HC Deb 16 April 1913 vol 51 cc2081-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I desire to call attention to the Police Order issued this morning prohibiting the Women's Social and Political Union from holding meetings in Hyde Park and elsewhere. I do not say anything about the legality of that Order, not being qualified to express an opinion thereon. That will doubtless be tested elsewhere. My objection is the more general one, that the Order constitutes a very serious interference with the right of public meeting. Sir E. Henry in his letter gives two reasons for prohibiting the holding of these meetings. The first is the difficulty of affording police protection. Seeing that at all these meetings the overwhelming majority of the audience is peacefully disposed and willing to listen, and that the disturbance is mainly caused by irresponsible youths, surely the police force of London ought to be sufficient to cope with the disturbances so created. If the police force is not sufficient there is always the military power to be called in. The military power is called in for coercion purposes when working men are fighting for their rights, and if it is to be used in that sense I see no reason why it should not be used in the protection of the rights of free speech. The second reason given is that the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union is to advocate the commission of crime. Assume that that is so; surely the remedy for that is to prosecute the people who are guilty of giving illegal advice. To interfere with the right of holding a meeting because certain speakers may give illegal advice, is surely not logical. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were giving illegal advice to the people in the North of Ireland, no consequences followed, the reason probably being that, should results follow, the law then would take its usual course and punish, not only those guilty of breaking the law by violence, but those guilty of giving the advice. I submit that the same policy should be followed in the present case. I would like to call the attention of the House to one quotation from a leading article in to-day's "Morning Post"—I quote it as an extract from the "Pall Mall Gazette"—as showing the dangerous precedent that is being established if this new police order is allowed to pass unchallenged. The article says:— We may even hope that the Liberal Government will proceed a step or two further in its wise restrictions of the liberty of the subject. For example, it might proscribe meetings held to support strikes which are directed against the safety and well-being of the nation. The ringleaders might be arrested, and, although we are certain that forcible feeding would not be necessary in their case, they might be kept under control and supervision without legal process upon some system akin to the so-called 'Cat and Mouse' Bill, which has been so ingeniously elaborated by our Liberal Home Secretary. We welcome the measures now being taken against these misguided women as useful precedents which will be available against more dangerous and more serious forms of political crime. The right of public meeting in this country has been won and maintained by very great task and sacrifice. Right hon. Members who now occupy seats on the Government Bench—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, during the Boer war, and the President of the Local Government Board during an unemployed agitation—insisted upon sufficient police protection being given to enable them to hold public meetings. When the President of the Local Government Board was prosecuted for having broken an Order similar to the present, prohibiting a meeting, he defended himself successfully before a Court of Law. My complaint is that the Police Order of this morning is interfering with the right of public meeting. It will bring to the side of the militants thousands of people who are opposed to their general policy. I repeat that if people make speeches in violation of the law, punish those who make the speeches; but do not interfere with the right of public meeting and set a dangerous precedent in the way that this Order does. The Home Secretary might remember in this connection that "force is no remedy." In all likelihood these meetings will be held. It applies to both sides. The fact of one side setting up a precedent does not justify the official side following that bad example. Further police prosecutions will follow, and a new phase will occur in this connection which will bring large numbers of people to the side of the women's movement who are now against their tactics, with the further danger of driving the movement underground. What is done now in the way of talking is done openly and in the light of day. Surely it is better that the authorities should know what is being advocated rather than have things planned in secret without warning, thus putting the authorities at a disadvantage. My last point is this: Home Secretaries have been beaten in every tussle they have had with the militant women. Forcible feeding has admittedly broken down, and this new method of applying coercion to the movement, and at the same time to interfere with a known and well-established right is also bound to fail. I ask the Home Secretary to repent, whilst there is yet time, and to cause this new Order to be at once withdrawn.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

