HC Deb 06 March 1911 vol 22 cc931-73

Motion made, and Question proposed,

5."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of the Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Moved, as an Amendment, to reduce the Vote by £100, in respect of the Special Allowances in connection with the South Wales Mining Strike.

I rise to Move the Motion which stands in my name for a particular reason, but that, as I understand it, will not limit the general scope of the discussion. I might, however, be allowed to express the hope that before the Committee proceeds to discuss the general question involved it will allow the particular issue raised by my Amendment to be disposed of.

The question which I desire to call attention to is the action of the Home Office in refusing to grant an inquiry into the allegation made against the police in connection with the recent strike in South Wales. Before doing so may I say, in moving the reduction, that I am not opposed, either directly or indirectly, to the officers of the Metropolitan Police who performed this special duty receiving special recognition for their services. At the same time, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to say whether it is intended to follow the precedent which had been set up of mulcting the funds of the National Exchequer to provide police for the purpose of dealing with a purely local dispute. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform me when he comes to speak whether it is intended to recover this £15,000 from the county of Glamorgan, in whose area the services of the police were required, and, if it is not intended to recover the amount from the county, whether he is prepared to make an equivalent grant to those other authorities who sent police to the disturbed area in order that the officers from those other places may receive the same reward as the Metropolitan Police. In raising this question for the fourth time I would remind the Committee and the Home Office that I am not acting on my own initiative. This question came to me first of all on behalf of the men, women, and children who claim to have been assaulted. Since then the matter has been taken up by the Executive of the South Wales Miners Federation. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda, South Glamorgan, and West Monmouth, are absent to-night in connection with miners' business, but I am speaking for them as well as myself when I again press for an inquiry into this matter.

When the question was before the House the Home Secretary stated that the charges against the police had not been substantiated and the preponderance of evidence was all the other way. In support of that statement the right hon. Gentleman read a number of anonymous communications which he had received from persons who alleged that they had seen the occurrences taking place. I would remind him and the Committee generally that the statements upon which I base my claim for an inquiry were not anonymous, and did not come merely from the persons who complained that they had been assaulted, but that in every case I submitted the names and addresses of the parties from whom I received the information, and that these included ministers of the Gospel and merchants of standing, as well as other persons whose sympathies would naturally be on the side of the police and against that of the workmen. Many of these statements were further affirmed on oath before a magistrate. Against these we have the anonymous communications of persons whose names have not been divulged, and when we are told to accept them as a complete exoneration of the police in regard to the charges made against them I feel certain that the Committee and those for whom I speak will not be inclined to agree to that course.

On the occasion when the question was last before the House, the Home Secretary, while refusing to grant a general inquiry into the conduct of the police, made two very definite offers; and it is to these I desire to draw his attention to-night in order to ask as to the procedure to be adopted if those offers are accepted by those for whom I speak. The Home Secretary, speaking here on 7th February, said that, while he would not grant a general inquiry into the conduct of the police, he was prepared to say that if any case of misconduct was reported against an individual officer, and he was satisfied that primâ facie, evidence was forthcoming, he would have it investigated in the regular order. I want to ask the Home Secretary what is meant by "the regular order," and further, whether this statement is confined to complaints against the Metropolitan Police. The Home Secretary spoke on a former occasion, and the Press outside re-echoed his statement that my charges were made against the Metropolitan Police solely. That never was the case. We complained of the action of the police. We did not specify the Metropolitan Police. We knew there were police present from eight or nine different parts of the country outside the Metropolis, and, therefore, what we asked for was an inquiry not into the charges against the Metropolitan Police, but into the charges made against the police imported into the district. [An HON. MEMBER: "From where?"] The Home Secretary, in reply to a question which I put to him on 16th February, gave the numbers of the imported police as follows:—

Metropolitan … … … 902
Glamorganshire … … … 216
Carmarthenshire … … … 45
Monmouthshire … … … 41
Gloucestershire … … … 26
Breconshire … … … 11
Cardiff City … … … 101
Bristol City … … … 63
Swansea … … … 43
Merthyr Tydvil … … … 31
Newport … … … 20
[An HON. MEMBER: "Which Newport?"] If the hon. Member will listen, and not interrupt, he will learn. I desire to ask whether in this inquiry the investigation is to be confined to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force only, or whether investigation is to be made in regard to the conduct of any police constable against whom a charge was laid? [HON. MEMBERS: "What inquiry?"] In reply to the hon. Members opposite, I am not here to play the game of obstruction. I am making a plain statement, and if hon. Members would not talk but would listen they would not ask "what inquiry." I have read a promise made by the Home Secretary, and my voice will, I think, carry through the House. The Home Secretary promised to make an inquiry into the charges made against the police in connection with the disturbances, and the point I am now putting to him is this, whether the inquiry will be confined to charges made against the Metropolitan Police, or whether it will be extended so as to include charges made against any other police. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree with me that during a dark night when a number of people are attacked it is difficult for them to distinguish between one kind of policeman and another—between the Metropolitan and Glamorgan Police—and if this inquiry is to be of any value it must be extended so as to include charges against police no matter from what quarter of the country they have been drawn. The second promise made by the Home Secretary on that occasion was:— If it can be shown that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police—I am only responsible for them, I make no charge against the others; I am only responsible for them directly—if it can be shown that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police, or attacked by them when separated by a reasonable distance from the scene of the riots, or that any child—for I understand that is one of the charges—has been injured wantonly and deliberately, if I see any credible evidence of that, and I shall wait to see that it is forthcoming, the case shall be thoroughly inquired into and justice shall be done to the injured parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1911. cols. 239–240.] Here, again, I want to press the point as to whether inquiry is only to be made when the person alleged to have committed the injury was a member of the Metropolitan Police. The Home Secretary's argument is that he is not responsible for police other than those of the Metropolitan force, and if inquiry is to be made in regard to other policemen then it should be made by the police authority from whose area the particular person had been sent. Here again I point out the difficulty of carrying through this inquiry. A person is injured, whether by a Metropolitan policeman or a Bristol policeman, or any other officer, and they are unable to see, and the Home Secretary, as a preliminary condition of an inquiry into the case, wants that person to make a direct charge against a Member of the Metropolitan Police Force. Under the circumstances that may be an impossibility. The injuries sustained may be very grave and very real, without the injured party being able to identify the particular policeman who caused injury. As I understand the offer of the Home Secretary, it is that in the case of a person who has received an injury, who has not taken part in the riot or distrbance, that case is to be investigated so that justice may be done to the injured policeman, and surely the injured person has the same claim to justice, whether the injury was inflicted by a Cardiff policeman as he would have had had it been a town person. I ask therefore that the scope of the inquiry be extended so that if any person is able to show that he had received injuries under circumstances and conditions which precluded the possibility of his having been engaged in riotous proceedings this case will be inquired into irrespective of the particular force to which the constable belonged who inflicted the injury.

One point more in this connection. If this inquiry is to be of any use at all, if it is not to be a sham inquiry, and I am quite sure that the Home Secretary does not wish that it should, two conditions are essential to make it real. First of all, the inquiry must be held on the spot, and, secondly, the person making the complaint must be allowed to be represented by counsel. The bulk of these people are working colliers, some are children and some are women. If all the Home Secretary means is that these people are to send in their claims or charges to him, and he is to hand them over to the Commissioner of Police, who is then to conduct the inquiry after his own fashion and without the person laying the accusation being represented, I shall advise the people to refuse to have anything to do with this form of inquiry. It will be no inquiry at all. I desire the Home Secretary to say whether the inquiry into the conduct of the police where a definite charge is made against a constable is to apply to others than Metropolitan men, and, secondly, whether, when a person has been injured and is not bringing a special case against the police but is claiming to have an injury inquired into, the Home Secretary will not confine the inquiry to cases where the injuries were alleged to have been caused by Metropolitan men but to all cases in which injury can be shown to have been inflicted under circumstances which preclude the very possibility of the injured person having taken part in any riotous proceedings. The charges are that picketers were selected for attack, that children and women were attacked, that houses were broken into, that people coming out from the theatre were attacked, and that people who had been away the whole day from the neighbourhood and returned to their homes in the evening were attacked. If the Home Secretary will agree to have the inquiry conducted on the lines I have suggested—not a general inquiry into the conduct of the police as a whole, but an inquiry into definite cases specifically laid before him—I will advise the people for whom I speak to accept that for the present, because we know that the evidence at our hand, both of individuals themselves who were injured and of those who saw the injuries inflicted, should be able to prove conclusively that the action of the police went far beyond anything the law allows, was unnecessary, and had undue violence attached to it, and that as all these things constitute a menace to the peace of the community they constitute a case for inquiry. We do not ask the inquiry to be on general lines, but to be confined to these specific instances. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to grant the inquiry.

