at Hull during the dockers' strike the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman found some means and some opportunities of sending 100 or 200 mounted police into the town, and he took effective steps not to punish outrage so much as to prevent it. What we want is prevention here. Let me give the case of Sheffield. Last Saturday a meeting was to have been held which was summoned by private circular. One of the signatories of that circular was an hon. Member of this House—the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire. There were five or six signatories besides his own—most of them men known in Sheffield. The proposal was to have a tea, to be given to about 150 friends of peace. The reason why that private meeting was to be held in that way was because my friends in Sheffield took the same view as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, but only from necessity. They said, "Well, the feeling in Sheffield among the rowdy section of the population"—because it is not the ordinary citizen who causes these things; it is the drunken vagabonds, the same class that you can always get; you can turn them out to loot and wreck anything you like. Well, my friends in Sheffield said—"There are the incitements of the press and various other causes, and perhaps it would be as well not to put the public authorities of Sheffield to some considerable trouble, and cause, it may be, injury to ourselves and others, and therefore much as we regret that, in the last year of the century, we have to take such underground methods, nevertheless we will do as law-abiding citizens, and we will have our meeting privately, we will have a cup of tea." That was their determination, but they did one thing. They invited Mr. Cronwright-Schreiner, and the distinct understanding was that it was not to be a meeting where there were to be any set speeches at all, but that they were merely to consult and take counsel as to what were the best steps to educate the people of Sheffield. [Laughter.] I do not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite in 962 favour of education; but we on this side do not think it treason to educate public opinion. What was the result? That circular was printed in extenso in one of the Sheffield papers. No comment whatever was made, and in these times none was needed to cause a riot. But the evening paper did comment. Certain things were said in that paper, and the net result of it all was that in this great Yorkshire town those law-abiding citizens, with an hon. Member of this House amongst them, were compelled to abandon a purely private meeting to which it was never intended to give the appearance of a public meeting, not even to the extent of the Exeter Hall meeting. But that was not all. Of course a crowd gathered, and while I am glad to say there was no injury to anyone and no damage to property, of course they had to exhibit their patriotism by shouting through the streets and annoying as far as they could without injury certain prominent members of that small committee. Now, I submit that this is only a type of what is happening all over the country. The hon. and learned Member said the list he read was not an exhaustive one. Why, some of the worst cases do not come into the papers at all, and apparently none of them come in to the hands of the Home Secretary. You have to smash £1,000 worth of property before any notice is taken of the disturbances. I note that the Leader of the House is particularly concerned when there is damage to property, but he has never shown the slightest concern for personal safety, although he feels it. I am not trying to impute to him wanton disregard; I know that that is not his feeling; but nevertheless there was the fact that, like a good Tory, he thought only of property—in his speech I mean—and thought nothing of the person. Let me give another case which occurred in London. I refer to a meeting of the Social Democratic Federation. Some of my stillest battles have been fought against my friends the Socialists, who love me as much as they love the worst capitalists. The Social Democratic Federation are a poor body—a body of enthusiasts, but a body of men who have enough to do to manage to hire their little halls and to carry on their propaganda. These men met last Sunday in Harrow Road. What was their experience? Why, at the sound of a bugle—it must be a bugle 963 in these days—some thousand rowdies—they give the number at between 1,000 and 2,000—broke into the hall, broke the windows, and destroyed property to the value of £15. That is a serious state of affairs, and that is going on in all parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said these meetings would not be allowed in any other country than England, but surely he is not going to compare us to continental tyrannies. Does he consider that it is singular that we can do in London what they cannot do in St. Petersburg? Has the new Imperialism reduced England to that level? This is the England of Cromwell. This is the England of the great champions of freedom, and therefore it is quite right that we can do in England what they cannot do in other countries. Right hon. Gentlemen should be very careful how they treat this right of free speech and the question of personal liberty and safety. Along with many of my hon. friends near me I have stood up in times of danger and told the people that force was no remedy and they had no right to use it. But when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the "limits of endurance of human nature" how can we make that appeal to men? "Limits of endurance," what are they? Let me put two cases. Men go to an anti-war meeting and put forward certain views which they believe to be true. Those attending the meeting are given a chance to vote against the resolution. Where does the "limit of human endurance" come in? I will put the other case. A crowd of ragged men and women who have been for three months on strike, who have pawned every little article in the home, who have had only one meal of bread and water for a week; they see Dives going by in his carriage, surrounded by luxury and plenty, when some madcap says, "Let him have a stone, men!" If I were to adopt the philosophy of the right hon. Gentleman I should say, "Well, you are all right; there is a limit to human endurance." But I am not altogether sorry for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as there may be times coming when the necessity may arise for some justification of such conduct. I only say that it is a shame and humiliation that the elementary principles of free speech should be scouted as they have been in this House to-day.
