MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Magistrates of Wishaw prohibited an open air meeting proposed to be held at the Cross at Wishaw on 2nd June, and instructed the Constabulary to prevent the meeting from being held; and whether he can state the nature of such interdicted meeting; and under what Statute it was so prohibited?
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) ButeMy attention was called to this matter by the question of which notice was given by the hon. Member for Northampton. The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The object of the meeting, as described in the posters calling it, was, "Resistance of Compensation. The Duty of the Hour." I am informed that the Magistrates, who are the elected police Magistrates of the burgh, had no apprehension of disturbance, and that this interference was in no way 1588 actuated by; the; nature of objects of the meeting or the conflicting opinions of any sections of the community They acted solely because the place proposed was a part of the streets where, in their judgment, a large public meeting could not be held without the ordinary traffic of the streets being interfered with and danger of accident arising. The place called the Cross is simply the point of intersection of two narrow Streets, and even the normal space was at the time Curtailed by a hoarding erected for some building operations. The Magistrates acted in what they held to be their Common Law duty to prevent obstruction in the streets, and they had also in view Section 248 of the I General Police Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862. I am informed that there is a park at a short distance from the Gross, where meetings can be held without inconvenience to anyone, and in the present instance the promoters, protesting against the action of the Magistrates, adjourned to the Good Templars Hall and there held their meeting.
MR. PHILIPPSHas the right hon. Gentleman seen the interdict by which the meeting was prevented, and the notice which was served upon the Chairman? The notice prohibited the holding of a meeting in the open air at the Gross, or in any of the public streets of the borough. Is there anything in the Act of 1862 which gives to the Magistrates such Wide authority as that; and, if not, under what authority do they act?
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONThe primary object was to prevent the meeting being held in a particular place. The place was narrow, and the Magistrates were of opinion that the holding of a meeting there would obstruct the traffic. I do not think that the interdict involved any deliberate intention on the part of the Magistrates to interfere with the right of meeting unless a danger to the traffic arose.
MR. PHILIPPSWould not the ordinary course be to allow the meeting to be held and to remove any persons creating an obstruction?
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONThe Magistrates might have taken the course suggested by the hon. Member and waited until the streets were obstructed before they interfered. But they gave 1589 persons the option of going to the meeting or refraining from doing so.
MR. PHILIPPSWhy do they say that the meeting would have created an obstruction? [Cries of "Order!"] Surely I am in order in pressing the right hon. Gentleman for the authority under which the Magistrates acted?
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI am not prepared to give the authority. The primary duty of the Magistrates was to preserve the peace.
MR. PHILIPPSI beg to give notice that I will put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to lay down the principle that a legal meeting becomes illegal from prohibition by the Magistrates?
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI do not intend to lay down any principle of the kind. What I hold is that the Magistrates were quite within their rights in letting the inhabitants know that they would prevent people from standing about and causing an obstruction.