Mr. WALTER M'LAREN

I beg to second the Amendment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)

When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) began his speech I thought he was about to commend the police for their services in South Wales. He told us that he approves of the grant of £15,000 for the special occasion the House is now asked to vote this sum. He told us, also, that he was anxious that this grant should be extended to the police from other districts surrounding the Rhondda Valley—the Bristol and Carmarthenshire Police—who came to give their aid, as well as being paid to the Metropolitan Police. So far so good. I was prepared to say, in answer to that, that the Imperial Government is only responsible in this matter for the movement of the Metropolitan Police who were sent into the district to cope with a grave condition of public disorder under a special act of State policy, and for whose movement some share should be borne by the central Government, as by the employment of the Metropolitan Police we were avoiding the employment of military.

Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON

Did the local authorities ask for Metropolitan Police?

Mr. CHURCHILL

The local authorities asked for soldiers, and as it was thought that infantry soldiers brought in a hurry into the district might be brought into collision with the people by the firing of muskets from the crowd, the police were sent instead. But we are not responsible in any direct sense for the employment of police from other districts, and I have certainly no intention whatever of proposing any charge on the funds of the general taxpayers in respect of them. Any question of their extra remuneration would be a very proper one to address to the Glamorganshire County Council or to the standing joint committee, but it is a matter upon which the Government will not make any proposal to the House of Commons. As soon as the hon. Gentleman left that subject it was clear that his object was not to procure for these Carmarthenshire, Cardiff and Bristol Police extra grants to reward them, or recompense them for their special services, but that it was to have special facilities for bringing charges against them. He said that they had attacked pickets, women, and children, people coming out of the theatre, and people in their homes; that they had gone far beyond the law, and been guilty of acts of undue violence, and had been a menace to the keeping of the peace. And yet, while he has preferred these grave charges against them, he claims to clothe his proceedings with a certain veil of popularity, by beginning with an approval of the extra grants to the police, and by desiring to extend those grants to the police from other districts. As far as I am concerned, I shall adhere strictly to the promise I made in the Debate on the Address. I then said:— First, that if any case of misconduct is reported against an individual officer, and I am satisfied that prima facie evidence is forthcoming, I will have it investigated in the regular order. Secondly, if it can be shown prima facie that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police—I am only responsible for them, I make no charge against the others; I am only responsible for them directly—if it can be shown that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police, or attacked by them when separated by a reasonable distance from the scene of the riots, or that any child—for I understand that is one of the charges—has been injured wantonly and deliberately, if I see any credible evidence of that, and I shall wait to see that it is forthcoming, the case shall be thoroughly inquired into and justice shall be done to the injured parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1911, cols. 239–240.] I stand by that. That was a month ago. When the subject was first brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in the last Parliament, nearly four months ago, he announced his intention of seeking a remedy in the Law Courts. Four months have passed and the Courts are silent so far.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

May I remind the Home Secretary that I informed him that the case had been twice before the courts and had been thrown out for various reasons, and it is most unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat a statement which he Knows is not true, namely, that it has not been before the courts.

Mr. CHURCHILL

But the courts are silent in any sense which the hon. Gentleman would desire. It is true that certain matters have been brought before the Courts, but as he very truly says they have been dismissed by the Courts for various reasons. Many cases are dismissed by Courts for various reasons, and among the various reasons no reason more frequently appears than insufficient evidence or absence of proof. But a month ago the hon. Gentleman agreed by implication to furnish me with specific facts of cases against particular officers of the Metropolitan Police, or of persons who with any fair show of evidence, could establish that they had been batoned in their houses, or of children being attacked by the Metropolitan Police. There were a great many Metropolitan Police on the spot. They were very much in evidence throughout these proceedings. There were more Metropolitan Police than any others. A month has passed and not a single fact has been placed at my disposal by the hon. Gentleman. And now he comes forward and says not only has he not done it in the past, but he is not going to do it in the future unless I will promise two things. He is not going to bring any of these charges to the test of a precise inquiry in future unless I will promise first of all that the inquiry shall be made on the spot, and secondly that the persons coming forward to complain shall be represented by counsel. I am not prepared to make any promise of that kind at all to-night. If it is shown in the facts brought forward that it would be of advantage and that the truth would be reached better by further inquiries on the spot, that, of course, will not be excluded. If any case is brought where the police have misbehaved, I will have it searched to the very bottom, if it appear to be brought on good evidence. Similarly, if a case arises of great complexity, which requires long and elaborate investigation, I would not be at all prepared to say that in no case should counsel be allowed to appear. If it could be shown to the Government that the parties complaining were really at a disadvantage in relation to the facts of the specific case, because they could not express themselves clearly or bring their case fully forward, I agree it would be wrong to prevent them from making the best statement they could. But it is much too early to make that when no reply or response has been made to my invitation. The hon. Member has brought no satisfactory facts to the notice of the Home Secretary any more than he brought satisfactory facts to the notice of the Courts. I think I have answered all the questions. The inquiry will be made in the manner provided by the Statute by the Commissioner of Police, and he will take all the steps he considers necessary to elicit the truth, but as a condition antecedent it rests with those for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks, a very small section, I believe, of the inhabitants of the Rhondda Valley.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Wait and see.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not think we will have to wait and see. Many of these matters were brought forward at the election, and the result of that election was that the hon. Member is junior member for Merthyr Tydvil. The inquiry, so far as the Government is concerned, will be limited to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police entirely, and any charges that the hon. Gentleman has to make against the Cardiff police, the Bristol police, and the Carmarthen police—I have no doubt he is prepared to make against them those charges—if he prefers them before the Joint Committee of the Glamorgan County Council or the Standing Joint Committee—it is for that body to take the first stages with regard to redress for injuries caused by any action which they have taken. I conclude by awaiting from the hon. Gentleman the authentic facts, on which I shall be perfectly ready to make inquiry.

Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON

I need hardly say that I am not in sympathy with the Motion which has been made by the Member for Merthyr Tydvil. No evidence whatever has been produced here which has satisfied me in any way, and a great deal of evidence would be required to satisfy me that the Metropolitan Police behaved in any other way than they should and do always behave in circumstances of this kind. But I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question. I do not wish to dogmatise upon this matter at all. The point of view from which I wish to approach it is as to whether the Home Secretary was justified in sending the Metropolitan Police there at all in place of the soldiers. As I understand the matter a requisition was made by the police authorities of the district to the War Secretary, who was convinced on the representations they made that the presence of soldiers was necessary. I think, for my part, so far as I can judge, that that was established afterwards. I do not wish to argue that point now, or to dwell upon it. I merely state, so far as I have been able to ascertain the facts, that the absence of the military on this occasion was a misfortune, and that a great deal of destruction of property was caused, and a great many injuries inflicted which would have been avoided if the military had been sent.

The question I wish to ask is by what authority the Home Secretary sent the Metropolitan Police to the place at all. The general rule, and I think the obvious rule of common sense, is that the local authority should be the persons to deal with disturbances, and, if I am right, if they are unable to deal with local disturbances, they should then call upon the police or the military, as they think fit, to aid them in the duty of enforcing law and order. I think that is the general position. I wish, in the first place, to express my strong opinion that it is most undesirable for the Home Office, who cannot know as much of the conditions of the locality as the local authority themselves, and cannot possibly know with the same accuracy the degree of danger in which the local community is situated. I wish to protest against the Home Secretary arrogating to himself the right of saying to the local authority, "I think police will be satisfactory to deal with this instead of military." I do not think that is a position which ought to be taken up except in the most extreme cases. No such case has, I think, been proved here. I would ask the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary what powers they considered they were acting under when they sent the Metropolitan Police, displacing the authority of the Secretary for War and the local authorities, one of whom had asked for the military and the other of whom had sent for them. As I understand, the authority for drafting police from one area into another is Section (25) of the Police Act of 1890. That Section enacts:—"Where a police authority deem it expedient for any special emergency, or under any exceptional circumstances to strengthen their police force by constables belonging to another police force such number of constables belonging to the latter force may be added to the aided force, and for such period as may be agreed upon between the police authorities of the forces.…." When the Home Secretary was speaking, I asked him, and he was good enough to answer that the local authority did not ask for police, they asked for military. By what authority did the Home Secretary, who has jurisdiction only over the Metropolitan Police, draft this large body of Metropolitan Police contrary to the wish of the local authority, who did not requisition for police. I think the matter is an important one, because, primâ facie, I think every Member of the House will feel that, say if a riot or disturbance arises, it may be in the north or west of England, hundreds of miles away, if the matter is one of extreme emergency, if it is one in which real danger is apprehended, the local authority, I think, in the opinion of every candid man, would be the best judge of what degree of force is necessary to resist it. I think that is the common-sense of the matter. When the police authority ask the police authority of a different area then and then only have they power to accede to the request. They did not ask for police; they asked for military. I ask again by what authority the Home Secretary sent Metropolitan police at all?