§ MR. LOUGHThere are many of us who think we are making a protest of the greatest political importance this afternoon, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I meant to be rude by my interruption when he was speaking, and still less did I intend to be rude to you, Sir, or the House. The point I meant to put was this. When an hon. friend from Ireland asked the Attorney General to express oven the mildest disapproval of those meetings in Cork which are so likely to cause a breach of the peace, he refused to do so.
§ *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.Hon. Members from Ireland asked me no such question, and I gave no such reply. The hon. Member is strangely misinformed. The question was this—
Whether he is aware that street preachers are at present creating disturbances in Cork, and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to this practice.The answer I gave was—I am informed that on Sunday last an attack was made by a large crowd on the preachers who were conducting open-air services in the streets of Cork. Owing, however, to the prompt intervention of the police, no serious injury, I am happy to say, was sustained by any of the party, although two of them were unfortunately knocked down in the struggle that took place. With regard to the second paragraph, the hon. Member must be aware that the legality of street preaching has frequently been discussed in this House. The practice, unless it amounts to an obstruction of the public streets, is no offence by common or statute law, and the police have no power to put a stop to it, as suggested.
§ MR. LOUGHI am exceedingly obliged to the right hon. and learned Member; it is in accordance with the courtesy he always extends to us that we should have been supplied with the full text of his answer. It proves my case to the hilt. What did the police do in Cork? They protected the people holding this meeting. The right hon. Gentleman said the right of free speech was valuable, and would be and had been maintained in Ireland. I know something about Ireland. There has been great bloodshed and disorder in connection with free speech in Ireland, and I approve of the Government maintaining the right of these men to exercise it. What we ask the Government to do to-night is to extend the same liberties to Great Britain which they are so keen to 965 defend in Ireland. The reason we are protracting this debate is that we think the reply of the Government, given by the Home Secretary and by the First Lord of the Treasury, will tend to increase these scenes of disorder which have disgraced the country during the last few months. I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, so I have taken down the exact words. What is the doctrine they have laid down? That if there is great unanimity of opinion people cannot be allowed to express arguments on the other side. ["Oh, oh!"]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the hon. Gentleman says he took these words down from either my right hon. friend or myself he is entirely mistaken.
§ MR. LOUGHNo; it was my fault of expression. I unfortunately mixed up two sentences. I intended to express the opinion, which I think is stated by him, that the argument which has been put forward is that if there is a great majority of opinion on one side the minority must be very cautious indeed in expressing their views. The right hon. gentleman accepts that—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not accept either that or anything like it. I said that with a certain condition of public feeling, certain care must be exercised by persons making speeches.
§ MR. LOUGHI will press that home a little farther, because it is of the greatest importance. The right hon. Gentleman did say that he personally was in favour of freedom of speech, because he had suffered from the contrary. Then he went on to say, "Remember human nature." He continued that ninety-nine out of one hundred people in this country had lost relatives in this war. ["No."] At any rate, the point was this. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that those who had lost relatives were the people who had interrupted the meetings. ["No."]. I will take another point. The right hon. Gentleman said that no other country would allow such meetings to be held, particularly the Transvaal; and finally he said, that these meetings would give the impression abroad that the country was divided in its opinion as to the war. I think I am generally right in those 966 points. My argument is that every one of those statements was a point in deprecation of, and limiting, the freedom of speech in which he believes.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYou must not take me as admitting those phrases.
§ MR. LOUGHI will put it this way, and take the full responsibility. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary did go far this afternoon to limit the freedom of speech in unpopular causes. We on this side maintain that if we are to uphold democratic Government, the more unpopular a cause is the more important it is that all opinions thereupon should be heard. I want to refer to a case which has not been mentioned in detail. My reason for intervening in the debate was that I did not get a satisfactory answer to a question I put to the Home Secretary. I have a slight difficulty in arguing with the Home Secretary inasmuch as he has full official information, which I have not. I am informed that at Highbury on Sunday last a most peaceful meeting had been conducted for an hour and a half when a police officer with twenty constables arrived, and said, "This meeting is likely to promote disorder and it must be brought to an end." The police thereupon pushed the speakers off the platform and violently broke up the meeting. On those facts I put the question. [An Hon Member: They are not facts.] On those statements, then. I do not say a word against the police in London. If they have proper instructions they are an admirable body of men, but if they get a hint that they need not protect these orderly gatherings of citizens they will not do their duty. The third part of my question was, "And whether he can promise that such gatherings should be protected in the future." To that the Home Secretary made no answer at all, he would give no promise of protection to peacefully conducted public meetings. That is my point. Why did not the Home Secretary follow the example of the Attorney General for Ireland, by vindicating the right of free speech in London? The Government will not in the long run consult their own interests by refusing to give fair play to the miserable minority, if it be a miserable minority, who would like to see peace substituted for war, and who view with 967 grave misgivings the proceedings of the country at the present time. It is that we may vindicate this sacred right of the people that I have ventured to intervene in this debate, because I think that that right will not be preserved if the tone of the Government is not altered.
