§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I think the Home Secretary might have given the House some explanation why there is such a desperate hurry to get this Bill on the Statute Book. Between the earlier and later stages of the Bill a whole fortnight was allowed to elapse without anything having been done. To-day, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the general expectation was that the Soudan Grant would take priority over other business, and it was therefore a matter of surprise to find this Bill had premier place. I presume the Bill is intended to be retrospective, and that it is to be made applicable to prisoners now undergoing sentence. 393 If that be so, it probably explains the hurry of the Home Office to get the Bill through. There are one or two prisoners who are still on hunger strike and are being subjected to forcible feeding in consequence. One of these is Mr. Hugh Franklin, and there is still a very long period of his sentence unexpired. If current rumours be true, the condition of his health is very precarious, and in all likelihood the desire of the Home Secretary is to prolong the term this young man is undergoing by releasing him under this Bill till he has recovered some of his strength again and can return to prison to re-engage in the same conflict as he has waged so successfully up to the present. That may or may not be the case. The Home Secretary perhaps will be able to tell us.
I rise to make a final protest against the Bill, because in its provisions it is unnecessarily harsh and cruel even for the purpose for which it is intended. There was a general expectation when the Bill was first spoken of and introduced that the Home Office was seeking an alternative to forcible feeding. We have learned in the course of the discussions that what is offered to us is not an alternative but an addition to the powers possessed by the Home Office in regard to forcible feeding. One of the Sub-sections of the Bill which met with most opposition in the House and which would have been defeated if it had gone to an open vote, was that in which it is laid down that the period of liberation on licence is not to count as part of the sentence. The result of this may be, and probably will be, that the period of the sentence will be indefinitely prolonged. When a prisoner has reached the point at which further detention is dangerous to life, the Home Office may liberate him or her on licence. The period over which the licence is to extend will be stated in it, but that period can be extended at the will of the Home Secretary.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
Only upon the application of the prisoner.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
In the event of the prisoner's health not being restored, or the prisoner believing that his health is not restored, application may be made, and the period of the licence may be extended as a consequence. The period of the licence therefore may double, treble, or even quadruple the original length of the sentence. I submit that is in viola- 394 tion not only of the practice hitherto obtaining, but also of the law of the land, because, disguise the fact as we may, the period of the licence is as much a term of restraint as the imprisonment itself. Certain conditions are to be laid down. The licensee in all probability will be kept under close police surveillance, and will therefore be as much in custody as if confined within, the walls of the prison. Further, any failure to comply with the terms of the licence renders the licensee liable to arrest without warning. It is very obvious that great dangers lurk behind a proposal of this kind. Charges may be made against a licensee on the strength of which rearrest may take place. There is to be no opportunity so far as the Bill provides of any examination of those charges, nor any opportunity of testing their truthfulness, and it is quite easily conceivable that in the case of prisoners against whom the authorities have special malice considerable hardship and danger might be inflicted by trumped-up charges, and that rearrest of the licensee might take place before recovery. Further, I object to the Bill because it increases very considerably the secret powers of the police authorities. It enables things to be done which, under the existing law, would not be possible. I have no desire and no will to enlarge the powers of the police authorities in a way and in a manner which will enable them to act in the dark and without that publicity to which all charges against individuals should be subject. Finally my objection to the Bill is that it will prove perfectly futile. The time spent in considering it has been a waste of Parliamentary time. If the powers of the Home Office have been defied, and successfully defied, by the particular class of prisoner against whom this Bill is directed, what reason is there to suppose that this new law would have any better results? It will provide fresh opportunities for this type of prisoners to carry on their warfare against the existing law. The fight they are making, and for which they are being imprisoned, is purely for a Parliamentary vote. They refuse to obey the laws concerning property until the vote has been conceded to them. They refuse to obey the laws in prison for the same reason, and this Bill, which is now about to pass into law, will provide fresh opportunities and fresh occasions for the defiance of the law. Sooner or later the Government will be empowered to recognise that the only way of 395 dealing with this class of prisoner is to remove the grievance which leads to the trouble. If the Cabinet had spent the time in passing a Bill to confer votes on women which they have spent on this measure, the need for this Bill, so far as they are concerned, would have passed away. If the Home Secretary is hoping to secure compliance with the law under the terms of this measure, if he is hoping to allay agitation, if he is hoping to break the spirit of the women who are fighting so heroically, however mistakenly, then he is living in a fool's paradise. If I can find any Member in this House to tell with me, I shall divide against the Bill as a protest against the time of Parliament being wasted on a futile measure—time which could have been applied more usefully in redressing the grievance which made the Bill necessary.
