§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of John Williams, now undergoing two months' imprisonment for speaking in the public streets, he will advise a remission of the remainder of the sentence, having in view the fact that, though many hundreds of similar technical offences have been committed in the Metropolis during the past few years, this is the first case which has been made the subject of an indictment at Common Law?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)In reply to the hon. Member, I would first point out that the prisoner, John Williams, was convicted, not of speaking in the streets, but of obstructing a public thoroughfare. That this was not a merely technical offence, as the hon. Member implies, is, I think, shown by the fact that the prisoner was twice summarily convicted of a similar offence in 1885. The first time he was discharged on his own recognizances; the second time he was fined 40s., with the alternative of a month's imprisonment; he elected to go to prison. On the 4th of July, of this year, he was again summarily convicted of the same offence, was fined 1s. and costs, and cautioned. Within a week the prisoner repeated the offence, collecting large crowds by the issue of placards, the avowed purpose of which was to protest against the action of the police and the decision of the magistrates. Under such circumstances, as the learned magistrate said, there was no option but to commit the prisoner for trial. The case of Williams is not different from that of any other person who persistently and willfully 1461 obstructs the public streets. I have had submitted to me a Return of some recent prosecutions for obstruction, and I find among the offenders a preacher, a temperance lecturer, a Conservative politician, and a Home Ruler. All these gentlemen would, in the ordinary course, have been committed for trial had they persistently defied authority. I would further point out that Williams was sentenced to imprisonment only in default of paying a fine and finding sureties. He might obtain his discharge at any moment by obeying the order of the Court. Under all these circumstances, it is clearly, in my opinion, not a case in which to advise any interference.