HC Deb 24 April 1902 vol 106 cc1208-65


(4.30.) Mr. JOHN MORLEY,

Member for the Montrose 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, viz., "the compulsory detention of Mr. Cartwright in Cape Town without charge brought, and for indefinite length of time." But the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,


Mr. Speaker, I make no apology to the House for this interruption of public business, because the matter to which I must draw their attention is one which involves, in the first place, extreme bard-ship to an individual, and in the second place, a gross and flagrant violation of the legal and constitutional principles of which this House is the guardian and the champion. I will venture to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to dissociate the matter to which I am drawing attention from any views as to the right or the wrong of either the policy or the methods of the war. Those have nothing whatever to do with the case which I wish to raise. The story is very short, very plain, and very simple. Mr. Cartwright was indicted in the ordinary way before an ordinary court in Cape Town for a defamatory and seditious libel, was tried before a judge and jury, and was convicted, and sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment. That year of imprisonment terminated, as the tight hon. Gentleman has just told the House, I think, on Tuesday. Upon all that part of the matter I have no comment whatever to make. It does not come within the scope of the subject to which I am drawing attention. About two months ago—I think in February—Mr. Cartwright sent in a written application to the authorities in the Cape Colony for information whether upon the expiry of his sentence he would be allowed to travel. He gave two reasons for desiring this permission to leave Cape Colony and come to England. One reason was that he had been in the doctor's hands, so he alleges, for some time, and that his health required the change to England; and the second reason was that he had no chance whatever of earning his livelihood as a journalist, for there was no opening for him in Cape Colony, and therefore his only chance was to come here; and I may add further, that he stated that he was willing to show to the authorities a bonâ fide engagement for doing work of a purely non-political character in this country. Well, Mr. Cartwright upon this received a refusal. No reason was given for this refusal. No charge was made or indicated. He was simply told that he would not be allowed to travel—that is to say, not allowed to leave South Africa. The House will observe that by this proceeding, by this refusal of the authorities, they took upon themselves to make an enormous and unmeasured extension of Mr. Cartwright's legal penalty. A legal penalty had been imposed upon him, but he had undergone it. His offence was purged, and no additional offence could have been committed by him because, of course, he was in confinement. He was then by this refusal called upon to undergo a further penalty—namely, a compulsory detention in Cape Town, and the prevention of his performing his ordinary avocations. As the Secretary of State told us two or three nights ago, he is now a free man. But in what sense free? He is free to walk about in Cape Town, under supervision, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Therefore I submit that, so far as that goes, the authorities in Cape Town, whose action is endorsed by the Secretary of State, have extended, without any law or intention to appeal to law, a legal penalty.

Upon this state of facts, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War on April 14th, and I received, not from him, because he was unfortunately not present, but from the noble Lord, the Financial Secretary, in those unfaltering accents which make him a sort of impersonation of martial law—I received from him, I think, the most outrageous and indefensible answer ever given within these walls since Simon de Montfort invented Parliament. I will read the noble Lord's answer— The authorities in South Africa," he said, "did not consider it desirable to grant Mr. Cartwright permission to proceed to England. His views, as the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware"— I do not know why I should be aware of his views— were strongly anti-British, anti it was not deemed desirable by the authorities in South Africa to increase the number of persons in this country who disseminated anti-British propaganda. The House will observe there is no word said about the military necessities or about anything indeed in South Africa. It is the dissemination of anti-British views in Great Britain. Now I might put a question to the Secretary of State, and I might invite him to tell me first what he understands the authorities in South Africa to mean by anti-British views. I suppose they mean, and can mean, nothing else than views which are not palatable to his Majesty's Government. Therefore Mr. Cartwright is kept in exile—because it conies to that—by the arbitrary action of the military authorities, because he might disseminate views unfavourable to His Majesty's Government in this country. Now I will put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing Mr. Cartwright holds obnoxious anti-British views—whatever anti-British may mean—will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell us where on earth the dissemination of anti-British views could be so entirely harmless as in Great Britain? If they prevented Mr. Cartwright from going to Berlin, or Paris, or The Hague, there might be something to be said for it; but he is not to be allowed to come to Great Britain, where, if anywhere, surely there are enough British views to outweigh the addition of one single individual to those who are alleged to disseminate anti-British propaganda. The one country, therefore, to which he cannot come is the country where we all know he would not do one atom or scintilla of harm of any kind, I say, not only is the action illegal, unconstitutional, tyrannical, and arbitrary, but it is, on the face of it, impudently absurd and preposterous. I thought I would try my fortune with the Secretary of State himself, and he said just now, not perhaps with his ordinary suavity, that he had already told me the grounds on which Mr. Cartwright had been refused permission to leave Cape Town, and that he would not tell me again.


I merely said that I had already explained to the right hon. Gentleman, and that if he wished me to repeat my explanation I would do so.


The right hon. Gentleman did not take quite the position taken by the noble Lord. He said— If any sufficient undertaking can be given as to Mr. Cartwright's conduct in the event of his leaving South Africa. I will communicate with Lord Kitchener with a view to reconsidering his case. Sir, there is no case for either Lord Kitchener or the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider. But he went on to say a little more. I asked him if he would kindly tell me what kind of conduct would justify detention and what kind of undertaking to abstain from such conduct would justify a release. Then the Secretary of State said— I should regard an understanding to avoid the course and conduct which Mr. Cartwright has been pursuing for some time past as probably a satisfactory one. Then he said further that the military authorities thought some means ought to be resorted to for preventing the pursuance of the libellous action on the part of Mr. Cartwright, either in South Africa or in this country, which had led to his present situation. Prevent a pursuance of the same libellous action Avoid a course of conduct which had led to his present situation What was the course of conduct which had led to his present situation? It was a libellous action, and he was punished for it; and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman how does he suppose that there are no other means of preventing Mr. Cartwright from pursuing a course of libellous action, which is not quite the same thing, by the way, as disseminating anti-British propaganda. Are there no other means than preventing him coming to this country and earning his living? Surely you already found that in Cape Colony you could punish him, and you did punish him. Supposing he comes to this country, is there no law against libel here? On the Secretary of State's own words the thing is entirely absurd. They are not detaining Mr. Cartwright because of his libellous; action; they are detaining him for some other reasons which they do not disclose, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to inform us frankly and fully why it is they are pursuing this extraordinary course When anything is done under martial law—and these proceedings are under martial law, I presume—the case is apparently regarded as stopped. Our mouths are closed and our lips are sealed There is to be no present inquiry, no examination. But I submit that that is exactly the opposite of the truth. Have martial law if you like, but all the more because you have martial law must you be prepared to justify and de end what is done.

In this case, what kind of right have the Secretary of State and his military authorities to detain this man, who has undergone his sentence, and who ought now to be as free as I am? I see the Attorney General there, I wonder what his view is on the legal aspect of this matter. I wonder whether he would say that the language I have read out of the Secretary of State that the noble Lord shows a shadow of a pretext for the detention of this man. By right, reason, and com nonsense, Mr. Cartwright ought to be perfectly free, and I for one say boldly here, in spite of all the martial law atmosphere in which we now live, that I wholly demur to their right to exact any undertaking; whatever from Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright expressed his willingness and pledged himself—at all events he gave a bonâ fide engagement—that he would do no political work in this country, but speaking here as a Member of this House, though Mr. Cartwright may do whatever he thinks proper, I demur wholly to the right of the Secretary of State and the military authorities to exact any undertaking whatever. I wholly repudiate the position which underlies the remarkable answer of the noble Lord the other night in regard to this matter. I deny that even that constitutes any ground whatever for depriving him of his full civil rights.

I have only one sentence more to say. I am certainly not going to argue the philosophy or legal details of martial law, but I would like to read what was said within the walls of this House by two eminent men in the year 1867. It seems to me to place in two or three sentences the whole position and character of martial law in an absolutely incontrovertible light. The first sentence or two are from Mr. Mill. He said— Although there was no such thing a martial law except for military purposes there was a law of necessity. There may be a public necessity in case of rebellion requiring that certain acts not justified by the law of the country should be done, but these acts should he acts of suppression, not of punishment. The other sentences are those of Mr. Cardwell, a man of strong, firm, and clear head. These are his words, and I commend them to the attention of the House— A man was justified in taking the law into his own hands for the purpose of protecting his life when threatened by any extraordinary or sudden violence. So with regard to martial law. The principle equally applied. Necessity was the true test. In the memorable words of Sir James Mackintosh— To continue to act upon a supposed necessity after the necessity had expired was an enormous crime. That was the view which was held in this House in 1867. I cannot believe now, that apart from all the heat of the politics of the hour, I cannot believe that in their sober judgment Gentlemen in any quarter of the House will take any other view, or will think it an unimportant thing that an invasion of personal right may take place under martial law; nor can I believe that anybody in this House supposes for one instant in this case anything like military necessity or danger to social order has been made out. It is really a wanton, arbitrary, tyrannical, and absurd proceeding.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—

(4.50.) MR. BRODRICK

I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the heat which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House a series of constitutional propositions into some of which I do not propose to follow him, but he has done so in respect of one particular action of the military authorities in South Africa, and he himself, in the terms of the Motion which he has submitted for the adjournment of the House, has specially alluded to the fact that what he complains of is that Mr. Cartwright should have been detained without charge brought, and for an indefinite length of time. Now, Sir what are the facts as to the indefinite length of time? Mr. Cartwright, I presume, was due to be let out of prison on Tuesday last—two days ago—and because on Thursday—the communications which have been passing have not yet been completed—I am not yet able to satisfy the right bon. Gentleman that Mr. Cartwright's undertaking will be accepted, the right hon. Gentleman moves that adjournment of the House. I undertook two or three days ago to communicate with Lord Kitchener with regard to the undertaking which Mr. Cartwright gave. I will meet the right hon. Gentleman on the question of that undertaking directly, but at all events I undertook to communicate with Lord Kitchener, and I have done so. I have not yet got Lord Kitchener's reply, and, because for two days we are still in doubt as to what the issue may be, the right hon. Gentleman interrupts the whole business of Parliament in order to call attention to Mr. Cartwright's detention in South Africa for an indefinite length of time. That I venture to suggest to the House shows that the right hon. Gentleman has been more anxious to challenge the administration of martial law in South Africa than to bring his particular case and the hardship of it before the House.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked this question—What do we mean in Mr. Cartwright's case by accusing him of the intention of disseminating anti-British propaganda after he has left South Africa? He answered that question himself by saying that what we are afraid of is that Mr. Cartwright may express views which ate not palatable to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is, I suppose, aware of the reasons which caused Mr. Cartwright to be committed to prison. He was the editor of the South African News, a paper which has come unfavourably before the authorities on several occasions. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members simply to laugh here about statements circulated in South Africa among the inhabitants of Cape Colony for the very purpose of raising further rebellion against the Crown, and which are communicated, not merely to British subjects in Cape Colony, but also to the Boers, and so far as they can reach to people on the continent of Europe, as representing the facts of the carrying on of the campaign in South Africa. What was the particular paragraph and the particular provocation in the South African News for which Mr. Cartwright was condemned? On 6th February, 1901, Mr. Cartwright was guilty of what I think is the greatest crime from the journalistic point of view that a British subject can well be accused of. He published in the South African News a statement headed— How we are waging war. A dreadful disclosure. Lord Kitchener's secret instructions. and then follows— Lord Kitchener having, as he thought, caged his enemy, seat secret instructions to the troops to take no prisoners, that is, if the Boers surrounded on all sides found themselves unable to resist and hoisted the white Hag as a token of surrender, they were to he shot down to the last man. Then there follows this, professing to come from an officer. Whether any person, having any title to be called an officer ever communicated to the South African News we know not, but that it was an absolute and outrageous falsehood is well known. This "officer" said— I received the order personally from a General of the highest rank, holding one of the first positions in South Africa. The order was repeated twice, so that there might he no mistake. I found that all the other senior officers were aware of the order. What their private opinions and intentions were I do not know, but I heard no word of condemnation. Well, Sir, that is an attempt, not merely to charge Lord Kitchener and the highest authorities of the British Army, but all the senior officers engaged in that particular operation, with a grave military crime, with the intention of taking action, which from every standpoint would be abhorrent to the feelings of the people of this country. That would be admirably calculated to increase the violence of opinion between the two combatants, and was framed absolutely and solely for the purpose of damaging the British troops.