§ Mr. MUNRO
If one can show that there is a disease requiring a remedy, and that the remedy suggested is an appropriate one, then I should think that the case for the Third Reading of this Bill would be practically made out. With regard to the first of these points, I do not suppose there is any sharp divergence of opinion in the House. All will agree that there is a disease which affects the whole body politic at the present time. To drop metaphor, and to speak frankly, the present situation is quite intolerable and requires drastic remedy. That being so let us consider what the situation is. So far as the punishment of crime is concerned matters are inverted at the present moment. Under ordinary circumstances, when crime is detected and proved, the person who has committed the crime has to expiate it for a term prescribed judicially. At the present time, although a crime is committed, detected, and proved, the prisoner, so far from serving the term judicially imposed, is herself, in many instances, the judge of the exact time at which the prison gates shall be opened and she shall be released. That is certainly a startling innovation in our procedure. It seems to me it is no answer in that connection to say that the motives of the prisoners are entirely excellent, justifiable, and even laudable; that is to seek to apply an old exploded doctrine that the end justifies the means. It is small consolation to a man whose house has been burnt down to be assured that the lady who lighted the match was animated by most laudable motives. The only time 396 when motive is relevant, and when it is duly considered, is when the original sentence is imposed on the prisoner. When once the sentence has been imposed, the motive having been duly considered, then at no subsequent stage has it any relevant bearing on the matter.
The consequences of the present situation are very grave indeed. In the first place, it is grossly unfair to prisoners who loyally implement and expiate the consequences of their crime. I speak as a supporter of Women Suffrage when I say that, so far as the militant section is concerned, the frequency with which they are enabled to secure relief is not fair to those prisoners who expiate their crime in the ordinary way. But there is another and more serious consequence, and that is the effect on the criminal community. They learn readily that there are ways and means whereby they can commit crime and evade its consequences, and the situation consequently is one which strikes a blow at the social fabric of the State. If that is the situation, let me consider the remedy suggested. What is the Bill which the House is asked to read a third time? I am quite uninfluenced by any poor, cheap criticism of the measure turning upon the description of it. It has been called panic legislation. It has been termed a "Cat-and-Mouse Bill." I am not in the least influenced by those ironical and irreverent descriptions of the measure. It is easy to be ironical without being helpful. It is easy to devise a witty phrase, but it is not so easy to devise a useful remedy. The question is whether this remedy is or is not useful.
I am influenced by three considerations in voting for the Third Reading of the Bill. In the first place, I attach weight, and so too, I imagine, does the House, to the fact that the Home Secretary says, "I am confronted with a situation in which I find myself, under the existing machinery, legislative and administrative, powerless, and I assure the House that if they place this weapon in my hands, my deliberate judgment is that it will enable me to deal satisfactorily with the situation." When the right hon. Gentleman gives that deliberate assurance on the authority of his office, it will I think go a long way to induce the House to accede to his request that this Bill should be read a third time. There is another consideration, and it is this: So far as one has heard, and I have listened 397 to the whole Debate in this House from beginning to end, there is no competitive suggestion, no competing alternative presented from any quarter with any general acceptance, to this Bill. There has been a singular sterility of suggestion on the part of those who oppose it. A policy of negation is a policy of despair. To sit with folded hands in such a situation is a course condemned alike by experience and sentiment. That being the situation, and this measure being put forward on the responsibility of the Home Office, confronted as they are with what I may venture to call a grave and menacing situation, the Bill deserves respectful consideration and support.
Lastly, there is this consideration, that the Bill is reasonable in its terms. In the first place, there is no doubt it will vindicate the law, and that, after all, is not a small matter in these times. Sooner or later, under the provisions of this Bill, it will be reasonably certain that the sentences passed by the Court will be implemented by those on whom they have justifiably been imposed. That is one benefit which will result from the passing of this Bill. Furthermore, it may reasonably be hoped that the effect of the Bill will be to diminish the sort of crime against which it is aimed. Again I speak as a supporter of Women Suffrage, but not as a millitant suffragist. To my mind, at the present time, one of the attractions of these crimes is that those who commit them are able to defy the law. I think I can make out that proposition. If all these women wanted to do was merely to commit a crime as a protest against the system of which they complain, then, having committed it, they would serve the sentence imposed on them. It is because, under the present system, they are not only enabled to commit the crime, but to successfully defy the law, that they find a certain amount of attraction in the policy. In the future the possibility of that will be denied to them, because, having committed the crime, they will sooner or later have to serve the sentence imposed on them, and, if that be so, it is reasonable to suppose, when the chief attraction of the present system is removed, that this type of crime will diminish. I am sure it is the wish of everybody in every part of the House that that should be so. For these reasons I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill, which is designed, 398 and honestly designed, to meet a difficult situation in the reasonable way.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
The hon. Member who has just spoken is doubtless qualifying for the position of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, because, throughout the discussions on this Bill, he has been the official spokesman for the Government. Not only on this Third Reading, but at all stages, he has acted as the sponsor of the Bill. He has used very correct language on this particular occasion; certainly it was not the language which enabled him to become a Member of this House.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I was referring to the Blatchford creed and to the charge made against the hon. Gentleman's opponent that he had embraced that creed. I was referring to an article in the "Daily Mail" and to a long correspondence in the "Times."
