asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the proposals referred to in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, "for adjusting the relations between Local and Imperial finance," and in order to assist the House in arriving at a just conclusion as to the relative incidence of Imperial taxation on real and personal property, he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House a continuation of the Return (varied so as to exhibit the current rate of Income Tax) of "Imperial Taxation exclusively borne by Real and by Realised Personal Property respectively," presented by the Treasury in August, 1885, and in the concluding paragraph of which it is stated that—

"It is quite certain that the figures which have been adopted for the purposes of this Return must approximate very closely to the truth?"

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet in thinking that it would assist the House in arriving at a just conclusion as to the relative incidence of Imperial taxation on real and personal property if I were to grant a continuation of the Return in question. The words he quotes from the end of the Memorandum annexed to the Return of 1885 as to the trustworthiness of the figures applied only, I am informed, to the figures relating to the Death Duties, and not, as the hon. Baronet appears to think, to the Return generally. I have studied the Return with some care, and I have consulted its compilers as to its value. They tell me that even in the less conjectural parts there was much division of opinion among them, and they had considerable difficulty in coming to any agreement; and I need not remind the hon. Baronet of the severe criticisms passed upon it at the time. To me, the figures given in the Return are very interesting, though I cannot help recognizing their conjectural and speculative character; but I think that Tables in which this conjectural element enters so largely should be published rather by private statisticians than on the authority of the Government—an authority which is apt to be misunderstood.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that Miss Mary Agnes Gough, a clerk who was employed for over 14 years in the Telegraph Department of the General Post Office, Dublin, was called upon by the Head of the Dublin Department to resign her position in October, 1886, and was reluctantly obliged to leave her employment without pension for having married some short time previously, no other complaint having ever been made against her; whether it is a Rule in the Postal Service to discharge ladies after such long terms of service as 14 years, and against whom no complaint can be advanced, except getting married, without pension; whether he can say if there are any ladies, late clerks in the Dublin Postal or Telegraph Departments, now in receipt of pensions, who, like Miss Gough, retired in consequence of having married; and, if so, why was Miss Gough differently treated; and, whe- ther, taking into consideration the fact that the health of this lady has been undermined by her long and faithful labours in the Public Service, he will consider her case, with a view to allowing her a pension?

It is a Rule of the Post Office that any single woman holding an appointment on the Establishment must resign on marriage. In October, 1886, there being reason to believe that Miss Gough had married, she was asked to state whether this was so or not, and, on denying the fact, she was requested to put her denial in writing. Her reply was to send in her resignation. I regret that it will not be possible to grant Miss Gough a pension. If other ladies, formerly holding situations similar to hers, are now married and yet in receipt of pensions, these pensions must have been granted before marriage and under medical certificate as prescribed by Statute. Miss Gough, on the other hand, according to the certificate of the medical officer, who was intimately acquainted with her case, was before her marriage in good health.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any decision has been arrived at as to the use and advantage of the anthropometrical system in this country?

Careful inquiry has been made into this subject, and Reports have been obtained from the French Government showing the working of the system in France. I have consulted the Prison and Police Authorities in this country; and they are of opinion that, under the present system, the proportion of prisoners who are not recognized is so small that the necessity for any change is not by any means established. The proportion is estimated at 2½ per cent. I am still continuing my inquiries into the matter. Legislation would probably be necessary to carry any change into effect.

asked the Postmaster General, When will the Anglo-Australian Mail Contract be submitted for the approval of the House?

Three of the Australian Colonies being practically parties to the new Mail Contracts, and having agreed as such to contribute their share of the subsidy, it has been considered proper, before submitting the Contracts to Parliament for approval, to obtain from the Colonies in question a formal confirmation of the Agreement in this connection made on their behalf by their Agents General in London. When that confirmation has been given, the usual course will be taken in laying the Contracts before Parliament.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Wether the Ordinance (No. 5, of 1887) passed by the Court of Policy of British Guiana for the establishment of a town at Bartica, has been approved by the Crown without any modification of the provision for the payment to the Bishop of Guiana absolutely of one-third of the sums received for the lands formerly held by the Bishop at the pleasure of the Crown; whether, in that case, the grant has been converted into a permanent endowment of the Bishopric, contrary to the wishes of the unendowed Religious Bodies in the Colony; and, whether he will lay before Parliament Papers containing the objections of such Bodies, and the grounds on which the Crown has been advised to confirm the Ordinance without alteration?

In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Ordinance has been allowed without any modification of the provision referred to. One Religious Body—the Congregational Union of British Guiana—petitioned the Colonial Legislature against the provision alluded to, on the ground that it would increase the endowment of the Church of England; but the Legislature considered that the Bishop, as representing the Church, had a vested interest in the land at Bartica, which had been held, first by the Church Missionary Society and afterwards by the Bishop, for a long period, and upon the improvement of which large sums of money had been expended; and they are of opinion that the provision made by the Ordinance was an equitable compensation on the resumption of the land for the purpose of forming a town. The Secretary of State saw no reason for differing from this view. There are very few Papers on the subject, and it scarcely seems one of sufficient public interest to warrant the expenditure that would be incurred in printing them; but if the hon. Member wishes to see them I shall have much pleasure in showing them to him.

asked the right hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (West or Epping Division), as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, Whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, being interested to the extent of one-third of nearly 100 acres of land in Paddington now unutilized, the Trustees of the Paddington Estate being interested as owners of the remaining two-thirds, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners decline to concur in any sale or lease thereof unless they receive the equivalent of one-half of the proceeds; and, whether there is any objection to their joining in a special case for the opinion of the High Court of Justice, with a view to the determination of the respective rights of the parties?

The Question is in a form which is misleading as to the extent of the interest which the Commissioners have in the land referred to. That interest comprises a dormant value, not limited, as implied, to one-third of its proceeds. What would be an equitable apportionment of that dormant value is, according to the 3rd section of the Act of 1875, a matter for voluntary agreement; and the Commissioners have on several occasions offered, and are still willing, to refer this question to arbitration, suggesting as arbitrators the Earl of Selborne, Lord Herschell, or Lord Bramwell. Last year the Commissioners, when there was a prospect of a sale of the property, were prepared to concur in the sale on certain conditions stated by me in this House on March 15; and should any such sale be in contemplation now they would adhere to that offer.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Auld, a bankrupt in Aberdeen, who was sent to prison on the 4th November last for contempt of Court, and has been kept there ever since; whether the said contempt consisted in the debtor's having, after having sworn that he had disclosed everything in his power with regard to his effects, alleged that he could not tell what he had done with one particular sum of money which he had received a year before; whether it is true that the Court of Session has decided that the Sheriff acted within his powers in committing Auld for contempt, and that the Sheriff has declared that it is not competent for him to consider whether Auld has been sufficiently punished by any amount of imprisonment, but that he should be "stultifying past decisions" were he to release Auld without any appreciable change in his position; and, whether, seeing that if the bankrupt's inability to answer the question is genuine he may be imprisoned for life unless the Crown interferes, he will order Auld's release and have him tried, if the facts seem to warrant prosecution, for perjury or fraudulent bankruptcy?

My attention has been called to this case. The bankrupt uplifted about £170 from the bank, and professed to account for the disappearance of a large part of this sum—some £60—by pretending it had been stolen by someone who broke open a locked drawer in his house. Of this alleged theft he never informed the police. He further gave no explanation of what he had done with the other sums of £50, £10, £10, and £20, admittedly in his possession. After repeated warnings by the Sheriff he was committed to prison. The statement in the Question regarding the Court of Session's decision is correct. The Sheriff stated, when the case came before him again, that it was not competent for him to liberate the bankrupt unless he complied with the order for disobedience to which he was committed, and used the words quoted in the Question. It is not in my power to order the release of the prisoner, nor do I intend at present to raise a prosecution. I must point out to my hon. Friend that there may be quite sufficient ground for confining a bankrupt who withholds information which by Statute he is bound to disclose, while there may be no sufficient evidence in a criminal prosecution in which the accused is entitled to withhold all information.

asked, why the man had been detained without any evidence?

The man is detained for refusing to answer questions which he is bound to answer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If on the 6th January, the date of the proclaimed meeting at Dromore, County Tyrone, a ballad singer was summarily sentenced by two Resident Magistrates to a month's imprisonment for singing some verses in the street to an audience chiefly composed of members of the Constabulary Force; if he can state the grounds on which the proceeding was taken; if the conduct of the ballad singer constituted a breach of the Proclamation; and, will the Government order an investigation into the matter?

(who replied) said: the man referred to was not proceeded against until after he had been frequently cautioned by the police. The ballad was of an inflammatory character, and calculated to incite a breach of the peace. The audience was not chiefly composed of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but of the public. The two Resident Magistrates before whom he was summarily tried ordered him to find sureties to be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned for one month. Failing to give sureties, he was committed. He was not charged with a breach of the Proclamation. The Government see no ground for making a further investigation into the matter.

asked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could inform them whether all the ballad singers of Ireland were to have a censor to whom they must submit their ballads before they could sing them in the street?

asked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would lay the incriminating ballad on the Table?

No, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the period which elapsed between the appointment of Miss Donnelly as temporary assistant teacher at Aughiogan National School, County Tyrone, and her examination by order of the Commissioners of National Education; if the delay is usual; and, if so, why; and, if, in the event of the non-success of candidates under such circumstances, they are entitled to any part of the salary for the period during which they are employed as teachers?

(who replied) said: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a period of about 11 weeks elapsed between the date of the appointment of Miss Donnelly and her examination. The delay appears to have been due to the absence of some information in the case which was not received from the manager until about five weeks after his notification of the appointment. Miss Donnelly has passed the examination, and is entitled to receive pay on the usual conditions from the date of her original appointment. Unsuccessful candidates are not entitled to salary for the interval between appointment and examination. Examinations of candidates are held by the Inspectors with the least possible delay; and it is, of course, the duty of a manager not to employ an incompetent teacher.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the Report of the Judge Advocate General, on certain transactions connected with the inspection of leather at the Ordnance Store Department at Woolwich:—

"Par. 12. The duty, therefore, of the viewer is to master the meaning of the specification, to compare it with the sealed pattern and sample, and then to see whether the articles supplied by contractors are equal in all respects to those contracted for. It is obvious that to make this viewing examination efficient, the specification and the sealed pattern and sample supplied by the Department should correspond, yet, strange to say, this essential condition is not fulfilled in many instances. In many cases there was a considerable difference between both the specification and the sealed pattern, and again between the sealed pattern and the sample……In a great many cases the sealed pattern attached to the specification was a very inferior pattern of the article described, and then again it often differed from the sample supplied to the manufacturer;"

who was responsible for this state of matters; whether the contract business in other Departments is conducted in a similar manner; and, whether measures have been adopted to prevent the continuance of such negligence in the conduct of Government business?

The person responsible for the state of affairs described is primarily the Commissary General of Ordnance. It is quite impossible for me, within the limits of an answer to a Question, to describe clearly how we propose to meet the evil; but when I tell the hon. Member that we have some 1,400 specifications, patterns, and samples, he will see that the task of keeping them up to date is a heavy one. In answer to the second Question, I do not know how the contract business is conducted in all other Departments; but in the case of the Ordnance Store Department it does not seem to me that the system was at fault, but the way in which it was administered, and that is the point to which our reforms are mainly directed.

asked, whether it was not the case that the Judge Advocate General himself condemned the system?

thought that, the Judge Advocate General had not condemned the system so much as the administration of it.

asked, whether there was any official specially charged with the duty of seeing that the sealed patterns and specifications were identical?

No; but I regard the Commissary General of Ordnance at the time as being primarily responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in accordance with the suggestion in the Report of the Judge Advocate General, the Government propose to modify the existing system of inspecting contract articles in the direction of casting further responsibility upon contractors, and reducing the present costly staff maintained for the purpose of detailed inspection, or what they propose doing on the Judge Advocate General's Report; whether the War Office purposes taking any, and what, steps to secure that the specification, sealed pattern, and sample supplied by the Department shall in the case of all contracts always correspond; whether, in regard to the method of storing hides, which has prevailed in the Ordnance Department for the last 20 years and more, and which the Judge Advocate General finds is "universally condemned by everyone acquainted with leather," he proposes to take any, and what, steps to compel the adoption of another and better method; and, whether he is in a position to give the name of the official who is responsible for ignoring the complaints which Mr. Crutchley states he frequently made on this subject?