I ask the Secretary of State whether that letter was not published in The Times in London also.


I have no knowledge of this publication in The Times. I am speaking only of what took place in South Africa. At all events the point I have in view in reading that extract is to show what I believe was not contested, that this journal was acting for the sole purpose of increasing the anti-British feeling in South Africa, and it was because of the seditions libel that Mr. Cartwright was put in prison. The right hon. Gentleman had an eloquent passage at the close of his observations, in which he spoke of the iniquity of using martial law for anything beyond necessity, or the supposed necessity of martial law. He asked the House whether there was any position in which Mr. Cartwright could do less damage to this country than by disseminating anti-British propaganda in this country. I do not know whether there is any position in which he can be of less danger, but I am perfectly certain that it would be less danger if he is not in a position to disseminate any anti-British propaganda at all. I confess I am astonished at the violence with which those who profess to desire a peace policy and a fruitful issue of the present negotiations attack the Government if they do not let loose all those whose writings and actions tend to the prolongation of the war. Mr. Cartwright knows well the palate for which he has to cater. Men like him, having channels of communication with Cape Colony, may undoubtedly exercise a very considerable effect on the minds of the Boers by producing as facts, when they may be entire fictions, like his previous writings from this country, the very arguments which will suggest to the Boers to ask for terms which it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to consider. I know that hon. Members opposite do not believe that speeches or writings in this country have any serious effect on the war. I can only say that by the very last mail I received the translation of an extract from The Government Gazette of the Orange Free State, the official publication of the defunct Boer Government, dated 25th January of this very year, and containing a somewhat Bowd-lerised edition of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition delivered, I think, at Plymouth in December last. I am not going to trouble the House with that speech. Every word of it justifies my contention that these speeches are treasured, prized, and circulated by the Boer leaders for the solo purpose of getting those of their followers who are getting weary of the war and despairing of the result to continue in the field.

As between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government there is no very wide margin. The right hon. Gentleman contends that Mr. Cartwright has completed his sentence and has a right to go free without any stipulation whatever, whereas, in all cases of martial law it is in the power, a power which has been exercised by the authorities, and rightly and judiciously exercised, to assign in some cases a place of residence to those whose actions lay them open to suspicion and which may be of damage to the State and whom they do not desire to retain in gaol. The most that can be said of the action with regard to Mr. Cartwright is that the Military Authorities have thought it desirable to assign him such a place of residence for a certain period. [Several HON. MRMBERS: What period?] So far as I know, he is limited to Cape Town. What I suggest to the House is this—that this Motion, which we are ready to meet on its merits, is also entirely premature. We have asked for stipulations on Mr. Cartwright's part, undertakings as to his conduct if he is sent to this country. The result is not yet known to us. Until it is, I cannot undertake to overrule the opinion of the authorities in South Africa. We have the strongest possible grounds at all times for avoiding that which may add to our present difficulty in South Africa, and we should, I think, be criminally guilty if we were not specially careful at the present moment as to taking action which might in many cases lead to the indefinite prolongation of the struggle. Having regard to the facts that this question is still sub judice, that we have pronounced no final opinion upon it, that we have made communications in the sense of the terms which reached us from the right hon. Gentle-man and that these have not yet been answered, I suggest that on every ground it is undesirable to endeavour to force to do that which they will not do—namely, without consultation with the authorities in South Africa, to issue an edict which might have a far-reaching effect on other cases; while the suspension of the question for a few days will certainly not injure the interests of the individual whom it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to serve.

*(5.5.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this question is sub judice? Who are the judges? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Commander in-Chief in South Africa has anything to say as to what a British subject shall do in this country. If any man on that bench or any of the supporters of the Government are going to maintain that martial law exists in South Africa, that is one thing, and there, when martial law exists, you may determine what is to be done there. But for Lord Kitchener and the light hon. Gentleman to undertake to determine between themselves what shall be done, and upon what conditions a man shall act when he comes to this country—is contrary to the constitution. I could not believe it possible that in the twentieth century, from the Constitutional party, we should hear that martial law is not to be confined even to South Africa—that it is for Lord Kitchener, under martial law, to determine what is to be the conduct of a British subject in this British land. What is the meaning of this communication which is going on between the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa as to the terms upon which Mr. Cartwright is to be allowed to return to England and as to his conduct when in England? Why, Sir, if he comes here and he docs anything which is contrary to British law or contrary to British interest, he is subject to be restrained and punished here under British law. He is not to be governed by a bargain enforced upon him by threats of imprisonment, not on account of any danger there. A place is to be assigned to him, and the place is Cape Town, where, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he is to be allowed to be free. Then he is not a very dangerous man there. But he is not to be free if he comes to this country. What is this? We have heard of the banishment of the Boer leaders; but this is a power assumed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, to banish a man from British soil, a principle of banishment, not on account of the mischief he may do at the Capo, but on account of the mischief that he may do when he comes here. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to that? He has no business to make himself the judge as to the danger of a man's conduct here. You must judge him by the law of the land. Why, Sir, on the part of the Executive—I am not desirous of using in this House unnecessarily strong language, but I say this is an impudent pretension. It is necessary to the freedom of this country, the security for all out liberties is, that whilst the law is suspended for the moment in South Africa, men in the position of the Secretary of State should not determine upon what conditions a man shall live in this country, what he should say, and what he should do.

It is said that the raising of this question is premature. It is not premature at all. The very moment that such a doctrine as this is stated in this House of Commons it should be instantly denounced and repudiated. It was not necessary to wait even for the expiration of the sentence. The doctrine was propounded weeks ago, in contemplation of the expiration of the sentence, and I do not care whether you take the blunt language of the noble Lord, or whether you take the unconstitutional language of the Secretary of State, it is our business to denounce it, it is our business to make it clear that a pretension of that kind is the destruction of the liberties of every Englishman. It is putting the clock back 200 years for the Executive Government to pretend to determine the legality or the propriety of the conduct of British subjects hero. You may say at elections, if you like, that every vote given against the Government is a vote for the Boers. But you do not dare to prevent men from coming to this country on that account. I say, Sir, it is a scandal that such language as that should have been heard from that bench. It is contrary to every principle on which the elementary liberties of every British subject depend that the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Kitchener should be carrying on correspondence and communications as to the conditions to be imposed upon a man, not for anything he is to do out there, not in regard to any danger in South Africa, where the war is carried on, but in consideration of a speculation of what he may do if he comes to this country. It is a monstrous and scandalous thing that such adoctrine should ever have been uttered in the House of Commons.

*(5.14.) SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Stafford, Handsworth)

I think my constituents would wish me to say one word on this subject. I believe their opinion is that we sent Lord Kitchener to South Africa to finish the war. In order that he might be free from the intricacies and delays of the ordinary law, we armed him with the powers of martial law, and we consider that if he did not use these powers to the best of his judgment he would be a traitor to his country. In all matters concerning the war, and the conduct of affairs in South Africa relating to the war we are prepared to support the judgment of Lord Kitchener against the whole of the Opposition.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I do not think that that is a fair statement, as many of us on this side of the House are quite as anxious as any hon. Members opposite can be to see Lord Kitchener bring the war to an end, and to give him whatever powers may be necessary for that purpose. I strongly repudiate the attitude which the Secretary of State for War has taken up on this subject. I should like to point out that from the military point of view martial law goes so far that a man may be tried by court martial and may be condemned, but that when he has served his sentence, even in the field, he becomes free, in the sense which is understood by every civilised country. The Secretary of State said he might be kept in prison. It is true you may keep anybody in prison under martial law, but not under the sentence of the court martial, because the man has served his sentence. Then it was said he was not in prison indefinitely, but that he is not allowed to go abroad for some period which is not stated. IF that is not indefinitely, I do not know what "indefinitely" is; and I say there is no right to put a restriction on his liberty for an undefined period.

(5.18.) MR. ELLIOT (Durham)

It appears to me that the House of Commons has a very important duty cast upon it by what has taken place this evening. My right hon. friend seems to have mistaken the issue he had to try. Our duty here is to consider the charge brought against this man. I know nothing about Mr. Cartwright, and for my part I fully believe that he deserved; the sentence which has been passed upon him, and I think he might even have deserved a severer punishment; but, that. Sir, is not the question. I feel that if I had to decide on the merits or demerits of his original offence I could not give an honest verdict in his favour until I had heard the speeches made on his behalf as well as those made against him. I know not how badly Mr. Cartwright behaved. I know nothing about Mr. Cartwright; but be he what he may, he is at least a British subject. He is a fellow citizen of every one of us here, and he stands, and has a right to stand, upon his rights before the law. He has those rights by virtue of the Constitution, and I say those rights have been denied him. Sir, this is a very painful case. It is a case that ought not to have come before us in its present condition. What is the case? It is that the man Cartwright, who has served his sentence, is still being detained in South Africa. When the time comes when a criminal, who has been tried by a judge and convicted, walks out of gaol, he walks out a free man. That is exactly Cartwright's position. I am reminded that martial law remains absolute throughout South Africa. No doubt that gives the military authority in that country power to do what they please in South Africa, and there is no application anywhere except to the House of Commons. And the House of Commons is bound to see that men's just rights are protected, even though those men are in a country which is subjected—and properly, in my opinion—to martial law. Now, what is it that Mr. Cartwright wants to do and is prevented from doing? If Mr. Cartwright proposed to travel through all South Africa and make inflammatory speeches, or proposed to start a newspaper again in South Africa, I could quite understand Lord Kitchener being perfectly justified, as the guardian of British interests out there, in preventing him from acting in that way—not by virtue of the sentence passed on Cartwright, but by virtue of the martial law that prevails. But what we are told today—and it has not been contradicted—is that Mr. Cartwright claimed to come home to England, and it is actually asserted on this side of the House that it was perfectly competent for the military authorities to deny his right to come to England, because of the danger his actions in England would entail. If ever there was a case in which there were not two sides to the argument, it is this. I repudiate altogether the suggestion that those who intervene in favour of the Constitution, of British law and liberty, are to be in any way taken as supporting the cause of the enemies of Great Britain. I am as anxious as the Secretary for War is, and more than that I cannot say, that our arms should quickly prevail in South Africa, and that the war should be rapidly brought to a victorious close. But I also have regard for British rights and liberties, and I maintain that the House of Commons has a duty upon it, apart and separate from the duty of the Executive Government. It has been said that the House of Commons has sunk in the estimation of the people, a statement I do not believe, but the House will lose respect if it refuses to stand up against any attack on the rights of Englishmen under the Constitution.