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
The charge was made by the hon. Gentleman's supporter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!") I shall do nothing of the kind. The hon. Member stated that the situation required a drastic remedy. He also said it was not fair to prisoners who "loyally expiated their crime." Are we to take it from him that prisoners convicted of these crimes go to prison for the purposes of enjoyment? What does he mean by the words "loyally expiate their sentences"? I wish to enter my protest against the Title of this Bill. I have been informed by a learned Member of this House that the Title is so drawn as to prevent any Amendment of a substantial character being made in it. The Bill, in fact, has been so framed as to gag the House of Commons. The House is being compelled merely to register the will of the Executive of the day, and that is apparently what the House of Commons is now expected to do. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office, in the course of the Debate on the Committee stage, referred to the fact that when hon. Members voted without the party Whip we got the real views of the House. It has been suggested that I stated, inaccurately, that the hon. Gentleman had asserted that public opinion was opposed to the particular measure he was advocating. The hon. Gentleman said he never stated 399 anything of the kind. I have looked up the report in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that the whole burden of his speech was that a certain Bill which he was advocating was, in the opinion of the authorities he quoted, undesirable. I have the words here.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)
All I said about public opinion outside the House was that it was languid.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
It is perfectly true the Under-Secretary used the word "languid," but he also adduced the opinions of Committees to whom this question had been referred, and he gave the opinions of other people in the profession. If the party Whips had not been put on, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Bill would not have passed the House. No free opportunity has been given to the House on this Bill. We were gagged on the Title, we were gagged in Committee, the time was restricted, and when we came to the House, party Whips were put on preventing the House from giving free expression to its views. Hon. Members opposite have given a tacit support to the Government. I do not know why they have helped to get the Government out of the bog into which they floundered, but in their usual stupid way they have given the Government assistance. In my opinion this Bill is a cruel Bill. It will be ineffective for the purpose for which it is introduced. The House has to recognise that up to the present time the women have defeated the law and defeated the Government. It is said that subscriptions to the suffrage movement are falling off in view of the criminal proceedings of certain women, and that if the strong arm of the law is enforced this movement will break down. I do not share that view. In this measure no effective steps are taken to ensure that the law will be enforced. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has put forward no alternative as to what should be done in the case of people who deliberately break the law and then attempt to evade it. On the other hand, I have an alternative. In the "Times" to-day there is a letter from a distinguished lawyer, Sir Harry Poland, on the doctrine of Homicidium sui-ipsius. Although I do not question his great authority on the legal construction of the law, the opinion he gives is the opinion of the Government, and he comes out as 400 a strong defender of the Home Secretary. He says:—Will the Solons of St. Stephen's who denounce forcible feeding as 'barbaric' and as 'repugnant to the minds of all decent people' (which I also think it is) endeavour to get an Act passed to prevent forcible feeding, and thus to allow lunatics and obstinate prisoners to starve themselves to death without being interfered with by those who have the care and custody of them?Nothing could be further from the truth than a statement of that character. There is no one in the House who would not say that in the case of people of weak minds who refuse, owing to insanity, lo take food, that every step should be taken to see that they are forcibly fed if it is necessary to do so.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Does the hon. Member suggest that people who are of weak mind or bad health and who cannot take food should be allowed to die?
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Does the hon. Member suggest that the man who has temporarily lost his sanity should be allowed to die because he has to be forcibly fed? If the man were allowed to die, a crime would be committed against civilisation. That is not the case we are considering. The case we are considering is a conspiracy deliberately entered into by women, and openly stated by them on their platforms, to adopt what are termed starvation tactics. They say they are going to break the law, after they have broken it they are going to prison, and when they are in prison they are going to walk out again because of what they term starvation tactics. The starvation strike may be all very well in its way. What I say is that if people of sane mind deliberately enter into a conspiracy to defeat the law they must take the consequences of their wrongdoing, and if they refuse to take food which is given to them, and if death ensues, they have nobody but themselves to thank, and no responsibility should lie on a Minister of the Crown. That is a view the House will not take, because it is said that there would be a revulsion of public feeling in this country if persons died in prison. I do not believe that there is in this country such slobbery sentimentalism. I believe the country has far too much good common sense in this matter than to show any revulsion of feeling in favour of a 401 person who deliberately sets out to break the law, and who, if the law is enforced, dies. I do not say that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and those who think with him, have any respect for the law. Of course, it does not matter twopence to them what happens. The hon. Member made various attacks on the Bill, but did not put forward a single suggestion for dealing with the problem. He simply condemned the attitude taken up by the Government. I am told, rightly or wrongly, that this is not the Bill of the Home Secretary, but the Bill of the Cabinet as a whole. I do not know whether or not that is correct. I suspect that the truth is that the Bill has been framed by permanent officials, fathered by the Home Secretary, and then fathered again by the whole Cabinet.