I have already stated that I propose to strike off, either temporarily or permanently, from the list any contractors who persistently fail to supply articles up to sample, and an entire consignment may be rejected if a certain proportion of inferior articles is detected; but I do not think it possible to rely solely upon enforcing the responsibility of contractors in the case of warlike armaments, and for this reason. If troops are sent on active service and their accoutrements fail, it is no doubt possible to punish, the contractor; but, in the meantime, the safety of the troops may be imperilled. Some system of inspection will, therefore, continue to be necessary. I propose to re-organize the Inspection Department most thoroughly; and, indeed, provision is made for it in the scheme of re-organization lately adopted. The name of the official referred to in the last part of the Question is Captain Fenn; but the system has prevailed for many years, and was not initiated by him.

asked, whether the Rule would be applied to the firms which supplied defective material and stores—namely, that their names should be struck off the list of contractors allowed to compete?

said, he desired that the questions raised in the Report of the Judge Advocate General should be dealt with, as a whole.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when he will be able to deal with the subject?

No; I am not able to say.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, The number of publicans during the year 1887 that have been summoned before a magistrate, and fined for the adulteration of malt liquors; and the number of publicans that have paid the full penalty of £50, without having to appear before a magistrate, and to which no publicity is attached?

The figures are rather interesting. During the year the hon. Member has alluded to 297 publicans were fined by the magistrates for the dilution, or other adulteration, of beer, and in 21 cases the full penalty of £50 was paid to avoid going into Court.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that at a meet- ing of the Belfast Dispensary Committee, regularly convened, and held on the 10th February, 1888, to investigate charges against Dr. Spedding, one of the dispensary medical officers of the Belfast Union, it was resolved, after hearing the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Dougherty, Police Constable Stewart (who was called in to remove the doctor from the house of the dying girl), Mrs. Graham, Mrs. Campbell, and Mrs. M'Connell, by a majority of 14 to 7, that the charges were fully sustained, and that he be suspended at once pending the necessary action of the Local Government Board; is it true that, although the disclosures were disinterestedly made by these witnesses, the Local Government Board have not thought fit to enforce their authority, nor strengthen the hands of the Committee in their efforts; and, what action will be now taken in the matter?

(who replied) said: It is the case that the Dispensary Committee on the 10th of Februrary decided by a large majority to suspend the medical officer referred to in consequence of the charges brought against him. He, however, having asked for an inquiry on oath into such charge, the Local Government Board directed their Medical Inspector to hold such inquiry. He did so on the 24th of February. His Report thereon was received yesterday, and will have the careful attention of the Local Government Board.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether complaints have reached him that the name of the recently appointed Keeper of the Register of Sasines, Edinburgh, is now being used by a firm of practising legal practitioners in Edinburgh in all their business transactions; and, whether such a step is in conformity with the provisions of the Act 31 & 32 Vict. c. 64, s. 20?

The name of a private firm is often maintained, although the persons in the partnership may change. The Keeper of the Register of Sasines has fulfilled all the re- quirements of the Statute by giving up all personal connection with, or interest in, the business of the firm of which he was formerly a partner.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the firm had issued a Circular to the effect that—

"We beg to inform you that our Mr. Finlay has been appointed Register of Sasines, and that we have assumed as our partner Mr. John Shaw. The business will be carried on under the old name?"

said, he was not aware of the fact; but it was quite common to retain the name of an old firm, even though all the partners might be changed.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Fife, and the Town Council of Cupar, and those of other neighbouring burghs, have petitioned the Secretary for Scotland against the Order of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland closing the county prison in Cupar on and after the 31st of March; and, whether, in view of these strong protests by the Local Authorities against the proposal of the Prison Commissioners, Her Majesty's Government will consent to postpone the operation of this Order, as regards Cupar Prison, until an opportunity has arisen to raise the question in this House?

The Secretary for Scotland, after careful consideration of the Petition of the Local Authorities, is unable, in the interests of the Public Service, to alter the decision he has come to.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether pictures and other works of art have been lent to Buncombe Hall, North Islington, by the South Kensington Museum; whether he is aware that this is not a public Institution under public management, but a private adventure, at the sole cost and risk of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), the so-called Museum (the charge for admission to which is 1d.) being a concert room in connection with, a coffee and refreshment room; whether he is aware that for some time after the Museum was opened admission was only obtainable by tickets from the hon. Member for North Islington; and, whether he will consider the propriety of such an application of public property to the private hall of a Member in his own constituency?

A loan was made in 1886 to a temporary exhibition at Duncombe Hall, which, it was understood, had been organized with the view to the establishment there of a permanent Museum under local management, an undertaking being given that any profits from the temporary exhibition would be devoted to that object. When it was found that a permanent Museum under local management was not established, the loan was, in accordance with the Rules, withdrawn in July, 1887.

The grounds on which the loan was asked for turned out not to be well founded.

The purpose in view was not realized.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not a common practice to lend works of art to promote Science and Art Museums in different parts of the country; and, whether this is not one of the objects which the Department have in view?

I think my answer to the Question is conclusive. It was an attempt in that direction; but it was not consummated.

Is there a single instance in which the Department has made a loan of this kind to the Member for a constituency, the admission to the Museum being in the hands of that Member?

I cannot answer that Question offhand. The loan was made before I entered upon my present Office.

Might I ask, whether it is not true that a Committee was appointed to carry out that object, and that a Local Committee is being established at the present time with the object of establishing a Museum in that part of London?

That does not affect my original reply, that these objects were withdrawn because the necessary conditions had not been complied with.

asked the Postmaster General, Why clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, when absent from duty owing to illness, incur a deduction of one-third from their pay; whether no deduction was made previous to the date of the transfer of the telegraphs to the Government in 1870; whether the present deduction is only made from the salaries of the main body of the staff, the higher paid administrative officers retaining full pay; and, whether he will restore the earlier Rule, and so place them on a footing of equality with other Civil servants?

Where large bodies of persons are concerned, it is found to be necessary, as a matter of administration, that some deduction from their pay should be made during absence from illness in order to check absence on false or insufficient pleas. This has not been considered necessary where the more highly paid administrative officers are concerned. Prior to the acquisition of the telegraphs by the State, I understand that some of the Companies allowed full pay during absence from illness and that others did not. On the whole, the Companies' Rules on the point were less favourable than those of the Post Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will commence their inquiries into the Revenue Departments of the Customs, the Post Office, and the Inland Revenue?

I am informed by the Commissioners that they see no prospect of being able to enter upon an examination into the Departments referred to during the present Session of Parliament.

asked the Lord Advocate, in regard to the purchase of new or second-hand boats for Highland fishermen, Whether the Secretary for Scotland intends to place any restrictions as to where boats are bought or built in making advances for the purchase?

No, Sir; no restrictions are contemplated such as those referred to in the Question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will be able to announce the decision of the Government in the case of the outport writers, employed under the Board of Customs, who have been recommended to the Treasury for promotion?

The Treasury have before them the case of the copyists at the out-ports recommended for promotion; but other points of organization are connected with it which have to be settled before a decision can be given.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the cause of the delay in carrying out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Statistical Department of the Customs; and, whether, in the retirements which may be necessary in carrying out the recommendations of that Report, the same Rule will be applied as laid down by the Treasury for the recent changes in the Inland Revenue?

The Report to which the hon. Member refers is a confidential document, and I do not know how he became possessed of it. I am certainly not in a position to make any statement with regard to it.

(for Mr. MURPHY) (Dublin, St. Patrick's) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether "Mansfield stone," brought from the middle of England, is being used for the cut stone dressings of the barrack works at Island Bridge, Dublin; whether the best descriptions of various kinds of stone suitable for such work can be had in Ireland, and even in the vicinity of Dublin; and, whether steps will be taken to provide that Irish stone, and, as far as practicable, other Irish materials shall be used for the extensive barrack works at Grangegorman, Dublin, which are now about to be erected?

(who replied) said: The quantity of stone used for dressings at the Island Bridge Barracks is insignificant; but it is the red Mansfield stone from England. The Secretary of State is advised that there is no stone in Ireland which can, from an architectural point of view, take its place. As far as practicable, the Grangegorman Barracks will be constructed of Irish stone and other building materials; but unless a stone of the same colour and quality as Mansfield stone can be obtained in Ireland the dressings must be obtained elsewhere.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any steps have been taken, in accordance with previous suggestions, to render the publications of the Indian Government more accessible; whether they are made available for sale at a reasonable price anywhere in London, or how they are to be got at; whether they are sent to the British Museum, or any of them are presented to any important Libraries and Institutions; and, whether the Secretary of State will now take steps to make the more important and interesting of these publications more accessible in this country?

The agents for the sale of publications of the Indian Government are—Messrs. Allen, Waterloo Place; Messrs. Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill; Quaritch, Piccadilly; Stanford, Charing Cross; Whittington, Gracechurch Street; where they can be procured at a reasonable price. They are, also, sent to the British Museum and other Copyright Libraries in the United Kingdom. Scientific works and others of general interest are widely distributed to Institutes and individuals at home and abroad.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why statistics of crime (as distinguished from judicial statistics) are not given in the Annual Report regarding India presented to Parliament; and, whether such statistics are in any form presented; and, if so, whether he will see that they are in future presented, so as to enable the House to judge of the success or non-success of the present police system in keeping down crime in the various Provinces?

Table 153 of the Statistical Abstract gives the number of offences reported as well as of persons brought to trial. More detailed information is contained in the Provincial and Departmental Administration Reports, which are accessible at the India Office to persons engaged in the line of research indicated by the hon. Member.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, while in all other respects the increased Indian Salt Duty is brought into immediate operation, in accordance with the practice of this country, an exception is made in favour of British merchants whose cargoes afloat on the way to India are exempt, so that they will pay the lesser duty while they reach the profit of the increased price resulting from the new duty?

Yes; in compliance with Section 37 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII. of 1878).

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Ryan, kept a prisoner in Limerick Gaol since June last for contempt of Court; whether her offence consisted in neglect to pay over to the Receiver of the Court of Chancery the proceeds of a quantity of hay valued at £30; and whether she excused herself by a difficulty in realizing, caused by the interference of the Court, with the mode of sale; whether her husband suffered 14 months' imprisonment for contempt arising out of the same transaction; whether Mrs. Ryan, when arrested, was separated from an unweaned infant to the danger of mother and child; and, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure Mrs. Ryan's immediate release?

(who replied) said: My attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Ryan. The facts are as follows:—An ejectment decree was obtained in the County Court against John Ryan, this woman's husband, for one and a-half year's rent—about £45—in July, 1884. The Receiver then made every effort to bring about an amicable settlement with him, but failed to succeed, and was ultimately obliged to put the decree into force, the 12 months' limit being about to expire. In July, 1885, possession was obtained through the Sheriff; Ryan and his family re-took possession of the farm, and, among other things, saved 30 tons of hay. Notwithstanding the exertions of the Receiver to prevent it, this hay was removed and sold by Ryan. Its value was at least £60. The Receiver then, with a view to take up the farm, obtained a conditional order of attachment against Ryan, who, however, was such a reckless and desperate character that it could not be served personally. It was eventually served through the post, and Ryan was arrested in June, 1886, and imprisoned for 12 mouths. Notwithstanding this, Mrs. Ryan and her sons and daughters remained in possession of, and continued to crop, the lands. An attachment was then issued against Mrs. Ryan and a son aged 18 or 19 years. The latter evaded arrest; Mrs. Ryan was arrested and committed to prison in June, 1886, for 12 months. It has, of course, been all along open to the Ryans to purge their contempt by surrendering the farm or coming to some settlement. This they not only failed to do, but in a letter written by a member of the family to the local Press expressed their intention of continuing in the possession of the farm, and that, aided by the League, they should conquer. The Executive Government had no power to interfere in the matter.

Is it not a fact that Mrs. Ryan was prevented from disposing of this hay as she might have done; and was not it insisted that it should be sold by auction?

No, Sir. Mrs. Ryan, in defiance of the Receiver, sold about 30 tons of hay, which must have been worth at least £60.

One part of my Question has not been answered at all. Is it not a fact that Mrs. Ryan was nursing a baby, which was not yet weaned, when she was arrested, and which was separated from her to the danger of both mother and child?

I did not see that in the Question. ["Oh, oh!"] I see it now. There was a young child. I do not know whether it was weaned or not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will inform the House at whose request the military were called to attend tithe sales in Flintshire; what were the representations which induced the authorities to consent to their being sent; upon whom will the cost of the military ultimately fall; and, whether the cost is a legal charge on the county rate?

The military were called out at the request of the Local Authorities, on the representation of the Chief Constable that their presence was necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order of the county. The cost, if any, will fall upon the police rate. I cannot undertake to give an opinion on a question of law; but I am advised that the rate may properly be applied to this purpose.

asked, was not the Local Authority the Court of Quarter Sessions?

said, he was not aware whether it was the Court of Quarter Sessions or a Committee of the Court.

asked, was there any resolution of the Local Authority, or was action taken on the word of the Chief Constable alone?

said, he was informed it was done on the representation of the Chief Constable, addressed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and thereupon the latter made application to the Military Authorities.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table a list of the Resident Magistrates "of whose legal knowledge and legal experience" the Lord Chancellor has satisfied himself, as required by Section 1 of "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887;" and, also, a list of the Resident Magistrates "of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge" the Lord Lieutenant has satisfied himself, as required by Section 11 of the same Act of Parliament?

