HC Deb 22 June 1896 vol 41 cc1567-8
* Mr. F. CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the sentence of a month's imprisonment passed on Mr. Leonard Hall, journalist, by Mr. Headlam, the stipendiary magistrate for the city of Manchester, on 13th June, for having spoken to an orderly public meeting held in a public open space on the outskirts of the city, known as Boggart Hole Clough, whether he is being treated in all respects as a common criminal, put to wear prison clothes, denied books and writing materials, and the opportunity of being visited by his family and friends, and, whether he will consider the propriety of recommending some mitigation of this sentence?

* SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

This case has been brought to my notice, and I am informed on inquiry that the prisoner Hare was summoned with several others on a complaint of the Parks Committee of the Manchester Corporation for breach of one of the Parks Bye-laws, by causing annoyance in the parks. The annoyance was caused by the holding of a meeting of some thousands of persons, about which complaints were made by frequenters of the parks, and from which he was warned to desist. Hare expressed his determination in Court to carry on the meeting, whatever the magistrate's decision might be, and was sentenced in consequence to pay the maximum penalty of £5, and on his refusing to pay the fine to a month's imprisonment. Hare is not, as suggested, in prison for a political offence. He is treated under the existing regulations, which I have no power to alter, as a criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour. The question of the classification of prisoners is one which is engaging my serious attention in connection with the proposed prison legislation. The magistrate informs me that he would concur in the prisoner's immediate release if he would give an undertaking to desist from holding similar meetings in future.

MR. C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, previous to the interference of the authorities, the audience did not exceed from 200 to 300 persons, and were of an orderly character; and does he know that speakers have addressed audiences in the same place before it became the property of the citizens of Manchester?

* SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

I have no information that the audiences were so small as stated by the hon. Member. My information is that complaints were made to the authorities in Manchester of the holding of these meetings, and, on the instigation of the Parks Committee and the Chairman of it, action was taken before the magistrate, with the result I have stated.

MR. SCHWANN

I should like to state that the numbers have been——[Cries of "Order!"]

MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I should like to ask in this case whether the offence was connected with the speeches that were made, or was it in the nature of obstruction of the public thoroughfare?

* SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

I understand it is obstruction, Sir.