I have said there are two courses that may be taken. I am a strong supporter of giving votes to women, because I think the principle is a right one, although I do not think the House of Commons ought to be coerced by any form of militancy into giving votes to anyone. The only course is to give votes to women or to see that the law is upheld. Is this Bill going to uphold the law? The hon. Member who was the spokesman for the Government said that where the evil was great the remedy must be drastic. This remedy is a cruel one. Take the case of Mrs. Pankhurst. An hon. Member opposite asks what we are going to do in the case of people who come down in Rolls-Royce cars, and whether we are going to treat them differently from working people. I think that is the last argument that ought to have been advanced. The women who have made the sacrifices that the militant women have made on behalf of the cause in which they earnestly and honestly believe cannot be compared with the class of people who ride in Rolls-Royce cars. I have always thought that the cars are those of the vulgar rich and the idle rich. The Home Secretary stated that he could not undertake to discharge any prisoner who at some time or other might refuse to take food, that there must be discretion exercised, and that it would be most improper to release a prisoner who declared an intention to break the law, not in any trivial way, but by a great destruction of property or life. I do not quarrel with that statement of the Home Secretary. I think it is an admirable statement of the case as a whole. What is the alternative? The 402 right hon. Gentleman is placed in this position. The Law Officers of the Crown, I understand, have stated that under the existing law if a prisoner refuses to take food and is forcibly fed, no responsibility attaches to the Home Secretary, but, on the other hand, if the Home Secretary takes no steps whatever to see that the person is forcibly fed, then if the prisoner dies he might be indicted. I have had the opportunity of talking to-day with a gentleman who was formerly a very distinguished judge, and he told me he very much doubted whether the law is as has been stated in this House time after time, and as is stated in the "Times" to-day by Sir Harry Poland. If the law really is that forcible steps must be taken to prevent a person from committing suicide, then, as I understand the position, any person who sees another attempting to commit suicide must take forcible steps to prevent him from doing so Owing to the tactics adopted by the militants, an entirely different position has been created from that which has yet arisen in the whole history of criminal law. The question is very much disputed by lawyers. I have not a shadow of doubt in my own mind that if the Home Secretary did not forcibly feed a prisoner, and that prisoner were to die, no jury of his fellow-countrymen would find that he was guilty of any offence in not having undertaken the barbaric treatment of forcibly feeding a prisoner. The hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) very properly said this Bill gives additional powers to the Home Secretary. Not only can a prisoner be taken out of prison and brought back to prison, but she can be, as well, forcibly fed, as she can under the existing law. I feel sure there is a very large amount of public feeling, not only in the House but in the country, against the whole principle of the forcible feeding of sane people. The hon. Member (Mr. Pointer) would, I understand, not even feed a person who through some misfortune happened to lose his senses for a few days. I should, as any reasonable man would; but I think throughout the country there is a feeling that this is not a right act to commit on any prisoner, and it is a horrible process which the servants of the Crown are asked to carry out. If Ministers themselves or the Home Office officials had the duty of forcibly feeding the prisoners I am certain we should have no Bill of this character before us. But 403 what is forcible feeding under the law as the hon. Member is going to administer it? Take the case of Mrs. Pankhurst. This poor woman committed a crime which she would have expiated in the ordinary way by penal servitude if the law had not been allowed to fall into disrepute. When she committed that crime she knew perfectly well that she had only to adopt starvation tactics and she would be able to obtain her release, but if at the time she knew, and the suffragettes who committed these crimes had known that no starvation tactics would have availed for their purpose, the crimes would not have been committed and the present state of affairs would not be as it is to-day.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
They have committed them knowing that under the law, weakly administered as it has been, they were merely going to prison to march out again. Though I am in favour of punishment I am not in favour of torturing a prisoner to death. This Bill should properly be entitled "a Bill to torture a person who refuses to obey the law." Mrs. Pankhurst is convicted of a crime and goes to prison stating that she is going to defeat the law. She goes in there knowing that she is either going to be forcibly fed or is going to be allowed to remain in prison for such a time that her health will sooner or later break down and she will have to be removed. She adopts the second procedure and takes no food, and comes to such a state that the officials of the prison say it is necessary that she should be released. She is released and taken to a nursing home on a licence.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I have said time after time what I should have done. I should have left her where she was. I should have said, "It is no use you thinking you are going to remain so many days in prison and at the end of that time you are going to be released. If you do not take food you must take the consequences and die." I hope I have made my position quite clear about the matter. What is the second stage of Mrs. Pankhurst? She is in a nursing home. I saw in the Stop Press news to-day that she was slightly better but still in a very serious state of health. When she recovers she will return 404 to prison and will again refuse to take food, and her health will then become worse. She will stay in prison for so many days and will then be released again and go back to the nursing home. Is this conflict going on with this poor, sick woman, who is determined to defeat the law and to defeat the provisions of this Bill? You are going therefore, if you enforce the law in this way, to kill this woman step by step and stage by stage, whereas the Government should have said from the commencement, "We are not going to be deterred or frightened by the fact of you people saying you are going on hunger strike. Food is there and if you do not take it you must take the consequences." I addressed a very large meeting of my Constituents on this question only a few days ago and I had an opportunity yesterday of seeing a number of trade unionists at a deputation in Yorkshire, and I put the same question to them that I put to the House to-day, "What would you do in the event of a person deliberately setting the law at defiance and refusing to take food?" Many of my Constituents are miners, who, after all, are not a class of people who are devoid of human kindness, and at very large meetings which I have attended there has not been a single dissentient voice against the view that the proper course to take was to give the prisoner food, and if she does not take it she must suffer the consequences. So far from a revulsion of feeling, if the law was enforced it would not make for the advancement of the Women Suffrage movement if a woman died. That is foreign to the good sense of the British people. There has never been any Bill which has been more distasteful to me or on which I feel stronger than I do on this measure. I do not like to see the House of Commons made ridiculous. I do not like to see a Bill passed which I know must inevitably break down and result in failure, which, when all is said and done, will not in the least advance the maintenance of law and order.