A Return is being prepared by the Government, which will be laid on the Table, and which will furnish the information required by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as stated in the evening journal The Star, Mr. George Short, a retired printer, who in 1886 adopted the name of Burgess Short, was in that year, on the recommendation of Colonel Kirby, commanding the Tower Hamlets Engineer Volunteers, appointed lieutenant in that corps, being at the time some 48 years of age, and never having handled a rifle; whether Colonel Kirby recommended him in 1887 for a captaincy, and whether the War Office refused to promote him, on the ground that such promotion would involve the supersession of four officers equally or better qualified; whether he was introduced in December last by Mr. Morton, of the War Office, to General Lyon Freemantle as "the Editor of The Broad Arrow;" whether, in The Gazette of 9th December, 1887, he was appointed captain in the 3rd and 4th Battalion of the Manchester Regiment of Militia, passing over the heads of 11 lieutenants and six second lieutenants; and, whether he had previously served in the Militia?

(who replied) said: Nothing is known at the War Office as to the former name or profession of Mr. Burgess Short. He was appointed a lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets Engineers in 1886, being then about, 47 years of age. His promotion to captain in May, 1887, was refused, as he was not qualified, though he did subsequently qualify in August of that year. He called upon General Freemantle in November; but was not introduced by Mr. Morton, nor was General Freemantle aware that he was in any way connected with the Press. Upon the recommendation of the Commanding Officer of the regiment and the General of the District, he was appointed captain in 3rd and 4th battalions Manchester Regiment, on the 10th December, 1887. He passed over the subalterns, none of whom had, or have since, qualified for promotion, although there are still four vacancies for captains in the regiment which cannot be filled up. He had never previously served in the Militia, though he had been attached for instruction to a battalion of the Guards and to the 1st Manchester Regiment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether offering for sale and ticketing foreign meat as British meat is an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act under Clause 3 (b) relating to "the country in which any goods were produced?"

I am not in a position to give an authoritative opinion upon the construction of an Act of Parliament; but I might call the attention of the hon. Member to the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, which enacts that every person who applies any false trade description to goods is guilty of an offence against the Act, and to the fact that the expression "trade description" includes any description, statement, or other indication, direct or indirect, as to the place or country in which any goods were made or produced; and that the expression "goods" is denned as meaning anything which is the subject of trade, manufacture, or merchandise.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the contract for the supply of judicial stamps for India expires in the course of the next few months; whether there is any truth in the report that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, acting for the Secretary of State, are desirous of continuing the employment of the present contractors without any competition; and whether, some months since, the Secretary of State decided upon calling for tenders for the supply of these judicial stamps; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in sending out the conditions of tenders, and does it in any way arise out of any action on the part of the Inland Revenue or their Comptroller of Stamps?

also asked, Whether hitherto it has always been the practice of the Director General of Stores for India to send out all invitations to tender for Indian stamps (as in the case of all other articles) and to receive such tenders to be finally decided upon by the Stores Committee of the Council; whether, in the case of the judicial stamps, for which the contract is about to expire, this practice has been departed from, and the invitations sent out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the part of the Secretary of State; whether the tenders to be submitted are to be decided upon by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; whether it is intended by the Secretary of State that the Stores Committee and the Director General shall in future abdicate their functions in the matter of stamps in favour of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and their officers; and, whether, in the matter of contracts, anything more is required from the officers of the Inland Revenue Department as against the salaries paid them by the Indian Office for the general supervision of the manufacture, than that their technical knowledge shall be at the disposal of the Stores' Committee and the Director General, so as to enable them to arrive at a proper decision upon purely technical points?

The contract for judicial stamps for India expires in a short time, and the further supply will be open to competition among a limited number of selected firms. In 1886 the late Secretary of State made an arrangement with the Board of Inland Revenue, by which the latter were to act as his agents in, among other things, the renewal of such contracts for the supply of stamps as might expire from time to time. It is in pursuance of this arrangement that invitations to tender for the supply of judicial stamps for India have, since the Question was placed on the Paper, been sent out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The Board, however, acting in this matter as the agents of the Secretary of State, will take no step of importance without consulting him.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any arrangement has been arrived at with Germany and the United States for the settlement of the affairs of Samoa; and, whether he can give any information as to the fate of King Malietoa, who was deported from Samoa in a German man-of-war?

No fresh arrangement has been arrived at with Germany and the United States for the settlement of affairs in Samoa. The Conference which met at Washington last June adjourned for the consideration of the several proposals submitted by the Governments concerned. In the meantime, the rights of British subjects in Samoa remain I unimpaired. We have no official information where Malietoa now is. He surrendered himself to a German man-of-war, on board of which he left the Island. It is stated in The Morning Post of yesterday that he has arrived at the Cameroons.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government will make it an absolute Rule that, when contractors and others deliver goods according to tender, and those goods are found not equal to sample, the names of the said contractors and others shall be struck off the list of those to whom tenders are sent?

It is seldom that each and every article of a contract is sent is up to the standard. Looking to the necessity of insuring ample competition, it is not possible to go beyond the Rule. I have already stated that contractors who persistently disregard the standard will be excluded from the list.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after the remarks of the Judge Advocate General, in his Report concerning the Ordnance Store Department at Woolwich, as regards the appointment of Messrs. Hunt and Engleston, over the heads of Messrs. Dunn, Chase, and Orr, steps will be taken to promote the latter, or give them some compensation for being passed over; whether, after the statement of the Judge Advocate General that Sergeant Hawkins' "evidence is a tissue of falsehoods," and the declaration of "his extraordinary inability to tell the truth," Sergeant Hawkins will be continued as a viewer on the establishment; whether, after the threatening letter sent by Messrs. Ross and Company to Mr. Moody and Mr. Dunn, the two complainants in the Department, and the statement of the Judge Advocate General "that the letter was a very improper one, and there is no foundation whatever for the charges therein made," the said firm of contractors will be further dealt with by the Government; whether, of the 11 specimens of hides selected for examination, eight of them contained, glucose of from 20 per cent to 25·20 per cent; whether, as a matter of fact, glucose is a well-known method of leather adulteration; and, whether Inspectors and Viewers, who are admittedly incapable of detecting this mode of leather adulteration, will any longer be employed by the Government in that capacity?

I have most carefully considered the responsibility attaching to all the individuals named in the inquiry before the Judge Advocate General, and I am quite prepared to state my decision. But I am sure that the House will see that a statement dealing with transactions extending over many years, and gravely affecting numerous individuals, cannot be made in answer to a Question. When I do so, I will deal with all the individuals mentioned by the hon. Member. The amount of glucose in hides is one upon which experts appear to differ very widely. The most recent Report puts the glucose at 10 or 12 per cent. It is a modern method of loading leather which seems to me to have been clever enough to deceive the Government Inspector. In the re-organization of the Inspection branch every effort shall be made to make it thoroughly efficient.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information as to the adulteration by a material which added nearly double the weight to the goods?

I am afraid that is a new point, and if the hon. Member will give me particulars I will give him the information I have.

I will do so, and furnish a sample.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will grant the Return, standing on the Notice Paper for Friday, relating to Army Contracts?

I am afraid we cannot give this Return, because the material for it is not in our possession. I am exceedingly sorry that this is the case; and if the hon. Member will confer with me again, as he did the other day, I will explain my difficulty to him, and will give him every information which is possible on this point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the number of constables, and what is the number of officers of each grade, who have been added to the Metropolitan Police Force since the 17th of September last?

The hon. Member is aware that the strength of the London Police Force constantly fluctuates. Comparing the strength of the Force now and on the 17th of September, it is now greater by 292 men, of whom 157 are Inspectors, 111 sergeants, and 24 constables. The numbers in the ranks of Inspector and sergeant were at that time under the required strength.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a firm named Messrs. Colbeck, having sent in tenders for the supply of tweed at prices varying from 5s. 6½d. to 5s. 11½d. a-yard, and the tenders having been accepted, that at the highest price being for 7,000 yards only, the firm nevertheless were paid that highest price for the whole amount of 73,000 yards; whether a contract was entered into with Messrs. Wilson and Son to supply tartan at 2s. 4½d. a-yard. Messrs. Smith and Son, former contractors for this article, applied to be relieved of some surplus stock, leaving the price to be settled by the War Office. Their request was complied with, but the price paid was not that of the current contract with Messrs. Wilson, but the higher price of 2s. 8d. under the expired contract with Messrs. Smith and Son; whether a firm named Messrs. Davies were paid 20s., 16s. 3d., 10s. 6d., and 27s., for the same articles, which another firm, Messrs. Thorp, had already contracted to supply at 14s., 11s. 11d., 10s., and 17s. 6d., respectively; and, whether the War Office accepts the view of his duties taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his correspondence with them on these payments—namely, that his control extends to these and similar cases in which administrative action appears to involve a loss to the public?

(who replied) said: the hon. Member has misread the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Messrs. Colbeck tendered only at the prices of 5s. 11d. and 5s. 11½d. The tender at 5s. 6½d. was by another firm, to whom an order for the quantity with which they could safely be entrusted was given. All the cloth Messrs. Colbeck offered at 5s. 11d. was taken before the price of 5s. 11½d. was paid. When an order for 73,000 yards supplementary to the original supply contracted for—namely, 107,000, became necessary, it was given to Messrs. Colbeck as tried and responsible contractors at the price then in force; the other contractors at lower rates having failed on a previous occasion to carry out their contracts satisfactorily for this tweed. As regards the tartans, an effort had been made to break down what was practically a monopoly by Messrs. Wilson; and Messrs. Smith had been to a great expense in carrying out very satisfactorily a triennial contract for 9,000 yards per annum, at a price lower than that of Messrs. Wilson. When, however, the contracts came to be renewed in 1885, the latter tendered at a price still lower, and were accepted. Messrs. Smith then applied to have 3,000 yards taken off their hands; and, as there was every reason to be satisfied with the way in which they had done their work, this was permitted, according to many precedents, at the price governing their contract. The contract of Messrs. Thorp was comparatively an unimportant one for forage cap ribbons. They were new contractors, and their tender was much below all other competitors; but disputes arose as to measurements and other matters, and their contract was cancelled instead of being enforced against them. This is the usual course as regards new contractors, the object being not to deter firms from widening the area of competition as regards future supplies. The ribbons were obtained under another contract at rates higher than those of Messrs. Thorp; but lower than those which had obtained before they entered the field. The whole of these facts will, no doubt, be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. It is clearly shown by the correspondence at page 208 of the Army Appropriation Account that the Secretary of State does not accept the claim of the Exchequer and Audit Department to control his discretion in matters of administration; and that correspondence will be laid before the Public Accounts Committee.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, What steps are being taken to provide graving dock accommodation in Bombay Harbour for iron-clads and large mercantile steamers?

Estimates and plans are being prepared, and schemes have been submitted by the Secretary of State to the consideration of the Admiralty.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated by Mr. Streeter at a meeting of the Royal Geographical Society on Monday night, that the Secretary of State has, by refusing to carry out the concession entered into by the Earl of Dufferin for the lease of the Ruby Mines in Burmah, caused a loss to the Indian Revenues in one year of 3¾ lakhs of rupees, or £37,500?

It is impossible to state the exact loss to the revenues of the year by the working of the Ruby Mines having been postponed. On the other hand, the exhaustion of the mines has not commenced, and the revenue lost in the present year will, in ordinary course, be realized in years to come.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that in the cantonment of Muttra the medical officer, under the Contagious Diseases Acts, reports complaining that—

"The regimental matron lacks energy, and does not take trouble to attract good-looking women,"

and suggests that—

"She should be got rid of, and a more suitable woman appointed;"

whether he further reports that—

"If, as a precaution against venereal diseases, women are necessary to be entertained, steps should be taken to ensure that attractive women are kept;"

and, whether similar recommendations have been made by the medical officers of any other cantonments?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on Tuesday, when I informed him that I had already stated last week that the Secretary of State has no information which corroborates such statements as that implied in the Question; but that he was in communication with the Government of India on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, at every tithe seizure and tithe sale which has taken place in Flintshire during the last six weeks, the "Emergency men" attending the solicitor to the Clergy Defence Association have invariably been armed with cutlasses and revolvers; whether the solicitor himself did, at a tithe sale held at Nannerch, in the said county, on Thursday, the 23rd February last, draw out a revolver, which he displayed to the people; and, whether he approves of such a bodyguard, who have not been sworn in as special constables, and who are so armed, following an irresponsible individual among excited people?

