§ MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the interests of peace and goodwill between the people and police, and the quiet government of the Metropolis, he will either give facilities for the consideration of the Trafalgar Square (Regulation of Meetings) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Horton (Mr. James Stuart), or undertake on the part of the Government themselves to propose legislation on the subject? The hon. Member also asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would adopt any measure which, during the interval before legislation could be considered, might tend to obviate the risk of any collisions between the police and the people?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)In answer to the latter part of the Question, I venture to hope that there will be no risk of collision between the police and the people. It depends very much on those who lead the people whether there will be any such risk or not. As it has been laid down by the Judges of the High Court that there is no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square, and as the Government are of opinion that meetings in the Square would involve serious risk to the peace of the Metropolis, they are not prepared to give facilities for a measure authorizing such meetings; and they entertain the earnest hope that no further attempt will be made to assert a claim which has now been declared by high legal authority to be without any foundation; and that it may, therefore, be unnecessary for the Government to propose legislation in order to prevent the continuance of a mischievous agitation.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)asked, whether the opinions of the high legal authorities referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were not rather obiter dicta than decisions upon the question before them, and related rather to the general right of meeting than to meetings in Trafalgar Square?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was obvious he was not in a position to discuss the legal question.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMput the Question to the Attorney General.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)As I understand the decision of the Judges, it was not given in reference to the general right of meeting in public thoroughfares; but directly in reference to the meetings in Trafalgar Square, as to which they stated that in their opinion no such right existed.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, in the name of justice and humanity, whether something could not be done to prevent collisions, which might occur at any moment, between the police and the people, in spite of all they could possibly do?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHYes; I think the hon. Gentleman himself, and those who have co-operated with him, may exercise their influence to prevent a collision by dissuading the people from going to the Square when they have no right to do so, and preventing meetings being thus held.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)Is there any Act of Parliament which deliberately lays it down that there is no right of public meeting either in Trafalgar Square or any other place? Are we also to understand that the Commissioner of Police, although he has the power by statute to regulate and control public meetings, has any legal right and authority to suppress public meetings altogether?
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERThe hon. and learned Gentleman must be perfectly aware that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the question of law has never varied from the time this matter was first debated. Their view is that Trafalgar Square is a public place in the Metropolis, subject to the control of the police; and that a meeting ought not to be permitted which is likely to bring about a breach of the peace. That view has since been discussed in more than one Court of Law, and has never been called in question.
§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he contemplates with much satisfaction a repetition of the Peterloo massacre?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!