reported from the Committee on Group 11 of Railway Bills, that for the convenience of parties the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past two of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

I beg, in consequence of the character of the answer given by the noble Lord, to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the recent despatch of a military force into the Penrhyn quarry district."

The pleasure of the House having been signified,

^* : The noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reply to my question, said that the military sent to Bethesda had been requisitioned by the magistrates. I have the word of the chairman of the Bangor bench of justices that that is not so. That gentleman, when questioned at a meeting of the Carnarvonshire County Council, yesterday, had said that the justices on the Bangor Bench had nothing to do with the bringing of the military, but that the chief constable had informed him on Tuesday that the military were coming down the following day. I believe their presence is due to the action of a military chief constable, who is an alien in spirit, and does not understand the temper of the people. Last night I received a telegram from Bethesda, which stated that the introduction of the military was scandalous; there was no disorder, and the situation was quite normal. To-day I received another telegram stating that the presence of the troops is absolutely needless. Three years ago I had to raise a question in connection with this quarry which I cannot raise again to-day. The terms of my motion will not, of course, allow me to discuss the merits of the dispute, and I must, therefore, confine myself to the question of order and the introduction of the military. On the former occasion the men concerned in the dispute had been out of the quarry for a period of eleven months, and at the end of that period, when Mr. Justice Ridley visited Carnarvon Assizes, he alluded to the fact that in that distressed district there was not a crime on the calendar, which constituted an almost unprecedented record in the annals of industrial disputes. That was in 1897. Is the situation very much changed 1 It has changed, but not as regards the nature of the dispute, because there was no honourable and lasting settlement. Last November the military were called in because of a few cases of alleged assaults in the quarry. Twenty-six men were taken before the magistrates. Were the military required to arrest these men? No. They were all taken single-banded by a police sergeant, who marched them into Bangor, and the military were so impressed by the scene that they asked, "For God's sake, what are we here for?" The officer commanding the cavalry asked if the men were as a rule drunken, and was informed that they were the most sober and the most industrious in the land. "Were they an ignorant and besotted lot?" he inquired. "No," he was told, "they were literary, musical, cultured workmen." And then he naturally exclaimed, "Why are we called here?" What happened in these twenty-six cases? Twenty were dismissed as worthless, and in five only were small fines inflicted, thus proving that no great crime had been committed. When, during the military occupation, he Carnarvonshire County Council met, the members passed a strong and severe resolution condemning the importation of a military force into the district. That resolution was supported by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, who is himself one of the largest quarry proprietors, and by Lord Penrhyn's son-in-law. By an overwhelming majority the action of the chief constable was condemned, not only by the county council, but also subsequently by the Joint Police Committee. As a result, the troops were recalled. I submit that nothing has since occurred to justify again calling in the aid of the military. The alleged reason for sending the military to Bethesda is that 600 men have gone to work in the quarry against the will of over 2,000 unionists, many of whom are working in South Wales, and that, as the unionists were coming back for a short holiday, the workmen in the quarry were afraid of intimidation and assault. There is no justification for that fear. There has been no case of intimidation brought home to any of these men. There has been no single case of assault of recent times; no single instance of damaging property has occurred. Certain cases of alleged intimidation were brought before Mr. Justice Grantham a fortnight ago, but the accused were acquitted, and the action of the jury was commended by the learned judge, who, in a neighbouring county, delivered a sort of pious lecture, against demonstrations on the part of the quarrymen. Would that he had appealed to both parties to come and confer peaceably together and end this unhappy dispute. What is there to fear? The fear is that the quarrymen who have been driven from home and friends in order to earn a livelihood in South Wales will, on their return for a brief holiday, assault those who are labouring in the quarry. But there is no ground for that fear. Hundreds of them have been at Bethesda before to visit their wives and families, and the homes which they love, but the only demonstration was a quiet meeting, at which resolutions were passed in favour of submitting the whole matter to arbitration. Last June Mr. Young, the chief agent for this quarry—a very able accountant, no doubt, but who knows not how to handle men—applied to the county council for an extra force, as certain of the men who had agreed to return to their work would need protection. What occurred? A member of the joint committee, who is also a large quarry owner, said with contempt, as the letter was ordered to lie on the table, "Mr. Young ought to know that this is not the way to make a quarry work." Six hundred men, each of whom received a sovereign from Lord Penrhyn the day they went in, are now working in the quarry; 2,000 and more are still outside, yet the only disturbances that have arisen have been in the nature of hooting, obstructing the highway, and the like. It is said that the men at work sent in a petition asking for more protection, but it is stated that many refused to sign it, and look on the presence of the military as calculated to cast odium on themselves, and I am reluctant to believe that those who have returned to the quarry would wish, of their own free will, to have the military introduced into this peaceful and law, abiding country. But troops are actually there. They are regarded by some with amusement, but by the majority with a deep feeling of resentment as provocative of passions and strife. After all, it is not the chief constable who is at the bottom of this. It is not the men who are at work. It must be traced to the action of a one-man power—that of a nobleman who, it is said, is just, inexorably just, but who, as is well known to the President of the Board of Trade and his predecessor, has openly flouted the Board of Trade, ignored the Conciliation Act, and refused arbitration. Why? In order to stand up for the rights of the minority, it is declared. We all desire to uphold and recognise the rights of the minority. But in this instance they are used to trample upon the rights of the majority, and to ride roughshod over the heart of a distressed district. It seems hopeless to apply to the Board of Trade, and useless to appeal to the Government, and, therefore, through the House of Commons, I call the people of this country to witness the tragic spectacle of a fine race of industrious workmen held at the mercy of one man.

I rise to second the motion. I confess I cannot understand why the military have been called in in this case. One ought to be quite satisfied, before sanctioning such a proceeding, that there is some necessity for it. Ordinary English people do not know the real character of Welshmen, and especially of those who reside at Bethesda—men possessed of strong religious and moral convictions, and of marked independence, very resentful of their rights being interfered with in any way. As the hon. Member who moved the resolution has told the House, 3,000 of these men came out on strike for eleven months. Their wives and families were hard put to for their daily bread, yet there was no breach of the peace, no riots, no disturbances, and no necessity for importing the military or increasing the police force. It is among these men that military have now been sent. I was astounded to see in a newspaper a report that a policeman had been killed in Bethesda, and I sent a telegram to Bethesda to inquire whether the report was true. This is the reply, "Everything quiet here; nothing of the kind." We have it, too, on the authority of the magistrates at Bangor, who know all the circumstances of the strike, that they are aware of no reason why the military should have been called out. If that were so, if the magistrates in the immediate neighbourhood, knowing all the circumstances of the case, having seen these men recently, knowing the conditions under which they came out on strike, and their environment, could say, "We know of no reason why the military should be sent into this law-abiding district," I ask the House to agree with me that to send the military into the district is a monstrous thing. It is an insult to the character of 3,000, men who have shown wonderful self-respect and self-restraint, under conditions which would have provoked any ordinary Englishman out on strike, and who have kept themselves from acts of violence. I do not want to take up the time of the House, and have great pleasure in seconding the motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— ( Mr. William Jones. )

The question in dispute between Lord Penrhyn and his late workmen is not the real question which the House has to consider to-day. It is much to be regretted that the dispute should have continued. I do not desire to say anything against the conduct of the men in connection with a dispute with which I was myself, at one time, associated. No doubt as far as the past is concerned, with an exception I will speak of in a moment, the peace has been well kept in the district, and the men on strike have, in many respects, dealt with the matter in a way which, in a large sense, is creditable to them. But the question before the House at the present moment is whether the state of things that exists justifies the magistrates in seeking military protection for the men who are at work. This question of protection has been prominent for some weeks now. There were slight disturbances as long ago as June, and fear of greater disturbance to such an extent that every available policeman had been concentrated in that particular district to prevent a breach of the peace. Police had been gathered from all parts of the county, and so far as the police are concerned, it was impossible for those who were responsible for the peace of the neighbourhood to avail themselves of any additional large force of police. As I have said, a feeling of apprehension has existed for several weeks past as to possible outrages, and several have occurred.

Name one.

The hon. Gentleman knows that several persons had been brought before the magistrates and charged with intimidation.

No; simply charged with hooting.

^* : And dismissed.

Well, I withdraw the word "intimidation." But the result of these proceedings is not material to my point at present, if the hon. Gentleman admits that there was considerable apprehension of outrage.

^* : No.

Then may I refer to a petition, to which the hon. Gentleman himself has referred, which was sent to the Home Office on 27th July. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that not all those who were employed at the quarry joined in signing that petition. I have run my eye over a number of the signatures, and there are something little short of 600 who are employed in the quarry who have signed that requisition to the Home Office. What were the allegations in the petition? They say that since 11th July last they have been working in the quarry; that a large force of police had been brought in for their protection; that that protection was not sufficient; that they were molested and intimidated by the men who were still on strike and their sympathisers; that the members of their families were not allowed to walk the streets for the purpose of transacting their business without being insulted and molested; that there were many instances where they and their families—women and children—had been compelled to return to their homes, escorted by large and disorderly crowds, shouting, hooting, and using violence; that assaults had been committed upon them in public places; that stones had been thrown and windows broken; that on several Saturday nights large crowds had been congregating in the village for the purpose of molesting them and their wives and children in going to and returning from the village; that actual violence had been committed on these occasions; that houses and shops had been surrounded and watched for several hours, that the crowds were threatening and disorderly and beyond the control of the police; that information had reached them that 1,000 workmen, who were now employed in South Wales and elsewhere, would return to Bethesda on Friday, August 2nd, and that an attack would be made on them and their families on their way to or from the village—

How very childish!

That the quarry, being unenclosed, with large heaps of waste material about, it was almost impossible- for them, scattered as they were, to obtain help in case of attack, that they did not in any way blame the police, who they believed were doing their utmost to protect them, but that they strongly felt that there was not a sufficient force to deal effectively with the existing state of things; and that unless more protection was afforded their lives and that of those dear to them would be endangered. That petition was signed by 600 of these workmen.

Who drew up the petition?

How can I tell; and what does it matter? The hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment has been loud in his praises of the men who are at work, and these are the men who have signed the petition. It seems to me that it is immaterial who signed this petition. At any rate, so far as the Home Office is concerned, it was quite impossible to ignore that petition, having regard to the fact that circumstances had undoubtedly occurred for many weeks past, and these apprehensions were not of to-day or yesterday, but of several weeks' standing. When that petition reached the Home Office we considered it our duty to forward it to the Chief Constable for his information, and in reply the Chief Constable gave a description of the condition of things at Bethesda, which made it clear that there was great apprehension of violence, that the police there would, under circumstances which might have occurred, have been unable to deal properly with a riot, and that assistance was necessary. The hon. Gentleman says that nothing has occurred; but, in my opinion, if the authorities had waited till something had occurred they would have been grossly neglecting their duty. I say it is the duty of these charged with maintaining law and order to see that they have the means of protecting the peaceful inhabitants. Danger was apprehended by those who signed the petition, and by the Chief Constable, who wrote very strongly in the same direction. The Chief Constable said that he had tried, so far as he possibly could, to do without military aid, but that now it was perfectly clear that the matter had got beyond the control of the police; and after the previous Saturday's demonstration, and having in view the probability of increased disturbances on account of the return of the men from South Wales, he had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when military aid should be summoned. It was stated by the hon. Gentleman that the justices denied all responsibility in this matter, and that it was clearly the action of this military Chief Constable, and his action alone. Well, what happened? According to the statement of the Chief Constable, whom I have no reason to disbelieve, he had made up his mind that there was a chance of a riot, that the force at his disposal was inadequate, and that he could not obtain more police. He therefore summoned a meeting of the subcommittee which had been appointed to deal with this matter. After explaining to the sub-committee his reasons for considering the presence of the military necessary, he forwarded a requisition, signed by the chairman of the joint committee, who is also a magistrate in North Wales, for a military force to be sent to the district, and in doing this I consider that he was only doing his plain duty. It was not for the military authorities to decide whether they should or should not send troops. Having been requisitioned to send troops, it was their duty to comply with that requisition; and the troops were sent. I hope that the fact of the presence of these troops will prevent the disturbance which was apprehended, and that they may be able to return to their barracks shortly when peace had been restored. But, whether they return sooner or later, I am satisfied, from the condition of things that exists there, that the authorities took the only course that was open to them in applying for the troops.

Am I to understand that the troops were sent by the military authorities on their own option?

No, I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that when a lawful authority asked for military aid it was the duty of the military authorities to give that aid. I hope I have shown to the House that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman that the military authorities were not justified in sending the troops, and that the chief constable was not justified in applying for the military, was not correct. I cannot see what other course was open to the Chief Constable or to the authorities.

I do not think that in the history of this country, certainly not within recent times, a large force of military has been sent into a peaceful district. One would have imagined for a moment, from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that there was something of the nature of a state of war in the neighbourhood of Bethesda, and even that it was time to proclaim martial law! What are the facts? This strike has been going on for eight months, and several cases have been brought before the magistrates, but never a single charge of assault has been established. There was one case of what was called intimidation, but it was a purely technical intimidation—that of hooting the men who had gone in. But did that justify the sending of 300 cavalry into the district. A quarryman's wife, who hooted 200 or 300 men that had returned to work, was fined for intimidation! There was no charge that she had thrown a single stone, and the only molestation she was guilty of was that she had expressed her disapproval of these men going in. Why, there have been worse things done in this House expressive of disapproval of sentiments uttered here! She was fined, and 300 cavalry are sent down to repress this rebellious subject! It is perfectly contemptible conduct on the part of a strong Government like this to send a military force to make war on women and boys. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary read to us a letter from the Chief Constable, but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that that Chief Constable fell, on a previous occasion, into the same sort of hysterical condition. On that occasion he said he had consulted some of his friends—probably Lord Penrhyn—and he got down soldiers, armed, by the way, with Dum-dum bullets—Mark IV. ammunition—I saw some of them myself—to shoot down the quarrymen and their wives and children! What was the result? The joint police committee said that the military were not necessary; the magistrates said that the military were not necessary; even Lord Penrhyn's son-in-law the Lord Lieutenant of the county said that the military were not necessary; and they had been sent back to their barracks after this miserable exhibition of hysterics on the part of the Chief Constable. But the Chief Constable gets into the same condition again. Nobody has been hurt; nobody has been seriously injured; not a single charge of assault has been made; there was simply an accusation of hooting, and yet the Chief Constable sends for the military forces, with less justification than in the first instance! I understand that the practice in these cases is that the local magistrate is consulted, as the district bench is responsible for administering justice and maintaining peace in the locality. But the Chief Constable does not go to the bench which adjudicated in all these cases, which heard all the evidence, and which is responsible for keeping the peace of the district. He goes to some magistrate outside the district, who has no responsibility for this particular district. Why did he not go to the bench of magistrates who were trying the case of hooting against the woman, and who were bound to fine, because hooting is technical intimidation, and at the end of the proceedings say, "This is the state of things in Bethesda; will you sanction my application to the district commander for military assistance?" Not a bit of it. He ignores the bench of magistrates who know all the facts of the case, and goes to an outside district, and gets one man to sign, behind the backs of the local magistrates, a requisition for the military. Twenty-seven were arrested as rebellious and dangerous to the lives of the people! But how were they arrested? One policeman gave out at nine o'clock in the evening that he had got warrants for their arrest, and he sent over a messenger to, say, John Jones, a quarryman who lived a mile away up in the hills, saying, "I cannot come, will you meet me to-morrow morning at six o'clock at the station, in order that I may arrest you?" These dangerous men congregated the next morning at six o'clock at the station, were duly arrested by the single policeman, and taken before the bench of magistrates to be tried for intimidation and riot! It is ludicrous to send 300 cavalry to oppress men of that kind; it is an insult to the neighbour- hood; it is an insult to our nationality. [A laugh from the Ministerial Benches.] It is so. Does the hon. Member challenge my statement? Mr. Justice Grantham goes down to that district in Wales, and is presented with a pair of white gloves, but when he came to England—a civilised country— he said: "Here I have got a heavy calendar; whereas, when I was, I will not say in an uncivilised country, but in a wild country, I was presented with a pair of white gloves!" It is to overawe these wild men, who come of their own option at six o'clock in the morning to be arrested, and whose wives indulged in a little hooting, that we are sending the troops which are sadly needed in South Africa.

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary took as the text of his speech the duty of the Home Office and of the authorities generally to preserve order. That proposition is one in which I cordially concur, and I am not aware that it has been, in the slightest degree, controverted in any of the speeches made on this side of the House. My hon. friend the Member for North Carnarvonshire, in a speech as temperate as it was eloquent, certainly threw no doubt on the duty of the authorities to preserve peace, nor did the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, and the hon. Member who has just sat down. The question is not whether it is the duty of the authorities to preserve order—that duty is a clear one—but the question is whether the proper means have been resorted to in this case to preserve order. That raises in my mind a matter of grave public importance, upon which the right hon. Gentleman has not given to the House of Commons the light which he ought to have given. Now, what is the question which we have got to consider? It is beyond controversy, from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that no grave crime or outrage was threatened by any of these men. There were, if you like, small annoyances and petty assaults, which, of course, have to be repressed, but there were no crimes of the category with which we are familiar in other places, which call for the intervention of the military. What is the duty of the authorities in such a case? If I venture to speak with some certainty on this point, it is because in 1893 I was a member of the Commission presided over by the late Lord Bowen, one of the most distinguished lawyers who ever sat on the bench in this country. In the Report of that Commission, which was written by Lord Bowen himself, the law was clearly laid down. It was pointed out that the duty of the authorities was a duty which varied with the circumstances of the case. For instance, there might be riot so great that life and destruction of property was threatened, and, there being no other means of repressing it, the introduction of the military might be permissible. But there are other and more numerous cases in which other modes have to be pursued, when the evils perpetrated are evils which come within the ordinary competency of the police. What do you do then? You enrol special constables; you bring police from a distance to your help. I have known the authorities to send down a detachment of the Metropolitan police. You call upon the law-abiding and peaceful citizens to aid in the maintenance of law and order. We did not hear a single word from the right hon. Gentleman that there had been any attempt of that sort at Bethesda, not a scintilla of a suggestion that that idea had ever entered into anyone's mind there. No steps were taken to get police from a distance for preserving law and order. You cannot introduce the military into a district for a purpose such as this without inflaming feeling, without making people feel that grave questions have arisen—questions in which justice is on the one side, and injustice on the other—and in which the worst passions are stirred. It may be sometimes necessary to resort to the military, but it should only be done as a last expedient. That is the law laid down by the late learned judge, and the general principle which governs the jurisprudence of this country is that, while it is the business of the authorities to put down disorder, they can put it down with no more force than is necessary. The law is that a man who employs more force than is necessary is himself a criminal. The proper course for the Home Office to have adopted was laid down by Lord Bowen in language which is almost classical. Lord Bowen said—I am quoting from page 9 of the Report of the Featherstone Commission of 1893—

"By the law of this country everyone is bound to aid in the suppression of riotous assemblages. The degree of force, however, which may be lawfully used in their suppression depends on the nature of each riot, for the force used must always be moderated and proportioned to the circumstances of the case and to the end to be attained. The taking of life can only be justified by the necessity for protecting persons or property against forms of violent crime, or by the necessity of dispersing a riotous crowd which is dangerous unless dispersed…Officers and soldiers are under no special privilege, and subject to no special responsibilities as regards this principle of the law. A soldier for the purpose of establishing civil order is only a citizen armed in a particular manner. He cannot, because he is a soldier, excuse himself if without necessity he takes human life. The duty of the magistrates and peace officers depends in like manner on the necessities of the case. A soldier can only act by using his arms. The weapons he carries are deadly. They cannot be employed at all without danger to life and limb, and in these days of improved rifles and perfected ammunition without some risk of injuring distant and possibly innocent bystanders. To call for assistance against rioters from those who can only interpose under such grave conditions ought, of course, to be the last expedient of the civil authorities."

That Committee had the advantage of the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller, who explained the Queen's Regulations on the subject, the substance of which was that the military could only be summoned at the request of the magistrates. Sir Redvers Buller also stated that from the military point of view it was considered most mischievous to summon the military where it could be avoided. Who took the initiative in bringing the military in in the present case? The Bangor magistrates had nothing to do with it. We have the joint committee and the name of the chairman brought in. What did the chairman do? He signed the requisition which was brought up and urged on him by the Chief Constable. It seems to me that the moving spirit in this matter was the Chief Constable. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Home Office had sent down the petition to the Chief Constable for his observations. I expected to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he warned the Chief Constable of the danger of resorting to the extraordinary course of bringing in the military, and that he had told him that the Home Office would assist him in every way in their power to obtain the assistance of special constables for the purpose of preserving law and order. I do not for a moment doubt that the right hon. Gentleman regards the introduction of the military as anything but a disaster. His defence was of a most half-hearted character, but I think it would have been better if he made it emphatically clear to the House what the principle is which guides him and the Home Office in these matters. I hope that there has been interposition in time, and that such action will not be repeated. Of course disturbances have to be put down, but the invocation of the military, without steps being taken to get adequate civil assistance, as in the present case, is, I think, a matter which calls for the interposition of the House of Commons.

I agree with my hon. and learned friend that the foundation of this proceeding, as stated by the Home Secretary, is not satisfactory. As regards the action of the Home Office, the right hon. Gentleman founds himself upon a petition. I listened to that petition. It set forth a condition of lawlessness and outrage of every particular which would represent the district in the highest state of disturbance. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have satisfied himself that that was a correct statement. Would he allow me to read the petition, and ask him whether the statements it affirms are true?

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Home Office took a proper course in sending a petition of that kind down to the Chief Constable?

Not at all. What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself, from the Chief Constable or anyone else, that these statements were true. The petition states "That we are watched and intimidated by the men still on strike." Were they so intimidated, and if so, why did not the police have the offenders summoned? Again, it is stated—

"That the members of our families are not allowed to walk the streets for the purpose of transacting business without being followed and molested. That in many instances members of our families have been molested in the public streets, and compelled by large and disorderly crowds to return to their homes escorted by the crowd hooting and shouting."

Is that true? The petition proceeds—

"That on several Saturday nights large crowds have been congregated for the purpose of watching and molesting us and our wives and children, and actual violence has been committed on these occasions; and the houses and shops where we happened to be were surrounded and watched for several hours, and that these crowds are most threatening and disorderly, and are beyond the control of the force of police now stationed here."

Is that true? If it is, the police must have been overpowered. Where is the evidence that the police endeavoured to do their duty, and had not been able to do it, and that they had brought the offenders before the magistrates, and that they had been punished? That is very material. The petition states-—

"The police have been resisted in the execution of their duty, and have been unable to prevent the crowds from assaulting and molesting us."

Is that true? Have the police been prevented from doing their duty? It was remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman had not received any information to confirm the statements in the petition.

Oh, yes. I said distinctly that the report of the Chief Constable confirmed every material statement in the petition.

Then it confirms what has never taken place. It is quite obvious, if these statements are true, that the police have been overpowered, and have not been able to discharge their ordinary duties, and yet for eleven months this place has been in a condition of peace. Did the Chief Constable do more than confirm? Was he the author also? That brings me to another point According to my recollection, when I held the office which the right hon. Gentleman fills in so distinguished a manner, I never knew a case— I may be mistaken, one's memory fails in these respects—where military were ever sent to a district, except under the authority of the magistrates, excluding, of course, cases where the military were sent into a district where some unexpected and violent outrage had been committed. The magistrates are the authorised guardians of the peace. They represent the Crown in this matter, and it is the local magistracy to whom, in my opinion— I lay it down generally—the Home Office should look as the authority in this matter. The Home Office is not in itself a magisterial body, and the Home Secretary is not himself ex-officio a magistrate; but it is from the local magistracy that the authority in this transaction should come, not from a magistrate simply acting on a joint committee, but from magistrates acting in the ordinary way—I should say a bench of magistrates performing their ordinary duties. They could assure the Home Office and the military authorities that a case had arisen which would justify the introduction of the military. That is the rule which, I venture to say, has been almost invariably acted upon. But, as far as information goes, the magistrates in this case have not authorised the introduction of the military. That is a most extraordinary state of things. The magistrates must be aware what the condition of the preservation of the peace was in the district. They must know it quite as well as the Chief Constable. It was his duty to inform them if he could not bring offenders before them. It seems to me that the sending of the military into the district without the ordinary information, the ordinary authority, and the ordinary invitation of the local magistrates is a case which cannot be justified by any practice or precedent with which I am acquainted. What is challenged here is whether or not an occasion had arisen to justify the sending of military into this district, and, according to all precedent and practice with which I am acquainted, the course which has been pursued in this case is not a right one; that greater prudence, greater examination, and greater justification should have been shown; that before the military were sent in the responsible guardians of the peace—the magistrates of the county—ought to have been asked; and that the step which was taken should only have been taken on their authority and invitation.

I presume that I am very much in the position of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in so far as, at all events, this is not a case with which I was in any way acquainted until I heard the debate which has been now proceeding for an hour; but I confess that, having heard it, and having had the advantage of perusing the report referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I have come to a very different conclusion from that which the right hon. Gentleman, with perhaps less information at his disposal, appears to have arrived at. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has, with characteristic ingenuity, not only attempted to drag into the controversy the War Office and the Home Office, but has also found occasion, I believe, to allude to the South African War. I would point out to the House that, while this incident has no connection with the South African War, it has almost as little to do with the merits of the administration of the War Office and the Home Office. The War Office has absolutely nothing to do with either sanctioning or refusing to sanction the sending of troops when they are requisitioned by a competent local authority. The War Office is, therefore, on one side in this matter. The responsibility of the Home Office is somewhat more, but very little more. The Home Office is not responsible for requisitioning troops, and the one action which my right hon. friend has taken in this matter was to forward to the Chief Constable the petition which has been read to the House. Is my right hon. friend's conduct challenged? Is there a single hon. Member in any part of the House who thinks he was wrong in forwarding the petition? The right hon. Gentleman says he does not wish to bring any charge against my right hon. friend. Then why did the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs drag in "the strongest Government of modern times" when discussing a matter in which neither the War Office nor the Home Office was interested? What is the charge against the Home Office?

My answer to that is that the local bench of magistrates was never consulted. They went outside altogether for the purpose.

I do not blame the Home Secretary for sending this petition to the Chief Constable, but I think that, as it was contemplated to send military, he ought to have consulted the magistrates also.

That question is not raised and cannot be raised. As to what happened, allusion has already been made to the Featherstone case.

There was riot there.

There was riot there, but that has nothing to do with the argument I am laying before the House. The late Home Secretary said in connection with the Featherstone case that he had nothing to do with the sending of the military, that the request for the intervention of the military was made by the local authority on their own responsibility, and was complied with by the military authorities in pursuance of the duty the law cast upon them. That is what occurred at Feather-stone, and it is my contention that that is what occurred in this case.

The Home Secretary in the Featherstone case knew nothing about sending the military until the day after it occurred. In this case the Chief Constable appears to have consulted the Home Secretary on the question of getting some military assistance, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have laid down the law in instructing the chief constable.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in the facts, not in the law, naturally. The chief constable did not consult with my right hon. friend; and so far as the sending of the military was concerned, my right hon. friend was exactly in the same position as the late Home Secretary in the Featherstone case. May I, then, be permitted to leave the War Office and the Home Office out of the matter. No case has been, nor can be, made against either of these two offices. Let me come now to the action of the Chief Constable, the joint committee, the magistrates, and the other persons locally concerned. A great deal has been said, and said with great eloquence, by the hon. Gentleman who initiated this debate, as to the law-abiding character of the Welsh people in general, and particularly of the quarry men in this district. I am far from traversing the statement of the hon. Gentleman. I do not at all allege that if a similar strain had been put upon a like population in other parts of the country, if there had been a similar strike going on for eleven months, if the great hardship, the great poverty, and all the bitterness which inevitably arise out of these trade disputes had prevailed elsewhere, I do not at all suggest that the conduct of the population might not have been more open to objection than that alleged against the Penrhyn quarrymen. But it is not accurate to state that they have completely stood the strain of the situation, that they have obeyed the spirit and the letter of the law, or have abstained from such intimidation as might naturally and properly excite fears in those responsible for the preservation of the peace, that greater means for the preservation of the peace should be placed at their disposal. Remember, the police who were thought to be inadequate by the Chief Constable were not merely the local or county police, but police drafted orient by other bodies in the neighbourhood, and it was after those police had been reinforced to the utmost possible extent, and had been found inadequate, that then, and then only, the chief constable, not on his own authority but on the authority of the sub-committee of the joint committee of the magistrates and county council, sent for the military. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have argued throughout his speech that the Chief Constable in this matter acted on his own responsibility and initiative; that he had thrown the magistrates on one side, and had contented himself with requisitioning in his own name the military to come to his assistance. That is not at all the case. Unless the papers read by my right hon. friend have entirely misled me, what happened was that the joint committee of the magistrates and the county council, seeing that local disturbance and difficulty might be expected in the district, appointed a sub-committee of their own members, consisting of county councillors and magistrates, in order to watch proceedings in the district and to take upon themselves the duty of advising and assisting the Chief Constable and the police if occasion should arise. The occasion, in the opinion of the Chief Constable, did arise, and he brought the facts before the joint committee, and it was the joint committee—

The joint committee has not been sitting on this matter at all. It is the sub-committee.

It was only after the police of the neighbouring districts had been requisitioned to the utmost extent, and had been found inadequate that the Chief Constable—not on his own authority, but on the authority of the sub-committee of the joint committee of the magistrates and county council—a sub-committee appointed ad hoc for this purpose—sent for the military. That seems to me to have been perfectly regular.

There is no legal authority in the matter except the magistrate, who is the conservator of the peace.

It is with great deference that I differ from the right hon. Gentleman, who has been Home Secretary, and is a legal authority. I believe he is wrong. I believe the legal authority is the joint committee, but if any other hon. and learned Gentleman cares to dispute my proposition, my hon. and learned friend sitting near me, upon whose authority I base my opinion, will be happy to deal with him.

The King's regulations forbid the military to take action except on the requisition of a magistrate.

I will recapitulate the exact facts to the House. The exact facts are these:—The joint committee of the magistrates and county council, seeing that disturbances might be excited in the district, appointed a sub-committee of their own members, consisting, no doubt, of county councillors and magistrates, in order to watch the course of events, and to take upon themselves the duty of advising and assisting the Chief Constable and the police if occasion should arise. The occasion, in the opinion of the Chief Constable, did arise. The Chief Constable brought the facts before the subcommittee, and the sub-committee then came to the conclusion that the police should be reinforced by soldiers, that the military should be requisitioned, and the chairman of the sub-committee, who was also chairman of the joint committee and a magistrate, signed the requisition. These are the facts, and though hon. Gentlemen may argue as to how far they are in conformity with common law, I consider they are in exact accordance with the law of the land. If I am right, then, so far as form is concerned, nothing wrong has been done, and if anything has been done so far as substance is concerned, that wrong or error of judgment is one into which the sub-committee or joint committee fell. What were the facts brought before them? I think the state of affairs in that district has been altogether minimised by all the speakers on the opposite side of the House. I gather from the report made only a few days ago that 200 of the men who were out of the district in employment did return to the district to take part in disturbance at the end of last month. In the course of those disturbances a policeman was struck on the head.

^* : If the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, that occurrence took place on the Tuesday night. The military had been requisitioned on the Tuesday morning.

While I understand the hon. Gentleman's objection, I do not understand his argument. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] Well, my arguments are so seldom understood that surely I may be allowed to try and make them plain. If the hon. Member objects to my taking the instance of Tuesday, let me tell the House what took place on a date antecedent. On the Saturday night preceding the meeting of the sub-committee and the report which I am reading from, which the Chief Constable has presented, it appears that every workman who dared to make his appearance was mobbed, and had to be protected by the police, and finally one workman, on reaching a narrow entry leading to his house, was pelted with stones, one of which inflicted a serious wound on the inside of his ear. The report goes on to say that, although the police were able to protect the workmen and prevent them being thrown down and trampled on, they were not strong enough to disperse the disorderly crowds. The Chief Constable goes on to say that the available men of his force, and all the available men from Chester, and all the available men from the surrounding districts that could be summoned had been summoned; that he had endeavoured to do without the military as long as possible, but that, in his opinion, the matter had then got beyond the control of the police. Those were the facts brought before the sub-committee of the joint committee, and I ask the House whether they can accuse the subcommittee of any rashness of procedure or any hasty calling in of assistance from those who were in a position to give it. It seems to me that, if the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is the true doctrine, if the authorities are to wait until men are knocked down and trampled on, or until the police are overpowered—in fact, until all the evils of disorder are upon them—before adopting preventive measures—

I never said that. I said that there is no proof that anything of that kind had happened; otherwise the police would have had the offenders up before the magistrates, and we should have heard of it.

The position of the police, as I understand, was such as to make further protective measures necessary. As far as I can discover from the records, these workmen, who were acting within their legal rights, could not carry on their avocation without being hooted and booed, followed, and occasionally stoned. Is that a tolerable position? I do not think it is, and if the Chief Constable found he could not control the disorderly crowds with the police at his disposal, and had grounds for thinking that matters were getting worse, was he, who was responsible for the peace of the town, to be blamed for applying to the sub-committee, and were the sub-committee to be blamed because they did their best to support him? If so, I think a great blow will be struck at the preservation of law and order. I hope I have not said anything to embitter this controversy, already too bitter; but I think if the House were to condemn the action of the local authority they would be taking on themselves a great responsibility, which would have very serious consequences, not merely in this particular district, but in every part of the country where, unhappily, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that disturbances may take place.

As I reside in the district in which this disturbance took place, and also within a few miles of Chester, I should like to make a few remarks upon this subject. I cannot help thinking the Home Secretary has been somewhat taken in by these proceedings, and I cannot forbear coming to the conclusion that if he had known what he knows now, the right hon. Gentleman would never have taken any action in the matter at all. The Leader of the House challenged us to say in what respect the Home Secretary could have acted in any different manner, but had it not been for the action of the Home Secretary the military would never have been brought down. He read the petition—he received no communication from the chief constable—but, having read the petition, what did he do? He did not communicate with the magistrates, but a communication was made to a chief constable who had already made a most egregious mistake, and in matters before this very Chief Constable had put the Treasury to considerable expense, which proved unnecessary. I think it is important that the Home Secretary should exercise some control over chief constables in matters of this kind, more especially as the law has been altered with regard to the use of the military. What I rose to show was what the true facts are of what has taken place. I challenged the Home Secretary to substantiate a single case of outrage, and he was unable to do so. Even in the petition the charges are very vague which are put into the mouths of the quarriers by the quarry authorities. The petition was practically signed by Lord Penrhyn, and his supporters, the quarriers, whether they wished to sign it or not, would not do it; and to say the Home Secretary is bound to assist in a matter of this kind without any communication with the responsible guardians of the peace is absurd. A great deal has been made of intimidation, but that simply consisted of hooting and booing the men considered to be blacklegs. Is that a sufficient justification for bringing down the military? and, if so, why were not the military sent to Stratford? We pro-Boers do not mind being intimidated by booing, but we have been attacked right and left at Stratford, and Scarborough, and other places, and the chief constables in those places have never called out the military; they compelled us to abandon our lawful meetings, and it is because in this case the women have booed these men that Lord Penrhyn has requisitioned the military. My complaint is that justice is not dealt out with an even hand by the law in this matter. There are certain favourites of the law and of the Imperial authorities who set the law in motion, but the law is refused to be set in motion in similar cases. The only overt act stated in the petition to the Home Secretary is that stones had been thrown by day and night at some of the cottages, but not one of those charges has been proved in a court of law, and in what respect would the inhabitants of Chester, seven miles away, assist in the matter? The only case for requisitioning the military is the case where the police had endeavoured to put down the disturbance and had been unable to do so, and had been overpowered by the mob; but nothing of that kind has occurred here. But because some Welsh boys secreted themselves behind a wall and threw stones at a cottage where a blackleg lived, and then ran away directly a policeman appeared, is that a reason for sending for the military? Nothing has occurred further than that. At the last petty sessions at Bangor, the only case was that four men were summoned for obstructing the highway; that is all. Under the Act of 1875, under which these proceedings were taken, it was an offence to follow any person about with the intention of intimidating him and preventing him from following his occupation or doing that which he was entitled to do, but if a man stands and boos, he cannot be proceeded against under this Act. These men simply stood in the same place and booed, and therefore could not be prosecuted under the Act of 1875, because they did not follow; but these four men were brought up at the petty sessions at Bangor and fined for obstruction, and that being the case, how can the bringing down of the military be justified? Why they should be brought down I do not know. I do not know whether it is in the mind of the Home Secretary that the magistrates are in sympathy with these men, but if he is under that impression I can assure him it is a mistake. On a previous occasion, when some men were summoned for booing a man, they elected to be tried before the magistrate, and five were convicted; but when the next batch were brought forward for a similar offence, they elected to go before a jury, and at the court which met at Carnarvon the chairman of the bench, himself an employer of labour, stated in public that the magistrate who tried the case at Bangor did not know anything of the matter until he was told by the Chief Constable. Such a procedure is monstrous, and it is unfair to act upon the opinion of a magistrate who has evidently been influenced by a Chief Constable. Can the Home Secretary inform me whether all the members of the sub-committee were present, or whether any of them were present except the chairman? I should like to know that, because no reference is made to anybody but the chairman.

I have no particulars, but I am informed by the Chief Constable that the sub-committee decided to call in the military, and that the chairman of the sub-committee, who is a magistrate, signed the requisition.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the joint committee is no authority in matters of this kind, and that under the Local Government Act, 1888, the magisstrates ought to have been consulted?

The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the committee had decided. Does he say that the committee themselves decided to send for the military, or simply that the chairman signed that document?

I do not know it absolutely, but what I presume occurred was that the sub-committee met and decided that the force at their disposal for the prevention of a breach of the peace was not sufficient, and that the requisition for the military was then signed by a gentleman who was a magistrate, and who happened also to be chairman of the sub-committee.

I presume the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection to allowing me and other Members representing the district to see the communication he received from the chief constable?

assented.

Then I will not pursue that point further. I will simply point out that the chairman, who is, no doubt, a thoroughly responsible gentleman and chairman of the quarter sessions, is a magistrate residing in a different petty sessional division, and necessarily has no local knowledge of the state of affairs at Bangor. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that in future he should, at any rate, in the event of any application for the services of the military in connection with the Bethesda disturbances, put himself into communication with the Bangor magistrates.

I really must have failed to make myself understood, as also must have done my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury. I have nothing to do with the calling in of the military; I am not consulted on the point. It was done on the spot, and I knew nothing about it until the military had been called in.

If the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, that this magistrate had no local jurisdiction in this particular part, the summoning of the military was illegal. That is beyond all doubt.

He did not say he had no local jurisdiction.

He was a magistrate of the county, but he did not sit in the petty sessional division.

Let me read Sir Redvers Buller's evidence as to the absolute rule for the summoning of the military. He said that troops were not to be taken out except for the suppression of riot, nor were they to be sent to assist the civil force in case of expected riot except on the written requisition of the Lord Lieutenant, sheriffs, a magistrate or magistrates "having jurisdiction in the place where the riot is expected, or in case of emergency." I understand that that means a local magistrate having jurisdiction in the district, not a general magistrate. It assumes that he is a man with special knowledge of the district. I do not mean to say that the general county magistrates have not local jurisdiction.