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I have attended the whole of the Debates on this extremely interesting Bill, and I do not at all agree with the hon. Baronet in the comments he has uttered upon the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Munro), for it has seemed to me that the contributions which that hon. Member has made to the Debate have been by no means among the least interesting. I do not see eye to eye with either of the hon. Members who have 405 spoken. I recognise, as I think everyone in the House must, that the Home Secretary was in great difficulty and that he had to do something. I admit that during the whole of the Debate no alternative suggestion has been made at all except that of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) that these suffragette ladies should be deported. I am very much afraid the Bill will not affect the object which the Government have in view, because the gist of the Bill seems to me to lie in the safeguards which ought to exist for seeing that when one of these prisoners is temporarily discharged the conditions of the discharge are observed. If they are not drastically enforced, if the Bill does not contain a proper means of enforcing them, I am afraid it will offer nothing but temptation to prisoners in future to do the very thing which the Home Secretary desires to prevent. If you put a man or a woman in prison, and it is understood that by going without food for a certain time they may be released for ten days or a fortnight, with no supervision, under conditions which it is no one's duty to see are observed, I cannot help thinking you are offering great temptation to all criminals in future, because the serious part of this Bill is that it does not deal only with this emergency, but is going on to the Statute Book for ever and is applicable to criminals of all classes. I am very much afraid, if you cannot enforce the conditions and be sure that during this period of temporary discharge the prisoner observes them and comes back to prison at the expiration of the time, you are offering a temptation to refuse food, instead of doing what you can to stop it.
I do not think that the means of enforcing these conditions which you are going to put on the back of the order of discharge are anything like adequate. What will happen is that you will release the prisoner, she will be sent home or to a nursing home, and will remain there under no sort of supervision except that, I suppose, some general order will be given to detective officers to keep an eye on them, and they will remain there for about a fortnight. If a considerable period before the end of that time they are fortunate enough to recover their health—and it is wonderful how a change of diet and surroundings will affect their health—you have no security that they will not leave the place to which you have allowed them to go and commit some fresh attempt, of which you may or may not discover the author. 406 Therefore I am very much afraid that unless the Home Office can devise some way to really secure the observance of the conditions on the back of the order, the Bill will do more harm than good. It is lamentable to see cases happening like that of Mrs. Pankhurst, who was let out the other day on a licence with conditions endorsed on the back, one of which was that she should produce the licence whenever it was asked for. She tore it up on the way and distributed the pieces to her faithful followers in the street. That makes the public laugh at the administration of the law. They laugh at the Home Secretary—that he will probably survive—but that he should bring the whole administration of the law into contempt is an unfortunate thing from the point of view of the State. The first aim of all civilisation is to have a system of just laws purely administered and properly enforced. If you do not enforce the law properly, however purely it may be administered, you will bring the whole thing into contempt.
There is a second provision in the Bill which I confess I fear. It is rather a consideration in the opposite direction. There is power in this Bill, when a person has been released on an order of discharge, to rearrest him and bring him back to prison without apparently authority being given by the Secretary of State, and without the issue of a warrant by any of the ordinary officers of the law. It seems to me that that is a very dangerous thing. When this was commented upon the other day in Committee the Home Secretary's answer was that if somebody was rearrested erroneously and taken back into custody he would have the right of action for false imprisonment. The promise to a person in that position, that he would have the right of action for false imprisonment, is to add to the horrors of his sentence, and if that is all the right hon. Gentleman can say, it is poor consolation. He will remember some instances, when he was practising at the Bar, where actions for false imprisonment came before the Courts, and he will remember also that, before a person can succeed in such an action, he must prove that someone, in making the false arrest, acted without reasonable or probable cause. In the cases which will arise under this Bill the policeman will act upon the information of someone in the position of common informer. One of the conditions, for instance, to be endorsed on the order of discharge is that the person shall return to her house and 407 not leave that house without the assent of the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that one of these ladies on being released returns to No. 5, Paradise Road, that she afterwards moves into No. 7, which is next door, and that, having done so, somebody goes and informs the local policeman, whose shins may be still smarting, or the scratches on his cheeks may not have completely healed. The policeman says, "The lady was released on condition that she would remain at No. 5, and now she is at No. 7. That is contrary to one of the conditions of the licence, and I will rearrest her." Under the Bill he is perfectly free, on his own ipsi dixit, to rearrest her, because he believes she has broken her licence. Then she is rearrested and taken back to prison at once. That really is a very dangerous power to entrust to any policeman. Naturally the Home Secretary would protect the police. Still, that is a serious departure from the common law of England. There is no right to arrest and imprison a person without the authority of somebody. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will carefully safeguard the power of rearrest, so that no policeman shall be able to say that the conditions of a licence have been broken, without the authority of some responsible official. I think it should be the Secretary of State, but if not the Secretary of State, it should be the governor of the prison or somebody in authority.