I have no information on this subject beyond that which I gave to the House on the 23rd of February in answer to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and have nothing to add to what I then said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at Clerkenwell Police Court on Tuesday two crossing sweepers were charged by the police with begging, and that they were both discharged by the learned magistrate, who remarked, in the first case, that—

"The prisoner seemed to get his living in a legitimate way as a crossing sweeper, and he did not see why the constable had taken him into custody;"

whether these prosecutions were undertaken with his sanction or knowledge; whether the defendants were, or either of them was, detained one night in custody; and, whether provision is made for sweeping crossings by the Vestries, or any other Public Authority; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent the interference of the police for the future with crossing sweepers plying their occupation?

As to one of the boys alluded to, I have not been able to obtain any information. As to the other, the Commissioner of Police informs me that he was charged because, although he had a broom, he was seen begging and receiving money away from any crossing, and at a place where the roadway had not been swept. I had no knowledge of these prosecutions. I understand that the boy was detained all night in custody, no bail being offered. Vestries and District Boards have power, under the Metropolis Local Management Act, to appoint and pay crossing sweepers; but I am not aware that they have acted on this power. The instructions to the police, given in 1881, are that crossing sweepers who do not beg or run after people are not to be interfered with; but that if they annoy passengers by begging they may be charged.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that for the first time in the history of the North Eastern Circuit the Assize business has been commenced at Leeds instead of at Newcastle; whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Judges have been unable to finish the civil business at Leeds and have proceeded to York, it being stated that they will return to Leeds at a future date to finish the civil business; and, whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of an arrangement by which great inconvenience is caused to the public?

Yes, Sir; it is the fact that the Judges arranged to go to Leeds first, instead of to Newcastle this Circuit. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has no official intimation as to the second paragraph of the Question. If it should be found at Leeds, or elsewhere, that inconvenience has been caused by the recent attempt to discontinue the grouping of counties for criminal business without unduly prolonging the Circuits, the Judges will, no doubt, carefully consider the matter, and, if possible, remedy it, if that can be done without causing still greater inconvenience to other places.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as stated by the Auditor General in his Report, the authorized charge for Artillery horses purchased in England is £45, and for Cavalry £40; whether an offer was received from a Mr. Patterson, of Toronto, to land 400 to 600 suitable Canadian horses at Liverpool at a cost of £40 each; and, whether it is the fact that the cost of the horses and mules procured in Canada amounted to over £52 each, in addition to the expenses of the Committee despatched to purchase them; or, if not, what was the cost?

The authorized charge for horses is as stated in the Question. Mr. Patterson did make the offer quoted; but the offer in itself was no guarantee that the horses would prove suitable for military requirements. As the purchase was of an experimental nature, it was considered preferable that the purchasing officers should themselves view the conditions obtaining in the Canadian markets. Including all expenses, the horses purchased in Canada have reached £54, and their ages averaged 4 11–12th years. Those bought in the United Kingdom averaged £43, with an average age of 3 9–12th years. A horse is useless for military purposes till five years old, and costs about £25 a-year for maintenance. Consequently the Canadian horses, when they become available for service, will have cost £56 each, while those of home growth will have cost £74. The Canadian horses have given great satisfaction. Pending inquiries into their cost and other circumstances, I have stopped the further purchase of Canadian horses; but my military advisers now press me to decide whether it would not be desirable to keep touch with the Canadian horse supply by purchasing from there a limited supply annually.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools, that a central normal school of agriculture, provided and maintained by the State, should be established in the neighbourhood of Rugby?

A sum of £5,000 has been inserted in the Estimate of the Agricultural Department as a grant in aid for giving effect to such of the recommendations of the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools as may be adopted by the Government. The details are still under discussion, and the above amount is not intended to represent the final amount of the grant.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Board of Inland Revenue last year addressed to a Civil servant in their Department a letter containing the following sentence:—

"You cannot be permitted by them (the Board) to lecture on, publicly speak on, or take any public part in the discussion of Home Rule;"

and, whether Sir Alfred Slade, Receiver General of Inland Revenue, was at that time a prominent member of the Primrose League?

The words quoted by the hon. Member were addressed to an officer of the Inland Revenue Service, and only gave expression to a Rule which is general throughout the Civil Service, in regard to all shades of politics. Sir Alfred Slade, Receiver General of Inland Revenue, is a Trustee of a certain portion of the funds of the Primrose League; but, as such, I do not consider that he can be regarded as a prominent member of the League.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the following Rule is in force in the Customs Department:—

"You are not to hold any corporate office, nor are you in any way to inferfere in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, beyond recording your vote, should you be so entitled, nor are you to be a Member of any Orange Lodge, nor to take part in any Party procession, nor belong to any Political Society, nor are you to subscribe to, or to be a member of, or attend any meeting of any Association for a political purpose, nor to subscribe to funds raised for such purposes,"

The hon. Member quotes a Rule which was altered by the Board of Customs in 1874, when the Revenue Officers Electoral Disabilities Removal Act was passed. Since that time the restriction as to "non-interference in the election of Members of Parliament beyond recording your vote" has been removed from the Rule.

asked the First Lord of Treasury, Why the sum of 2s. 6d. is charged for searching the Registers under Section 12 of "The Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887," whilst only 1s. is charged for a similar search in the same office under "The Bills of Sale Act, 1882;" and, whether, considering that the Act was passed for the better knowledge and benefit of the trading classes, and that the sum of 1s. is specifically mentioned in the Act, it is possible to reduce the charge to 1s.?

The fee under the Deeds of Arrangement Act differs from that under the Bills of Sale Act, because it is imposed, not only for the search, but also for the extract taken from the Register. Under the latter Act there is one fee for search and another for extract; under the former Act one foe covers both.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, to encourage recruiting and to reward faithful service, a proportion of suitable minor appointments in the various Governments Departments can be allotted to reserve and discharged soldiers; and, if so, what that proportion will be?

The question of the employment of reserve and discharged soldiers in the Civil Service is one that has been frequently under the consideration of the Government, who, as their Predecessors have done, admit the desirability of such employment being found, when practicable, for both soldiers and sailors. Whenever it is possible, the Rules for entry into the Civil Service have been relaxed, so far as regards the age limit, in favour of soldiers and sailors; but I think the House will agree with me that while such relaxation should be granted in regard to age, no such indulgence should be given with respect to other qualifications. The qualifications required for the minor posts alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend are not of a high order, and are only those absolutely necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties attached to the situations. Constant progress has been made in the direction of the more frequent employment of these men; and I think Members of this House would recognize such progress if they looked at the Rules governing entry into the Civil Service and noted the number of posts which, by relaxation of the age limit, have been thrown open to soldiers and sailors.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House what progress, if any, has been made in the Public Departments towards carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in 1876 and 1877, on the Civil Employment of Meritorious Discharged and Reserve Soldiers; and, whether, in view of the desirability of further popularizing recruiting for the Army, he can hold out hopes that the question will be further practically developed this year?

, in reply, said, they had not made so much progress as they had hoped for in carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee. He had lately circulated a letter addressed to himself by the Duke of Cambridge, strongly urging on the Government the necessity of giving effect to those recommendations.

, in moving—

"That the Orders of the Day subsequent to Supply be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to Public Meetings in the Metropolis,"

said: I think that, in all probability, this will be the last occasion on which it will be necessary to make such a Motion, as under the new Rules it will be in the power of the Government to put Motions on the Paper is the order in which they will be taken.

Mr. Speaker, the Motion which I have to submit to the House runs in the following terms:—

"That, having regard to the importance of preserving and protecting the right of open air public meeting for Her Majesty's subjects in the Metropolis and with a view to prevent ill-will and disorder, it is desirable that an inquiry should be instituted by a Committee of this House into the conditions subject to which such meetings may be held and the limits of the right of interference therewith by the Executive Government."

I think I shall probably have the general assent of the House if I say it is almost a matter of course that a debate on this subject should take place in view of the action of the Executive Government and of the police, because that action has excited very considerable feeling in a large portion of the population of this country, and especially of this Metropolis. Rightly or wrongly, a feeling is somewhat widely entertained—a feeling of disquiet—that there has been a serious invasion of the accustomed right of public meeting, and that this invasion has received more importance, perhaps, from certain utterances that have come from those who are charged with the administration of Her Majesty's Government. I recollect that the late Attorney General for Ireland claimed, on behalf of the Executive Government, the right to interfere with any meeting which the Government deemed to be held for an improper purpose. That, I submit, is not the law; and I am glad to recollect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) at once challenged that statement. The Home Secretary also, in the course of the discussion which took place in reference to this very occurrence in Trafalgar Square, claimed, if I understood his language correctly, the right to judge, acting for the Executive Government, as to what was or was not a bonâ fide political meeting; and he claimed the right to interfere or not to interfere, according to the judgment of the Executive Government, as to whether the meeting in question was or was not a bonâ fide political meeting. Again, I enter my protest against that as being a correct statement of the authority given by the law to the Executive Government. With regard to the particular transactions in Trafalgar Square, which have been the occasion of this Motion, I understand that the matter stands thus—that Trafalgar Square is not within the Royal Parks Act of 1872, that it is not within the jurisdiction of the various Acts of Parliament giving authority to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that it is at this moment entirely without legal regulation in the matter of public meetings of any kind whatever. My Motion demands inquiry with a view to such legal regulation. Further, there is the fact that for at least 40 years the people of the Metropolis have been accustomed to meet in the Square for the discussion of their grievances, or what they consider their grievances, without interruption and without challenge as to the legality of their action—nay, declarations have again and again been made by Members of the Executive Government of the day that they were in their legal right in holding meetings there, so long as the right was exercised in orderly conducted meetings. I am not exaggerating the case in asserting that by the recent act of the Head of the Police Force of the Metropolis there is a peremptory and, so far as his will is concerned, a perpetual mandate proceeding from him, in the exercise of a supposed authority, forbidding any persons to assemble in Trafalgar Square, however lawful their objects or however legal their conduct may be. I will put before the House the grounds on which I challenge that act of the Chief Commissioner. I am aware, of course, that there are very marked divisions of opinion on this question of open air meetings in the Metropolis. I know that a large and influential class say that meetings such as were lately held in that square are in these days an anachronism, that they are no longer needed, that they are a nuisance, and that they ought be done away with. ["Hear, hear!"] I quite expected that that was the opinion on the other side of the House, but to that class I do not belong. There are others who believe that public meetings in the open air may be held at any hour of the day or night, on any day of the week, and in any place. In that opinion I do not share. I am for preserving and protecting the right of public meeting wherever it has been accustomed to be exercised; but I am for protecting that right by legal means, and under legal regulations, and so as to cause a minimum of public inconvenience. A statement has been made by some that this right of public meeting is but a Liberal fiction, and that no right of public meeting in the sense of open-air public meetings exists. As interpreting the spirit in which I put this Motion before the House, I will read to the House the words used by Mr. Baron Alderson upon the occasion of the trial of the Chartist Vincent in relation to an open-air meeting. He said —

"There is no doubt that the people of this country have a perfect right to meet for the purpose of stating what are, or what they consider to he, their grievances. That right they always have had, and, I trust, always will have; but in order to transmit that right unimpaired to posterity, it is necessary it should be regulated by law and restrained by reason."

The learned Baron may not have been quite right historically in his statement, but in the spirit of that statement I submit this Motion to the House. I may point out that if London were a self-governing community this question could hardly have arisen. It certainly could not have arisen in the form and under the circumstances in which it has arisen. For if London had been a self-governing community, it would, as owner of its own property, have framed regulations for the use and enjoyment of it. All that would have been left to the Executive Government would be the right which the law gives them, and which I do not seek to impair or to diminish in the slightest, on their own responsibility to interfere with any meeting unlawful in its objects, or which becomes unlawful by reason of the circumstances under which it is held. But London is not a self-governing community. In the case of London we have as regards open spaces a variety of authorities, some of them with overlapping jurisdiction—Local Boards, Vestries, Local Trustees, the First Commissioner of Works, and the Home Office. In one sense Trafalgar Square was "No Man's Land," for it was neither under the Royal Parks Regulation Act of 1872, nor under the Board of Works. It is urged by some persons that open-air meetings are matters which, in London, could properly be dispensed with. But I think the general body will agree with the views of the right hon. Member for Derby when at the Home Office. The following is a letter addressed by him to the Metropolitan Board of Works in August, 1883, with reference to Southwark Park:—

"You are aware of my sentiments on this subject. It is hard to expect that working men who claim to meet for the discussion of their own affairs should be put to the cost of hiring rooms for the purpose, which, if the assemblage is large, is in London a very expensive business. There is not a village or a town in England which has not some open space where gatherings of this kind can take place, and it would be intolerable if the population of London, amounting to 4,000,000 of people, were destitute of such opportunities, which are naturally and legitimately desired. Both Parliament and the Crown have, in the administration of the Parks under their control, evidenced their opinion that public meetings conducted in a peaceable and orderly manner constitute a proper and even useful employment of open spaces in the Metropolis. I think it would be a matter of regret if the Metropolitan Board took a different view of the open spaces which are under their management. Unnecessary repression of this character creates discontent and disturbance, and so far from tending to public order is calculated to provoke irritation and tumult."