Mr. CHURCHILL

It is a very great pity that the right hon. Gentleman was not present in the Debate upon the Address, when the whole of this matter was gone into, and I had an opportunity of explaining at great length my action to the House. I thought at the time it was a very extraordinary thing that, after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, had taken up no less than twenty minutes of his opening speech of the Session in criticising the action of the Home Office, and when that very evening or the next this matter came up for discussion after regular notice, and everyone knew that it was coming on, no attempt was made on those benches—I commented on it at the time—to justify the serious attack which had been made from that quarter on the administration of the Home Office at this critical time—which attack, I may remind the House, is the exact opposite of that delivered upon us by the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). If the right hon. Gentleman had been present on that occasion, he would have known that so far from my having overruled the Secretary of State for War, we acted in complete concurrence with regard to preventing the movement of the military. As a matter of fact, it was my right hon. Friend who first actually arrested the movement of troops. Then he came over to me, and we discussed the matter together, and decided definitely—as a matter of public policy—to send Metropolitan Police instead.

That the local authority is the best judge of the need of the case in the great majority of instances I fully agree. But in these days it is possible to communicate very speedily with the local authority on the spot, and I am not at all prepared to say, as apparently the right hon. Gentleman says, that every local authority in any circumstances may draw a blank cheque on the whole resources of the British Army, horse, foot and artillery, at unlimited expense. [Opposition laughter.] That really is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman—that any local authority has the right to say whether troops should be sent, and how many. I am not at all prepared to say that. It is a much more serious and complicated question than that. When you get these grave labour disputes you must try to judge the merits of the case, and to deal with the facts and the circumstances of each particular instance. Hon. Members opposite laughed when I mentioned artillery. But I remember in another dispute that occurred in South Wales earlier last year a demand for artillery being made by various excited persons. I am not at all prepared to say that the local authority's demand for troops must in all cases be met. Certainly not. In this case, communication with the Chief Constable being easy, I got on the telephone and told him that instead of sending him infantry we proposed to send a force of Metropolitan Police, which was stronger from every point of view, and far more effective for the purpose than the soldiers who would have been sent. He concurred fully in the substitution of the-police for the military—to such an extent that he actually signed the requisition on behalf of the county of Glamorgan, agreeing to pay the extra expense as prescribed for the employment of the Metropolitan Police.

So far as the general question is concerned of whether there is any authority to stop the movement of troops, there is no doubt whatever that the Secretary of State for War, acting in the name of his Majesty's Government, has full authority to stop the movement of soldiers. If it could be shown that thereby—I am not a lawyer, and I speak with great respect on the point—loss of life or a breach of the peace was occasioned, I agree that ultimately it would be a matter for Parliament to decide on the specific case whether the Minister was justified or not. There can be no doubt whatever about the legal authority to prevent the movement of troops at a time when a local body may have sent for them. It is obviously essential that for the good government of the country that such authority should exist, and, when necessary, be exerted.

Mr. RAWLINSON

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the very effect that he has indicated here occurred owing to the unfortunate action of the Home Office—namely, serious breaches of the peace and serious injury to property? On the Monday there were serious disturbances in connection with this dispute. These disturbances went on till two o'clock on the Tuesday morning. On the evening of Monday the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire telegraphed for 200 Cavalry and two companies of Infantry. The right hon. Gentleman doubts whether he had the-right to do that. The Prime Minister, at the Guildhall—

Mr. CHURCHILL

I never doubted it at all.

Mr. RAWLINSON

The Prime Minister at the Guildhall emphasised very carefully that it was for every local authority to determine whether or not the military should be called out, and he said that His Majesty's Government would not interfere with that discretion. The Chief Constable telegraphed for the troops on the Monday night. On the Tuesday morning, at seven o'clock, the troops left Tidworth and got as far as Marlborough. They would have been at Cardiff by about twelve o'clock and upon the scene of the disturbance by a little after one o'clock. They were stopped at Marlborough, and after they had been some time in the train were sent on to Swindon. Then by a most unfortunate, and by what I believe to be an absolutely unprecedented action on the part of the Home Office, they were detrained about eleven o'clock. They stood there till 5 p.m., when the Home Office, having changed its mind, the Cavalry were again ordered to embark in the train, valuable hours having in the meantime been lost. They thus did not get to their destination till late at night. What had occurred? The rioting on the Monday had occurred at night. The state of affairs was not, of course, so serious during the daytime on the Tuesday; but everyone who knew the locality knew that the serious rioting would begin after dark, for Monday's rioting had been at its worst at night. Tuesday night came. If the Home Office had not stopped the troops they would have been on the spot. I do not think it is unfair to infer that no further rioting or damage would have occurred had they been there, because as soon as the troops arrived the rioting ceased.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The rioting ceased when the Metropolitan Police arrived.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I will deal with the Metropolitan Police. I am not forgetting them. I say that when the military arrived the rioting ceased. But I will make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the Metropolitan Police, and say, when the reinforcements arrived. My point is that the reinforcements, whether military or police, would have arrived but for the Home Office at one o'clock in the day, instead of not arriving until nine or ten o'clock at night. The riot broke out directly it was dark. The description is given in "The Times" of the 9th November, and there was a scene of absolute anarchy, quite apart from the question of the merits of the strike, when you had a lot of young men out of control, and injury was done to property and to the local police and to the strikers themselves. That was during the interval on Tuesday evening, 8th November, when the chief damage was done. The injury done was done between four o'clock on Tuesday evening and the time of the arrival of the reinforcements—I care not whether the cavalry or the Metropolitan Police—which did not arrive until nine o'clock at night. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the Chief Constable concurred on the telephone. When did the Chief Constable concur? When were the first body of Metropolitan Police sent from London? Not until five o'clock in the afternoon, and therefore they could not get to Cardiff until a very much later hour—until half-past eight—when the riot was in full force in the district. I venture-to submit that the Home Office acted without precedent. The troops were called for by the local authorities, and were on their way to suppress the riot; they were stopped by the action of the Home Office-or the War Office, while literally en route. They were detained and kept at Swindon for many valuable hours. Subsequently the Home Office changed their mind, and at ten o'clock ordered the 18th Hussars—

Mr. CHURCHILL

No; I did not change my mind at all. I explained very fully the whole of this in the House on the Debate on the Address. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read that speech—he was not in the House at the time—and the extract from the telegram he will see how very unjust these charges are—

Mr. RAWLINSON

[An HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw."] The hon. Member asks me to withdraw. I am not sure what it is he wants me to withdraw. If necessary, I will say at once, in regard to the expression, "change of mind," it may be the right hon. Gentleman did not apply his mind to this particular point, and that it was the War Office. I am stating the facts, which are not in the least contrary to anything the right hon. Gentleman said in the Debate on the Address, namely, that the 18th Hussars were kept at Swindon, and by orders from someone in London were ordered to get on the train again. When I say "change of mind," I do not care who was responsible; it was some Member of the Government gave the order by which valuable time was lost. This is the first opportunity we have had of putting our protest into anything like practical force, because this is the Vote for the cost of bringing the Metropolitan police down, and this is the first opportunity of moving a reduction of that Vote. Why were the troops stopped in this way? Apparently it was done because the Home Secretary sent this most extraordinary telegram to the Chief Constable, who asked for assistance:— You may give the miners the following message from me. Their best friends here— I should like to hear further and fuller particulars of their best friends:— Their best friends here are greatly distressed at the-trouble which has broken out, and will do their best to help them to get fair treatment. Askwith, Board of Trade, wishes to see Mr. Walter Morgan with six or eight local representatives at Board of Trade to-morrow, two o'clock. 11.0 P.M.

