§ MR. KEIR HARDIEI beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he has any information concerning the attack which the Manchester police made yesterday upon an unemployed procession, and what action he intends taking in the matter.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASThe information which has reached me from the authorities at Manchester shows that a procession of some hundreds of men marched through the main thoroughfares of Manchester in a disorderly manner and obstructed the traffic. The police requested them to allow the traffic to proceed, and as they refused to comply with this request, the police dispersed them. So far as I am able to judge on the information before me, the police in doing so used no more force than was absolutely necessary. In so doing the police were acting strictly in accordance with their duty, which is to maintain order and prevent obstruction in the streets. Three 1182 men were arrested and were brought before the city stipendiary magistrate this morning and. their cases adjourned for a week. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I certainly could take no action while the case is sub judice. I must add that it is not I but the Manchester Watch Committee who are the police authority for Manchester and who are responsible for the action of the Manchester City Police. Any Question relating to the action of that force which may be addressed to me I can only refer to the Manchester Watch Committee for reply; and if it were to become necessary to hold any inquiry into what has taken place at Manchester it would be the watch committee's duty in the first instance, at any rate, to conduct such an inquiry.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEIn view of the nature of that reply I will ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to this matter, and whether he has any further announcement to make in connection with the Unemployed Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy attention has, of course, been called to the incident referred to; but I do not think myself that that incident in Manchester has, or ought to have, any relation whatever to the policy pursued by this House. Whether the House proceeds, as, of course, I should like it to be able to proceed, with the Bill as proposed to be amended by my right hon. friend depends on the view which the House takes of that measure. It ought not to depend upon any action taken in Manchester by the persons who refused, apparently, according to the report I have seen, to obey the law and respect the injunctions of the police when they were requested to obey the law. Whether the Bill can be proceeded with or not depends as. much on the hon. Gentleman and his friends as on anybody else.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)May I suggest to the Prime Minister whether the Unemployed Bill could not have first place after the necessary business has been finished.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWell, no. That particular policy could not be pursued, 1183 as the hon. Gentleman will see at once, because if we deal with it at all we ought to deal with it before the Appropriation Bill, or, at all events, in sufficient time for the House of Lords to consider the measure. I do not see any prospect of that end being accomplished unless the House were prepared to take the Committee stage on Friday and the Report and Third Reading on Monday. I have received no hint from those interested on the other side that they are prepared to assent to the Bill as proposed to be amended by my right hon. friend; on the contrary, all the speeches made yesterday indicated the opposite policy on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEI beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the attack made by the Manchester police upon a peaceable demonstration of unemployed workmen in Market Street yesterday.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. Member that the Home Office is not responsible for the action of the police. The police are under the control, guidance, and direction of the watch committee of the city of Manchester, and, therefore, I do not think it is permissible to raise in this House by way of criticism or attack on a Government Department a matter for which they are not responsible.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEIs it not the case that in the last resort the Home Office is the supreme authority over the police? On a former occasion, when the Manchester police were accused of corruption, the Home Office competed inquiry into the circumstances; and is it not the fact that the grant received by Manchester from the Government for police purposes is dependent upon the proper performance of duty by the police, and does that not make the Home Office responsible for their action?
§ * MR. SPEAKERIt is true that a portion, I think half, of the cost of the police in Manchester is borne by the National Exchequer, but that does not make the Home Office prima facie 1184 responsible for the action of the police. If the hon. Member can show that the action of the watch committee has failed, that they have not been equal to the duties imposed upon them by the law, and that it is necessary to supersede them, or that the Home Office should come in and take up the duty which the watch committee are not able to carry out, then I think the hon. Member would be able to make a case. But that is not so. In the first instance, it is quite clear that the watch committee are responsible. That is one of the consequences of local government, and I do not think, therefore, that it would be permissible to call into account the action of the Home Office, who are not responsible.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)May I submit to you that in order to be a matter of urgent public importance it does not necessarily follow that it is in relation to any action of the Government? Might I suggest, for example, that there might arise in a self-governing colony or a foreign country a matter of such urgent public importance that it ought to be debated in this House, and that is not, of course, within the jurisdiction of the Government at all?
§ * MR. SPEAKERIf that is so, who is to answer for it? There are a great many matters of urgent public importance which take place in Europe and elsewhere, but surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that any of them should necessarily be discussed in this House? There must be some responsibility suggested on the part of the Government.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEHow am I to show the House that the local watch committee has failed in its duty if I am refused permission to move the adjournment of the House? Is it not a subject for consideration and discussion in the House of Commons that Englishmen have been bludgeoned in the streets of Manchester? If this Motion is refused, what other opportunity will there be to discuss the question?
§ * Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member can show, as he seems to think, that the 1185 Home Office is in some way responsible for this affair, I would say that there is an opportunity to-morrow on the Home Office Vote.
§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)As one of the Members for the city, may I suggest it is not for this House to assume that the police attacked the people. The whole matter is now under inquiry by the proper authority in Manchester.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat is a question of merits and not of order. I have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
§ Mr. CROOKSSurely it is a question of urgent public importance—the lives of people who do not seem quite able to take care of themselves. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary consent to send a Commission to Manchester to inquire into the facts of the case?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat is not a point of order.