(5.25.) EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)

The right hon. Gentleman said he never heard a subject in this House on which there was less argument on one side. I believe there is a great deal to be said in favour of that view of the question which we on this side of the House support. I agree with my hon. friend behind me that all of us are anxious to finish the war, and that everything that is necessary should be done in order to finish the war, and I believe that martial law is necessary in South Africa, but I do not agree that we are to form our own opinions as to whether Mr. Cartwright's views had a more evil influence on events in South Africa, according to whether they were published there or in this country. It appears to me that if we allow martial law in South Africa we must give due weight to the opinion of Lord Kitchener as to the effect of such publications. If this case of Mr. Cartwright had any reference to the civil liberties and privileges of an Englishman in this country, then certainly every man who values those liberties or is loyal in his duty to the House of Commons ought to protest against what has been done. But I draw a very different conclusion from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, who attacks the Government on two grounds. He says that the military authorities have no right to prevent Mr. Cartwright from coming to this country after the expiration of his term of imprisonment, and that Lord Kitchener had no right to exact from Mr. Cartwright an undertaking as to the course of conduct he would pursue if he did come. I think the first of these arguments has been effectually disposed of by the Secretary of "State, who pointed out how over and over again in the past people who fulfilled their terms of punishment in South Africa have been assigned a fixed place of residence, and have been prevented from travelling. Lord Kitchener had a right to say to Mr. Cartwright—"You may remain in South Africa, where you can do no harm, but you shall not go to England." Why is it a greater invasion of liberty to say, "You shall not leave South Africa to go to England" than to say, "You shall not leave Cape Town and go to the Orange Colony"? There is no difference between the two positions. Then it is said that the military authorities have no right to exact an undertaking from Mr. Cartwright as to his course of conduct, From what I have heard I understand Mr. Cartwright volunteered an undertaking.


I may say—though my information is at secondhand—that in his letter of application Mr. Cartwright expressed his willingness, to show to the authorities a bonâ fide engagement for non-political work in England.


That comes to very much the same thing as willingness to give an undertaking. Apparently he was prepared to give an undertaking as to the course he would pursue if he came to this country. I admit I think it does seem rather questionable, though it, is perfectly legitimate, but whether it was judicious or wise is a different matter. The conclusion I draw from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that he would have been better advised if he had endorsed the action of Lord Kitchener in prohibiting Mr. Cartwright from leaving South Africa, and when the war is over, or when he thought Mr. Cartwright's presence in this country would be attended by no kind of danger—on which I express no opinion—he should be allowed to return without any stipulation whatever.

*(5.30.) MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

The general importance of this matter infinitely transcends the circumstances of this particular case, but, even taking the circumstances of this particular case, they appear to me to demonstrate the absolute folly of the course which has been taken, and is now being pursued. The circumstances are these. There was published in The Times newspaper, some three weeks before its re-publication by Mr. Cartwright in his paper at Cape Town, a letter, purporting to be from a British officer. No action was taken by the authorities responsible for the preservation of law and order in free England against The Times newspaper, that most influential journal, for the publication of that which, if it was a seditious libel in Cape Town, was a seditious libel in London. I do not complain of the appeal to the law in Cape Town, and the neglect to appeal to the law here; but I argue that the neglect to appeal to the law here was due to the view, reasonably entertained, that whatever might be the necessity of appealing to the law in Cape Town, there was no necessity to do so here. I apply that proposition to the exigencies of today. We have had shown by the action there, and the inaction here, the relative dangers, in the view of the authorities, of the publication of seditious libels in Africa and in England. We have had it shown—and I am glad for the honour of this country that, however far, in the view of the Executive, we may have descended even in a twelvemonth—that, at any rate, at that time it was thought not dangerous to England, or injurious to the progress of the war, that The Times should publish something of this kind without being prosecuted for seditious libel. But if that be so, what is the answer, in the circumstances of this particular case, to be made to the suggestion of my hon. friend, that there is no danger in allowing a freeborn Englishman to return to free England, and there, subject to the exigencies of the law and the limitations of the general law to which we are all amenable, to say the thing he will? The facts of the particular case have thus demonstrated the truth of my right hon. friend's proposition. It is absurd to suggest that there is danger here so great as to excuse this extraordinary invasion of the rights of an Englishman.

Another point is this—What are the deliberations about? What is it that is sub judice? Up to now. I had believed that it was by the law and the courts that an Englishman's rights in England were ruled, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think that Lord Kitchener and the Secretary of State for War are the judges who are to decide on these rights. What is it they are determining? Just look at the absolute folly of the whole business. They are determining what letters of limitation of his rights Mr. Cartwright is to sign, what solemn obligations—I know not whether under seal, or signed with his blood—he is to enter into, as the price of his coming back to England Then when he comes here—is there law here yet? Would he break the law if he breaks that obligation? No; he can not be punished here if he breaks that obligation. He can be punished here, thank God—unless we are to have such judges as have been set up tonight—only if, and when he breaks the common equal laws of the land. But manacles are to be put upon him; his tongue is to be gagged; gyves are to be put upon his hands by his honourable obligation. I am glad of the certificate of character so far given to Mr. Cartwright, that the Government believe they can trust that honourable obligation. They know it does not stand in law, but they believe they can trust his honourable obligation—which I have no doubt he will observe—by which he, amongst the 40,000,000 inhabitants of these islands, will be the only Englishman marked by the inability and the incapacity to say or write the thing he will, subject only to the responsibilities and liabilities common to us ail. This is a very serious matter. I have never here dilated, and certainly I am not going now to dilate on the war and its effects. I have thought, however, that amongst its effects, has been a very great deterioration in the moral sense, in the love of liberty, in the determination to risk the inconveniences, and to expose one's self to the troubles that have sometimes to be borne in pursuit, defence, and preservation of the rights of free-born Englishmen, and of that deterioration the defence of this day is proof.

Now we hear in the House of Commons the suggestion that martial law, forsooth, is to be such a capricious and uncertain element of power, that the urgent necessity of the case, which is the only defence for the exercise of martial law, is to be construed so widely as to allow the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa to judge of the tone and temper of the British people, of British interests abroad, or of Imperial interests outside South Africa; and on his conception of these topics to banish from England an Englishman, and to retain him in South Africa. That seems to me to be the most extraordinary extension of all the doctrines of martial law of which I ever heard. Consider it for a moment. The noble Lord says that while a man is in the area in which martial law has been set up, his liberty may be restrained. Of course it may on the ground of majority. But the very fact that his liberty may be arbitrarily restrained, is a reason why every Englishman, and, most of all, every Member of the English House of Commons, should look upon the imposition of martial law as an odious necessity, and jealously scrutinise every single act done under its pretence. The man may be restrained. It is possible to restrain I him in jail, or within the limits of Cape I Town, if you please. But that is because it is alleged to be of the necessity of the case there, in the theatre of war. But to say that a man whose offence, which has been expiated by this twelve months sentence, was committed when martial law did not obtain, and who it is not pretended has committed any other offence, is to be prevented from coming to England, his home 6,000 miles away from the theatre of war, unless he gives some undertaking, diminishing the rights he should enjoy in common with his 40,000,000 fellow Englishmen, is absolutely indefensible. It's a thing which, if I had still any hopes of this House, I should have thought they would this day repudiate.

(5.40.) MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

I rise for the purpose of expressing to the House how greatly I differ from the view my noble friend the Member for Kensington has put forward, and my regret that one who so often delights this House with his eloquence and well-reasoned arguments should have committed himself to such a very bad position on this occasion. This is not a question of Party at all, it is a very great question arising from a very small incident in the course of the warfare in South Africa. It does not matter a row of buttons who Mr. Cartwright is. He may be a ruffian, perhaps he is. But he has been tried by a court martial for any offence he has committed?

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

No by a judge and a jury.


He has been tried by a judge and jury; he had been found guilty; and South Africa is not an atmosphere, I imagine, in which a man would be likely to get less punishment than he deserved, although I am bound to say, in view of what the Secretary of State has read, Mr. Cartwright appears to have been lucky in the sentence he received; but, at any rate, he has served his sentence, and his offence is blotted out. There is no right or power in this country which allows the Home Government, in time of peace, to proceed against a man who has already served all that the law has a right to require of him. If there is no right, there is no reason. What reason has the Government to be afraid of Mr. Cartwright? There are many people in this country who spread what is called anti British propaganda, but does that alter the opinion of the British people? Has it in any way impaired the security of the British Government? No Government has benefited so much by the strong support and opinions of the masses of the country as this Government. No Government has less right not to allow those masses to receive any opinion within the law which may be properly expressed to them. This is a great constitutional principle, and I should be very sorry indeed if it were thought by those outside who read the debates in this House that constitutional principles are valued and supported only by hon. Members opposite. There are some of us on this side of the House who are not prepared to see a great constitutional principle violated, not, I think, with any deliberate intent, but simply because those who administer the law have got used to an over exercise of power, and who, having overstepped themselves on this occasion, should be made by the due authority of this House to withdraw within the limits of the law.

(5.45.) MR BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

We have heard tonight some speeches about great constitutional principles, but what does that really amount to? A man in South Africa has written a most scandalous article to incite his fellow countrymen against this country. He has been tried for it and punished, and it is said that that ends the matter. But I venture to say that we have another side to look at, and it is the fact that we are at war. What this man was doing and might do in the future it was thought by the authorities might lead to great harm, and so the Commander-in-Chief and Lord Milner think he is a man who should not be allowed to come to this country in order to make use of this country's platforms to sow and create dissent from the policy of the war. It is idle to talk about the rights of an Englishman in this way. [Nationalist cheers.] I hear great cheering from hon. Members from Ireland, but they are always elated at anything which is detrimental to this country. The rights of this individual, who has behaved in this scandalous manner, are as nothing compared to the rights of those persons in South Africa whom his conduct would tend to injure.