I shall now have to trouble the House with a few words as to the historical creation of Trafalgar Square. In the course of the discussion which has taken place with reference to the Square sanction has sometimes been given to the view that Trafalgar Square is the private property of Her Majesty, and that in a legal sense it was like Hyde Park before the Parks Regulation Act was passed. Nothing can be more mistaken than that view. Hyde Park was originally called after the manor of Hyde, which manor was one of the possessions of the Abbey of Westminster which was confiscated by Henry VIII. From the days of that Monarch it remained for a long series of years the private property of the Crown, just like any other property. The case of Trafalgar Square was absolutely and entirely different. I am informed by Mr. Charles Harrison, who has given me his assistance in getting up this matter in detail, that the first important Act with regard to Trafalgar Square was passed in 1813. It recited that it was considered a work of public utility and would be a great accommodation if, among other things, an open square was formed opposite Charing Cross. There were contained in the Act various other schemes for widening other streets. For this purpose, in connection with the improvement of the private Crown estate—then known as Marylebone Park, but now as Regent's Park—Public Commissioners were appointed and public moneys voted, and the property which formed the first half of what is now Trafalgar Square, but originally known as Union Square, was acquired by a public Vote of Parliament, paid for out of the taxes of the country. In 1826 another Act recited that it was a public object and for the public accommodation that there should be formed an enclosed and open square for the accommodation of the public which comprised the present Square; and one of its clauses, while imposing on the Commissioners the duty of completing the Square, at the same time imposed on the parishes its preservation and support. This Act related to the eastern half of what is now the Square, and which was in 1826 the property principally of the then Duke of Northumberland and the Governors of Bethlehem Hospital. By 1844 the property was substantially in its present condition, and had been so made by the public and at the public expense for public purposes. In 1844 a Statute was passed upon which was based the theory that this Square is the property of the Crown in the sense of private property of Her Majesty. I deny it. I know that it has been said that the Crown is the trustee for the people; but it has also been said that those who went into Trafalgar Square against the will or without the licence of the Queen commit a trespass. My contention is strongly against this view. The Act of 1844 recites that the Queen was seised in right of her Crown in the place called Trafalgar Square, which is no more than saying that the freehold or the fee simple is vested in the Queen, and that statement in no way detracts from the public character that has been stamped upon Trafalgar Square by the history I have given. The power of control over Trafalgar Square was wisely given to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests without in any way detracting from the public character of that place which was so originally stamped upon it, and no regulations either of those Commissioners or of the Chief Commissioner can properly set aside or alter the rights of the public in reference to it. Indeed, up to the present time no regulations of any kind have been made in reference to Trafalgar Square under the authority either of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests or of the Chief Commissioner of Police. I attach much importance to the Statute of 1854. The scheme of that Statute was this. It mentions certain statues by name, two of which are in Trafalgar Square—that of King George III. and that of Lord Nelson—and it then goes on to place under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the statues situated in public places in the Metropolis, and "public place" is defined to be one to which the public had "the right of ingress, egress, regress, or thoroughfare." That is practically a statutory admission of the right of the public to enter, leave, and return to that Square. The statutory history of the square to which I have referred entitles me to say that this Square was created by public money for the public accommodation, and not merely for the advantage of those who happen to live in its immediate neighbourhoood, and that, while the freehold or legal estate remains in the Queen, the beneficial use and accommodation of it lie in the public, and are in no sense properly to be limited and restricted by the powers of management vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The First Commissioner's power of management was, and ought to be, in point of law and in point of expediency, limited with reference to its public use and character. Lastly, I have pointed out that no regulations restraining or affecting that use have been made. What is the history of the user of the Square following upon these Statutes? The history of the actual user of the Square by the public is still more remarkable. In 1844, as I have stated, the care and control of the Square was vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. In 1848, when Parliament was sitting, a Mr. Cochrane convened a public meeting in the Square with the object of protesting, among other things, against the Income Tax, and he was informed by the Police Commissioners that the meeting could not be permitted; whereupon Mr. Cochrane wrote to them to state that he had no idea that such a meeting in such a place was illegal, and that, in consequence of the Commissioners being of opinion that it was illegal, he would take no further part in it. The Commissioners thereupon at once wrote to him and informed him that he was under a mistake as to their grounds of objection to the meeting being held, which were not that it was illegal to hold such a meeting in Trafalgar Square at any time, but only when Parliament was sitting. It was on that occasion that Sir George Grey stated in this House that it was lawful to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square, provided they were legal and orderly in their character. The next occasion on which the question of the right of public meeting arose was the memorable one in relation to Hyde Park in 1866. Hon. Members will remember that it was suggested at that time, with a much greater show of reason, that the representatives of the Crown, under whose control the Park was placed, had a right to prohibit public meetings in it, asit was intended for the recreation of the people; and that, if a public meeting were held in it, the grass and flower beds would be trampled upon and destroyed. In the year to which I am referring, the point was taken that Trafalgar Square was the lawful and proper place for holding such meetings. It was then asserted that an open, unenclosed square like Trafalgar Square was not much used for the mere purposes of thoroughfare, and that, therefore, it was a most convenient place for holding public meetings. Sir George Grey went further even than that, because he stated in this House that, as long as the public meetings held in the Square were of a peaceable, orderly, and lawful character, the Executive Government had no right to interfere with them. That was undoubtedly a very important statement. The present Home Secretary and the Legal Advisers of the Government have access to what I have not—namely, a long current of opinions on the subject by distinguished Law Officers, and I should like to know whether, in the course of the long series of years since 1844, there is any instance of the Law Officers of the Crown advising the Executive to interfere with orderly meetings being held in the Square. I should like to know whether the Government can show that on any former occasion, either on his own Motion or on the initiation or suggestion of the Government, the Chief Commissioner of Police, by proclamation or notice or ukase—I care not which—has chosen, upon his own authority, to prohibit any meeting, however lawful or orderly, in Trafalgar Square. In 1885, when it was proposed by a Mr. W. J. L. Hooper to hold a meeting in Trafalgar Square to celebrate the release of Mrs. Weldon from prison, that gentleman received the following letter from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Police:—

"4, Whitehall Place, S.W.,

"Sept. 9, 1885.

"Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 4thinst., I am directed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to acquaint you that it would be very inconvenient, both to the speakers at the proposed meeting and to the public, to have the meeting addressed from the steps leading from the pavement of the Square to the Terrace, and the blocking of this public way, which is unusual, might lead to disorder on the part of persons resenting it. The base of the Nelson column is not allowed as a platform for addressing meetings, and the usual and most convenient spot for such purposes is at the base of the wall at the north (or National Gallery) side of the Square. In many instances the promoters of the meetings bring with them a small portable platform to raise the speakers above the people, and this procedure is not interfered with by the police. The drivers of carriages in the procession should be instructed to obey the directions of the police, who would then arrange the empty vehicles at the north and west sides of the Square in the carriage way, so as to cause the least possible obstruction; and every assistance would be afforded to prevent disorder at the meeting.

"I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

"C. L. BATHURST,

"pro Chief Clerk."

I have further to say that up to 1886, although there were a large number of meetings, many of them largely attended, held in Trafalgar Square, no serious disturbance occurred at any of them. In 1886, however, there was a meeting which was attended by unhappy consequences. We know that those consequences resulted from a misunderstanding on the part of the police of the orders which had been given to them. They believed they were told to assemble in the Mall, and the order in fact, was that they should assemble in Pall Mall, to be ready if they were required. The result was that a considerable number of persons—the fringe of the meeting—[a laugh]—well, I think so, and I perhaps know as much about the meeting as the hon. Member who seems to doubt it—a considerable number of persons acted in a disorderly manner. I am not going to say they were exemplary characters. Taking advantage of the circumstances in which they found themselves, they indulged in looting, and disturbances of a more or less serious character occurred. I will now refer to the evidence given in legal proceedings by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), whose courtesy I ought to acknowledge in giving precedence to me on this subject, Charles Bradlaugh, being examined, said—

"He had known Trafalgar Square for 35 years, and during that time the public had passed freely over every part of it. He had never seen a notice exhibited stating that the Square was private property. Between 1855 and 1884 he had taken part in public meetings there. After 1860 he had frequently convened meetings there, none of which had been dispersed by the police or prevented. On the 31st of July, 1871, he was served by Inspector Clark with a written notice on behalf of the Commissioners forbidding him to hold a meeting. A meeting had been called by Mr. Odger, which had been proclaimed and which he doubted the legality of, and he issued a notice convening another meeting. The notice stated that force would be used if he attempted to hold it, and Inspector Clark, who served the notice, asked for an answer. He answered that the meeting was legal, and that any attempt to disperse it would be illegal, and that he would resist force by force. That was about 11 in the morning, and about 12 he served a notice on the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of Police to the same effect. He held the meetings. The Assistant Commissioner of Police was present. There was no attempt to disperse the meeting, although there was a large force of police present."

I have shown that meetings have been held in Trafalgar Square since it was Trafalgar Square, that the legality of those meetings has been admitted by the action of the Home Secretary in 1848 and in 1866, and by the action of the police who have assisted in carrying out those meetings, and that no disturbance of a serious character has taken place. I now come to the unhappy occurrences of the 13th and the 20th of November last. It is true that previous to the 13th of November there had been a number of meetings held of a more or less disorderly character; it is true that these meetings were the cause of very considerable annoyance and inconvenience, and even possibly of danger to business and injury to persons whose premises surround Trafalgar Square. My object in this Motion, which I think the House will appreciate, would be while preserving the right of meeting in Trafalgar Square to preserve it under such legal conditions and authority as should minimize inconvenience to the public and give security for the preservation of order by those who are responsible for its maintenance. With reference to the meetings that were held before the 13th of November, if they were unlawful, I want to know why the Home Secretary or the Chief Commissioner of Police did not previously interfere with them? I do not understand it is suggested that the object with which they were called was unlawful. If they were made an occasion for the delivery of seditious speeches or of speeches inciting to breaches of the peace or disorder, I want to know why steps were not taken against the individuals for the offences so committed? I now come to the meeting of November 13, which I beg the House to observe—and which I would fain believe the Home Secretary failed to distinguish—was wholly unconnected with any of the meetings that had gone before. The meeting was called by a responsible body of men — the confederated Liberal or Radical Clubs of London—for an object which the Crown cannot and did not suggest was an unlawful purpose. Unquestionably it was an "improper purpose" according to the view of the Government, because it was to denounce their policy in Ireland. I wish the House to observe the dates. That meeting was resolved upon on the 2nd of November, and it was announced by posters on the 5th of November. It was under the management of the representatives of a large number of clubs and political societies in the Metropolis; and I recollect that at an interview which several friends and I had with the Home Secretary the Chief Commissioner of Police admitted that on several previous occasions the conveners of this meeting had acted in harmony with the police in preserving order; the Chief Commissioner willingly and gratefully recognized that fact. On the 8th of November was placarded the public notice setting forth that disorderly scenes had occurred in Trafalgar Square, and with a view to preventing the recurrence of such disorderly scenes—

"I, Charles Warren, do hereby give notice, with the sanction of the Secretary of State and the concurrence of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works, that until further intimation no public meeting will be allowed to assemble in Trafalgar Square, nor will speeches be allowed to be delivered therein, and all well-disposed persons are requested to abstain from assembling there, as measures will be adopted to prevent any such meeting or the delivery of any speech."

Let me say that if this notice has any legal effect at all—and I shall be surprised if any lawyer says the contrary—on the legality or illegality of the meeting, its lawful or unlawful character; it derives no additional force from the fact that it is stated to have the sanction of the Secretary of State and the concurrence of the First Commissioner of Works. The Home Secretary represents the Executive, and has no authority in the matter special or peculiar to him; his authority is derived from the general Common Law; and as regards the First Commissioner, even if he had any power, this notice is no exercise of his authority, and he had no power to delegate it to anybody else. This notice stands upon its merits or demerits, whatever they may be—upon the simple statement that "I, Charles Warren," forbid until further notice any meeting whatever. I am a little uncertain as to how to treat this notice. In the Police Court my able and learned friend Mr. Poland spoke of it as being an act of the Executive Government; but I observe that at the Old Bailey my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said there was not a tittle of evidence to show that the Government had anything to do with it.