The only remaining consideration I wish to put before the House is that this Bill deals with prisoners of all kinds. I am bound to say that I do not attach very much importance to the future operations of the Bill in regard to prisoners, other than those known as suffragists. I read the other day that there was in prison a burglar who was encouraged by the spirited example of the ladies to hunger strike. He thought he would try it also, but his endurance lasted only forty-eight hours. He ultimately gave in, and the only effect was an attack of indigestion resulting from the speed at which he ate when he began again to take food. As the Home Secretary found himself unable to accept any of the Amendments which were moved in Committee, we have been deprived of a Report stage. I hope he will tell us that he is going to devise proper means by which people shall be protected against being improperly brought back to prison when they have been released on licence.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hume-Williams) has always had serious doubts about the merits of this Bill, but, if he will allow me to say so, he has always been scrupulously fair in the arguments he has used. He asks me now what security the Bill offers that the conditions contained in the order of release will in fact be observed. As I have said from the start, that is a point on which I can give no security. In no circumstances would any Minister ever give security of that kind. But the hon. and learned Member is not really seeking a true alternative to this Bill when he puts that question to me. At the present time I have three classes of prisoners to deal with. I have the prisoners who go to prison and take their food, either in the ordinary way or after a slight protest—prisoners who go through their sentences without difficulty. These prisoners I can deal with already. I have the second class of prisoners, who altogether decline to take their food, but who are physically strong enough to permit of their being forcibly fed. Those prisoners are, as a rule, forcibly fed. I have the third class of prisoners to deal with, namely, those who decline to take food, and whose condition of health is such that the doctors advise me that any attempt to feed them forcibly might be attended with serious risks to their health. With the latter class of prisoners I have no alternative at present except to discharge from prison. If the hon. and learned Member will think of the two classes of prisoners who at present cannot be brought back if released, I think he will agree with me that I could not give the security which he asks, and that the request is not really ad rem.
Take the last class of prisoners first. The prisoner I have to release knows that she cannot be forcibly fed at all. The only condition on which I can release her under the power which I have got at present is that the release should be absolute. I can exercise the prerogative of pardon and discharge her absolutely from prison. With regard to that class of prisoners, whether I can always enforce the conditions of the order of release or not, I am, at any rate, somewhat better off than I am at the present time. In the case of such a class, I am able to enforce the term of the sentence, and I think I will be able to do so. But as to whether I can give a guarantee that no such prisoner 409 will escape me, I say that I cannot and nobody else can, give a guarantee of that kind. The hon. and learned Member must see that the fact that I have power to release such a prisoner temporarily instead of giving an absolute discharge, is a power which enables me to go somewhat nearer the due enforcement of the sentence of the Court, than I am able to do at the present time. So much for that class of prisoners. I now come to deal with the second class, namely, those who are strong enough to be forcibly fed, who, the doctors advise me, may be forcibly fed with safety, and who, at the present time, simply with the view to the enforcement of the sentence of the Court, are forcibly fed in prison. How will this Bill enable me to deal with such prisoners? I think everyone in the House will agree with me, except perhaps the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham)—even he strongly objects to forcible feeding—that if we can enforce the sentence of the Court without forcible feeding it is much better to do so. When these persons refuse food I have no alternative at present except to feed them forcibly or give them an absolute discharge, but in future I shall be under no such necessity. I can give them a temporary discharge with the hope, the expectation, and, I think, the certainty, that I shall be able to bring them back to prison and enforce the full sentence of the Court. Suppose I cannot bring them back at once on the expiration of the order of release, I shall be able to catch them sooner or later. Either they will go out of the jurisdiction altogether, in which case we will not have to endure any more suffragist troubles from them, or sooner or later I shall catch them, and they will have to undergo the sentence of the Court.