I do not always support the Government, but I say that in this matter they have taken a proper and a firm line. It is childish talking in this way, and getting Members of the Front Opposition Bench to father these various cases in order to make mischief. We have had a great deal too much of this lately. I say that in spite of what this House does and what hon. Members do, the country is setting tired of this sort of thing. Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener, in the exercise of their high powers, have thought it desirable that this man should be kept where he is, and we are bound to support them in that action. It is quite possible that the Financial Secretary to the War Office did not give a very wise answer. Unfortunately it was, I think, an answer to a supplementary Question widen he had not carefully prepared. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] Nevertheless, the fact remains that in a state of war we ought to support the men whom we trust in doing everything which they consider is necessary to conclude the war. Here is a man judging from the nature of the extract from the article which has been read out who has written something reflecting upon the British soldiers. [Cries of "No, no."] He published statements of a most scandalous and disgraceful character against honour able men who belong to this country, and after he was punished, so far from his punishment ending the matter. I say that Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener were bound to see that that man's actions afterwards did not tend to prolong the war or injure the cause which they had at heart.

I think we are now becoming so extraordinarily mild to our enemies, and bitter and hostile to our friends, that there seems to be delight whenever you can hold up a plausible case of any sort to turn against our own people. This does seem an extraordinary position for this country to come to, and if there is one thing that degrades this House in the eyes of the public, it is that we are so fond of doing this sort of thing. I am sorry for it, because the great bulk of the people support this war, and they believe that it is not being carried out as vigorously as it should be, but they are supporting the Government in it, and I am glad that the Government have acted in the way they have in this matter. I trust that they will put even more backbone into their policy and their methods. We should consider in every respect that the men we trust out in South Africa are doing the best for us, and we ought not to be so fond of these debates, which are telegraphed over to the enemy, and it is no good saying that they do no harm, because one of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition was reproduced and circulated in South Africa. I say that by this course we are injuring the country, and I am certain that the British public are getting rather tired of it. I sincerely trust that we shall not see any more of these scenes, but that we snail support those in South Africa who are doing their utmost to carry out the great duty which we have entrusted to them. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Why not send you out?"]


I desire to repudiate altogether the contention that those who support this Motion are acting in a factions spirit and hostile to their country because they venture to support a great constitutional principle in regard to matters of this kind we are not prepared to sacrifice this great principle even for the sake of supporting the policy of the Government in South Africa. The noble Lord opposite who spoke in favour of this Motion said that he could discover no difference whatever between the action of Lord Kitchener in refusing to allow a man to leave Cape Town and go to the Orange Free State and refusing to allow him to leave the Cape and come home. The noble Lord might have at one perceived the difference We have martial law prevailing in South Africa, but it does not prevail in this country, and whether it is properly proclaimed or not in South Africa, the fact that it exists there would allow Lord Kitchener to exercise his powers there, but he would have no right to extend his powers over any British subject when he comes over here.

I have risen to protest against this new doctrine. For the purposes of this discussion I assume that Mr. Cartwright deserved all he got, and I assume from the nature of the article which has been read out that he ought to have been punished. He has, I understand, suffered his punishment. Having suffered his punishment, Mr. Cartwright proposes to come back to this country, and we are told that it is within the power of the Secretary of State for War or Lord Kitchener to impose conditions on a British subject when he returns to this country. A more dangerous doctrine has never been enunciated by any Minister, and I feel it my duty to strongly protest against it. If Mr. Cartwright, when he returns here, breaks the pledges he has given, there is no power whatever to punish him for so doing. The law here can take no cognisance of this undertaking, but if Mr. Cartwright comes to this country and is hostile in his acts, the law here is sufficient to punish him, and what we ask is that he should be left like any other citizen to the operation of the law. I protest in the strongest possible way against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which he suggested that those of us who take this view are acting in any sense hostile to our country, or are any less anxious and desirous to see peace restored than he is. We have supported the Government in connection with this war, and we are all anxious to see it brought to a conclusion. We are as anxious as the First Lord of the Treasury to see peace brought about, but we believe that the true method to achieve it is to see that the law is carried out in a constitutional manner.

(5.55.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have heard several abstract propositions connected with the operation of martial law from which I admit that I strongly dissent. I think the hon. Gentleman and some of his predecessors upon that side of the House have committed themselves to the doctrine that it is intrinsically and necessarily an improper use of the powers given to a Commander-in-Chief when martial law is proclaimed to say that a certain individual shall not be permitted to leave South Africa, even although he is not imprisoned and is not suffering under a sentence. I dissent from that proposition. I do not think there is the smallest justification for it, and if it be the opinion of the military authorities that serious danger to South Africa and British interests in South Africa would follow from the wanderings about the world of any person who is in South Africa, they have, in my judgment, under martial aw not only the right but the duty of preventing that.

Another extraordinary fallacy which appears to pervade the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that there is no ground for believing Mr. Cartwright to be the dangerous person that he is represented to be, and that he has apparently been found to be by a judge and jury in South Africa, because, forsooth, the seditious libel for which he has been condemned has been published, or parts of it have been published, in a newspaper in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "First published."]


Copied from The Times.


Is that an argument which is seriously going to be advanced and seriously maintained by anybody in cold blood? Is it even worth putting forward as a debating point? Because a shocking libel upon our generals, officers, and soldiers is published for the purpose of condemnation in this country, then, forsooth, its publication for treasonable purposes in South Africa becomes absolutely innocent, is completely whitewashed, has at all events a large measure of excuse afforded to it. It appears to me that the man who published that seditious libel avowedly with a view of bringing discredit on our troops, officers, and generals, with a view of embittering and prolonging the war, with a view of opening every sore and pouring poison into every wound—that man was guilty of as base and as horrible a crime as the imagination of any of us is able to picture. If the matter is to be argued upon its merits or demerits, I do not think there is anybody, or hardly anybody, in any quarter of the House who would dare to get up and defend this Gentleman's cause.

SIR WILLIAM HAKCOURT indicated dissent.


I think the right hon. Gentleman's exclamation indicates that he considers that I have misrepresented some of the speeches which have been made.


It is admitted that he was properly tried.


If nothing can be said on that subject, why did the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion—I am not quite sure whether he did, but certainly more than one Gentleman who supported the Motion—why did they bring in the fact that the publication of the libel occurred in another country?


I did not deal with that matter. I expressly confined myself to the consideration of the point which I have brought before the House.


I thought the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who stated that the libel had appeared in The Times. If he did not do so, I withdraw, so far as he is concerned, the charge I made; but I say boldly—and I am in the recollection of those who have heard this debate—that it has been advanced, and that it can only have been advanced to show that, after all, Mr. Cartwright may be a very innocent and well meaning person.


I advanced that, and it was with no such suggestion. I advanced it not to prove anything but this; that the authorities here rightly thought that the publication of that in England was not dangerous, and that the authorities in South Africa, I presume, rightly thought the publication there was dangerous, and that therefore it was no argument for preventing Mr. Cartwright coming to England.


If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I have misrepresented him, I can assure him that so far as he is concerned I will not press the matter further on the attention of the House. Another fallacy which I am bound to take notice of, and which I think has appeared in more than one speech, is that it is in order to protect the Government in this country, or society in this country, from Mr. Cartwright's libellous instincts, if such they be, that this action has been taken in South Africa. It is suggested that it is because Mr. Cartwright differs from the Government, or because he can do something in this country to this country or to the Government of this country, that his freedom of action is restricted. Of course, what he does in this country matters not a farthing to anybody, and least of all to the Government. It is not the part he may take in our domestic controversies which I presume has or could have any interest for the military authorities in South Africa. It is what the result in South Africa will be of what Mr. Cartwright might do if he left South Africa, and, be the position of the military authorities right or wrong, that is a perfectly legitimate consideration for them to take into view. It is perfectly sound in law, in justice, and in common sense. Upon the application of it I say nothing at the present time, because I think the House has a little allowed itself to forget—for in the debate it has been represented that this is a great constitutional issue—what the real issue is which we have to determine.

My hon. friends the Members for Oldham and Durham and others appear to think that if they go into the lobby this evening in favour of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, all they are doing is giving expression to some constitutional and legal view which they may be right or wrong in holding. They are doing a very different thing from that. They are passing a condemnation upon Lord Kitchener and his military advisers, and they are passing that condemnation without even having heard their case. In my opinion, it will be a very serious thing—it would be serious under any circumstances and with the fullest knowledge—for this House at the present crisis of affairs in South Africa to pass a vote of condemnation on the man who is not only managing your military affairs, but who is one of those in whose keeping at this moment rest your hopes of peace. And to embark upon such a course before you know what Lord Kitchener's case is, be-fore you have heard his explanation of the events which occurred, to pass censure upon him untried and unheard—that, Sir, is not the way, if my hon. friend the Member for Durham will allow me to say so, to uphold the honour of the British House of Commons. I only ask the House, if they doubt the truth of the words I have just been uttering, to represent to themselves what would be the consternation in South Africa if His Majesty's Government, in connection with Lord Kitchener's action, were to be beaten on a motion for the adjournment of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not be."] No, but I say every man who votes for this Motion, if he contribute to the defeat of the Government, must be supposed to desire it, and, at all events, to be doing his best to bring it about. As regards the Government, I make no plea at all. I make no appeal to the House, even to those who were returned to the House to support the Government. But I do make an appeal, and I do so with some confidence, to Gentlemen on the Opposition side who have boasted of the support they have given to the war. I make an appeal to them and ask them what would be thought in South Africa by Lord Kitchener, by Lord Milner, and, above all by our enemies in the field, if the news was telegraphed out to South Africa tomorrow that, without hearing our own generals, without knowing what they have to say for themselves, the House of Commons had passed a vote of condemnation on their action. I will never believe that this House of Commons should be guilty of so unpatriotic a piece of folly in the present case, and I earnestly trust we shall show our confidence in those to whom our interests in those far-distant regions are entrusted by supporting them on the present occasion.

(6.10.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

A remark fell from the hon. Member for Oldham, which I think ought to be in our minds on the present occasion. This is not a Party question. It is a question which ought to interest both sides of the House equally, one in whichhon. Members on both sides ought to be equally anxious to arrive at a just conclusion. It is a question of the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. I shall endeavour to deal in a very few remarks with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He began by saying that the military authorities in South Africa have the right to prevent a British subject from quitting South Africa to come to England. The right hon. Gentleman advanced no authority for that contention. He can advance no authority. I believe it to be absolutely opposed to British law, and I venture to challenge the Attorney General, whom I see opposite, to give any authority whatever in favour of the proposition that a British subject in South Africa can be prevented from coming to England, of which he is a citizen. The principle contended for by the right hon. Gentleman would equally well justify the military authorities in South Africa preventing any British subject who happened to be paying a visit there from taking his passage home to this country if they chose to think that he was going to conduct an anti-British propaganda. Suppose my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire had gone to South Africa and wished to come back. The principle laid down by the Leader of the House would be just as effective to prevent him from taking ship to England as any resident in the colony.