§ *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYBy the leave of the House, I would like to say that I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the answer I gave him on the subject of the Highbury meeting. I did not give the hon. Member the promise he asked for because I understood he would assume that the police would continue to act, as they have always acted, so as to protect all peaceful meetings. I should have scorned to have implied that such a defence of the police was needed. In answer to the main question, what I said was that the police who were present found that the meeting, which had been conducted in a peaceful and orderly way for some time—I do not know for how long—was becoming very much excited; I will not say for what reason, though I have an opinion. There was a great deal of hooting, animated, in the opinion of the officer in charge, by the violent arguments of the speakers, and, in his view, which was supported by other officers who came up, there was every chance of a disturbance of the peace. Therefore, the meeting was very properly dispersed, and nothing further happened. I really think the police were in no way to blame.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)I have no wish to inflict a long speech on this interesting question, but I desire to make a practical suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is aware that, quite apart from any other powers he possesses in regard to the administration of the police, he has a power, which I do not suggest he should exercise without very careful inquiry, under the Local Government Act of 1888, and the various Police Acts. If he is satisfied that in any particular case, in a county or a county borough, the police, or the standing joint committee who control the police, have not acted up to their full powers and responsibilities, the Home Secretary can, after due inquiry, disallow the whole or any portion of what are popularly known as the Police grants; that is to say, that portion of money 968 Which is paid out of the Local Taxation fund to the Exchequer contribution account of the police authorities within the county or borough, and by them transferred to the fund upon which the police force depends. If these grants are not paid the local ratepayers have to find the money which otherwise would be paid out of the Government contributions. What I suggest is that the Home Secretary should intimate in the proper quarters that if there is any case in which it can be shown that the full duty has not been discharged by the police, and that personal property or security of life or limb has suffered thereby, he will not hesitate to exercise this useful power. In taking such a course he would be perfectly justified, and public opinion would support his action. The ratepayers do not desire to lose any portion of the Police grants through the rowdyism of mobs, but if the police cannot control the exuberant spirits of persons excited by military successes, the only result will be that in the places where such riots, which are increasing in number throughout the country, obtain the upper hand, the local authorities may find themselves deprived of a considerable sum of public money. I make that suggestion, and that is the only contribution I desire to make to this debate.
§ MR. BARTLEYIt is certainly rather amusing to some of us who have fought a good many contested elections to hear what has been going on this evening. I have very often seen a great row at meetings. Some of the friends of the hon. Member for West Islington came to my district a short time ago and made such a disturbance that nobody was allowed to speak. At one of my election meetings there there was a regular free fight at the Shoreditch Town Hall, in which several people were hurt, and the Leader of the House was not allowed to speak. That was an organised arrangement by the Radicals of that day to put a stop to our meetings, and it is ridiculous to talk about it as anything else. But now, because some of their meetings are being disturbed—amongst others these of the hon. Member for Northampton, who is accustomed to say exactly what he likes on his own platform—there is all this fuss made. Nobody justifies the breaking of windows or the damaging of property, but when loyal people in a great country are delighted at the successes of 969 their Army, and when they parade the Streets to show their joy at the relief of Ladysmith, and pass persons who are semi-traitors, I do not think it is at all unreasonable that there should be such a feeling as has been displayed. All I can say is that we are the most tolerant nation in the world. There is no other nation which would allow the treason to be talked that is talked, not merely in public meetings, but in a place it would be out of order for me to mention. I say emphatically it is a good thing that people have the spirit and are determined to exercise their right and to show to the public and the world at large that this country is practically unanimous, except for a handful of agitating scoundrels, and that a stop should be put to all this sort of thing. We are delighted at this exhibition of feeling throughout the country, and I hope it will continue. I do not wish to see any violence done, but if the other side excite the public to violence the blame is upon them, and not upon us. I believe that this agitation is got up and paid for, and that these scoundrelly papers are printed and published by the enemies of this country, and because these people cannot get a hearing in their own districts they make use of the tolerance of this House in order to say things which there is not a constituency in the country would tolerate or allow them to say in public.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we should consider the time and the occasion of expressing our opinions. I should like to know whether he considers that any single meeting which has been broken up and where disturbances have occurred was held at in inappropriate time or on an inappropriate occasion. I quite recognise that there are circumstances in which persons ought to be careful not to irritate public opinion. In cases of great public excitement, no doubt, it would be a duty not to excite unduly public feeling. But does that mean that private meetings should not be held? Surely it only means that in case of public excitement no irritating display should be made, that there should be no processions in the streets; in a word, that there should be nothing done which would force or oblige people to listen to the expression of sentiments they do not wish to hear. If the right 970 hon. Gentleman confines his reproof or censure to exhibitions of that kind he will receive some amount of sympathy, but he apparently extends his censure to any and every kind. It is impossible to evade the conclusion that there is a desire to repress every expression of opinion hostile to the policy of the Government. That desire has been indicated in this House, and it is that desire, practically, which has led to this war. If we expressed our views as to the impropriety of the policy of the Government, as to the wrong steps they were taking, as to matters they had no right whatever to take up, we were told that we were encouraging President Kruger and the enemies of the country. I do hope that in future we will not refrain from protesting against what we consider to be an evil course from the supposed fear and the mistaken idea that it will have a bad influence abroad. It does not matter whether or not it will have a bad influence abroad. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not care two straws about the bad influence abroad if the arguments we are advancing are well founded; we ought to express them in order to influence the policy of the country. The attempt to stop all expression of public opinion has been most injurious and has really led the country into rushing into this war which nobody, except a very few, desired. If everybody had expressed themselves as they should have done—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not in order in discussing the state of things before the war began.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSVery well, Sir. The First Lord of the Treasury made reference to the fact that there were a number of relatives of persons who have been killed, and he seemed to indicate that anger and indignation would be natural in these cases, and that to some extent they were responsible for these disorders. That is not the case at all. The very reverse is the case. There is no class of persons in the country more disposed to deprecate the war and to find fault with the policy which led to it than the relatives of the persons who have suffered by it. It is the natural indignation of men who consider their relatives and friends have been wrongfully and murderously killed in this war. I am satisfied that the persons who make these dis- 971 turbances are not the relatives and friends, but the persons who cause these scenes are the common roughs of the towns, and they are fully persuaded that in doing so they have the protection of the Government and the authorities. The Government newspapers give them the cue, and scarcely a word of deprecation is uttered by those papers or by the Government supporters.
§ MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)I should like to ask those hon. Members on this side of the House who have taken part in public meetings since the year 1886 how much liberty of speech they have been allowed to have at their public meetings by members of the party opposite. It does seem extraordinary that the complaint should now come from the Liberal party as to the way public meetings have been interfered with. We have been accustomed to nothing else on our side but to have our meetings interfered with, but we never came down whining to the House of Commons to move the adjournment of the House because our meetings had been disturbed. I am not a great admirer of the Liberal party, but I must say that the most scandalous incident in the history of the Liberal party which I have ever known is this, that while those who are nearest and dearest to us are fighting for their country at the front, the whole Liberal party to a man in this House rise in support of a motion for the adjournment in order to seize an opportunity of expressing their sympathies with those who are fighting against England. Such action does not redound to the credit of the Liberal party, and I do not think they will find it a paying thing in the long run. I regret the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs, because I am afraid it will be very much misinterpreted in foreign countries, and the impression will go forth that there are two opinions in regard to this war, while hitherto the impression has gone forth that we were united. I regret the hon. Gentleman has made this motion, and I am sorry to think of the direful consequences which may follow.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)I desire to say one or two words because, from an Irish point of view, this debate is extremely interesting. Most of the speeches which have been delivered 972 have been in the nature of an attack upon the First Lord of the Treasury for the attitude which he has taken up and for the doctrines he has laid down. I rise not for the purpose of delivering any attack upon the First Lord of the Treasury, but, as an Irish Member who has, from time to time, had some experience of disturbances at election times and of disturbances which follow eviction scenes, street preaching, and other matters in Ireland, to thank him sincerely and heartily for at least one of the doctrines he has laid down. From time to time in Ireland serious scenes of disorder have followed evictions. I have seen bloodshed and something approaching to very serious rioting follow evictions. I have seen property destroyed and houses attacked, but when the Irish people were charged with these things, and when a word was said upon their behalf, nobody that I ever heard of came forward with the plea in regard to these poor evicted people that human nature should be considered, and nobody laid down the doctrine that there was in these scenes of turmoil and disturbance a limit to the endurance of human nature. I think that is an excellent doctrine, and it is the best doctrine I have ever heard the First Lord of the Treasury propound. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it, and I can promise him and the House most faithfully that the next time there follows a serious disturbance after an eviction in Ireland, if houses should be wrecked, if persons should be attacked and blood should be spilled, and property destroyed, when I or any other Irish Member am upbraided, we shall come here and apply the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that "there is some limit to human endurance." Having said so much, I will refer to the speech of the last speaker, and the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington. They spoke as if these disturbances which have been complained of were solely confined to election meetings and election rows. Why, we know that election meetings and rows have nothing whatever to do with it. The hon. Member for North Islington said he had gone through many contested elections, but I think I can beat him in that, for I have been through seven or eight hotly contested elections, and I know