I must venture to correct the hon. and learned Member. What I did say was that the putting in motion of that notice came from the Police Authorities in the interest of public peace, but that there was no evidence that the Executive put the notice in motion, but that they approved the action of Sir Charles Warren on the statements laid before them by him.

I do not find from the report in The Times that he said the Executive approved what was done; but I do find the statement that the responsibility rested not on the Government, but on Sir Charles Warren, who, he goes on to say, was appointed by a Liberal Government; but, apart from that, he continued, there was not a tittle of evidence from which anyone could venture to suggest that Sir Charles Warren took action on the suggestion of the Executive. That, I think, is what I substantially said. Well, we now hear for the first time that the Government, if they did not take the initiative, did approve what was done. After this I am entitled to draw the conclusion that it was the act of the Government. First of all, what is the effect of that notice? Will any lawyer say that that notice makes the least difference as regards the question whether the meeting intended to be held would have been a lawful meeting or not? Would it not be admitted that that notice or proclamation had had no effect whatever in determining one way or the other the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the meeting? I beg the House to bear in mind the point on which I insist in this matter. I do not now question, and never have questioned, the right of the Executive to stop any meeting which they could satisfy any proper tribunal was an unlawful meeting, either because of its avowed object, or because it was calculated to inspire the minds of ordinary persons in the neighbourhood with fear. I admit that to be the law. But that is not what this notice does. What it does is to peremptorily forbid, until it is withdrawn, any meeting being held in Trafalgar Square, however lawful and however peaceable. I will notice the observation which the Home Secretary made the other night with reference to this point. The hon. Mem- ber for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) put a Question to the Home Secretary as to whether this ukase, as he chose to call it, was or was not still in force. To that the Home Secretary answered—"The regulations of Sir Charles Warren in relation to Trafalgar Square are still in force." Is the defence of the Government this—that this document is a regulation as to the use of Trafalgar Square? No. What, then, is the defence and justification in point of law? Again I say I admit the right of the Executive Government, upon their responsibility and for either of the reasons I have given, to prevent a meeting in the Square; but I deny the right of the Executive Government, and still more the right of Sir Charles Warren, to issue a Proclamation forbidding any meeting, irrespective of its character. Having got rid of the idea that this notice was one for the regulation of Trafalgar Square, by what is it to be defended? Let me remind the Home Secretary that the finding of the jury and the termination of the case at the Old Bailey gave no colour or legal sanction of any sort or kind as to the legality or illegality of future orderly meetings in the Square. A deputation waited upon the Home Secretary on the 11th of November, and I should like to read to the House what took place. The Home Secretary used this language—

"The public have no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square. It is only by the sufferance and permission of the Queen that they do meet there. That permission is, of course, ordinarily extended, and would he ordinarily extended to any bonâ fide meeting, to any real political assemblage that came there for bonâ fide political purposes; but it is on sufferance and with permission, and Her Majesty (or rather the Office of Works, who speak for Her Majesty in the matter) has a perfectly legal right to withhold that permission."

Now, I wish to know who made the Home Secretary judge, and who gave him, as the adviser of the Queen in these matters, the right of saying what is a bonâ fide meeting? This is very dangerous ground for the Home Secretary, and I venture to say there is no legal support for it. I deny that access to the Square is upon sufferance. The purpose for which the Square can be used, when access is obtained, is another and different question; but that there is a right of access to the Square I think is apparent. I have, I think, already made it clear that the public have a right of user of the Square, and the Home Secretary has no authority to take it away; but I will follow the matter a little further. Does not the Home Secretary see—do not all the legal Members of the House see—that even if a meeting was held on a place, and the persons holding the meeting were committing a trespass, that act of trespass would not necessarily make the meeting unlawful? People in those circumstances do not commit the offence of holding an unlawful meeting, but the offence of trespass only. And if you come to deal with the question of obstruction, it will be seen that obstruction will not make a meeting unlawful on that account only. It is not too much to say that you cannot hold a meeting in any public place at which you would not be guilty, in a greater or lesser degree, of obstruction which may extend over accustomed ways or footpaths. But will any lawyer say, if a meeting is held under circumstances which cause obstruction, that that fact necessarily makes it a meeting of an unlawful character? I deny it. The persons holding the meeting may be guilty of an offence for which they can be dealt with; but it is not the offence of taking part in or of holding an unlawful meeting. I should like to quote, on this question of public meeting, from an author whose opinions will be received with approbation by Dissentient Liberals on this side of the House. My friend Professor Dicey, one of the ablest and one of the most honest and candid of the advocates of our Dissentient Friends, says—

"The right of assembling is nothing more than the result of the view taken by the Courts as to individual liberty of person and individual liberty of speech. There is no special law allowing A, B, and C to meet together either in the open air or elsewhere for a lawful purpose; but the right of A to go where he pleases, so that he does not commit a trespass, and to say what he likes to B, so that his talk is not libellous or seditious, the right of B to do the like with regard to A, and the existence of the same rights of C, D, E, and F, and so on ad infinitum, leads to the consequence that A, B, C, D and a thousand or ten thousand other persons may (as a general rule) meet together in any place where otherwise they each have a right to be for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner."

The next step in the matter is the occurrence of the meeting itself. I think there are few men who have any doubt that if the authorities had permitted the meeting to be held undisturbed by the action of the police, although it might have caused inconvenience to some, it would not have resulted in any general tumult or disorder. But the course resorted to by the police, of stopping large masses of people who were on their way to the Square in the exercise of what they believed to be their long - accustomed right, undoubtedly had very serious effects upon the public temper, and ultimately upon the public peace. I am not going into this question, which is not pertinent to the Motion. I wish this Motion to be discussed apart from that point, and on its own merits. I will only say, with regard to it, that the Government based their contention as to the illegality of the meeting on three grounds—(1) that the defendants had taken part in a riot; (2) that they took part in a disorderly meeting, in which the police were assaulted; and (3) that the meeting was unlawful on the ground that it was calculated to inspire terror in the minds of persons living in the neighbourhood. The jury negatived the question of riot and the question of disorderly meeting, and found the defendants guilty on the third ground only. As to what took place on the occasion I forbear to say more than this—that the assault and riot having been negatived, I am sorry the learned Judge did not see his way, inasmuch as it was admitted by the Crown that the meeting was held in the assertion of what was considered to be a legal right—I am sorry the learned Judge did not see his way to allow the prisoners to stand out and come up for judgment when called upon. The finding of the jury must be taken as a justification of the action of the police in preventing the particular meeting from being held; but it is no justification in point of law or reason for this standing prohibition of Sir Charles Warren, which is now to be treated as the action of the Government, permanently and absolutely at their will and pleasure, to prevent all orderly meetings from being held in Trafalgar Square. Now, in this matter, I have to trouble the House with one word, and one word only, as to another ground of justification which is sought to be put forward. The only notice existing on the 13th of November was the notice of the 8th of November; but after the meeting of the 13th of November a further notice was issued by Sir Charles Warren, in which, citing as his justification—and I call attention to it—the Statutes of the 2 & 3 Vict. and the 7 & 8 Vict., he purported to make this order or regulation that no meeting is to be allowed to assemble or any person to be allowed to deliver any public speech in Trafalgar Square or in the streets or thoroughfares adjoining or leading thereto, and that no organized processions shall be allowed to pass along the streets or thoroughfares adjoining or leading thereto. What are the Statutes cited in support of this? They are two. I dispose of one of them by a passing reference. The Act passed in 1844–7 & 8 Vict.—gives certain authority, limited, as I have indicated, to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and now to the Commissioners of Works. The only section in the other Statute which has any bearing on this matter is the 52nd section, which makes it lawful for the Commissioner of Police from time to time, as occasion may require, to frame regulations for the route to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and for preventing obstruction in the streets and thorough-fares within the Metropolitan Police district, in all times of public processions, public rejoicings, or illuminations, and also to give directions to constables to keep in order and to prevent any obstruction of the thoroughfares in the immediate neighbourhood of Her Majesty's Palaces, the Public Offices, Parliament, the Courts of Law, the Police Courts, theatres, and other places of public resort, and in any case where the thoroughfares are thronged and liable to be obstructed. What does this Statute mean? It is not a Statute forbidding processions, but a Statute for regulating them. It is not a Statute forbidding public meetings, but it is a power given to the police to be exercised with the view of marshalling, so to speak, the traffic, so that there may be as little disturbance or inconvenience to the public as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say that it is within the competence of the First Commissioner of Metropolitan Police to forbid anybody from coming down Parliament Street, or to forbid any procession from going down the Embankment? I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's answer is to that question. I should like him now to give, even by a nod of the head, some indication of an answer, because I submit to the House that unless the power claimed is a power to the extent and of the kind that I have indicated, there is no more power to stop processions in the direction of Trafalgar Square by a general order applicable to all occasions than there is to stop them in any thoroughfare of the Metropolis. I have so far dealt with this matter very much on the legal grounds, but I confess that I do not think this is a question which the House can afford or ought to discuss in the mere language of legal pedantry. I am fully aware of the technical legal difficulties in the way, in many cases, of affirmatively establishing in a Court of Law the concrete right of open-air public meeting. But this is a question in which a right that the public have exercised in fact has been restrained by a peremptory mandate of the Government, which they are called upon to justify, not only in point of law, but on Constitutional principles. I submit they can do neither. If they want to have further powers to maintain order and to keep the peace, let them come to Parliament and ask for them, and my Motion opens the road to inquiry. If the existing regulations are inadequate, let them be strengthened; but do not by an indirect method or side-wind make an invasion upon a long exercised right of the public, or interfere with it in this peremptory and unconstitutional manner. I have pointed out that the question of the right to hold orderly meetings in Trafalgar Square was not raised in the case heard at the Old Bailey. There was a kind of assertion by the learned Attorney General that there was no right of access to the Square, which in his summing-up Mr. Justice Charles did not seem to endorse. I know, also, there was a suggestion of Mr. Justice Charles as to the non-existence of the supposed right of holding public meetings in Trafalgar Square. In so far as any such suggestion was made by that learned Judge, I say with all respect that it was a mere obiter dictum, because the question did not arise in the case. The ground upon which the verdict of the jury at the Old Bailey rested would have equally applied to any like meeting in any place—even in a place in which it was admitted there was a right to hold the meeting. But when the Government had the opportunity of having the question judicially determined as to whether there was or was not the right to hold an orderly meeting in Trafalgar Square, I say unmistakably—I do not say it offensively—that they shirked the question. I allude, of course, to the case of Mr. Saunders, a former Member of this House. Mr. Saunders attended at Trafalgar Square, having given notice to the police that he would, on the 8th and again on the 11th of November. He said that he claimed his right to go there and to speak to the unemployed in terms of sympathy, and I think he said terms of comfort. The police told him they would not permit the meeting. He said that he would hold it. He went to the place of meeting and began to speak. An inspector or constable desired him to desist. He said he would not desist, but would persevere until he was forcibly prevented. Consequently, the inspector or constable put his hand on him to stop him, and the meeting was then at an end. Mr. Saunders was brought before a magistrate and was defended—ably defended—by my learned friend Mr. Corrie Grant, and the representatives of the Government on that occasion showed the most anxious desire to withdraw the charge. Mr. Corrie Grant wanted to know what was the offence that had been committed; and I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to a very extraordinary thing—namely, to what Mr. Poland, a most able and competent counsel on the other side, said in his argument. In the first place, Mr. Corrie Grant said—"This is not a regulation under any Statute." Mr. Poland said—"It is quite clear it is not." Mr. Corrie Grant asked on what authority the prohibition rested—what section authorized it? Mr. Poland said—"No Statute. He does it simply as a servant of the Crown." So that we have here the old idea of private property, and that a trespass is committed by anyone going to the Square without or against the permission of the Crown. I had intended to allude to the case of the other public parks, and I shall be very short in my reference to them. The right of user by the public in other open spaces in the Metropolis than Trafalgar Square cannot be said to be in a satisfactory condition. It calls for inquiry as the Motion suggests. Shortly stated, these public places are of two classes—those which are outside the Public Parks Act of 1872, and those that are within that Act. Under the regulations framed in pursuance of the Public Parks Act of 1872 there are in London four places, and four only, so far as I am aware, in which there is the right of public meeting, and that right is given in rather a remarkable way. It is not expressly said that there shall be a right of public meeting, but that no public meeting shall be allowed to take place except within certain spaces and subject to various other conditions. Those four places are Hyde Park, Regent's Park, Victoria Park, and Battersea Park. Then, as to the places not within the Public Parks Act, they stand in this position. First, as to the licensing authority, where the Metropolitan Board is the primary authority for making bye-laws, the confirming authority is either the Secretary of State or First Commissioner of Works. Where the Local Board are the conservators, the confirming authority is the Local Government Board. Where the conservators are appointed from local residents, the confirming authority is the First Commissioner of Works. So that you have these various authorities, and not always acting in harmony. In regard to those places specially under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, there is a prohibition of a qualified kind against any right to hold public meetings in by far the largest number of open spaces in and around the Metropolis. I mean that such meetings cannot be lawfully held unless by the written consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works first had and obtained. This applies to a very large number of places, among which are—Blackheath, Hampstead Heath, Shepherd's Bush Common. Hackney Commons, comprising London Fields, Hackney Downs, Wells Street Common (otherwise Hackney Common), North Mill Fields, South Mill Fields, Stoke Newington Common, Clapton Common, and parcels of land at or near Dalston Lane, and Grove Street, Wormwood Scrubs, Shoulder-of-Mutton Green, Plumstead Common, Peckham Rye, Goose Green, Nunhead Green, Clapham Common, Brook Green, Eelbrook Common, Parson's Green, Toot- ing Beck Common, and Tooting Graveney Common. In all these cases the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works is to be obtained. It does not seem to me that the right which unquestionably the public of this country greatly cherish should be, as regards all these open spaces, so entirely at the will and pleasure of an authority which cannot be in any real sense of the words be called a Representative Body, and as to which I will only say further that it is not a Body which can be said to command universal confidence. In particular, I cannot think that the Government can be satisfied, or ought to be satisfied, with the position in which the question of Trafalgar Square rests. I cannot think they will consider it a satisfactory state of things that there should now be in 1888 so remarkable an interference by the Chief Commissioner acting for the Government—and now, as we are to take it, by the Government themselves—with a long-established right. It is not a state of things that the public will put up with, or ought to put up with. They claim the right, according to the custom by which they have exercised it, to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square. I have no doubt they are willing and anxious to have proper and sober rules for the conduct and regulation of meetings, so as to minimize and reduce, as far as possible, any inconvenience to the public. But this question, it seems to me, touches a much greater and a much broader question, apart from its strictly legal aspect and character. Speaking of liberty in this country, De Tocqueville said that he was surprised to find how little there was about liberty and of liberty in the law of the country, and how much there was of liberty in the Constitutional understandings and customs of the country. Our right of liberty of the Press, reduced to its elements, means no more than that a man, without previous licence, publishes what he pleases, taking the legal consequences, and submitting himself, in what he writes, to the judgment of a jury. So as regards this public right of meeting. I have avoided, arguing the question in any spirit—and I hope I have succeeded—of narrow, technical, legal pedantry. I desire to put it on broader and higher grounds than that. This question touches a right which the people of the country have long enjoyed, and which they deeply cherish. The exercise of that right has been of very great value in the past, and. I believe it will be of great value in the future. What has been the result of the exercise of that right in this country? The result has bean that while we have seen revolutions in other countries carried by violence and lawlessness and accompanied by crime, we have seen in this country revolutions as great and as wide-reaching as any which have occurred abroad, carried by peaceable means, because this country has lived and thriven upon the breath of free public discussion. The right of public meeting has helped to form public opinion; it has given voice to popular discontent; and I say that public discontent, even if it be unreasonable discontent, ought to have a voice. It has quickened the action of Legislatures—aye, and its action has quickened and roused the conscience of Governments. It has been useful in the past, so I believe it will be useful in the future; and, therefore, I hope the House of Commons will not, by vote or otherwise, do anything to impair, restrict, or weaken that power of expressing public opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