The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to introduce some prejudice into the question by referring to Mr. Cartwright's offence. We have nothing to do here with this offence. Punishment purges the offence, and Mr. Cartwright can only be detained under martial law, and the only test of martial law is military necessity. It has never been defended on any ground except that of military necessity. I am endeavouring to show that no British subject the military authorities chose to suspect is not to be permitted to come from South Africa to this country if he is going to have in this country an anti-British propaganda. No doctrine more absolutely novel than that a British subject is to be prevented from saying in this country whatever he likes to say, subject to his responsibility to the law has ever been contended for before. It is not because Mr. Cartwright was personally opposed to the Government that we complain of his detention. It is because we say that no British subject is to be restricted in this country except by the ordinary law of the land. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the words Mr. Cartwright may use here going out to South Africa, does he forget that there is a strict censorship in South Africa, and that anything said here can be prevented from going into South Africa? Does he forget that others will say more than Mr. Cartwright would have said, and more than he undertook that he would not say? The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the position of Lord Kitchener. This is not the first time that the Government have tried to shelter themselves under the mantle of Lord Kitchener. I confess I never expected to hear the head of the Government in this House try to relieve himself and his Government of the responsibility which rests on them in this way, and trying to support and defend the claim of the military authorities to keep a British subject from leaving South Africa. Who is Lord Kitchener? He is our Commander in-Chief in South Africa, and a brave and distinguished soldier, who deserves our confidence for the way in which he has conducted the war. But he is not a constitutional lawyer. It is not Lord Kitchener's duty to say what is the law of England, what are the rights of British subjects, or whether a British subject should or should not be allowed to leave South Africa. Suppose Lord Kitchener were to say, "I think these persons ought not to leave South African" that does not give him the right to prevent them leaving. The guardians of the constitution are the Ministers of the Crown, and it is not possible for them to shuffle off that responsibility. But it appears to me that they are trying to get a responsibility which is theirs on to the military commander in South Africa.

The real issue we have in this case is a simple one. We have nothing to do with the merits of Mr. Cartwright. We have nothing to do with the justice of his sentence. We have nothing to do with martial law, as I have humbly submitted, because the only test of martial law is military necessity, and it cannot be alleged that there is that necessity applicable to England, although I do admit there may be in South Africa. The real issue is shortly and simply this: whether there exists in the law of England any power or right by which the executive Government or the military Government can interfere with the rights of a British subject in England to write or speak what he pleases subject to his responsibility to the law, or to prevent him from coming to the shores of England. If that authority can be given let it be given. If it is not given we are bound to protest against such a doctrine. The First Lord of the Treasury has asked what would be said in South Africa and other parts of the world if this action with respect to Mr. Cartwright had not been taken. I should like to ask what will be said in all the countries of the world, which look to England as the home of constitutional freedom, if the House of Commons is found throwing away our constitutional rights in this fashion? There is an old maxim, "That eternal vigilance is the price of freedom," and the House of Commons will be false to its responsibilities and traditions, if it neglects to mark, to check, and to denounce this monstrous infraction of constitutional rights.

(6.20.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

I think every Member of this House who has heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen must have been disposed to thank Heaven that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Lord Kitchener is not a constitutional lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman has said that other nations, who look to England as the home of constitutional freedom, will be likely to form a bad opinion of us. There is such a thing as constitutional pedantry; and I venture to say that, if in the present crisis we are guided in our conduct by the maxims which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, some foreign nations, at least, may very well be disposed to congratulate themselves that they have less constitutional freedom than is enjoyed in this country.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

Oh for the freedom of Russia!


The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a law which justifies the expulsion of a British subject from South Africa.


I said the detention.


In the present circumstances the rights of a person to go into Cape Town and to go out of Cape Town stand on precisely the same footing. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman no legal precedent whatever. [Opposition laughter.] Members who laugh seem to forget that the operation of the ordinary law is necessarily suspended by the operation of the military law.


Yes, in South Africa.


Mr. Cartwright is in South Africa, and Lord Kitchener has directed that he shall not leave South Africa. How can the right hon. Gentleman seriously ask me to produce some legal precedent in which any Gentleman has been prevented from leaving a British Colony? What have we to do in a matter of this sort? We have to deal with a great crisis in South Africa where war is raging and where rightly and properly martial law is being enforced. What is the use, in the circumstances, of asking whether there are any precedents in the law reports for preventing a man from leaving the Colony? Where military law is in force, whatever the Commander-in-Chief deems to he necessary for the safety of the country under his care may properly be done. The Commander-in-Chief in such a case takes whatever steps he thinks are necessary and when military law is in force the man in command must be trusted. Constitutional maxims are all very well but when it is contended that the Commander-in-Chief is not entitled to prevent any person leaving South Africa, I submit that a proposition of that kind is quite sufficient to condemn the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. I have been asked—By what right does Lord Kitchener prevent anyone leaving South Africa? That general proposition has been put forward, and ask those who have ventured to put it forward to consider this case. We are dealing with questions of general principle which have been boldly advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite who ought to have known better. Supposing the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa knew a person was about to leave the colony for the purpose of raising a force to support the enemy or for the purpose of conducting negotiations to secure foreign support, would anybody say that the Commander-in-Chief was not well within his right in preventing such a person leaving South Africa. I think this illustration will show the danger of being too hasty in advancing general propositions of this kind. We are told that in this particular case the action was unwise. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Durham said that before he condemned Mr. Cartwright he wanted to hear the case on both sides. We are not now trying Mr. Cartwright, and my hon. and learned friend seems to forget that he has been tried.


said he knew that they were not trying Mr. Cartwright, but the point he put forward was whether Lord Kitchener had a right to detain Mr. Cartwright in South Africa after he had been punished for his offence.


I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. and learned Member, but we cannot leave out of this case the fact that Mr. Cartwright has been tried.


Yes, and he has been punished.


I do not think anybody will say that the whole nature of a man is changed when he has been punished, and he may be very much the same man as he was before. We are not now going to sit in judgment upon this particular case and say whether in the opinion of this House Lord Kitchener has acted wisely or not. Martial law exists in South Africa and we must trust the man who has to administer it. Constitutional maxims are all very well, I value them as highly as any man, and I hope I am not complimenting myself too much when I say that possibly I understand them better than hon. Gentlemen opposite. But they may be misapplied, or their application may have to be paid for at too great a cost; and I submit that the House will be dealing a very great blow at its standing in the country, if in the matter before it it pronounces a vote of censure upon the Commander in-Chief in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose shakes his head. Whatever may be the intention of moving the Motion, its effect, if carried, will be a vote of censure upon Lord Kitchener. The very best intentions in the world will not prevent things their natural effect. Things are what they are and the consequences will be what they will be. My hon. and learned friend on this side of the House, who claims to have supported the Government in this war, has spoken in support of this Motion, but he seems to think that we can treat this as an abstract question of constitutional law. But we can do nothing of the kind, and if anything is wanting to open the eyes of the House to the true issue of the Motion it will be supplied by the reception it has met with in a certain quarter of the House, where, to say the least of it, the successes of this country in the war had not been received with unmixed satisfaction.

(6.30.) SIR. ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

I do not wish to expose myself to the charge of pedantry, but after the position which the Attorney General has taken up, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in regard to martial law and the application of it to tins particular case. Martial law as I understand it, is an extension to an army of exactly the same rights extended to an individual when he is acting in self-defence; and in the same, way that a man might inflict violence or even death on others if it were necessary for the defence of his own life and limb, so an army collectively, through its commander, may defend itself in like manner, even though it is done at the price of ordinary freedom. That I believe to be the bedrock on which alone what is called martial law rests—martial law, which has been truly said to be no law at all, lint administration under the stress of extreme necessity by the Commander-in-Chief in the Held. In those circumstances it is perfectly obvious, in the first place, that any such application of force must be subject to the ultimate sanctions of a legal tribunal when peace is restored. Just as a man who has done a thing in self-defence may he tried for it, and if the plea of self-defence prevails be acquitted, so after all these scenes of violence are closed, everything done under cover of martial law may be reopened before the constitutional tribunals of the country, and they alone will pronounce finally whether it has been lawful or not.

The second thing that follows from this is more important still. It is that there must he a limitation in the exercise of martial law corresponding with the necessity that evokes it. There can be no limit wider than that of actual necessity. The Attorney General did not even suggest to them that there is any limit. He seems to suggest that the Commander-in-Chief may, at his pleasure and with impunity, do whatever he thinks fit. I wholly repudiate that proposition. It is contrary to the foundations of our Constitution, and is not to be sanctioned by any authority in the past. The measure of necessity is the only measure by which we can test this action—the measure of military necessity, the defence of the army in the field. What has happened? Mr. Cartwright has been prevented from coming home. If it were said that he was a general of extreme experience and skill and was likely to join the enemy and turn his arms against the British forces, necessity might compel his being detained. But we know why Mr. Cartwright is being detained. "We have been told by the noble Lord, whose candour deserves applause and respect from Members of this House, that the reason is that there may not be added another supporter to the anti-British sentiment in this country. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Oh," and Opposition cheers.] If any hon. Members suspect me of it—[Cries of "No"]—or my friends, I believe they never were guilty of a more cruel or uncharitable suspicion in their lives. We disapprove of much that the Government have done, and believe them to be blamable for a great deal of what has taken place. But our first and main thought is, and always will be, the honour and happiness of our own country. But I will let that be. There is supposed to he some anti-British faction in this country. It must be extremely small, but the reason why this gentleman is not allowed to come home is not because he would be likely to convert hon. Gentlemen opposite, but because he might join this small faction, which is animated by a spirit of hostility to our own country. That is not a military necessity. It is no application of the principle of martial law. It is a gross abuse of power placed in the hands of the Government in South Africa. I think it is a pity that the Leader of the House is always saying that whatever we do or whatever we suggest is throwing blame upon Lord Kitchener or upon Lord Milner. For my part, I agree with Lord Milner even less than I do with the Government, but, as for Lord Kitchener. I have no feeling for him but a feeling of admiration and the truest respect.


Whom are you attacking now?


I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman. My criticisms are directed against the right hon. Gentleman himself.


Lord Kitchener is administering martial law.


The right hon. Gentleman says in his place it is Lord Kitchener who is administering martial law, but who is responsible to this House? What are we coming to in this House when we are told, when we are blaming the policy pursued in South Africa. "Oh, you are not to say anything against it, because you are reflecting on the agent on the spot"? It has been one of the maxims of the House of Commons, I always thought but I am learning a great deal that is new—very new, and not very true—I have always understood that it was one of the maxims of the House of Commons that the Government were responsible to the House for what took place abroad. But, according to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be extremely sensitive in regard to this, although he is not very particular in suggesting all sorts of evil consequences as likely to flow from other people's actions, it is sufficient to say, "You are making a reflection on Lord Kitchener." I venture to say that there is nothing of the kind in any of our minds. Lord Kitchener takes a particular step in regard to a particular person. He is advised, of course, whether it is within his powers or not. The only reflection I should make would be that Lord Kitchener has been ill advised as to the real meaning and effect of martial law in this case. I think it is time that the right hon. Gentleman should take the responsibility for his own conduct, and the conduct of his colleagues. Although I believe truly that the right hon. Gentleman has never been wanting in manly conduct, I think it is not like his usual manly conduct to ask that the consideration of Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner should be constantly interposed between the House and the censure which we think, on many occasions, the right hon. Gentleman richly deserves.

