HC Deb 20 July 1888 vol 329 cc42-4
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

asked Mr. Attorney General, In what case it has been laid down by the High Court of Justice, or by some Judge of that Court, not as an obiter dictum, but as matter essential to or necessarily involved in the decision, that there is no public right of meeting in Trafalgar Square?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to remind him that it was ruled directly by Mr. Justice Charles, in his summing up to the jury in the case of "The Queen against Graham and Burns," that there was no public right of meeting in Trafalgar Square; and if he will consult the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills in the recent case of "Ex parte Lewis v. Vaughan" (4 The Times Law Reports, 649) he will find the same view of the law again enunciated.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

asked, whether it was not the fact that the conviction at the Old Bailey against Cunninghame Graham and others proceeded on the ground not that the meeting was illegal by reason of its being held in Trafalgar Square, but because it was calculated to inspire terror; and whether that ground would not be equally good ground for pronouncing any meeting illegal wherever held?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he did not think that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney could possibly have forgotten that Mr. Justice Charles ruled in the most direct manner, and told the jury, that there was no right of public meeting in any public place in the Metropolis other than those set apart under the Parks Act, and that Trafalgar Square was a public place, and that the character of the meeting had nothing to do with the alleged right of meeting in Trafalgar Square.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, that the Attorney General had misapprehended his Question, which was whether it was necessary from the decision in the case tried at the Old Bailey to pronounce conclusively on the question whether or not there was a right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square? He would ask him whether the verdict was not based upon the fact that the meeting was illegal because it was held under circumstances calculated to inspire terror; and whether it did not necessarily follow that any expression of the kind suggested, used by Mr. Justice-Charles, was a mere obiter dictum?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was confusing two matters. He (Sir Richard Webster) was not dealing with the particular question which was left to the jury as to that part of the case dependent upon the character of the meeting. It was necessary for the Judge to direct the jury upon the law; and in the course of his summing up Mr. Justice Charles distinctly ruled to the jury in the way he had described. He (Sir Richard Webster) entirely denied that the enunciation of the law by a Judge in directing a jury was a mere obiter dictum.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

inquired, whether it was not the fact that in the case of "Saunders v. Warren and others" it was sought to raise the point for the opinion of the Superior Court whether it was illegal to hold peaceable and orderly meetings in Tralalgar Square; and whether Her Majesty's Government did not by their defence raise the point that the action was not brought within the statutory period of three months, and therefore the question could not be decided?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that if any such Question were put to him he must ask for Notice, because it did not in any way arise out of the Question which he had answered. He was somewhat surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, who himself was an ex-Law Officer of the Crown, should have thought fit to refer to advice given to the Government, as to which he knew perfectly well that the Attorney General's mouth was closed.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he could not admit that where the matter was public his hon. and learned Friend had a right to point out that he had given no Notice of this Question; but, in fact, he had had no intention of asking the Question until he came down to the House, and was informed that it was a very serious matter affecting the peace of the community.

An hon. MEMBER

Move the Adjournment.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

wished to know whether it was the case that Sir Charles Warren had issued another Proclamation; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could state the terms?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, that Sir Charles Warren had issued no fresh Proclamation that he was aware of.

MR. CONYBEARE

asked the Attorney General in what Act of Parliament the distinct right of public meeting in the Parks or open spaces in London was laid down; and whether a Proclamation prohibiting a public meeting in London would make it illegal in the absence of any other reason?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he must have Notice of that Question.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

could not understand that the right hon. Gentleman should say that Sir Charles Warren had issued no fresh Proclamation. There was one on all the walls.

MR. MATTHEWS

I am not aware of any.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

It is a reissue of an old Proclamation.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

inquired, whether the Attorney General's attention had been directed to the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills, wherein he said he abstained from pronouncing judgment under the circumstances as to the right of holding public meetings in Trafalgar Square?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

asked for Notice of the Question.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

said, he would put the Question on the Paper; but it would be too late to stop the meeting already announced.