Read by the side of the riot, that is almost humorous. [An HON MEMBER: "Oh!"] I think if the hon. Member who interrupts me had been there he would have thought it was a serious matter. The police were fighting against odds all through the night, and had the bon. Member been there he would have sung a very different song in that position. The telegram proceeded:— The riot must cease at once so that the inquiry shall not be prejudiced. What inquiry? We are holding back the soldiers for the present and sending police instead. Nobody who had had the slightest experience of dealing with men fighting and rioting for a night, and naturally very excited, would have believed for one moment that it was a wise thing to tell them, after they had been been expecting the military from hour to hour, that they were holding back the military which the local authorities had asked for.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that I sent that telegram in reply to a telegram from the Chief Constable, who asked for a message to give them, and he had every hope that that statement would have the effect of inducing the men to discontinue rioting. The telegram was sent to the Chief Constable for use in an emergency if he considered it desirable.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for supplementing my information. The only information which I have had was that which came from the Home Office to the Press. There was not a word in that communication from the Home Office saying that that telegram was sent merely to be used in case of emergency, or saying that it was a telegram sent in reply to a message from the Chief Constable. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this same Chief Constable telegraphed for a regiment of cavalry and two regiments of infantry. I strongly submit that it is most undesirable that the Home Office here, when you are dealing with questions of life and limb, and with breaches of the peace, that the Government, who are liable to be swayed by political considerations, should interfere with the question of keeping law and order in any locality, which I submit not only the Prime Minister in his speech, but every lawyer acquainted with constitutional law have always held to be the real province of the people of the locality in which the riot occurs. I agree with the Motion for a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the delay in detraining the troops and not getting the reinforcements there until nine o'clock at night was the cause of a considerable breach of the peace, attended by much damage to property.

Mr. W. F. ROCH

I confess I am rather disappointed that the Home Secretary has not seen his way to grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police in this matter. Apart from the local facts which have been brought to his notice by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), there are general reasons why an inquiry is desirable. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that his action in sending the Metropolitan Police to deal with a dispute of this kind in place of the military was an innovation and a precedent, and that he was laying down a course which he hoped would be followed in similar cases. I do think, therefore, that on broad general grounds there is every reason for the fullest inquiry into the whole of the circumstances, so that the policy which was thus inaugurated might be inquired into, and we might ascertain whether that course should be followed again. There are one or two points on the special facts of the case to which I wish to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend, laid stress on the fact that no evidence had been brought forward in individual cases. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest for a moment that evidence would be procurable in the case of strangers dressed in similar uniform going, as is alleged, into houses and committing assaults, to identify a particular policeman? It would be an impossibility in the majority of these cases to obtain evidence of identity of one single policeman. I think, if it is stated positively that there are men prepared to come forward and say assaults were committed, even although they cannot identify the particular chief constable, that is a matter into which there should be the fullest inquiry. I do not for a moment say there should be any particular charge made against the police as a body, but it is not a wise thing, in the interests of the nation, to say one class of men, even so fine a body as the Metropolitan Police, are to be deemed beyond suspicion or inquiry. For that to be laid down by no less a person than the late Colonial Secretary (Mr. Lyttelton), who said he was almost ready to assume that no such thing had been done by so fine a body—

Mr. LYTTELTON

I said, "in the absence of any sufficient evidence to the contrary."

Mr. ROCH

I venture to say it is dangerous to start with the assumption that it is impossible for them to act in such a way. It was suggested to my hon. Friend (Mr. Keir Hardie) that he was still the junior Member for Merthyr, but I think every representative of industrial Wales, with one exception, whether junior or senior Member for their division, are supporting an inquiry, and I believe every one of them stated so publicly on platforms during the election. I do not wish to make any general charge against the police; all I am asking for is an inquiry that the facts should be sifted locally. The right hon. Gentleman, in granting an inquiry, would make no reflection on the police. If it were proved these cases had no foundation, the police would come out stronger than ever; and if, on the other hand, these cases were proved, there would be no general charge against the police, but it would be a caution to those who had acted somewhat roughly to act differently in future. There is one thing, an inquiry will do better than anything else. There is no doubt in industrial Wales a feeling of bitterness which will last many months as regards what has happened in the Rhondda Valley. That is a bitterness which has taken months to wipe out—it may be years—but it is a bitterness which it lies in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to refute. While he may not be able to remove the bitterness which has arisen owing to the general conduct that has taken place it is open to him by granting an inquiry to prevent it spreading, because there are many men who feel most strongly that their good names have been prejudiced by these events.

Mr. BALFOUR

The Home Secretary complained that I had not been present, after making charges against him on the first night of the Address, when he made his defence. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that when a charge is made against a Minister it is desirable that those who make the charge should be present when it is replied to. I was not aware when the right hon. Gentleman would reply, and even if I had been present I had already exhausted my right of speech on the Address, and therefore while I could listen with respectful consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman said I could not have replied to his arguments. But this would appear to be an appropriate occasion to reply. The charge I made against the right hon. Gentleman of which he complained was that he— might have avoided a great many of these deplorable occurrences had he not, at a critical moment, refused to carry out decisively and effectively the measures which he contemplated. Had he not held back the military and not shown some doubt and hesitation at a critical moment, much destruction of property, many unhappy incidents, and many circumstances which all, whatever their opinions, must look upon as a great blot on the procedure of civilised society, might have been wholly avoided. I have read the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and after listening to what he has had to say to-night I reply it is quite true that in the absence of the full information we have since got some of the phrases, but none of the substance require modification. It was complained that he had at a critical moment refused to carry out the measures contemplated. I supposed at the time he and the Government had contemplated sending troops, but that at the critical moment he hesitated. That is precisely what occurred. I gather that a telegram arrived at the Home Office on Tuesday at ten o'clock, stating that troops had already been sent, but the right hon. Gentleman, by telegram, caught the troops at Swindon, thereby preventing the Infantry arriving the same day and the Cavalry on the night of that day. That is actually what occurred, and I ask the House whether it differs in substance from the charge made against the Government that the action of the Government in stopping the soldiers at Swindon was the cause of "the destruction of property and many unhappy incidents and many circumstances …. which all must look upon as a great blot on the procedure of civilised society." Would that not have been prevented had the Government not by telegram prevented the troops at once proceeding to the centre of action as the local authorities desired? There is no answer to that argument in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It is fully answered.

Mr. BALFOUR

I have read the quotation.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Will the right hon. Gentleman read page 232?

Mr. BALFOUR

All that the right hon. Gentleman wishes which I conceive to be relevant.

Mr. CHURCHILL

From the word "Therefore," thirteen lines from the bottom.

Mr. BALFOUR

Certainly. It is as follows:— Therefore, no charge could be made against the Government that adequate forces were not sent to the scene, or that suitable forces were not sent to the scene. On the contrary, the forces sent were larger and more suitable than those which were asked for. I think they were also amply sufficient for the work which they would hare had to do, but unfortunately the special train carrying the Metropolitan Police was not up to time. A small accident delayed it upon the road, and instead of arriving at 8.0 or 8.30 as we expected, it did not arrive till about 10.0. In consequence of that, rioting at Tonypandy occurred before the constituents of Metropolitan Police sent to the aid of the Chief Constable had arrived upon the scene. The Chief Constable, however, with the local police, completely drove the rioters from the colliery which they were attacking, and made his position good. It was only when the rioters were foiled in their attempt to take the colliery that in a perfectly unreasoning fury of resentment, on their way back they smashed the windows and looted some of the shops of their own friends, the little tradesmen who were giving them credit, in the main street of Tonypandy. That is a deplorable incident, I agree. It would not have been prevented if there had been soldiers at the colliery instead of only local police. It might have been prevented if the Metropolitan Police train had arrived at the hour it was expected. It was a deplorable event, but do not let us be led by exaggeration into pretending it was a scene of civil war or a horrible outbreak of barbarism, which in the words of the right hon Gentleman was a blot upon the procedure of civilised society. Writing on 14th November, the Chief Constable said:—'Had it not been for our bad luck on the night of Tuesday the 8th inst., I should have been able to give a more satisfactory report of the present state of affairs than I now can. If the train bringing the 200 Metropolitan Police to Tonypandy had been up to time the strikers would have been met and crushed in Tonypandy (after being defeated by us at the colliery gate), instead of being encouraged by their success in the streets. I cannot speak too highly of the splendid assistance given me by General Macready and all the military and police officers and men sent here. This strike is totally different to any one that I had previously experienced and I could not have done without their advice and assistance.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1911, columns 232–233.] The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that is a complete defence, and nobody will accuse me, at all events, of having doctored the quotation. Is it a defence? Is it not manifest on the face of the long extract with which I have troubled the Committee, that had General Macready, whose services when he did arrive are acknowledged by the Chief Constable so handsomely, arrived before it would have stopped the whole thing? The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, if there had not been what he calls a small accident to the train, and the Metropolitan Police had arrived at eight o'clock, instead of ten, there would not have been any difficulty. That does not bear upon this statement. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary had not kept the soldiers at Swindon they would have arrived there long before eight. The looting was over by eight. The Metropolitan Police were not due to get there till eight. The only people who could get there by eight were the military.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

As a matter of fact, the trouble was not over until an hour after the Metropolitan Police arrived.