(6.37) SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

who was almost inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that in time of war, when the ordinary law-was suspended and armed power was substituted for it, it was not for this House to say what were the reasons which guided our generals in the field in a particular case. Who knew what the crime was which Lord Kitchener had judged? When martial law had superseded civil law, and the ordinary rights of citizens ceased to exist—when British government in South Africa was being carried on under great difficulties it was our duty to give credit an support to those who were carrying on the government. After the war was over, if it was thought proper, Lord Kitchener might be asked to explain his action. But that was not the question. The question was whether the Commander-in-Chief was not to have due credit given to him for a particular act. He put it to hon. Gentlemen, who had only spoken on this question from a desire to see justice done to this man, that this was not the time to go into this matter, and they would be acting most unjustly in so doing. There was a time when a Legislative Assembly tried to control its generals in the field. The Dutch States General did so, and Lord Macaulay had recorded the result, and showed that the generals in the field were much hindered by the action of the States General, who persisted in interfering with the campaign. He thought they ought to show their confidence in Lord Kitchener, and not put such a slur upon him as this Motion would undoubtedly place upon him if it was supported by a large number of Members of this House.

(6.46.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

The right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the question before the House. He talked about interfering with the generals in the field, and interfering with the plan of cam paign; there is nothing of the sort here. It is a question of permitting a British subject, against whom there is, at the present moment, nothing to be said, because he has purged his offence, to return to this country, where he is amenable to the laws of the country. The Attorney-General, whose defence was very skilfully irrelevant, has not once pledged his reputation in support of the action of Lord Kitchener in this particular case, but things have come to a pretty pass when we find a great Constitutional lawyer pouring contempt upon constitutional maxims and constitutional rights. What did the Attorney General say? The learned Gentleman said there may be cases in which a general may be justified in preventing a man from coming to Europe from South Africa—as, for instance, if he is known to be, or reasonably suspected of, intending to enlist reinforcements and obtain supplies for the enemy. But such a man would be under suspicion of aiding and being in touch with the enemy, and it would be not a question of his returning to Europe, but of his arrest on the spot. What on earth has that got to do with the case of Mr. Cartwright? This is not a case of preventing a man coming to Europe to enlist reinforcements or procure supplies for the enemy. The answer given by the Secretary of State for war is not that. He said he was not to be allowed to come to England to fight the Government.


No, no.


Well, to indulge in an anti-British propaganda. We know very well what that means. It means criticising the right hon. Gentleman inside the House or out of it. He has said so over and over again. Every criticism of the plan of campaign or the Secretary of State for War or the Government is an anti-British business, and ought to be put an end to. The defence of the Attorney General had nothing to do with the case, but the speeches delivered on the other side of the House, including that of the Leader of the Opposition, have shown that a tremendously grave issue has been raised. It has been said in defence of the action of the Government that the necessities of Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner are supreme, that the first thing is to bring this war to an end, that whatever Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner thought necessary in order to bring the war to an end was justifiable. What does that mean? The charge against Cartwright is that he published an article which raised rebellion in Africa, and because he did that, he must not be allowed to come to this country. He must remain in Africa. If Lord Kitchener is to say that a thing published in this country is mischievous in Africa, and therefore ought not to be published in Africa, why does not Lord Kitchener say that no criticism of the war is to be published in this country? Why should there not be prohibition of all speeches, even by the Leader of the Opposition, in the newspapers of this country? This shows what we are coming to and that is exactly the point I wish to make. Who is Mr. Cartwright I ask again. Mr. Cartwright might be an able man, but with all respect to him, he is only an obscure journalist. He is not well known, or a man of assured position. If he is stopped from returning to England because it is supposed he would write something which would criticise the Government, why should not the Leader of the Opposition be stopped, and everybody who was expected to deliver a speech supposed to be anti-British? Why should not public meetings be suppressed? I mean outside Birmingham and Ireland. According to the Attorney General, constitutional maxims do not count.


There is no martial law in England.


No, but it is coming very rapidly at this rate. What conditions has Lord Kitchener insisted on? Has he insisted, for instance, that the offence should not be repeated? If Mr. Cartwright does repeat it, he will be amenable to the law in this country, and will be doubly punished. It would then be interesting to read the comment of The Times on the prosecution. The fact is that Mr. Cartwright has not been guilty of wickedly inventing a slander, but of grave error of judgment in believing he was safe in publishing something which had appeared in The Times. For that error of judgment he very properly got twelve months imprisonment. Here we have kept in Cape Town, the centre of activity, a man who is believed to be so dangerous that he cannot be allowed in England. What papers would Mr. Cartwright write for? He would not be allowed to write for The Times. Every paper which is supposed to be anti-British is prohibited in South Africa. How would any of his writings reach that country? Would they ever have any access there? No. The Attorney General was perfectly right. There is absolutely no precedent for action of this kind. It is not the first time we have had fighting in a British colony; it is not the first lime we have had martial law; but it is the first time we have had a case of this character brought before the House or Commons, and the Attorney General, a great constitutional authority, has admitted that there is no record of a precedent for any such action as that of prohibiting Mr. Cartwright to conic to this country. His offence, which was really that of implicitly believing in The Times, has been expiated, and every man in this country, however foul may be his offence, once he has purged that offence, is free to go where he pleases. The worst that can be done is to subject him to police supervision. Why is not Mr. Cartwright to be allowed to come to this country under ordinary conditions? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Leader of the House has attempted to make out a case, and the Attorney General showed that be knew something about the matter by evading the whole point.

(G. 56.) MR. Y HR BURGH (Chester)

The speech to which we have just listened shows that the question before the House falls tinder two heads. The first is as to whether there is power under martial law to detain any subject in Cape-Colony, and the second is whether the reason is sufficiently strong to justify the detention. My hon. friends the Members for Durham and Oldham, together with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, said that in their opinion there was no power within the limits of the constitution under martial law in Cape Colony to prevent a British subject leaving the colony and coming to England.


"No right," not "no power."


"Power," I believe, was the word used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen—"power" meaning "right" in this case. But when the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries addressed us. I was interested to find that be threw over the three hon. Members I have named. He told us practically that there was a right under martial law, as existing, to retain any obnoxious British subject within Cape Colony; and he then went on to say that the whole question was whether the offence committed by the question was sufficiently serious, and whether his position was such as to render him a dangerous person in the view of the authorities. The whole question is whether the case is bad enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman went further. Not only did he lay down that proposition, but he constituted himself judge of the action taken by Lord Kitchener, because, unless my memory serves me wrongly, his words were that "This was a gross injustice." I was not in the House when the Secretary-of State for War made his speech, but I understand that he used the phrase "sub judice", and that the words were greeted with considerable, laughter. But, as far as I know, Lord Kitchener has not been heard, and yet the hon. and learned Member actually comes to that table, and, without having heard the other side, proceeds to deliver judgment against Lord Kitchener.

I have never hesitated, when I considered it necessary, to take action against my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, but I must dissent in the strongest possible way from the statement that he has tried to shelter himself behind Lord Kitchener. It must be Lord Kitchener whose conduct is called into question. It is he who is putting these powers into force, and therefore it is he whom hon. Members are condemning. My right hon. friend is therefore; perfectly right in saying it is not the conduct of the Government that is criticised. Of course, if the House carry this vote, the Government stand condemned; they fall with their Commander in South Africa. But no reasonable person can have a shadow of doubt that, if a vote of this character is passed, it casts a very heavy imputation upon Lord Kitchener. I will only say farther that in my opinion the supporters of this Motion have lamentably failed to make out their case, and by the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite they have admitted their case to be absolutely unsound from top to bottom.

*(7.3.) MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

I think that within my experience a case has rarely been presented to the House in which the weight of argument was so entirely on one side. It would need some excuse on my part for trespassing for a few moments on the attention of the House at this stage of the discussion were it not that appeals have been made on the other side to those of us who on this side have on the whole supported the policy of this war and who have, in season and out of season, strenuously defended the conduct and the reputation of our commanders and our soldiers in the field, as though by the logical necessities of their position they were bound to defend, or, at any rate, to apologise for, the course taken by the Government on this occasion. It is to demur in the strongest possible way to that proposition that I rise now to say a few words to the House. Let me brush aside, before I come to the kernel of the matter, the totally irrelevant consideration—dwelt upon by the hon. Member and put forward with great force by the First Lord of the Treasury—that if we assent to a Motion of this kind, or, indeed, if we express any dissatisfaction with the reasons which have been advanced for the retention of this gentleman at the Cape, we are guilty of passing a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener. What a ridiculous proposition' I know nothing of the inner workings of this matter or of its secret history. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen have the advantage of me in that respect, but I do know what has been disclosed to Parliament; and I entertain the strongest suspicion that Lord Kitchener had no more to do with this matter than we have. Lord Kitchener has affairs of much graver consequence to think of at Pretoria in carrying on the campaign against the Boers than in discussing with his generals or some subordinate officers in Cape Colony what shall be done with a more or less obscure journalist. Lord Kitchener has rightly, under our system—and a very good system I think it is—taken upon himself the responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, and no doubt he has presented to the Government whatever reasons can be urged in defence of it. But that does not affect in the least degree this proposition, which lies at the root of the constitutional responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, that in matters of this kind it is not the general in the field any more than it is his subordinate officer; it is the Government, and the Government alone, who are responsible.

That being so, and the question being simply whether the decision of the Government announced tonight is a right and proper decision, how does the matter stand? It depends partly on considerations of law and partly on considerations of policy. As regards the law, it has been stated by my hon. and learned friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs, with great authority, with perfect lucidity, and in propositions which I do not think any lawyer in the House will venture to contradict. They come to this that what is called martial law which means the suspension of the ordinary law of the land and the rule for the time being of military force—as its existence is justified, so the extent of its application is measured and warranted by necessity alone. The Legislature in passing Acts of Indemnity after periods of martial law has never been too minute or too exacting in questioning acts which may have been, under heat and precipitation, committed in circumstances of great momentary embarrassment. I can understand a man being locked up without reason assigned if he was thought to be dangerous to the peace of a colony, or if he was likely to give assistance to the enemy in the field. I can understand under the régime of martial, law a man being deported from the colony on the ground that under existing circumstances his room would be preferred to his company. But never until tonight, never until this case, never until the noble Lord a few days ago told us what the grounds of detention of this gentleman were, never in the history of the law has it been suggested that a commander was entitled, under the régime of martial law, not to keep a man in gaol, bur, to allow him to wander freely in the country where martial law prevails, and yet to keep him in that country which is the scene of disturbance against his will, unless he will give a pledge as to what he will do or not do when he gets away from the scene of disturbance to a free country where martial law does not prevail. That is the proposition, and the only proposition, which the House has to consider. Whatever your views may be about the war, its origin, and its conduct, whatever may be your admiration and confidence—and I yield to no one in that respect—in the generals and officers in the field, I say that the House is not bound by any consideration of patriotic reserve to abstain from discussing—aye, and condemning—a proposition of this kind put forward on the authority of Ministers of the day, a pro-position in which I for one will never acquiesce, and against which I invite the House to protest.