§ Mr. McKENNA
How would we be worse then in that matter than we are now? The hon. and learned Member must compare the present condition of the law with the condition under which I shall be able to act when this Bill passes. I shall be unable to secure in every case that the prisoner will return voluntarily to prison at the expiration of the licence. I never could guarantee that, and nobody could, but under this Bill I shall have a better chance of securing the carrying out of the order of the Court than I have at the 410 present time. That is why I cannot give any security that the conditions of the licence will always be observed. I believe that under this Bill there will be better respect for the orders of the Court than there has been heretofore. The hon. and learned Member also took a point with regard to the matter of rearrest without warrant. I think he has taken an untenable position in that matter. After all, the dangers of which he spoke of one of these persons being wrongly arrested before the expiration of the licence by any policeman are dangers to which every citizen of the country is liable at any moment. The only remedy that any citizen has got in such circumstances is an action for false imprisonment. I cannot conceive why any of these released persons is entitled to better security from false imprisonment than any other person. It is quite true that you cannot have a good defence in most cases in an action for false imprisonment unless you can show that the person was arrested on a warrant. But in cases of this kind it is vital, if I am to effect the hon. and learned Member's first object, secure the enforcement of the conditions on which the order of release was made, that I should be able to arrest an escaping prisoner at the moment that I can catch her. After all, the one thing I want to do, the only order I want to enforce, is to bring her back to prison on the expiration of the term for which the order is given. The hon. Member supposes that she escapes from her present abode and goes somewhere else. If we can trace her or discover her perhaps by chance, are we to arrest her at once?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The prison authorities. The police will be acting under the direction of the prison authorities. No constable is ever willing to arrest on his own initiative. Naturally he knows that if he makes a false arrest he is going to suffer materially. The ordinary experience is that the public find that constables are not quite willing enough to arrest.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The case which the hon. and learned Member put was that somebody would go to a constable and inform him that a particular person was a released prisoner who had broken the con- 411 ditions under the order, and that the constable then and there would be willing to arrest. Surely he is entirely mistaken in that. No constable would arrest in a case of that kind without an order from his superior officer, and in every case where an arrest of the kind was made notification would be given in the ordinary routine of business to the superintendent of the district in which the woman was living to effect her arrest. The hon. and learned Member is in complete error as to the danger which he thinks might occur. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. B. Markham) has returned, and I only want to give the House one warning against him. Hon. Members must not take what he says too seriously. No one has to sit through more strong language of my hon. Friend than I have, but I know myself, and intimate friends of the hon. Baronet tell me also, that he is a man of the warmest and kindest feeling. But he uses language without attaching any serious meaning to it, and you have only to listen to a single speech from him, and to hear the repeated contradiction, both in argument and in expression, in any single speech that he makes, to be aware that we must not attach too much importance to what he says; and my hon. Friend will bear no more malice to the hon. Baronet than I will.
§ Mr. McKENNA
There only remains the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr, but, as he is no longer in his place, I do not know that I need trouble the House any further in the matter.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I am entirely in favour of what the Home Secretary has said, and I think from the opposition of the hon. Member for Merthyr that it will be a very effective Bill, and that it is because he believes that it will be effective that he desires to oppose it at this stage. I would like to call attention to one matter. The use of the prerogative of pardon in cases of this kind is an abuse of constitutional practice, and cannot be justified. I presume, and the Home Secretary has said so more than once, that it is only the extraordinary necessities involved in his difficulties which could possibly allow him to suggest it as a constitutional practice. Prison discipline is interfered with by the release 412 of a prisoner unconditionally. I have a very strong feeling on that point indeed, because if the Home Secretary does stretch what is, after all, only constitutional prerogative, so as in effect to defeat a sentence and interfere with the ordinary administration of the criminal law, nothing could possibly be worse as regards the conduct of a Minister responsible for administration of justice in this country. I think that he is quite justified in saying that this Bill does give a reasonable alternative. I do not say how far it will be effective. I believe that it will be effective, but the alternative is this: instead of abusing the constitutional prerogative of pardon he can allow the condition only of a provisional release, and the sentence in the long run has to be carried out, which it never could be if you exercised the prerogative of pardon. I think that that is clearly right. If you are to have criminal law in this country, nothing can be worse than that after sentence is passed in the ordinary way, it should be possible for a prisoner, in any conditions, to flout the sentence and get rid of it, and practically oblige the Home Secretary to exercise the prerogative, which, on constitutional grounds never ought to be exercised in such cases as that.
As regards the question of arrest, I do not believe in the difficulty suggested by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams), and I do not think that he is quite right in the way he stated it. I think that the Home Secretary was quite justified in saying that there would be no greater probability of improper use of arrest in this case than in any other case where the subject was liable to arrest on suspicion of a crime, or where a crime has been committed. I thoroughly agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Munro), that when dealing with a convicted prisoner we no longer consider what the motives are. The question of motive, so far as it is relevant at all, is taken into consideration, as we know, when apportioning the sentence. That is done by everyone who has to exercise the criminal law jurisdiction, but after sentence has been passed—take such a case as arson—it cannot be right to consider that the particular house was burned down, and burned down feloniously owing to a motive with which one might possibly sympathise if one could isolate it from the criminal act with which it was 413 associated, and if we are once to allow any principle of this kind to come in, namely, that after sentence is passed it is open to the Home Secretary or anyone else to alter a sentence legally passed on the grounds that the motive in itself was not a bad one, then we should really undermine the whole foundation on which criminal law ought to rest in any civilised society. Although I am sorry that we have not got these conditions in statutory form, yet I do hope that the present scandals may in substance be brought to an end when these powers are given to the Home Secretary which we ought to take if they appear to be reasonable, and if he comes forward as a responsible Minister and tells the House that he requires these powers in order to carry out his great duties in a proper manner. On those grounds, I shall take the attitude which I have taken in the matter, and cordially support the Bill.