Mr. BALFOUR

That is exactly what I am pointing out. The whole point is that the Metropolitan Police arrived too late.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

As a matter of fact, the trouble was quelled by the Metropolitan Police without any loss of life.

Mr. BALFOUR

We are all most grateful for that; but what relevance has it to my argument? The whole of my argument is this: The Chief Constable wanted soldiers. He could have got soldiers long before the looting began on the Tuesday night. He got neither soldiers nor police. He did not get the police, partly because they did not start till four o'clock, and partly because there was an accident. He did not get the soldiers for a quite different reason, and it is that different reason for which we bold the Government responsible. That was not a small accident. It was the deliberate action of the Minister for War and the Home Secretary, who decided that they had much better keep the soldiers at Swindon for four or five hours doing nothing, so that when the Cavalry did arrive on the scene rioting had begun and they were too late to prevent these most regrettable incidents. I cannot see that anything which the Home Secretary has said to-night or on the second night of the Debate touches this question. It seems to me that the whole contention is destroyed by the very extract he read from the Chief Constable, and I should be obliged to the Minister for War if he can justify, in the face of the facts brought before us by the Home Secretary, that fatal delay of four or five hours at Swindon, which was the cause—as far as I can see, the only cause—of all the trouble.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

As one of the representatives from the area affected by this trouble, I desire indiscriminately to protest against the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) on the one side, and hon. Members opposite on the other side, attempting to exploit the miseries and troubles of this dispute for the purpose of making mere party capital. One does not expect much in the way of human wisdom and common sense from a University representative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has not said anything which he can be ordered to withdraw.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

Therefore, following the remark I was making, I was not in the least surprised to hear the observation from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that he thought there was something highly humorous in the humane appeal from the Home Secretary to the leaders of the men that they might have some regard for the respect of their county and some regard for their self-respect, and that they should try to secure good order. The complaint of the junior Member for Merthyr is that the police did things they ought not to have done, and the complaint of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the military were not sent in instantly. Let us assume that the military had been sent in. It is perfectly true that there would have been certain "unhappy incidents avoided," to use the vague, abstract phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It is true also that half of the cemeteries of the Rhondda Valley would have received a great many more occupants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The very fact that hon. Members ask why shows how totally ignorant they are of the facts in connection with this dispute. Personally, I have had some experience of disputes, and I say that I have never found the atmosphere so electric and dangerous as it was at the time the police were sent in. It is perfectly true that the local authorities asked for military. They did not know that they could get Metropolitan police. I challenge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, to get from the local authorities in Glamorganshire a statement that they now regret that the police were sent in instead of the military. It is perfectly true that unhappy incidents would have happened in Tonypandy if the military had got in. I have not the slightest doubt that the riot would have been quelled within the hour in which it was quelled, but instead of the junior Member for Merthyr complaining vaguely of the conduct of the police he would have been attacking the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary for having sent military in and caused the death of hundreds of men.

Speaking from the point of view of the responsible workmen in the district, I desire to say, as the representative of a district vitally affected, that we profoundly appreciate the great wisdom, the toleration, and the common sense exercised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and by those he placed in authority, and that is the view not merely of the general population down there, but it is also the view of the responsible leaders. The junior Member for Merthyr is here professing that he represents some section of opinion. As a matter of fact, he approached the official Strike Committee of the Cambrian strike with the view of getting special information in order that he might state it on the floor of this House, and the official committee declined to meet him or supply him with any information Whatever information he has obtained he has obtained unofficially from isolated members of that committee. A month ago I made a protest in this House against the idea that the times were ripe for an inquiry. I then expressed the hope that the Home Secretary would not at this stage attempt to grant an inquiry. I then reminded the House that the hon. Member for Merthyr had changed his ground. First of all he asked, in the very white heat of passion of the dispute, for an inquiry. He then pleaded for an inquiry on the last occasion because the dispute was nearly at an end. To-night he has entirely changed his ground again. He is afraid that he has been backing the wrong horse, and he is seeking to hedge, and now suggests that if there is to be an inquiry it is to be limited in a perfectly impossible way. I venture to say that the time is not ripe for an inquiry. There are still awkward elements to deal with in that locality, and until every semblance of the dispute has gone I express the profound hope not merely that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not sanction any inquiry at all, but that in the interests of industrial peace not merely the hon. Member for Merthyr, but also right hon. and hon. Members opposite, will not attempt to excite passion by trying to make political capital out of this dispute.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)

Unfortunately not knowing that the Debate was coming on in this form I was not present at the early part, and I heard only the latter portion of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech. I think a word or two of explanation as to the real position is due from me. There was talk of disturbance in this region before Tuesday the 8th of December, but I believe that in point of fact there was no rioting until the month of December. At any rate I knew nothing of it. The first I heard of rioting was comparatively late in the forenoon of the Tuesday, when it was known officially that the local county authorities asked that we should send troops from the Southern Command. Very late on the Monday night, or early on the Tuesday morning, they telegraphed to the Southern Command for troops. Two years ago there was a Select Committee of this House, before which I myself gave evidence, by which the principles that should be adopted were very carefully considered; and the Committee laid it down that, in the first place, it is the duty of the executive Government to preserve law and order, and use all the force necessary, military or police, for that purpose. In the second place, you should not use military if you can use the police, the reason being that the military use a weapon which necessarily employs great violence in cases in which you might not require such great violence. That would depend entirely on your knowledge of the circumstances. In the third place, this was the substantial final conclusion of the Committee, one ought always to inform himself as closely as is consistent with dealing with the matter speedily of the state of things. The military authorities, on the one hand, ought not to wait to get the civil requisition before they act; but, on the other hand, they ought to be so satisfied before they act on their own responsibility that it must be a very clear case. That was very well known to the General Officer Commanding the Southern Command., Accordingly, when he got a telegram asking for military assistance, he telegraphed to the War Office. I heard of this early on the Tuesday morning. He informed us by telegram that he, very properly, in case there might be undue delay, sent forward the troops. In confirming that action I said let the troops wait at Swindon. Had I not given that order it would not have made any difference, because the riots had taken place on Monday night. On the Tuesday morning early I got into communication with the Home Office, and saw my right hon. Friend very early, consulting him as to what measures-were proper. We directed that the troops should be reserved at Swindon, and we sent off police as fast as possible. There was no delay that could have been avoided. The police were sent on, and the troops followed them.

The whole point of this Debate is—ought the troops to have been there earlier on the Monday? [An HON. MEMBER: "On the Tuesday."] On the Monday or the Tuesday—there has been a great deal of dispute about that. The first was on the Monday night, when nobody knew whether it would be right to send troops there. On the Tuesday, judging the circumstances and judging that the police were the proper force to deal with the situation, they were sent off by my right hon. Friend as fast as they could be forwarded, and the troops were delayed. We did not think that the troops should first take charge in this matter, for nobody can tell what might have been the result if the troops had arrived there first. I think it was far better to take the course which was adopted, even though there should have been a certain amount of disorder that could have been checked. At any rate, acting in the spirit of the Report of the Select Committee, which I have not the slightest doubt represents the common law of this country, I did not think it right that troops should be sent before we had seen that they were wanted, or had seen whether the matter could be dealt with by the police. We sent to say that the police were to arrive first, the police being the proper force to deal with the situation. Under these circumstances, I am in complete accord with my right hon. Friend, whom I saw very early on the Tuesday morning. We were in constant communication all that afternoon as to what was to be done, and I maintain that we took what was the wise course in the circumstances. It may be—I cannot tell what might have happened—that, if the troops had arrived first, they might have stopped a certain amount of disturbance which took place on the Tuesday evening, but, on the other hand they might have caused a a great amount of excitement. All I can say is that the local police force were rapidly reinforced from London, and my impression is that in the circumstances, and bearing in mind the nature of those circumstances, it would have been a more unwise course, attended with greater risk, than the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and myself in consultation. These are the facts. We may have made an error of judgment, even in a matter of that kind, but I do not think so, and all I can say is, if I had to do the same thing again I would take the same course; and what has happened since confirms my belief in the action taken.

