§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the sentence of three months' imprisonment passed upon H. Boulter, at Bow Street Police Court on Friday last; whether this man was arrested at his place of business on Friday morning, taken to the police court and charged the same day, and sentenced as stated above; and what was the nature of this man's offence, and why it was necessary to proceed against him by way of a warrant and not by a summons?
§ Mr. McKENNAOwing to the grave disorder caused by the provocative language used by this man on Streatham Common on the 15th instant, it became necessary for the police in the interest of public order to take proceedings to prevent a repetition of it on the following Sunday. A 371 warrant was issued because it was necessary to take action immediately. He was called on to find sureties for his good behaviour or in default to go to prison for three months. I have received no representations on his behalf, and have no reason to doubt the ample justification for the proceedings taken against him.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs it the law of the country that because he uses certain language a man may be proceeded against on the morning of one day and in the afternoon taken before a magistrate, given no opportunity of consulting a legal adviser or any friend, and be summarily called upon to find a surety for £400 or else go to prison for three months?
§ Mr. McKENNAOn the question of law I am informed there was no defect in the legal proceedings. On the question of merit I am quite satisfied justice was done.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI beg to give notice that on the Motion for adjournment I shall call attention to this matter.