what an election row is. As far as I am concerned, sometimes my majorities have been small 973 and sometimes large, but as far as I am concerned I should be the last person in the world to complain myself or sympathise with Liberal Members who complain of the storming of an election meeting and the taking of the platform. I think that is one of the most interesting features of electioneering. If for the future election contests were to be conducted without any excitement, and if every election meeting was to be conducted with the decorum of a Quakers' gathering, if those circumstances prevailed, as far as I am concerned, political life would have lost much of its charm; but, as far as I understand it, there is no complaint of interference with election meetings whatever. The suggestion is too absurd, and I ask the House what possible parallel or comparison can be drawn between a row at an election meeting such as that spoken of by the hon. Member for North Islington and what took place at Scarborough? There was no question of an election meeting or contest there. There was no question of a public meeting of any kind whatever; and what occurred? Why, every Member of this House and every man who loves liberty must read with regret what occurred. The business premises of Mr. Joshua Rowntree were wrecked and smashed to pieces, and the business premises of other members of his family were also wrecked and smashed to pieces. But, not satisfied with that, the riotous mob, after demolishing the business premises of this family, went to their private residence, where their wives and children were, and riddled it with stones and attacked them in a most violent and disorderly manner. That is what I take it the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House complained of, and not of an election row. I take the instance with reference to an attack made upon the house of a shopkeeper in Stratford-upon-Avon. The man did not propose to hold a meeting, but his shop was attacked and not only were the windows broken, but the mob broke into the house and demolished all his stock-in-trade, broke all the furniture and all the china which it was his business to sell in his shop, and left him there practically ruined. That is what is complained of. We are told that the police are doing all they can, and we are informed that they will protect the property of these people. If these disturbances had been in Ireland 974 the police would not have been so slow. Take Dublin, or Limerick, or Waterford, where the people, or a vast majority of them, sympathise with the Transvaal, and a great majority of them believe this war is unjust. Suppose the minority, say in my constituency, proposed to hold in Cork or Waterford an indoor meeting by ticket to condemn the Transvaal Republic and support the war; and suppose that on the evening of such meeting a crowd of Nationalists, forming the overwhelming majority of the people, and being intensely excited, broke into the meeting, smashed the hall, and injured the people who participated in those gatherings, what would have happened? Why, the hall would have been entered by an armed force of police with batôns and rifles and bayonets by their side, and hundreds of men would have been made amenable to the law. But in England there is no protection whatever for the minority, and if I desired to belong to a minority I would rather belong to a minority in Ireland than in England. Reference has been made to street preaching in Cork, and the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think, that, because these meetings were allowed, the police should not interfere in this country with such meetings as we have been discussing to-night. What comparison can you draw between the man who will insist upon preaching doctrines in the street, where he knows the people are opposed to him, and the men who call a meeting and say that nobody need come to the meeting without a ticket? There is no comparison at all between the two cases, and I say the analogy of street preaching in Cork does not compare. I will once more heartily and sincerely thank the First Lord of the Treasury for his "limit to human endurance" doctrine, and I promise him that the next time we have in Ireland a scene of violent disorder among Irish Nationalists, and he attempts to prosecute me in the matter—which is more than likely—I shall come to this House and put in the doctrine laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury, that even where property is destroyed, where blood is shed, where personal liberty is interfered with, before the law and the police are called in you have got to make every allowance for the limit which human endurance can stand.
§ *MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)The arguments brought for ward by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the analogy he has drawn from the case of Ireland, do not dispose of the matter as comfortably as right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. I can remember a time when they were less interested in the maintenance of public order in Ireland, and when, in reference to the incidents of evictions, they themselves used this very argument about the limit of human endurance very much in the same way as the First Lord of the Treasury has used it to-day. They have used this argument and they have used it solely for the purpose of demonstrating that in respect of public disturbances this argument of human nature and endurance operates in favour of popular majorities at all times and at all places. The argument means that the persons who provoke hostile majorities have also their responsibilities; the street preacher even has his responsibilities. But to say that by no means divests or relieves the Government or the local authorities of their responsibilities, and nothing of the kind was intended by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It ought not to be necessary to say these things, but after the attempt which has been made to make political capital out of it, it is necessary to address arguments to hon. Gentlemen opposite which ought to be spoon meat to babes. The Member for the Cricklade Division says the Home Secretary has the power in his hands to assist in this matter of suppressing disorder by stopping the Government grant to local police forces in cases where they have not interfered with these riotous proceedings. That doctrine is not only bad law but it is bad policy.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI did not put it in that way. I said that such power ought to be used in exceptional cases only, and that the Home Secretary might let it be known that he has the power, and that he would use it under exceptional circumstances.