Mr. CROFT

I am not concerned particularly with the vacillating policy of the Home Secretary nor with the differences of opinion between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. What I do wish to refer to is the action of the Home Secretary in sending a telegram which I think every Member of this House must agree was one of the most ill-advised concoctions which ever went from a Government office.

Mr. JOYCE

Because he is a humane man.

Mr. CROFT

I maintain that the telegram was a biassed telegram, and that the Home Secretary, by his talk of desiring to see fair treatment given to the strikers, was immediately, by those words, taking the part of the strikers and inciting them to prosecute their campaign with violence, when he told them that if they were good he would only send police—a course that is not in the best interests of the peace in these questions. I desire to support the reduction, because we have a double cost, for military and police, owing to the policy of vacillation. The hon. Gentleman told us that in all his experience he had never found the atmosphere so dangerous. Could there be any evidence more strong that the military should have been despatched at the earliest possible moment? He also mentioned that no loss of life took place when the police arrived on the scene. I do not think loss of life is always attached to the presence of the Metropolitan Police, nor is it of necessity connected with the military. It was a case where a strong man was needed to take strong action. All this danger to public property occurred—I know hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite are not concerned in the defence of property—and all this dangerous situation was brought about by the vacillation of the authorities in London. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, had followed his unvetoed instincts he would have allowed the troops to go forward. I think the precedent followed is a very dangerous one. Therefore, I support the reduction of the Vote, and I think the whole course unwise.

Mr. BALFOUR

I need hardly say I do not intend to inflict another speech on the main question, but may I say one word about procedure. The Vote is one for granting a gratuity to the Metropolitan Police. I think, and I believe hon. Members on this side agree in this opinion, that that gratuity ought to be granted. The reduction has been moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) in a speech from which I have already profoundly dissented, and he moved it in order to give emphasis to an opinion with which I profoundly disagree. Under these circumstances a division upon this reduction of £100 is really not a division upon the merits of the Government in the action they took in sending or withholding troops. It is merely on the-question of the reduction of the gratuity. Although I have given some reasons why I think the Government were ill advised, though I grant the circumstances were difficult, I shall certainly not support the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil if he goes to a division.

Mr. T. RICHARDSON

I desire to refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil which has been overlooked in this discussion. The question has been raised as to the policy, wise or otherwise, of having sent the police in. preference to the military down to South; Wales. We on these benches absolutely dissent from the views which have been expressed on the benches opposite upon that question, and to that extent we endorse the policy pursued by the Home Office. But the reply of the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not only unsympathetic, but provocative. We are entitled to ask this House to consider the claims of the injured persons in South Wales. It has been suggested by the Home Secretary and other speakers that there is no weight of evidence behind the complaint that my hon. Friend has voiced in this House. Yet it is now a matter of history that in the heat of that industrial struggle they associated themselves with the claim that has been put forward representatives of the Church and of the public life in that Welsh-valley to protest against the conduct of some at least of the policemen. The hon. Member for East Glamorgan spoke of the responsible view of the workmen. The Executive Committee of the South Wales Miners' Association—who surely represent the official view of the workmen—have through the person of the junior Member for Merthyr, asked the House to enter upon an inquiry, not only to free the miners as an industrial class from the stigma which has been laid upon them, but to do a bare act of justice to defenceless women and innocent children. In addition to that, I remember that in the early days of this Session the right hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley (Mr. William Abraham), whose absence this evening we regret, in a very effective way associated himself with the demand of the miners for an inquiry. I thank the House for its indulgence, but I take the liberty of suggesting that there is a weight of opinion behind the plea put forward this evening which is entitled to the respect of this Committee, and I hope that in due time that inquiry will be held.

Lord HUGH CECIL

This Debate is in one respect a peculiar one. There are two issues involved in the Debate, but only one can be expressed in the division. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has moved what is really a vote of censure on the police.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The vote of censure is on the Home Office for refusing to grant an inquiry into the charges which have been made.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Then the hon. Member ought not to have moved a reduction of this Vote. The Vote is merely for the remuneration of the police, and the only thing properly expressed by a reduction of this Vote would be a vote of censure on the police for their action. For that reason it will be quite impossible for any Member on this side to support the hon. Member's Motion. If the matter is raised when the Home Office Vote is proposed, then, unless there is a better defence than the one we have listened to, I shall be inclined to vote against the Government. You should either not send soldiers at all or you should send them in time to prevent disorder. To send the soldiers merely in order to support the police—to dilute the soldiers, as it were, with the police—seems to me to be a foolish proposition. If you really believe the doctrine that the soldiers had an irritating effect, then it would have been better not to send them. They were better out of the way than that there should be a risk run of loss of life, and so on. Evidently it was the duty of the Government to send whatever would be quickest to save disorder, and so fulfil the request of the local authority.

Mr. WALTER M'LAREN

I intervene in this Debate because for many years I have been a member of the South Wales Conciliation Board, and I am also connected with one of the largest collieries in South Wales. I am convinced that it is a necessary step at the present time to adopt a conciliatory attitude, and to endeavour to smooth over the painful feelings which have been left owing to these riots. I am certain that if the Home Secretary had adopted a more conciliatory attitude, and had consented to the inquiry asked for, it would have brought peace in South Wales. It is perfectly impossible for the injured persons—many of them children, women, and old people—to say right off whether or not their assailant was a Metropolitan policeman, and we do not desire that they should.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Why?

Mr. W. M'LAREN

Because it is impossible. If these poor people had had the presence of mind to take the number of the policemen so much the better. They could give evidence that the assaults did take place if they could have an impartial inquiry on the spot. I am amazed at the refusal of the Home Secretary to give permission to have an inquiry on the spot. He has not said it shall not be: he has reserved his decision. But can these people attend an inquiry anywhere but on the spot? It must be on the spot or nowhere. I am not wanting to justify the riots—they were bad beyond all words—but there has been sufficient injustice, involuntary I dare say, done by the police, to justify the Home Secretary in acceding to our desire for an inquiry. I rejoice that the question has been cleared as between police and military. It would be unfortunate if the two things got mixed up, and I cannot imagine how a Vote for the police could be allowed to be mixed up with one as to whether the military should ever have been called out or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has separated the two and has shown if a division takes place it will be purely upon the question of a demand for an inquiry. Without going further into the details, I only again, as one who wishes conciliation, and whose duty in South Wales has been to promote conciliation between employers and men, appeal to the Committee to vote in favour of this inquiry, but not with a view to censuring the police for one moment. I wish the reduction moved was £1 instead of £100. I would give them their £15,000 with the greatest pleasure, but we are obliged by the rules to move this reduction, not, as I said, for the purpose of censuring the police, but in the interests of peace, harmony, and good feeling in South Wales, where it is desired this inquiry should take place.

12.0 M.

Mr. REMNANT

I do not intend to say anything more in reference to these unhappy events in South "Wales beyond this, that, as a Member for a London constituency, I know pretty well the feelings of the voters of London, and their feeling is one of regret that this unprecedented step should be taken of sending a large body of Metropolitan Police at such a time into South Wales. But, after all, we are discussing a question of finance, and so far as I know nothing whatever has been said about the financial proposals involved in this Vote. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil proposes at the expense of the police to move a vote of censure on the Home Secretary, and I am sure when he realises that he will hesitate to move his Motion. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, if this £15,000 represents the total amount of money paid or to be paid, to the police for their extra services in South Wales, and whether I was not right in understanding him some few weeks ago to say distinctly that the whole of this money which represents the cost of this extra work shall be paid by the county where the police were employed? If not, we have never had any notice that his intention has been changed. If Glamorgan is going to pay, why are we called upon to move a Vote of £15,000 to-day? Does this £15,000 represent all the Supplementary Votes which we are to be asked for during 1910–11 for the extra services of police forces? This is a very special claim for money, and nobody could have foreseen the unhappy incident in South Wales. Therefore this Vote stands out as an exceptional item in that nothing has been asked over the ordinary expenditure. To that extent the Home Office is to be congratulated upon being able to keep within the original estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet told us what is the estimated cost of the Sidney Street battle—

The CHAIRMAN

That has nothing whatever to do with this Vote.

Mr. REMNANT

The words are "The sum now required." I want to know whether included in the amount we are voting there is anything for what occurred in Sidney Street.