*(7.10.) MR. PEMBERTON (Sunderland)

It has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury and others that in voting against the Government on this occasion one would really be condemning their policy as a whole, and especially the conduct of Lord Kitchener. I do not think that is an argument worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. One may very well think the bulk of the policy of the Government to be good and sound, and be willing to support it; 1I think one may go further and vote in favour of certain parts of that policy of which one does not wholly approve; but there are certain things which appear to be more important than that, and this, I think, is one. Undoubtedly the Government as a whole are responsible, and I have no hesitation in saying that I think it is unfortunate they did not say that certainly this man should not be kept in Cape Colony if he wished to leave it. One could by some twisting of words—or, perhaps, I ought not to use that expression—but by some subtle argument, like that of the Attorney General prove that as martial law exists in Cape Colony the man who has to administer it—Lord Kitchener—has authority to do really as he likes. But I think the fairer way of looking at this matter would be that to keep a man in the colony cannot really have anything to do with the peace of the Empire, or with the necessities of the colony in time of wax. I cannot follow that argument, and I cannot help thinking that the bulk of hon. Members of this House are of opinion that there is a weak point in this part of the argument. My contention is that if we err at all we should err on the side of generosity in preserving to the utmost the rights of any British subject. I have not the least doubt that a very large section of the Party to which I belong do not like the extension of martial law all over South Africa. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Although we do not like it, we recognise it as a necessity to which we must bow, but that does not mean that it should not be extended to eases where it is not necessary. I hope that any limitation of the rights of British subjects will be as small as possible. This is a question to me of principle just as it is to the hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Oldham and others. We think this principle is of more importance than merely supporting the Government. I think it is an unfortunate argument put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury in his appeal to the Party when he says that by voting against the Government on this occasion hon. Members will be doing serious harm to the policy of the Government. I believe that is what I may call the Government Whip, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to use the whip in this case. What are we elected for? We are elected, it is true, to support either one Party or the other, but we are also elected in order to exercise a reasonable discretion in certain matters. I know I was elected in this way, and I am quite willing to stand by it. I think it is most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have used such an argument. Surely the First Lord of the Treasury must know that self-preservation will not induce them to vote against the policy of the Government. I do not think that should be used as an argument to influence people's votes against what they believe to be right upon a matter which many of us do not think is a question of Party, but a question of constitution, and of the duty of this House as a House. I only regret that the Government could not give an explanation which would enable this Motion to have been withdrawn, and which would have been a far more satisfactory course than driving supporters of the Government to vote in favour of this Motion.

(7.15.) MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh)

Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to know that Mr. Cartwright's case did not stand alone, but that there had been a number of similar cases. It ought to be understood that the House was dealing with an attempt, not on the part of Lord Kitchener, but on the part of certain other persons in the Colony, to prevent journalists who happened to know a great deal about the facts in South Africa from coming to this country and informing the mind of the British public. He knew of at least two or three other journalists who had been or who were now detained in South Africa on the same kind of plea as that put forward in Mr. Cartwright's case.


Order, order; I must remind the hon. Member that he will not be in order in discussing other cases.


said he merely wished to point out that there was a principle involved, and this was not simply the conduct of a single individual. It was said that by carrying this motion they would be passing a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener, but he did not think Lord Kitchener knew anything whatever about the cases of these journalists. He believed the course taken had been decided upon by some official at Cape Town whom be did not know. It would be a most salutary thing if they were to do something by way of protest against the excesses of these irresponsible persons—something which would clip their claws and teach them that Members of that House had a little more respect for the rights of British subjects than they appeared to have.

*(7.20) MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)

The Attorney General has spoken of the pedantry of constitutionalism. But there is such a thing as the price of unconstitutionalism, and when the din of battle is over the echoes of this debate will ring in the ears of the people of the Empire. Since I have been in Parliament there has been no more unswerving supporter of the First Lord of the Treasury, and to go against the Government now, as assuredly I shall do, is repellent to me. But I wish to repudiate as warmly as I can the peroration of my right hon. friend—not a very new peroration—in which he stated that those who voted for the Motion will show themselves careless of the honour of the British Army, and of the prospects of peace.


Hear, hear!


Sir, I repudiate it, and I say to the First Lord of the Treasury, with all the respect that is due to him that I think our honour as British gentlemen repudiates the one proposition as much as the fact that our kith and kin are fighting in South Africa repudiates the other. This is not a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener. It is a censure on a policy, not on a person. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are condemning Lord Kitchener unheard, but why is he unheard? The date of Mr. Cartwright's liberation must have been known long ago, and the Government could have had the defence in their hands. But if attention had not been called to this case some days ago it might have gone sub silentio, and this obstruction of justice might have been turned into a precedent for the future. There is no argument which has been used more acceptably in the country than that the Government have always clean hands throughout the war in dealing with the enemy and with the pro-Boer party. But when I consider that the common law has been set at nought in this case, and that even the extraordinary law has been abused, I do not think it will be possible to go quite so cheerfully to the constituencies to talk about clean hands. [Ministerial cries of "Oh."] I lament the prejudice shown by the Secretary of State for War in his answer to the right hon. Member for Montrose. The Secretary of State enlarged on the offence of Mr. Cartwright, but that was known before; and the offender has been punished and liberated, though he is still not free. His conduct was scandalous in the extreme, and I do not think there are any hon. Members in this House who will stand up for a moment to defend that conduct. But it it is as bad as the First Lord has made out then I think Mr. Cartwright ought to have had a far more severe punishment. But he has had his punishment and taken it like a man and he is now out of prison again.

The question is where shall he be kept? Is he to be kept in South Africa or in England. We have been told that he will be less harmful in South Africa than in England. What has become of the unity of the Empire? Is it going to be a new tern in our imperial policy that the further the man gets away from the scene of action the more dangerous he is likely to become. If Mr. Cartwright returns to England, as I hope he may be allowed to do and even if he does, as the Attorney General suggests, come over here and raise the banner of pro-Boerism, if he comes over here and raises an army chat will march from London to Dover, then. Sir, the common law of the land will look alter Mr. Cartwright and the common law will make him just as innocuous to our people as Mr. Massingham or Mr. Stead. I wonder who is going to make Mr. Cartwright keep to this undertaking which the Government have exacted from him? Who is going to make him keep that undertaking upon his return to this country. I do not think peace will be facilitated by operations of this sort and by the total oblivion of the watchword Civis Romanus sum.

(7.26.) MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S. E.)

So many hon. Members on this side of the House have spoken in support of this Motion that I think it is about time someone on these Benches should say a word or two for the Government. With all due respect to hon. Members who have spoken I must say that I think we have wandered into a very strange discussion tonight. The question of the constitutional rights of Englishmen has been raised and the question of the liberties of the English people, but in my opinion these questions are far away from the case of Mr. Cartwright. The question immediately before us is really whether we shall support martial law in South Africa or not. In spite of what my hon. friend below the gangway has said, I think the First Lord of the Treasury is perfectly right in saying that if we vote again-t the Government tonight we shall be supporting a vote of censure upon Lord Kitchener. The real question is whether we are to trust Lord Kitchener with the administration of martial law or not. The whole question of expediency must be left to Lord Kitchener. As to what was thought of martial law 2,000 years ago, I remember the description in the Ars Poetica of what Achilles should do; and I will suggest to the right hon. Member for West Monmouth that Achilles was more likely to bring war to an end than even a Lord Chancellor or a great constitutional lawyer. Horace wrote of the character of Achilles— Impiger, iracundus, indexorabilis, acer; Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis. As some hon. Members may probably have forgotten their Latin, perhaps it will be advisable for me to translate my quotation— If yon would rightly depict Achilles, you must describe him as a man, active, wrathful, implacable, energetic; let him declare that laws were not made for him let him claim everything for armed might. I say that is a proper description of martial law, for common law cannot exist where martial law is in force. I have heard of eases elsewhere of the excessive use of power. I can remember the case of Canada. At one time, gentlemen were transported to Bermuda. That was done in pursuance of a policy undertaken by Lord Durham—a man who is much in favour on the other side of the House at the present moment. He was Governor-General of Canada, and his action on that occasion was treated in Parliament in the same way as you are endeavouring to treat Lord Kitchener's action in South Africa now. The result was that Lord Durham resigned his position in Canada, and if we are going to treat Lord Kitchener as we treated Lord Durham, we may cause that eminent General, who has done so much for South Africa, to resign his position. I think the First Lord of the Treasury is perfectly right in asking the House to give a vote of confidence in Lord Kitchener, and I hope we shall pass it by a very large majority.

(7.32.) MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

I know Mr. Cartwright and I am probably one of the few men in the House who do know him. The hon. Member for West Perthshire would probably know him, as he has spent many years in Johannesburg. Mr. Cartwright was for a long time attached to the Johannesburg Star He was there advocating the policy you are now advocating there. He changed from that policy, believing it now to be in the interest of South Africa. I have not risen to defend Mr. Cartwright or to condone his offence in publishing this article. But I do know of my own knowledge that when this article was taken from The Time, he never saw it, but he took the full responsibility for his action and went to prison. I say that it is gross calumny on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Member for North Islington—["Cries of "Oh," and "Withdraw."]


The hon. Member is not in order in saying a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is gross calumny.


I withdraw that statement and I apologise to the House. He even said, but more especially it was said by the hon. Member for North Islington, that Mr. Cartwright was the author of these attacks on the soldiers. That statement is not true. The statement made by the hon. Member for South Longford was perfectly true that this article was published in The Times three weeks before, and yet you are asked in this House by the hon. Member for North Islington to condemn Mr. Cartwright as the author of this article in question. Mr. Cartwright was the one man in South Africa who was setting forth views, as he thought them, not anti-British.


Order, order! The hon. Member is extending the debate entirely beyond the question under discussion. It is not in order to discuss the history of Mr. Cartwright prior to his being sent to prison. The right hon. Gentleman in his Motion has only raised the question of compulsory detention after his period of imprisonment has expired.


We have heard much in this debate about anti-British views, but if you hold that I am not entitled to debate the question whether the views and opinions which Mr. Cartwright has advocated so long are true to British interests and not anti-British interests, I will not pursue the question. Mr. Cartwright is a man than whom no one is more patriotic. I say that Mr. Cartwright has made great sacrifices. He made a grave error. It has been said that, "A man who makes no mistakes never makes anything." Mr. Cartwright having made this mistake has paid the penalty. I say that Mr. Cartwright does not hold anti-British views, but is animated by the desire of seeing this country doing what is right in South Africa, and nothing else.