§ *MR. STUART-WORTLEYThe hope of the noble Lord was that a general impression would be created somehow other that the Government had responsibility in this case. If the noble Lord's words do not mean that they do 976 not mean anything. The Home Secretary has undoubtedly the power to refuse his certificate to a local police force for want of numbers or for the want of general efficiency. There is no doubt that there might be some particular case of a breach of public order which might be taken as evidence of general inefficiency, but is that the case here? Is the Home Secretary to say to every police force when at the end of the year he comes to give his certificate and the Government grant, that "upon such a day and upon such an occasion public opinion, under circumstances totally exceptional and. under conditions of peculiar excitement, boiled over just enough to produce a deplorable riot, and therefore the grant must be withheld"? There is not a municipality in this country which is not as ready to preserve law and order and liberty of speech as the hon. Gentlemen opposite who regard themselves as the only custodians of law and order. This indictment which has been brought is really an indictment of our great popular institutions under which law and order are maintained.
§ SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI cordially agree with what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, and with what the Leader of the House said with regard to the responsibility which rests at a time of great local excitement upon those who call a public meeting to express something which is disagreeable to the neighbourhood. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that any one, whether a street preacher or an evicting landlord, who commits an act calculated to excite a disturbance of public order, has a great responsibility. But the point of this case lies precisely in this—that the great majority of the instances which have been referred to have not been public meetings at all. There are two classes of persons aggrieved—those who have not been connected with any meeting whatever, but who simply on account of opinions—imputed or genuine—simply on account of opinions which they are supposed to entertain, have been subjected to coercive proceedings on the part of their neighbours; and there are those who have called meetings together for the purpose of expressing their opinions in private. In the latter case only those people have been asked to attend who are 977 of like mind in political matters; but other men, holding different opinions on a purely political subject, have chosen to come and prevent the holding of the meetings. Those are the circumstances to which we have endeavoured to direct the attention of the Government. When I put the question on the Paper my object was to stimulate the activity and attention of the Government. I fully expected, from all that I had heard and from my natural conception of what the feelings and desires of the Government would be, that they would have strongly condemned these proceedings. But instead of that—though the right hon. Gentleman did, indeed, deprecate them as very improper and wrong—he devoted three quarters of his speech to an exposition of the crime committed against order by those who had suffered from the riots. Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech would have thought that he considered the conduct of those who had called the meetings, or who were the subjects of the violence, way quite as reprehensible as that of those who disturbed the meetings. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had no business to hold meetings for the purpose of expressing opinions which were not agreeable to their neighbours. [Ministerial cries of "No."] "Agreeable" was the word which the right hon. Gentleman used. That is a limitation on freedom of opinion and speech we have never heard here before.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI must be peculiarly unfortunate in my utterances thought that the version which the right hon. Gentleman gave at the beginning of his speech was perfectly accurate; but I was certainly never guilty of the observation which he has just attributed to me.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhen the right hon. Gentleman was defining those who had incurred the responsibility to which he very properly pointed, he referred to them as those who entertained and wished to express opinions which were "not agreeable" to ninety-nine hundredths of the country. As to the other theory which he put forward—that on this occasion the rioters were those who were excited by the recollection of the loss of relatives and friends, but that argument has already been answered by my hon. friend behind me—you will not 978 find among the relatives of those who have fallen the least strong in condemnation of the war. The hon. Member for Islington went so far as to dub all those who held a different opinion from his own as semi-traitors.
§ MR. BARTLEYI protest against that statement. I never did anything of the sort. I referred to things which were said by many persons, and I said that they were semi-traitorous. I would go further than that even in many cases.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIf opinions of disapproval of the war are semi-traitorous—
§ MR. BARTLEYI never said so.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThere are many officers and men fighting in the war who are semi-traitors. We must protest now, as we have protested all along, against mixing up two things which are entirely distinct—opinions as to the origin and necessity for the war, upon which there may be many differences, and opinions as to the obligations upon us all, when our country is engaged in this great war, to give her all the support in our power. I hold, notwithstanding what the hon. Member has said, that he is really the higher and better patriot who, not approving of the origin of the war in all respects, yet supports his country in the hour of her trial. The object which I had in putting the question on the Paper was to stimulate the action of the Government. The Home Secretary says that it lies with the local magistrates. But he is the local magistrate in the metropolis. He is responsible for Mile End, Exeter Hall, Paddington, and other places. Any one who reads the local newspapers of the districts in which the interrupted meetings have been held will see exactly what has happened. Again and again disturbances and riots have been directly instigated by the local newspapers. The case of Sheffield has been mentioned. I have in my pocket extracts which I could read to the House from local newspapers, and all to this effect:—"A private meeting is to be held by these traitorous persons. No one is to be admitted without a ticket. I wonder whether a ticket can be obtained. I think I shall buy one; and I hope others will be there." They pointed 979 out also that there were different entrances to the hall to which invited persons could gain an entrance. All that is a distinct incitement of the familiar nature indicated by the saying, "Don't nail his ears to the pump."
