§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that organised attempts are being made by certain interested persons to break up public meetings, held on open spaces set apart for such public meetings, especially on Streatham Common; that at this latter place persons conducting the meetings have appealed to the police for protection, and such protection has been refused on the ground that it was the business of the attendants and park-keepers to preserve order, and that on these latter being appealed to they declined to act as the police were present; and, if the facts are as stated, will he instruct the police to deal impartially with all persons guilty of conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace at these and suchlike meetings?
§ Mr. ASHLEYBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask if he admits the suggestion contained in this question that the police did not do their duty?
§ Mr. McKENNAI think the hon. Gentleman will find a reply in the course of my answer. I have made inquiry, and am informed that the facts are as follows: There is no foundation for the allegation that the police have referred persons appealing to them for protection to the park-keepers, nor is there any foundation for the statement that there is organised opposition to the holding of meetings on Streatham Common or elsewhere, beyond the fact that the provocative language of 1902 certain speakers has made it necessary for the police to protect those speakers from injury at the hands of persons to whom it has given offence. I am satisfied that the police have, in difficult circumstances, performed their duty without any partiality.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that those provocative statements are of exactly the same kind as the statements that one of his right hon. colleagues in the other House formerly wrote in books, and that two other colleagues on the same bench, one a right hon. Gentleman and the other an hon. Gentleman, have given utterance to in public lectures up and down the country without being interfered with?
§ Mr. McKENNAOh, no, Sir, I understand that the language used on Streatham Common was of an entirely different character.
§ Mr. LANSBURYAs the gentleman who was accused of that conduct has been removed by the action of the police, and as to the gentleman who have been there since, I would like to ask if any verbatim report or any statement has been taken down as to what those men actually have said which gives the right hon. Gentleman the right to say that their statements are provocative; I am not speaking of Mr. Boulter, I am asking a question as to the speakers since?
§ Mr. McKENNAWith regard to Mr. Boulter's language——
§ Mr. LANSBURYThere is no dispute between us.
§ Mr. McKENNAWith regard to the other persons the question now raised is whether order is to be preserved on Streatham Common or not. The police have been called in to protect certain lecturers. They have done their best but cannot undertake to protect them if they continue to lecture—that is to say, the state of feeling in Streatham is such as that it requires they should not lecture on Sunday mornings.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the effect of what he says that gentlemen wishing to lecture on Tariff Reform amongst people who are actually hostile to it and do not want to hear such lectures, that they are to be subject to assault from the crowd without protection by the police?
§ Mr. McKENNAThey are protected, and as a matter of fact the police have protected those lecturers and either one or two persons have been fined or sent to prison because they obstructed or interfered with those lecturers. The state of feeling now is such on Streatham Common that it has become necessary in the public interest that those people should not lecture. I have no doubt if my hon. Friend lets a little time elapse feeling will die down and things will go on again in the ordinary course.
Captain CRAIGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for War lectured yesterday morning on a United Irish League platform?
§ Colonel SEELYYes, but there was no interruption of any kind.
§ Sir W. BYLESWould not the Public Meeting Act, 1908, introduced by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil) meet this case, and could it not be enforced to protect the rights of speakers?
§ Mr. McKENNAI will look into the question of the Act mentioned by my hon. Friend. At the present moment on Streatham Common it is merely a question of keeping order.