I should like, at the outset of the observations I shall make to the House, to express my cordial concurrence with the closing remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). The importance and value of public meetings the Government fully recognize. We entirely admit the truth of his assertion—that it is desirable that popular discontent should find a free and open voice, and should not be driven to express itself in secret conventicles and other ways. I believe that no one in this House is more con- vinced of those somewhat—I say it without offence—elementary maxims to which he has given eloquent expression. But I believe in this question of Trafalgar Square, which has now arisen between the authorities and some part of the public, we have done nothing to impair any public right—nothing to diminish any real right of public meeting which exists in the Metropolis. Our action has been entirely dictated by what I may call police considerations—consideration of public order, the protection of persons and property, and what was necessary to be done in order to prevent a repetition of the scenes that happened not much more than two years ago, and which certainly were a disgrace both to this Metropolis and its civilization. No doubt there does lie at the bottom of this controversy some necessary inquiry into the legal position of Trafalgar Square. The hon. and learned Gentleman has disclaimed the use of mere legal pedantry in dealing with the subject; but, at the same time, artfully—I do not use the word in an offensive sense—doing that, he has led the way over a series of Statutes, seeking to produce upon the House an impression that there was some legal right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square. If that was not his intention or purpose, then the greater part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument had no purpose at all. Now, as to the legal right of meeting in Trafalgar Square, I absolutely challenge it and join issue upon it. I say that such a right does not exist in law or in fact. No such thing can be pretended directly or openly by a lawyer, even of much less eminence than the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman at great length through the Statutes. I shall shortly put the view which I found accepted at the Home Office when I entered it. It is this. Under the Statute of 1844 Trafalgar Square was not created the property of the Crown, and certainly it was not the private property of the Crown; but Trafalgar Square was recognized by statutory enactment as one of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, the ownership of which was therefore in the Crown. The reason of that, I apprehend, was that Trafalgar Square was made out of an old Royal property called King's Mews.

No; only a very small part of it.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was not strictly accurate in some of his facts; at least, they do not conform with the information I have been able to collect on the subject. Trafalgar Square took the place originally of a large building called the King's Mews and its appurtenaces, to which were added premises in part purchased by private and in part by public money. It is enough, however, to take one's stand on the Act of 1844, and I have no desire to lay before the House any technical or pedantic view of that Act. But how can anyone read that Act and understand otherwise than that Parliament intended to declare, as it does declare—

"That the place or square called Trafalgar Square is by this Act vested in the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, her heirs and successors, as part and parcel of the hereditary possessions of Her Majesty."

Then the Act goes on to vest—I wish frankly to admit that it clothes Trafalgar Square with a species of public trust—the management, care, control, and regulation of the Square in the Commissioners of Woods—now of Works—as representing the Crown, and they are required to keep it in order. Then comes the 3rd section of the Act, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer, but which throws light on the position of the Square. That section says that the clauses of the Metropolitan Police Act shall apply to this Act and to the Square, so far as such clauses and provisions are not repugnant or inconsistent with the Trafalgar Square Act. That section makes it impossible for any lawyer to say that Trafalgar Square was an ordinary street or thoroughfare at that time. The provisions of the Police Act apply to all thoroughfares and streets of the Metropolis; but without that express enactment the police could have had no more to do with Trafalgar Square than with any private garden in the Metropolis, and they could not have gone into it to exercise any of their ordinary functions. The view at the Home Office was that it was vested in Her Majesty for public purposes and public objects. The management was committed to a great officer of State, namely, the Commissioner of Works—the right and title of Her Majesty, so far as owning the ground was concerned, was left untouehed—in order that the Square might be best devoted to the public enjoyment and to the public advantage. At that time it certainly was not a thoroughfare, because the Act of Parliament contemplates that the Commissioner of Works may put up in it things which might be viewed as an obstruction. Things have been put up by the First Commissioner in Trafalgar Square which might be considered obstructions if put up in any ordinary thoroughfare. The statue of Sir Charles Napier was put up in 1858, the statue of Sir Henry Havelock in 1861, that of George IV. in 1845, and the great column between 1844 and 1847. Therefore things were put up in Trafalgar Square which showed that Parliament contemplated a condition of affairs inconsistent with the dedication of the Square as an ordinary highway, and that it was intended by Parliament that the public should have the use and enjoyment of the Square, possibly in a more complete way than they had the use and enjoyment of the Parks. Of course, I am not insensible to the contention which might be raised that subsequent user of the Square might have altered that condition of things and given the public a right of thoroughfare; but such a point has never been raised, has never been argued, and has never been decided. It would, indeed, admit of a good deal of argument; but I do not think it necessary to enter into that question, but I will take it the other way. If there be a right of user and of thoroughfare that only makes the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman the more untenable. It is undeniable that the right of public meetings in any street or thoroughfare, does not exist. It does not exist on the property of any private owner, but with the consent of that private owner. But nobody disputes that. Nor, on the other hand, would anybody deny that public meetings may be held—indeed they must be held—in places where they can be held, with the sanction of the owner. The right of public meeting is the right of expressing your opinions openly, publicly, on any subject whatever, whether you attack the Government of the day, or whether you defend it; but it does not mean that you may take possession of any place you wish for the purpose of holding your meeting. If, as I have said, you hold a meeting upon the land of a private owner, the consent of the owner must be obtained, and. nothing is more clear than that you have no right to hold a meeting in a public thoroughfare. That is the law. I listened to the hon. and learned Member to see whether he would say that there was a right of public meeting in the streets or thoroughfares. He did not assert it; he assumed it. I should have been glad to draw him into that assertion if I could, but he did not assert any right of meeting in a public thoroughfare or street. It would certainly be most monstrous to say that any number of betting men might meet in Fleet Street to talk over the result of a race. [An hon. MEMBER: They do it now.] I know they do; but they ought to be removed, because the place is not devoted to the purpose of public meetings, but to other purposes equally useful. The hon. and learned Member spoke of this point not having been decided at the Central Criminal Court, I take it to have been decided. The point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). And what did Mr. Justice Charles say? He said—

"I have anxiously considered the observations which Mr. Asquith has addressed to you, and I can find no warrant for telling you that there is a right of public meeting either in Trafalgar Square or any other public thoroughfare. So far as I know the law of England, the use of public thoroughfares is for the people to pass and repass along them. That is the purpose for which they are, as we say, dedicated by the owner of them to the use of the public; and they are not dedicated to the public use for any other purpose that I know of than for the purpose of passing and repassing; and if you come to regard Trafalgar Square as being a place of public resort simply, it seems to mo it would be very analogous to that. Equally on the part of the public they have no right, although they may often do it without objection—the public have no right to hold meetings for discussion upon any questions, be they social, political, or religious. That is my direction of the law to you as far as regards the abstract right of the people to meet in public places."

That is a very accurate definition of the law, and it would be very unfortunate if any discussion in this House would allow the opinion to prevail that the public have a right to meet in every public thoroughfare. However much one may desire that public meetings should be held—and no one desires it more than I —I must say that to allow them in public thoroughfares would be to land London and other towns like London in hopeless confusion. The hon. and learned Member went on to say—"Oh, but there have been meetings held in Trafalgar Square," and he gave the instance of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who—according to his wont—held a meeting there in defiance of the authorities. The hon. Member for Northampton—and I congratulate him—won the victory on that occasion. The public authorities, perhaps wisely and prudently under the circumstances, in order to avoid a collison said nothing about it, and allowed him to go on and hold the meeting. Our whole life, public and private, is full of examples of that kind. You have no right to crowd the streets with carriages for private parties of an evening; but the authorities do not interfere to prevent it, because the inconvenience is so slight. There are numbers of things which people have no right to do, and yet they are not interfered with. Meetings have been held for years in Trafalgar Square—held as of right—they were not unlawful on that account, though there was no right; but they have been passed over because in the circumstances of the time there was no reason for the Executive to interfere. The question is whether last autumn the licence which had been good-humouredly extended in other cases ought or ought not to have been withdrawn? Whether you view Trafalgar Square as Crown property or strictly as a thoroughfare, is there a right of meeting there, or is the public injured and is any right taken from them when a meeting is prohibited? But although I have admitted that any wise and prudent Government would not insist upon its right to interfere in all cases, and would overlook a harmless infringement of the law, I invite the House to say whether the condition of things was such last autumn that we were not bound to prevent the meetings from taken place? I must remind the House what the course of events had been. The House will not forget how the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) expressed his sympathy with the wretched creatures who crowded into Trafalgar Square at night for the purpose of attracting charity—they had no refuge at night, had neither food to eat nor work to do—and the largest sympathy was felt for them, and then came the meetings of the unemployed. The meetings in the case of the unemployed were attended during the months of October and November with a growing danger of riots every day. Language was used of a seditious and dangerous character. I might quote language which was used at them, and which grew each day more and more violent and threatening. A certain organization was introduced into the movement, and speeches were made more and more likely to provoke disorder and tumult. I do not attach too much consequence to those speeches, but they are not to be altogether disregarded. Many things are said by excited public speakers, perhaps not meant to be acted on. But one could not altogether overlook the language used day by day, and which amounted to threats of violence if relief could not be obtained for the unemployed from the constituted authorities—relief for distress, which was truly alleged, I believe, in many cases. One person advised that they should go to the National Gallery, because he had tried it once himself with 200 men and had frightened the people there out of their senses. Another advised that 30,000 men should go to the Lord Mayor with lumps of granite in their pockets. Another said that if the Lord Mayor would not do so-and-so they would "terrorize the old scoundrel." [Cries of "Name!"] The author of this last observation was Mr. Allman, who afterwards admitted that he was paid so much a week by the Society for the Unemployed. We did not prosecute that sedition; we did not treat it as seditious; we did not think it worth it. Another orator said that pressure should be brought to bear by firing London in 400 places at once, while another urged them to carry sticks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give any names? If he will give the name of the man who said that, I think I can identify him with the police.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northampton suggests that the police employed people to make seditious speeches?

The person who threatened to fire London I am prepared in an inquiry to prove has since been seen in company with the police on more than one occasion, and not in custody.

It is a new thing to me that to be seen in company with a policeman in the street is a matter of suspicion—

Not in the streets.

I did not know they were banished from society—

I must ask the leave of the House to repeat what I said. My words have been misrepresented.

I hope the hon. Member for Northampton will not cause me to detain the House longer than I can help. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying. Not only were there these seditious speeches, but there was also this feature about what took place last autumn—that Trafalgar Square was made use of by the persons who came there day after day as a sort of central fortress from which they organized processions which went round the City and West End, inspiring terror as they went, and causing the shopkeepers to shut their shops hastily and give up business for that afternoon, and from Trafalgar Square these people organized visits by so-called deputations to various public authorities. Early in October a visit was paid to the Chief Magistrate, Sir James Ingham, and The Standard office, by persons who insisted upon having work given to them and not relief, and who refused to accept the ordinary relief which persons in distress are content to put up with. A visit was also organized to the Lord Mayor, in which very inflammatory language was used, and in which black flags and red flags and caps of liberty were carried, and emblems which recalled recollections which I should think no inhabitant of London would wish to see revived. A visit was afterwards paid to Alderman Knight, who put off the deputation with some good advice. Those who led the crowd then advised them to pay visits to the Queen and to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to make him disgorge the £15,000 which they said he received, and then to help themselves to the shops. On the Sunday on which I had specially inter- posed in order that the meeting might take place there came that degrading and disgusting visit to Westminster Abbey, in which the procession which went there desecrated the place they visited. Then came a visit to the Board of Works, in which the procession threatened the members of the Board that they would come in their thousands and compel them to give them work. They made the announcement that they would continue visits of this sort until their demands were granted. I need hardly tell the House what the effect of this was upon London. I received—for it is my unhappy lot to receive all such complaints — protests and complaints from various bodies in the town. A deputation of Oxford Street traders, who desired that their names should be concealed—and I call the attention of the House to that significant fact as showing the terror inspired—implored to be protected against the inconvenience caused by these riots which were going on. The diamond merchants around Trafalgar Square called attention to the disorderly and riotous mobs which were going there with the sole object of robbery, and said that they would be obliged to close their shops if this went on; the fear of these mobs kept away their lady customers, and they themselves were in danger of their lives; they had to fear not only the loss of goods, for which they might obtain compensation, but also the far greater loss of their trade. The Royal College of Physicians complained that members of their institution were unable to go out owing to the riotous crowds, and that there was fear for the valuable property in their College. On the 11th of November a deputation of bankers, hotel-keepers, and merchants came before me. All represented to me that there was a daily loss of trade to them—that customers were kept away from London, and that trade was paralyzed by a state of things of that sort, from which the working men were the first and the largest sufferers, owing to the cessation of employment caused by it. Lastly, there was a Memorial signed by some thousands of ratepayers in the neighbourhood of the Strand, who represented that the assembling of crowds, largely consisting of rogues and vagabonds, was seriously affecting their trade, and who asked the Executive Government to prevent valued privileges of public meeting from being converted into criminal licence. I had as long as it was possible—and I acknowledge fully my responsibility—adhered to the policy, not of preventing the meetings and processions before assembling, but of watching and controlling them, without any further interference with them. But in order to follow these sporadic processions, which it was absolutely necessary to follow, from 1,000 to 2,000 police had to be in Trafalgar Square. The Police Force was getting worn out; they were getting harassed and irritated; so that another consideration came into view—of which hon. Members opposite will feel the weight—namely, that the defenders of public order and property might have got out of hand. There have been complaints made, justly or unjustly—I will go into that question another time—but if you once allow the defenders of public order to be harassed by the repetition of duties which are almost intolerable, by having to stand by while they are being hooted and abused and even pelted, and by having to accompany disorderly processions, you produce a temper in your Police Force which is extremely undesirable. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the evidence which was given by Sir Charles Warren and which was unchallenged. That evidence only repeated to the public what I had on other occasions heard from Sir Charles Warren. He pointed out that for more than a month, from the 5th of October to the 13th of November, the police had had to watch meetings which were a source of danger to the peace of the neighbourhood, and that, having regard to the character of the people and the continued meetings in that place, he thought that it would have taxed the power of the police to keep them under control, and that it was absolutely necessary that these processions should be followed by the police. Those who attended the meetings were organized to act by signals, and to march out at a signal in an organized body. Those who organized and invited these meetings may be perfectly respectable men who wish to meet to express their views, but they cannot help the dangerous classes coming uninvited, though I think that all the speakers were not reluctant to see the dangerous classes there. You cannot help them attending these meetings and forming part of them, and thus adding to the danger of obstruction and to the danger to public peace and property. That was the situation which was growing upon the notice of the authorities and of the public during October and the early part of November. Now, will the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney say that the right of public discussion is advanced by all this saturnalia of disorder?

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said not a word in defence or justification of disorder.

I did not mean to trouble the hon. and learned Member to rise. I know he did not say one word in defence of such proceedings; but I have to say many words about them, because the facts explain the action of the Government. In defence of the action of the Government it will not do to leave all these facts out of view. It had, I repeat, become unsafe in London to allow persons to go on being massed day by day in the very centre of accumulated wealth, in the midst of the most crowded thoroughfares, in a place where the preservation of order among thousands of persons was a task of the greatest difficulty, and where only a sheet of plate glass stood between the depredators and goods of the greatest value. And if the operations and precautions of the police are hampered by enormous crowds by whom they are surrounded, I should like to know how better protection could be given to persons and property? I should like to know, too, what judgment the hon. and learned Member himself would have passed upon the Executive if, by an unlooked for and unlucky chance, the events of February, 1886, had been repeated last autumn? The hon. and learned Member has quoted one precedent; let me quote one also. At a time when the hon. and learned Gentleman was Attorney General, for two days after that 8th of February, when London was looted, Trafalgar Square was closed to the public, just as it was last November. I say the same thing might have occurred again at any moment last autumn, and it was only by incessant vigilance, by the extraordinary activity and zeal of the police, that I believe London was saved from some similar catastrophe; and I assure the House that the strain on the force by the incessant vigilance they were obliged to exercise bacame at last intolerable and unbearable. I had apprehensions that the force might break down under that strain. That was the position of things. Were we, in that position, entitled to issue the notice which the hon. and learned Gentleman has read? He challenged me to defend that notice. I defend it fearlessly, absolutely, and on all points. I say that we should have failed in our duty to the State and to this town if we had not put a stop to those meetings. I say that we had a full legal right to do it; we were interfering with no right of the public when we said—"You shall not hold meetings in Trafalgar Square." It was not necessary that we should wait to see whether a particular meeting was unlawful or not. No meeting has a right de jure to take possession of Trafalgar Square, and occupy it to the exclusion of the rest of the public. A meeting that claims to do that is not unlawful in the somewhat fallacious use the hon. and learned Member made of the term. Of course, it is not necessarily unlawful in the sense of being riotous; but it is unlawful in the sense that it is trespass. A meeting convened for the most decorous, prudish, and regular object in the world, conducted in the most perfect order, is not unlawful, it is true; but it cannot lawfully come and be held in my garden if I say it is not to be held there, nor can it lawfully be held in a public thoroughfare, and, for that reason, it cannot insist upon being held in Trafalgar Square. It is true, it may be guilty only of trespass and only of obstruction; and it is quite true that neither of these vices of trespass or obstruction constitute an unlawful assembly so as to fall within the penalties that attach to unlawful assemblies, but they fall within the Law of Trespass. The meeting is unwarranted, if it is not an unlawful assembly in the technical sense of the law. The hon. and learned Member asked what is the meaning of the notice? As I read the plain words of the Trafalgar Square Acts, the Commissioners of Works have the management and regulation of the Square, and it rests with them, subject to any right of way that has been acquired—which certainly has not been ascertained as yet, if any such right exists—to manage and regulate the Square. They represent Her Majesty, who has the ownership of the Square in trust for the advantage of the whole and not a section of the public. In both capacities the Commissioners of Works have authority to say—"We will not permit a meeting to be held here either to-day, to-morrow, or next day. It is not a right belonging to any body of persons whatever, and we, for reasons that we think sufficient, do not intend to permit the thing in future." We of the Executive went to the Commissioners of Works and said—"Will you, in so far as you are justified, authorize us in excluding meetings from the Square until further notice?" We had that authority, and the act is justified on that ground. It is also justified under whatever powers belong to the Commissioner of Police under the Police Regulation Act. Of course, we all know that a notice does not make any meeting unlawful which was otherwise lawful in itself; but it has a perfect avail to make any attempt to hold a meeting unauthorized in the sense that those who have the ownership and control of the Square say—"We do not choose that it shall be done." It has also the effect of a warning to the public that it is considered an obstruction to the thoroughfares, which, although winked at and overlooked on many previous occasions, was not going to be winked at and overlooked on this occasion or the occasions following the 8th of November. I will not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his criticism of my speech on the 11th. I abandon the speech to him. I intended to say to the deputation what I have been saying to the House—namely, that while permission to hold meetings had been very naturally and properly, in my judgment, conceded time after time when it did no harm, yet that the time had arrived when it did do harm, and when it was manifestly being abused. I say that the anxiety naturally caused formed an abundant justification for putting, not mere technical rights, but solid, substantial, legal rights into operation, and thereby to put an end to a public mischief and a public danger. Did subsequent events justify our action or not? The hon. and learned Gentleman challenged me on the subject of processions, and he asked me if the Executive could stop processions going along the streets. It does not become me to construe Acts of Parliament in opposition to the hon. and learned Member, whose reputation stands so deservedly high. From the plain words of Section 52, I should have thought that processions, whenever they are liable to lead to obstruction, may be regulated and dealt with.

Regulated, not prohibited.

The hon. and learned Member says "regulated," but not "prohibited." But if regulation does not go the length of prohibition, of what use is it to stop obstruction? The power of regulation is a power which must avail to this extent at least, that it shall enable the Commissioner to overcome an obstruction. When a procession is marching through London, filling both carriage way and footway, how is he to overcome it but by stopping or dispersing it? It stops all traffic one way and heads it back in the opposite direction. It can only be regulated by dispersing it and breaking it down. [Cries of "No, no!"] I should like to put hon. Members who dissent into the field against such an obstruction, and see how they would regulate without dispersing it. And now I come to the events of the 13th. Lamentable events they were I entirely agree. Nobody viewed them or heard of them with deeper concern or distress than myself. I think, however, the distressing character of that day was not due to the action of the authorities. I do not like when men have been convicted to even seem to press upon them at all, especially when one of the defendants is a Member of this House; but I cannot help saying that it is difficult to read the evidence given on that occasion and not see that—rightly or wrongly—those who had got up this meeting had formed a deliberate design of carrying Trafalgar Square by force and in spite of the action of the authorities. I am not saying that they are not people entitled to have their particular opinions; but one of the organizers—the secretary of the Federation—declared that he had got 60,000 or 70,000 men in the field ready to come in 60 or 70 organized processions to bear down on Trafalgar Square at the same hour, and the defendants who were convicted were manifestly waiting for those processions, and had since boasted in letters and speeches that "if our men had come to the scratch we should have carried the Square—like a dose of salts," is the elegant expression. And how was the "plan of campaign" defeated?—[Murmurs.]—I do not mean any offence to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. How was that plan defeated? Why, by stopping the processions; and what were they? Why, a procession of men, some of whom were armed with oyster knives, with which they stabbed the police; some had gaspipes; some had sticks — [An hon. MEMBER: How many?]—and these sticks had nails in them. These were the component parts of this organized procession, all converging on Trafalgar Square, all led to the attack by the gallant cry of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham)—"Now for the Square." After that came the final rush. That may appear to the hon. and learned Member a perfectly lawful and peaceful assembly. It appeared to the jury—and I humbly agree with them—to be an assembly obviously unlawful.

I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I said that I accepted the verdict of the jury, that it was an unlawful assembly, and that the Executive were justified in stopping that particular meeting.

I am very glad to hear that.