§ MR. STUART WORTLEYDoes the right hon. Gentleman say he is quoting from a Sheffield newspaper?
§ MR. STUART WORTLEYQuoting?
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWell, I said I would not read it, but I have it in my pocket. [An Hon. Member: Read it.] It is the Sheffield Weekly News. It says, "There will be tea at 5.30 p.m." [Laughter.] Does the hon. Gentleman who laughs never take tea at 5.30 p.m.? "And if you want to join the tea you are requested to apply early to" so and so, "but you we not be admitted unless you bring your circular. We do not want any of those wicked patriots singing 'God Save the Queen' and voting against our pious adoration of the nineteenth century St. Paul," and so on. And they quote the circular, "from which you see you are invited afterwards to spend a pleasant evening vilifying your country, insulting her flag, and glorifying her enemies. Will I be there? Well, I fancy so, if I can beg, borrow, or steal a circular, and I know some others who will accompany me. Do not forget, this afternoon at the Cutlers' Hall, at 5.30 p.m." There is a great deal more to the same effect, and they quote the instance of Edinburgh, and glory in the fact that a number of students in Edinburgh bought tickets of admission not intended for them in order to create a riot. I merely quote that as an instance of the kind of thing that is going on all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman will say, "We have no control over the newspapers; these may be very foolish, wicked, or indiscreet newspapers, but we cannot control them." No, but this was an opportunity for the Government to bring the whole weight of their authority to bear in favour of the right of free speech. The Home Secretary, as has already been remarked, was particularly moved by the question of property.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWell, he always quoted the destruction of property. But there is the risk to life.
§ *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYMy remark as to the destruction of property was with reference to a particular case as to getting compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act. There was no danger to life.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANProperty does not matter so much, and even a broken head does not so much matter; there is something behind and below it which is a much more serious question—it is the right of free opinion and the free expression of opinion. The breaking of plate-glass windows is a disgraceful proceeding and is to be regretted, but plate-glass windows can be restored; but if you take away the right of free speech, which the people of this country have always enjoyed, you cannot so readily restore that. I regret exceedingly that the two right hon. Gentlemen have not given a more satisfactory answer to us on this question, but I am quite content, because at all events we have done our part in vindicating freedom of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has said that his party has been deprived in some instances of that right; I can only say that I am not aware that that has occurred at any place except during the excitement of a general election, when meetings are, I believe, in this country, not in mine, broken up by both sides. I should like to be told if there is any case, except that of the organised riots at Aston, near Birmingham. I cannot express an opinion until I revive the facts, but I cannot call to mind any other case in which similar acts were committed and in which a private meeting, held by Conservatives in order to exchange their own ideas amongst themselves, was interrupted and broken in upon by members of the other side in politics.
§ MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh)There is obviously among hon. Gentlemen opposite great sympathy with these rioters throughout the country. Indeed, there would appear to be a certain amount of sympathy with them on the part of the Leader of the House. Hon. Gentlemen, by their action, are letting the cat out of the bag, and are showing 981 the real spirit which animates the Conservative party, not only in the country but in this House. I think it concerns every lover of his country that there should be liberty to consider the grave issues before us at the present time. We are told we ought to hold our peace because of those who have lost relatives and friends in the war. No one can have more sympathy than I have with those who have lost relatives and friends, and I believe that feeling is common to both sides and to all parties; but we ought to try and see that we get the best return possible for this sacrifice of blood and treasure. [Interruption.] The spirit of the mob has invaded the floor of this House, and hon. Members are not true patriots who would put down discussion on this subject by clamour and would have an opportunity now which may not occur later of bringing this war to an end on honourable terms.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not at liberty to go into the question of the war on the question of disturbances in the country.
§ MR. C. P. SCOTTAn attempt is being made by these disturbances to drown discussion at the only time when discussion can be useful, and to substitute mob violence for reason and for humanity. [Renewed interruption.] It is absolutely useless to reason with certain hon. Members—about as useless as to reason with a mob in the street. I think the country sees the spirit which animates those who
§ have made the war, and who are deter mined to carry it through to the bitter end. They may have the best of the shouting—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member does not appear to me to be addressing himself to the question of the disturbances in the country.
§ MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)I cannot hear anything the hon. Gentleman says.
§ Question put.
§ MR. C. P. SCOTTIn the disturbance I did not hear, Sir, whether you had put the question or not, and I wish to know whether I am at liberty to address the House.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI understood that the hon. Member had finished his speech. In fact, I saw the hon. Member sit down, and I put the question. It was after I had put the question that I saw him rise again.
§ MR. C. P. SCOTTI sat down, Mr. Speaker, because I understood you had risen to call me to order.
§ *MR. SPEAKERAfter I had pointed out to the hon. Member that he was out of order he remained sitting.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 229. (Division List No. 67.)
985| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Channing, Francis Allston | Fowler, Dr. Joseph Francis |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Clark, Dr. G. B. | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Colville, John | Gold, Charles |
| Ambrose, Robert | Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. | Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crilly, Daniel | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Crombie, John William | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Hogan, James Francis |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Dewar, Arthur | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Donelan, Captain A. | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C.B. | Doogan, P. C. | Jones, David Brynmor (Swn'sea |
| Billson, Alfred | Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) |
| Blake, Edward | Duckworth, James | Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn Sir U. |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Dunn, Sir William | Kilbride, Denis |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Ellis, John Edward | Kinloch, Sir John George S. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) | Labouchere, Henry |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton) | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land |
| Burns, John | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Leng, Sir John |
| Burt, Thomas | Fenwick, Charles | Lloyd-George, David |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Ferguson, R.C. Munro-(Leith) | Lough, Thomas |
| Caldwell, James | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Lyell, Sir Leonard |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Flower, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n. C. |
| M'Crae, George | Power, Patrick Joseph | Steadman, William Charles |
| M'Dermott, Patrick | Price, Robert John | Strachey, Edward |
| M'Ewan, William | Randell, David | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Reckitt, Harold James | Tanner, Charles Kearns |
| M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Redmond, John E. (Waterf'd) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Maddison, Fred. | Redmond, William (Clare) | Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose | Reid, Sir Robert Threshie | Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr) |
| Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Ure, Alexander |
| G'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh. | Wallace, Robert |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Robson, William Snowdon | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Schwann, Charles E. | Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk |
| O'Malley, William | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading) | Sinclair, Capt John(Forfarshire | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Philips, John Wynford. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur. |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Souttar, Robinson | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Denny, Colonel | Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Arnold, Alfred | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Jenkins, Sir John Jones |
| Arrol, Sir William | Donkin, Richard Sim | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers- | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Drage, Geoffrey | Keswick, William |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart | Knowles, Lees |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Eilliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. | Lafone, Alfred |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Faber, George Denison | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe | Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) |
| Bethell, Commander | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Finch, George H. | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Biddulph, Michael | Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne | Leighton, Stanley |
| Bill, Charles | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fisher, William Hayes | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bond, Edward | Fison, Frederick William | Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Forster, Henry William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Lowles, John |
| Brassey, Albert | Fry, Lewis | Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Galloway, Wm. Johnson | Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Garfit, William | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Gedge, Sydney | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred |
| Butcher, John George | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward | Gilliat, John Saunders | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Godson, Sir A. Frederick | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derb'shire | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Maclean, James Mackenzie |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Melville, Beresford Valentine. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Gull, Sir Cameron | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. John |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George | Milner, Sir Frederick George |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W. | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Monckton, Edward Philip |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Hardy, Laurence | Monk, Charles James |
| Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) | Hare, Thomas Leigh | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow. | Heath, James | Morgan, Hn Fred.(Monm'shire |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. | Helder, Augustus | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Howard, Joseph | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Currie, Sir Donald | Howell, William Tudor | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Curzon, Viscount | Hozier, Hn James Henry Cecil | Myers, William Henry |
| Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Russell, Gen F. S. (Cheltenham | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Rutherford, John | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlingt'n | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Penn, John | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Seely, Charles Hilton | Webster, Sir Richard E. |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Seton-Karr, Henry | Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton |
| Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Welby, Sir C. G. E (Notts.) |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew) | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L. |
| Pollock, Harry Frederick | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) | Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm. |
| Purvis, Robert | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Quitter, Sir Cuthbert | Spencer, Ernest | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset) | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks) |
| Renshaw, Charles Bine | Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth) | Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath) |
| Rentoul, James Alexander | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.- |
| Richards, Henry Charles | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wyndham, George |
| Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W. | Strauss, Arthur | |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | TELLLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.) | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Thorburn, Sir Walter | |
| Round, James | Thornton, Percy M. |