§ Mr. W. F. ROCH
I was one of those Members who were in hopes when this Bill was first suggested that it was going to be an alternative to forcible feeding placed in the hands of the Home Secretary, but I am going to vote for this Bill in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be better than his word, and that this will prove to be an alternative for a practice which I do not think is justified. I am going to support this Bill because I quite agree that the Home Secretary is placed in a very serious position. He is placed in a position that the criminal law has virtually broken down in the class of case with which he has got to deal. I believe that were he to throw overboard this practice of forcible feeding, he would be able to justify the law once again. The difficulty he has got in dealing with this class of offence is that there is no social stigma, in the eyes of a large circle of people, upon these women with whom he is dealing. Punishment has no effect, be-
§ cause imprisonment is not considered by their friends as involving any stigma of any kind, but while, under those conditions, punishment is no sanction, I think that there is another sanction which will soon have its effect if the Home Secretary gives it a chance. That is public opinion. At the present moment, public opinion is not so strong against these women; indeed, it is surprising to find how many women have justified what these women have done; and I believe that is entirely due to the fact that a large measure of sympathy has been elicited by the practice of forcible feeding; I believe that but for the fact that that excites a large measure of sympathy from people who would otherwise not have it there would be the sanction of public opinion for the law which the Home Secretary administers, and I wish that the Home Secretary had adopted this as an alternative to forcible feeding. Personally, I wish that this Bill and the conditions under which the Home Secretary administers it, will be as stringent as possible in the supervision of these women after they are let out. For myself, I think that they should be shadowed and watched and their houses picketed, and their lives made as objectionable as they possibly can be. I believe that there would be no sympathy whatever for them from the point of view if the right minded general public, such as there has been on account of forcible feeding, that there will be none of what the hon. Baronet calls "slobbering sentiment," and that when people see that these women have broken the law and have not, as I may say, quite played the game, there will then be brought to the justification of the criminal law that strong sanction of public opinion without which all criminal law would be perfectly useless.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 56.417
|Division No. 71.]||AYES.||[5.44 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barnston, Harry||Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Brady, P. J.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Barrle, H. T.||Brunner, John F. L.|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beale, Sir William Phipson||Buckmaster, Stanley O.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Beck, Arthur Cecil||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Bentham, G. J.||Butcher, John George|
|Arnold, Sydney||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)|
|Baird, J. L.||Bethell, Sir John Henry||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Byles, Sir William Pollard|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Black, Arthur W.||Campion, W. R.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Boland, John Plus||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Parry, Thomas H.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe||Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Joyce, Michael||Pointer, Joseph|
|Clough, William||Joynson-Hicks, William||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Keating, Matthew||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kellaway, Frederick George||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Kelly, Edward||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Radford, George Heynes|
|Cotton, William Francis||Kilbride, Denis||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Cowan, W. H.||King, J.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Reddy, Michael|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Redmond, John (Waterford)|
|Cripps, Sir C. A.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lardner, James C. R.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cullinan, J.||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Leach, Charles||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lewis, John Herbert||Robinson, Sidney|
|Delany, William||Lewisham, Viscount||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rowlands, James|
|Doris, W.||Lynch, A. A.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||McGhee, Richard||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N).||Mackinder, H. J.||Sandys, G. J.|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Macpherson, James Ian||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Falconer, James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Shortt, Edward|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Kean, John||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Fitzgibbon, John||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Stanier, Beville|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Manfield, Harry||Stewart, Gershom|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Gibbs, G. A.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Meagher, Michael||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Ginnell, L.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Middlebrook, William||Tennant, Harold John|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Millar, James Duncan||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Molloy, M.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Mooney, John J.||Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Morgan, George Hay||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Hackett, J.||Morrell, Philip||Waring, Walter|
|Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Hancock, J. G.||Morison, Hector||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Muldoon, John||Watt, Henry A.|
|Harris, Henry Percy||Munro, R.||Webb, H.|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Murphy, Martin J.||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Needham, Christopher||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Neilson, Francis||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nield, Herbert||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Hayward, Evan||Norman, Sir Henry||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Nuttall, Harry||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Henry, Sir Charles||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Doherty, Philip||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Hill-Wood, Samuel||O'Donnell, Thomas||Winfrey, Richard|
|Hinds, John||O'Dowd, John||Wing, Thomas|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Malley, William||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Younger, Sir George.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Shee, James John|
|Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|John, Edward Thomas||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Adamson, William||Grant, J. A.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Brace, William||Hardie, J. Keir||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Snowden, Philip|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hodge, John||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sutton, John E.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Horner, Andrew Long||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Clynes, John R.||Hudson, Waiter||Thomas, J. H.|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Jowett, Frederick William||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Crooks, William||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Fell, Arthur||O'Grady, James||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Parker, James (Haliax)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Peto, Basil Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. W. Thorne.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
§ Read the third time, and passed.