The CHAIRMAN

Really, that matter cannot be discussed. Obviously this Vote is for the South Wales strike, and that is the only matter we can discuss.

Mr. REMNANT

We have such a very short time to discuss these Estimates at any time that I thought, Mr. Chairman, you might have allowed me to go a little wide of the mark. I wish to raise another point. As a London ratepayer, representing a London constituency, I am aware that a large part of the cost of the police has to be borne by the ratepayers of London in connection with the Imperial Treasury. If we have to pay the whole £15,000 now instead of Glamorgan it seems to me that the ratepayers of London will have a serious grievance against the Government. Is that so? This is a matter not to be passed over lightly, because it is a very serious one from London's point of view. I should like also to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the rate of pay he gave to these men while they were in South Wales? I have heard from some that they got 7s. a day, and from others that they got less and were hoping for more. I cannot make out whether the money to be paid to these men is to be in addition to their ordinary pay or not. In that case the ordinary pay would fall upon the ratepayers of London.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The financial point which has been raised by the hon. Member can be cleared up in four or five sentences. The £15,000 which is being asked for under this Vote is for extra special allowances which I sanctioned to the Metropolitan Police in consideration of being employed so far from their own sphere and area, and it relates to those special allowances only. In addition to that there is the ordinary charge of their pay and keep while they were in the Rhondda Valley. That charge will come upon the funds of the Glamorganshire County Council. This £15,000 falls on the Imperial Fund. The rest is due from the Glamorganshire County Council, and it was agreed by their Chief Constable that they would bear the ordinary expense of the police while they were in the area. I may add, however, that, although the Glamorganshire County Council have profited by the services of the police for several months, they have announced their intention to resist all demands for payment. No doubt they would rather have had soldiers, because it would not have cost them anything under the very unsatisfactory state of the law as it is at the present time. That will very likely be the subject of legal proceedings. The Law Officers will have to express their opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Law Courts."] The Courts will have to express their opinion when proceedings are taken, but the Law Officers will have to do so before they are commenced. Of course, in the event of it being held that the charge should not be borne by the Glamorganshire County Council, the expense will fall upon the Imperial Government, and in no circumstances on the London rates. On the contrary, so far from the London rates having suffered, as the hon. Gentleman will see, they will actually gain by the fact that a large number of police—one thousand in number—were kept without charge to them for nearly three and a half months, either at the expense of the Imperial Government or of the Glamorganshire County Council.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I would first of all explain, in reply to the point raised by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), why I moved the reduction in this form. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well—nobody better—that under the form in which this Vote is being taken there is no other way than the one I have adopted.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Later, on the Home Office Vote.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The point is that so far as this case is concerned there is no other way. Suppose, by any stretch of the imagination, the Motion I have moved was carried, the police would not suffer. The Government would come down to-morrow night and move the Vote in its old form. It has been done before, and could be done again. This is the only way in which on this occasion our protest can be raised in the Lobby, and I repeat, we do not take this action because we want to deprive the police of any extra pay or reward in connection with their services in South Wales. Those of us who know most of the hardship that the men endured would be the first to admit the need for extra remuneration, and also the extenuating circumstances for outbreaks and loss of temper which undoubtedly took place. As for my authority for having raised this question, I will leave others to make their reply to the hon. Member for East Glamorganshire (Mr. Edwards). My only reply is that the hon. Member for East Glamorgan is not the first reptile of the viper order—

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in calling another hon. Member of this House a reptile?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)

I did not hear the conclusion of the hon. Member's sentence, but I certainly think he was out of order. Such a word must not be used of any hon. Member.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I think, when you come to hear my statement, you will say it was in order. If you rule it out of order I will withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member used the words "reptile of the viper order" in reference to another hon. Member, he must certainly withdraw them.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Certainly, Sir. But I was only endeavouring to use a vivid illustration—the classical illustration of the viper who broke his teeth in trying to bite a file.

The CHAIRMAN

I understand the hon. Member to say he would withdraw anything I objected to.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Yes, Sir, I will do so. May I point out the history of this question, and the reasons why I intend to press the Motion to a Division. Our first demand was for a full inquiry into the charge against the police. That inquiry was refused on the ground that so long as the strike was in progress and so long as feeling remained acute in the district an inquiry could not be granted. When the question again came before the House the strike in my own district had been settled, and there was no disturbance and no trace of ill-feeling left. But still the Home Secretary refused to grant an inquiry because in another part of the Welsh coalfield the strike still continued. Then came the last occasion on which this question was raised. The Home Secretary offered—as I interpreted his words, a modified form of inquiry—i.e., that if charges were made against individual policemen—against Metropolitan policemen—if it were shown that anyone was injured by a Metropolitan policeman those charges should be thoroughly inquired into. I have been hoping that the Home Secretary would have transformed that offer which he undoubtedly made from a sham into a reality in the course of his speech to-night.

In the form in which it was made, the proferred inquiry was simply a mockery. How could a child only eleven years of age be expected to identify a constable by whom an assault had been committed? How could men be expected in the darkness of the night to identify the constables who made an assault on them? The whole thing is an absurdity, and as far as sending in evidence for an inquiry of that nature is concerned I will be no party to it. I will not join in any effort to perpetuate the mockery which that kind of offer, coming from the Home Secretary, really constitutes. What will be the result if some one does send in a case to the Home Secretary? If that case passes the scrutiny which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will apply to it, if it complies with all the conditions that will no doubt be laid down then the Home Secretary will pass it on to some Commissioner of Police, who will examine the matter in secrecy and privacy without the person who makes the charge having anyone in attendance to represent his interests. Very naturally both the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police will approach the investigation of these eases with a predisposition in their minds in favour of the police and against the complainant. It would, I think, be very much better to refuse an inquiry point blank than to have an investigation on such terms—terms which, if accepted, would only help to deceive those whom I represent. These people, I admit, are only colliers and colliers' wives and children. Had they been members of the middle or well-to-do class we should not require to plead for an inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may say "Oh," but everybody knows that the statement I make is true. If their heads had been broken by police, their children had been bludgeoned, will they tell me that they would not have demanded and have received an inquiry into the charges which they made? And what would have been done for them we claim must be done for those for whom we speak, and whom we represent. I shall press this matter to a division, and I am glad that hon. Members are not going to vote with me under false pretences. I am glad that they are not going to take this Motion of mine as a cover for voting against the Government for not sending soldiers instead of police. Those who vote for this Motion should believe that the charges made against the police are of so grave a character that they ought to be inquired into, and those who do not believe that will be doing their duty to themselves and their constituencies by voting for the Government.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

I desire to ask the Home Secretary one question, and it is if he will let me know at what date the Glamorganshire County Council agreed to pay any of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police in Glamorganshire, and if that agreement was in writing, because my information, which I happened to have given me this afternoon in Cardiff, is to the effect that they have refused to pay any of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It is quite true that the Standing Joint Committee of the County Council of Glamorganshire have refused, but it is also true that the Chief Constable, upon whose requisition the police were sent, signed an undertaking on their behalf that the sum in question should be paid. I understand that the Glamorganshire Standing Joint Committee now repudiate the signature of their officer, although they were very glad to avail themselves of the services of the police.

Lord CRICHTON-STUART

I am perfectly aware that to a certain extent the Glamorganshire County Council and the Standing Committee were very glad to avail themselves of the presence of the police, but might I ask on what authority do the Standing Joint Committee still refuse to agree to any payment and refuse to recognise the signature of their Chief Constable, whether there is any rule which can be put into force or any power of going into this question? I do not wish for the same sort of inquiry as the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It is a point of law and a very complicated one which is now engaging the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Lord CRICHTON-STUART

Will the matter be decided by the Courts?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I have already told the hon. Member that the Law Officers of the Crown are considering the matter. I think it is very probable it will be decided by the Courts.

Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE

I wish to call attention to the very remarkable proposition of the Home Secretary that it is to the advantage of the ratepayers of London that 1,000 of their police should have been withdrawn from the Metropolitan area and sent to South Wales.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Financial advantage from the point of view of expenditure.

Lord A. THYNNE

I should like to understand whether these thousand men are surplus to the requirements of London and the preservation and the security of life and property in London. The ratepayers of London are called upon to bear a very substantial proportion of the cost both of the maintenance, the equipment, and the training of the Metropolitan Police. Are we to understand that it is possible to withdraw 1,000 men from this force without impairing the security of property and of person in London? Did it not involve any extra duties upon the force remaining in London, or are the ratepayers being called upon to contribute towards a standing reserve of police which is surplus to the municipal requirements of London, and which are maintained by the Home Office as a reserve for employment in place of the military in cases in which the South Wales miners get beyond their control?