(7.35.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES), (Lynn Regis

who was received with cries of "Divide" said: My remarks will be brief, but if they are interrupted I cannot answer for their length. I decline to discuss the merits of Mr. Cartwright, his merits or demerits having nothing to do with the matter. I also decline to discuss the question whether it is right or wrong to carry out martial law in South Africa, That has nothing to do with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury shelters himself—no, he does not shelter himself, but he cites Lord Kitchener, and says that if we are to adjourn the House this day we should pass a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener. The suggestion then is that Lord Kitchener insists on keeping Mr. Cartwright in South Africa. Where is the evidence? Not a shred of it. Not a word, not an opinion from Lord Kitchener is cited from any despatch laid oil the table. No reason is assigned for Lord Kitchener being brought before the House in this way. There is not a tittle of evidence that Lord Kitchener desires to keep Mr. Cartwright in South Africa, or that he even knows the name of Cartwright. It is absurd to come to us and use the name of some great man in South Africa in this House. I have heard Sir Redvers Buller eulogised from that Bench, and ask myself the question whether Lord Kitchener may not some day be regarded with a somewhat similar amount of enthusiasm to that which Sir Redvers Buller now enjoys. What is the question here? The question is whether Mr. Cartwright shall be allowed to come to England with an undertaking. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes, that is so. It is so stated by the Secretary of State for War. He says that the whole point is whether he can get a sufficient undertaking to justify him in allowing Mr. Cartwright to come to England. It is not a question whether martial law shall be carried on and applied in South Africa, but whether martial law is to be extended to England. Is it not pitiful that His Majesty's Government should pursue this Cartwright in this way. That you should exercise all your military authority, give the greatest possible number of troops, and the most extensive power to Lord Kitchener in South Africa to follow his military operations I can understand, but what can you fear from Cartwright? What harm can he possibly do? If he can do any thing it is surely rather in South Africa than here. I am very sad and sorry that His Majesty's Government have thought it worth their while so much as to cast their eyes on such a creature as Cartwright, but I am glad to see that it has been the occasion for a little movement among the dry bones of this side of the House, and for arousing some spirit in the Tory Party. I cannot so quickly forget that I am a Tory—not even in the straits of the Government over Cartwright—and that I have learned to believe in the principles of the Constitution with regard to freedom of speech. There may be those who will vote with the Government tonight. Let them remember that they are doing it at the expense of every sound constitutional principle which we have fought for, and to which the Party ought to adhere.

(7.40) MR. GUEST (Plymouth)

I want to know what is the attitude of the Government now on this question. I have sat through the debate, and it seems to me that we have arrived at this point; this is a question of martial law and its interpretation. We have had martial law defined and accepted on both sides of the House Now it seems to me that that definition has very probably been infringed, because the claim of necessity for self-defence, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, was entirely lost sight of when it was admitted that Mr. Cartwright was not allowed to come home, not from any question of necessity, but because of what he might do in this country. That has given way, and I feel there has been a very doubtful exercise of martial law, and under those circumstances what some of us Want to know is what is the attitude of the First Lord of the Treasury and His Majesty's Government? Are they going to support Lord Kitchener through thick and thin, or are they-going to admit this question of doubt as to the exercise of martial law; or are they going to grant us an enquiry? This is not so simple a matter as the First Lord of the Treasury seems to think. It is needless for me to recapitulate what has fallen from the lips of several members on this side of the House. We yield to none in our wish to carry the war to a conclusion, and to that end would support the Government and Lord Kitchener, but I think we are entitled to know what the Government are going to do. Are they going to communicate with Lord Kitchener, or simply back him up through thick and thin; or are they merely going to put their foot down and decline to have any more discussion on the great constitutional question raised tonight. It is with great deference that I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury and those on that Bench to make some concession to the very general feeling entertained on this side of the House, and not drive those who desire to do nothing more than to support His Majesty's Government into opposition to it.

(7.45.) Mr. SEELY (Lincoln)

I only-rise to say, as I intend to vote for this Motion, that I do not consider it in any way whatever as a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener, and I feel absolutely certain that Lord Kitchener will not consider it so himself. It is a vote of censure on His Majesty's Government for the manner in which they have dealt with one of the most important questions which exists for any Government, namely, their duty to protect the individual rights of British subjects. I am not going to go through the question itself. The Government know perfectly well that the reason they have given to this House for keeping Mr. Cartwright in South Africa is one which the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Secretary for War, or any man who sits on that Bench would no more have thought of giving if he had been first responsible for the matter than they would have thought of acting in the way they act in some countries we know of. Then we have had from them no repudiation of that language, no expression as to how this question of martial law ought to be dealt with. For that reason I cannot hold with them this

afternoon and it is the more essentia when we are at the present moment asking large numbers of men to come under our rule. You will have to govern those men by Crown Colony Government. One thing, and the only thing, that will make these men satisfied to come under your rule is the knowledge that as British subjects they will be protected. It is because this question is at issue the question of the old rights of British subjects, the question of the proper feeling of the House of Commons, and the proper right of censuring—not the men who are fighting for them over the sea, but the Government who is responsible to them for the action of every individual and for every act of policy all over the empire that I shall support the Motion.

(7.49.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 259. (Division List No. 130.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Duncan, J. Hastings Leamy, Edmund
Allan, William (Gateshead) Dunn, Sir William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud Edwards, Frank Leigh, Sir Joseph
Ambrose, Robert Elioank, Master of Leng, Sir John
Asher, Alexander Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lewis, John Herbert
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Ellis, John Edward Lloyd-George, David
Atherley-Jones, L Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lough, Thomas
Barlow, John Emmott Farquharson, Dr. Robert Lundon, W.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Fenwick, Charles MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Bell, Richard Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Macneill, John Gordon Swit
Blake, Edward Ffrench, Peter MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Boland, John Field, William M'Cann, James
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Crae, George
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Flynn, James Christopher M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry M-Kean, John
Broadhurst, Henry Fuller, J. M. F. M'Kenna, Reginald
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gilhooly, James M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Laren, Charles Benjamin
Burke, E. Haviland- Grant, Corrie Malcolm, Ian
Burns, John Griffith, Ellis J. Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Buxton, Sydney Charles Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Markham, Arthur Basil
Caine, William Sproston Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mather, William
Caldwell, James Haldane, Richard Button Mooney, John J.
Cameron, Robert Hammond, John Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose
Causton, Richard Knight Hayden, John Patrick Moss, Samuel
Cawley, Frederick Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale Murphy, John
Channing, Francis Allston Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Clancy, John Joseph Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Holland, William Henry Norman, Henry
Craig, Robert Hunter Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Crean, Eugene Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Cremer, William Randal Jacoby, James Alfred O'Brien, Kendal (Tipuerary Mid
Crombie, John William Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenuy)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Dolany, William Joyce, Michael O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kennedy, Patrick James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dillon, John Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Donelan, Captain A. Kitson, Sir James O'Dowd, John
Doogan, P. C. Labouchere, Henry O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lambert, George O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
O'Malley, William Roche, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Mara, James Roe, Sir Thomas Wallace, Robert
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Russell, T. W. Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S.)
Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) Schwann, Charles E. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Partington, Oswald Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Paulton, James Mellor Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Weir, James Galloway
Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) White, George (Norfolk)
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel White, Luke (York, E. B.)
Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham) Shipman, Dr. John G. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pemberton, John S. G. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Pirie, Duncan V. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Power, Patrick Joseph Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Priestley, Arthur Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants Young, Samuel
Reddy, M. Sirachey, Sir Edward Yoxall, James Henry
Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Sullivan, Donal
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Rigg, Richard Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Robson, William Snowdon Tomkinson, James
Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F. Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry Goulding, Edward Alfred
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Chapman, Edward Graham, Henry Robert
Agnew, Sir Andrew-Noel Charrington, Spencer Greene, Sir H. W (B'ry S Edm'nds.
Aird, Sir John Clare, Octavius Leigh Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury).
Anson, Sir William Reynell Clive, Captain Percy A. Guthrie, Walter Murray
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hain, Edward
Arkwright, John Stanhope Coghill, Douglas Harry Hall, Edward Marshall
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cohen, Benjamin Louis Halsey, Rt. Hon Thomas F.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x
Austin, Sir John Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cranborne, Viscount Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Baird, John George Alexander Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Harris, Frederick Leverton
Balcarres, Lord Crossley, Sir Savile Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Davenport, William Bromley Hay, Hon. Claude George
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham) Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.
Banbury Frederick George Denny, Colonel Heaton, John Henniker
Banes, Major George Edward Dewar, T. R. (T'r H' mlets, S. Geo. Helder, Aug stus
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Dickson, Charles Scott Henderson, Alexander
Bartley, George C. T. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Digby, John K. D. Wing field Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hob house, Henry (Somerset, E.)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dorington, Sir John Edward Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Bignold, Arthur Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Horner, Frederick William
Bigwood, James Doxford, Sir William Theodore Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Bill, Charles Duke, Henry Edward Hoult, Joseph
Blundell, Colonel Henry Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Houston, Robert Paterson
Bond, Edward Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Boulnois, Edmund Fardell, Sir T. George Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bousfield, William Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Fergusson, Rt. H n. Sir J. (Manc' r Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Brcokfield, Colonel Montagu Finch, George H. Johnston, William (Belfast)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.) Firbank, Joseph Thomas Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Bull, William James Fisher, William Hayes Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)
Billiard, Sir Harry FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Kenyon Slaney, Col W. (Salop.
Butcher, John George Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Keswick, William
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kimber, Henry
Cautley, Henry Strother Forster, Henry William Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Law, Andrew Bonar
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Calloway, William Johnson Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gardner, Ernest Lawson, John Grant
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Garfit, William Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gordon, Hon J. E. (Elgin& Nairn Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Chamberlayne, T. (Southampton Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Parkes, Ebenezer Stanley, Fdward Jas. (Somerset
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart
Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) Penn, John Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Percy, Earl Stroyan, John
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth) Pierpoint, Robert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison Platt-Higgins, Frederick Thorburn, Sir Walter
Macdona, John Cumming Plummer, Walter R. Thornton, Percy M.
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tollemache, Henry James
Maconochie, A. W. Pretyman, Ernest George Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Peyce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs. Purvis, Robert Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Randles, John S. Valentia, Viscount
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Ratcliff, R. F. Wanklyn, James Leslie
Majendie, James A. H. Reid, James (Greenock) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Manners, Lord Cecil Remnant, James Farquharson Warr, Augustus Frederick
Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F. Renshaw, Charles Bine Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Maxwell, W. J. H (D'mfriesshire Renwick, George Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Ritchie, Ht. Hon. Chas. Thomson Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Ropner, Colonel Robert Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Mitchell, William Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Round, James Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Morrison, James Archibald Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Mount, William Arthur Seton-Karr, Henry Wylie, Alexander
Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute Sharpe, William Edward J. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. (George
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Nicholson, William Graham Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside
Nicol, Donald Ninian Smith, Eon. W. F. D. (Strand)
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Spear, John Ward TELLERS KOK THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk