MR. R. J. HARVEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If any facilities will be given to meet the general desire on the part of the tradespeople and others residing in the western parishes of London to be sworn in as Special Constables for the preservation of the peace for Monday the 6th May? He understood that a very large number of persons desired to be sworn in, but some difficulties seemed to stand in the way.
§ MR. WALPOLEIn answer, Sir, to my hon. Friend, and especially in reference to the last part of his Question, I beg to state, not only that I hear that a very large number of persons are anxious to be sworn in as special constables, but ten minutes before I came down to the House I received a Memorial on the subject, signed by 6,000 persons, many of whom, indeed most of whom, are working men; and I am also informed that that Memorial is still in course of signature, and I am told that by eleven o'clock to-morrow morning 4,000 more names will be added to the document, which deprecates the intention of those who have called the meeting in Hyde Park. With respect to 1937 the other portion of the Question, I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that in consequence of the applications made to me I have communicated with the vestries in the different parishes contiguous to Hyde Park, or where the police would necessarily be withdrawn to preserve the public peace, offering them every facility for persons to be sworn in as special constables to preserve the public peace.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has communicated with the Middlesex magistrates on the subject?
§ MR. WALPOLEI do not think I have had any communication with the magistrates of Middlesex hitherto.
MR. BRIGHTSir, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, which is this—Whether it is not the custom before proceedings are taken to swear in special constables, that there should be depositions as to the probability of a breach of the peace being about to be committed? It does not follow that because a public meeting is to be held, therefore there will be a breach of the peace. In this country we are accustomed to great meetings, and this alarm is preposterous and absurd—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything. ["Order, order!"] If the House wishes to debate the question now I will do so; but what I was merely going to remark was, that I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to commit himself to any course.
§ MR. WALPOLEIn answer to a Question put to me by an hon. Friend just now I stated that, in consequence of numerous applications which had been made to me, facilities would be offered to persons wishing to be sworn in as special constables in their respective parishes. The law upon the subject is that where there is a riot, tumult, or felony, or where a riot, tumult, or felony is apprehended, upon information of the fact being laid before a magistrate, special constables may be sworn in for the preservation of the peace. Nothing will, of course, be done contrary to the law.
MR. BRIGHTMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that these special constables should in the slightest degree interfere with the peaceful entrance of any persons to the Park; or whether they will be expected to take any part in dispersing the meeting; or whether it is merely intended that, if there should be tumult, then that they should assist in quelling it.
§ MR. WALPOLEThere need be no 1938 apprehension of any special constables being employed for the purpose of preventing persons from entering the Park, or, as the hon. Member calls it, of dispersing to meeting. They will merely be there to assist the authorities in case the public peace should be broken.
MR. BRIGHTI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the special constables will be drawn up in the Park to take a show of force in opposition to the meting? I ask this, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would do nothing to provoke a breach of the peace. I wish to ask whether the force of special constables to be drawn up in the Park; and, if so, whether in an attitude of defiance or provocation to the meeting?
§ MR. WALPOLENo such thing is in contemplation.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, with respect to the Proclamation, the reason of its warning was simply with reference to probable interference with the ordinary use of the Park; and, whether he has obtained further information subsequent to the issue of the Proclamation affording other reasons for putting a stop to the meeting?
§ MR. WALPOLEI may first of all remark, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, that no Proclamation has been issued. What has been published is a notice signed by the Secretary of State. I am continually receiving further information with regard to the proposed meeting; but the notice which I issued was simply one warning persons not to attend a meeting which is prohibited by law.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, that as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had spoken of "the meeting" in manner calculated to convey the impression that it had been decided upon holding it, he would ask the hon. Member whether he was authorized by the Reform League to state that fact to the House?
MR. BRIGHTI beg to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not on the Council of the Reform League, and that I am not a member of that body.