Mr. LANSBURY

I wish to say two or three words, mainly because of the kind of attack which has been made on the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie). I think the attack made by the Home Secretary is quite unworthy of the dignity of a Cabinet Minister. It is not the business of a Cabinet Minister to accuse an hon. Member of popularity hunting. It must have been a fellow feeling, because if there is one Member of the House who is an adept at that kind of business it is the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot help but think that his attitude of mind towards this question has been affected by his inability to see anything good in what the hon. Member might bring forward, because it is inaccurate to state that this is a case that is trumped up by the hon. Member. If there was anything in the very emphatic speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Clement Edwards) it was that the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) was in a very unworthy kind of manner exploiting the sufferings of the poor. A statement like that is beneath contempt. It is amply disproved by the statements of the hon. Member for Crewe and the hon Member for Pembrokeshire, and by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. William Abraham, Glamorgan, Rhondda) begged for an inquiry. To vituperate my hon. Friend in this fashion is beneath contempt. It is, however, perfectly true that if this were a case of middle class people there is not one who would not be demanding an inquiry.

I would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University to the fact that his friends in this House demanded, an inquiry into the case of one woman who was arrested some years ago in a street in London. The lady was called Madame D'Angely. That showed how careful they are to vindicate one who may belong to their own class. We are now discussing something that happened under very different circumstances. No one denies that at this place in South Wales there was considerable disturbance, but I would remind hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members from Ireland that under similar circumstances in Ireland the kind of speech which was made by the Home Secretary to-night might have been made by the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) who might have been the culprit. My mind goes back to the palmy days of Mitchelstown and many other incidents in the Irish campaign when the whole of the Liberal party were demanding that inquiries should be held into circumstances similar to those in regard to which we are asking inquiry to-night. I am too old a Londoner, and I have had too much experience of the London police, to be quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. When you organise a few score of unemployed demonstrations you come into contact with the London police. I am very proud to say that my connection with them has always been of a very peaceable nature, but when policemen are sent down into a strange place which is in a very disorderly condition I think it is quite reasonable to expect some things to happen which all of us would deplore. If in these circumstances the Home Secretary and the Government take up the attitude that we are not to have any inquiry, they are going behind the principles which I learned as to Liberalism during the period of the Home Rule agitation.

I ask Nationalist Members to support us on this occasion. After all, a Welsh collier is of as much value as an Irish peasant, and a Welsh child is of as much value as an Irish child. On many occasions we stood by Irishmen when they asked that inquiries should be held into similar circumstances. We do not, ask that anyone should be blamed or punished, but we ask that an investigation shall be made so that in future the same sort of thing may not happen in Wales or elsewhere. But I want to protest, before I sit down, against the bloodthirsty sort of doctrine enunciated on the other side. It seems to me their only regret is that soldiers did not go down, and that the Home Secretary did not tell them, as was told to other men on a memorable occasion, "Don't hesitate to shoot." I at least am very glad that policemen were there instead of soldiers. But that does not mean that everything passed off as it ought to, and that there is no need for an inquiry, and I hope that the Nationalist Members, and the Radical Members too, will support us in the Lobby in the demand, not for censure on anyone, but for an inquiry as to what everyone admits is a very unhappy state of affairs.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

Not a soul has said a word about the Exchequer. I have no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or the Secretary for War for what they did. They did their best, no doubt, in the circumstances. But what I would like to emphasise is that the Exchequer is going to be charged £15,000 for this riot, and I think it will amount to considerably more if Glamorgan repudiates its obligations. If every riot is going to cost the Exchequer £15,000 or more, I say that, although entirely approving of what the right hon. Gentlemen did, they should hesitate again before sending the Metropolitan Police so far away. After all, the counties ought to settle their own affairs, and I am rather for economy of the public

purse and I am going to vote against any inquiry. Reference has been made to a previous police inquiry which cost thousands of pounds, and what came out of it? We are now asked for an inquiry of which nothing is to come, and as a result of which no one is to be censured. I object entirely to such inquiry. It would mean a great deal of cost and trouble. As the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury) has said, if you go into a riot you must expect broken heads. I do not believe for a moment that any policeman would willingly do any injury, and if an inquiry is going to be for this purpose alone I object to it on account of the expense. We are putting on the public exchequer thousands and thousands of pounds expense at every turn. I object to it entirely and should be glad if the lesson drawn from it is that the Home Secretary and the Minister of War will be careful never again to send police so far away on such an errand.

Mr. CROFT

I wish to ask the Home Secretary one question. When the Metropolitan Police were sent to South Wales was there not any increased charge for pay for the increased service of the Metropolitan Police left in London? I also wish to say, as the junior Member for Merthyr has suggested, that anybody who supports the reduction of the Vote was voting for an inquiry, that, as I would have moved a reduction of the Vote on other grounds, I am going to vote in the Lobby for a totally different purpose, as a protest against the action of the Home Secretary on that occasion, and not in any way at the dictation of the junior Member for Merthyr.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 238.

Division No. 37.] AYES. [12.38 a.m.
Adamson, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Bowerman, C. W. Hudson, Walter Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Jowett, F. W. Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Lansbury, George Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Croft, H. P. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Martin, J.
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Money, L. G. Chiozza TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. W. M'Laren.
Gill, A. H. O'Grady, James
Goldstone, Frank Parker, James (Halifax)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Ainsworth, John Stirling Baird, J. L.
Acland, Francis Dyke Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)
Addison, Dr. C. Ashley, Wilfrid W. Baring, Captain Hon. G.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Barnston, H.
Agnew, Sir George William Astor, Waldorf Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Pirie, Duncan V.
Beale, W. P. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Beauchamp, Edward Haworth, Arthur A. Power, Patrick Joseph
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hayden, John Patrick Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Hayward, Evan Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Bigland, Alfred Henry, Sir Charles S. Pringle, William M. R.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Higham, John Sharp Quilter, William Eley C.
Booth, Frederick Handel Hinds, John Radford, G. H.
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Boyton, James Holt, Richard Durning Rawson, Col. R. H.
Brady, P. J. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Reddy, Michael
Brunner, J. F. L. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Burke, E. Haviland- Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Burn, Col. C. R. Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) Remnant, James Farquharson
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Joyce, Michael Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan
Byles, William Pollard Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Carlile, E. Hildred Kellaway, Frederick George Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Castlereagh, viscount Kilbride, Denis Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) King, J. (Somerset, N.) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) Robinson, Sydney
Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Chancellor, Henry G. Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Leach, Charles Rowlands, James
Clay, Captain H. Spender Levy, Sir Maurice Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Clive, Percy Archer Lewis, John Herbert Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Clough, William Lewisham, Viscount Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Corbett, A. Cameron Lundon, T. Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) Sheehy, David
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Maclean, Donald Shortt, Edward
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Crumley, Patrick M'Curdy, C. A. Soares, Ernest J.
Dairymple, Viscount McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Spear, John Ward
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) Stanier, Beville
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) M'Micking, Major Gilbert Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Dawes, J. A. Maitland, A. D. Steel- Summers, James Woolley
Delany, William Malcolm, Ian Sutherland, J. E.
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness) Marshall, Arthur Harold Talbot, Lord E.
Doris, W. Mason, David M. (Coventry) Tennant, Harold John
Duffy, William J. Masterman, C. F. G. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) Mathias, Richard Thynne, Lord A.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Meagher, Michael Touche, George Alexander
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Toulmin, George
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Molloy, M. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Essex, Richard Walter Mooney, John J. Verney, Sir Harry
Esslemont, George Birnie Morgan, George Hay Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Farrell, James Patrick Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro Munro, R. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Ffrench, Peter Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. Waring, Walter
Fitzgibbon, John Meilson, Francis Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Flavin, Michael Joseph Newton, Harry Kottingham Webb, H.
Fleming, Valentine Nolan, Joseph White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Forster, Henry William Norman, Sir Henry White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Foster, Philip Staveley O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Furness, Stephen O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Whyte, A. F.
Gastrell, Major W. H. O'Doherty, Philip Wiles, Thomas
Gilmour, Captain John O'Dowd, John Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Goldsmith, Frank O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Malley, William Winfrey, Richard
Grant, J. A. O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Greene, W. R. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) O'Sullivan, Timothy Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Young, William (Perth, East)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Younger, George
Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Harmsworth, R. L. Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee to sit again this day.

And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned at Thirteen minutes before One a.m. Tuesday, 7th March.