I am glad to have the authority of the hon. Member himself that he regards the action of the militant women as a bad example, and that he objects to the course which I have taken on the ground that it will bring thousands to their ranks. It is interesting to know that the hon. Member is to be reckoned, with myself, as a strong opponent of militancy. On no other authority but that of the hon. Member should I have been willing to accept that conclusion. The hon. Member did not read to the House the terms of the letter written by Sir Edward Henry. I hope the House will bear with me while I read that letter, and then I will ask the hon. Member to what particular point in the letter he directs his complaint, whether as to points of fact alleged by Sir Edward Henry or to the conclusion that he draws from the facts. The letter is as follows:— It has been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary that meetings held by the Women s Social and Political Union in Hyde Park, Wimbledon Common, and other public open spaces of the Metropolitan area, have been the occasion of great disorder… I do not think the hon. Member will quarrel with that statement as a statement of fact. The disorder has lasted for many weeks. The letter proceeds— notwithstanding the presence of large forces of police… I do not think the hon. Member will dispute that allegation of fact that at these meetings large forces of police have been present— and I have advised him that, having regard to the character of the speeches delivered thereat, it is not practicable by any police arrangements to obviate the possibility of similar disorder occurring if such meetings are held. I want to know if the hon. Member quarrels with the conclusion which Sir Edward Henry has drawn from the facts which have been entirely within his experience at open spaces in several parts of London during the last few weeks, these facts being that grave disorder has occurred though large forces of police have been present at the meetings, and that the police have been unable to keep order. The letter goes on:— In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that it is the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union to advocate the commission of crimes… The hon. Member does not dispute that it is the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union to advocate crimes… the Secretary of State for the Home Department has directed me to instruct the Metropolitan Police to take such steps as are necessary and within their powers to prevent such meetings being held. I do not think the hon. Member would quarrel with any such statement of fact. If the hon. Member doubts the statement that the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union is to advocate crime, I would refer him to the second annual report of that union issued only last week, in which, in black and white, crime is definitely advocated as the policy of the union. This is what appears in that report under the heading "War Renewed":— The Government's betrayal of women was followed by an announcement by Mrs. Pankhurst that militancy would be resumed, and would be more drastic than ever. Guerilla tactics would be pursued; the militants would henceforth be concerned to produce the maximum of effect while retaining their liberty as long as possible. Then, in order that there should be no mistake as to what the friends of militancy mean, the paragraph proceeds:— Since this declaration, militancy on a scale hitherto undreamt of has raged. Letter-box protests have continued more vigorously than before; golf greens have been destroyed; telegraph and telephone wires have been severed; a house that was in preparation for Mr. Lloyd George has been wrecked and buildings in Regent's Park and Kew Gardens have been burnt to the ground. There is a definite allegation by this society that their policy is crime, and that the members of this society go to these public spaces for the purpose of addressing public meetings in furtherance of the policy of this union. We have allowed these meetings in defence of the rights of free speech to be attempted for weeks. We have seen, as we might have expected to be the case amongst law-abiding people, that the announcement of these doctrines by women in public meetings has roused the audience to such a degree of passion that even a large force of police could not keep the peace. Attempts have been made again and again, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, to maintain order, and they have failed. They have advised me that their attempts in future in face of the growing difficulties of the case must be unavailing. I am confronted with this state of facts. I have a number of women who declare their intention to address public meetings advocating such doctrines and expressed in such language as must insult the meetings of any law-abiding citizens. I say to the hon. Member who has raised this question that from information which I have received as to the character of these audiences he is entirely wrong in what he has said upon that point. All that the police can judge of is the determined attempts which have been made to prevent these women from insulting an ordinary British audience by advocating crime. This is not a case of free speech. If it were the first, second, or third meeting, I would be inclined to say I would rather hear what these women have got to say and I will do my utmost to preserve order, but when week after week I find the task impossible it is insulting the common-sense of our people to allow these meetings to be continued, knowing that in the long run no opinions will be heard, no speeches will be delivered but bloodshed must sooner or later occur. In these circumstances, I think I am justified in directing the Commissioner of Police to instruct the Metropolitan police to take such steps as are necessary and within their powers to prevent such meetings being held. What will those steps be? A woman, who intends to hold a meeting for the purpose of advocating crime under circumstances which are, not likely, but certain as we know from experience, to lead to a breach of the peace, will be warned not to attempt to do so, and, if she perseveres, she will be arrested and charged with conduct leading to a breach of the peace in order that she may be bound over to keep the peace. It is a procedure which has been taken again and again in similar circumstances. The hon. Gentleman endeavours, on the authority of a leading article in the "Morning Post"—this is the first time I have ever known the hon. Member to go to the "Morning Post" for his authority—

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I quoted it in order to show that you are pleasing the "Morning Post" and the Conservative party, and therefore are false to the traditions of your own party.

Mr. McKENNA

I do not think that is absolutely necessary. I quite admit it is very rarely I please the "Morning Post," so far as I read that journal, or any of the other Conservative newspapers; but I believe in this action, if I am fortunate enough to get the support of the Conservative party, I shall be equally fortunate in getting the support of the Liberal papers. I have to appeal to the House of Commons, and I ask the House of Commons to judge me and to say what other steps any prudent or reasonable man could take in the circumstances. The hon. Member says that the same action might be taken with regard to speeches delivered by Labour leaders in the course of a strike. Speeches have been delivered by Labour leaders in the course of strikes, I can certainly say by the score, if not by the hundred but who has ever suggested interfering with them? Why? At these meetings speeches have been peacefully listened to by the audience. The audience wanted to hear the speaker, and the speaker had a perfect right to express his views to the audience. But here the audience did not want to hear the speaker. It is not a question of protecting the rights of free speech. In no single case can any coherent speech of these women be heard in the public spaces at the present time. I am not interfering with free speech; I am interfering with disorder, and, with the leave of the hon. Member, I mean to keep order.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I think this Debate which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has started, ought not to close until there is a clear declaration made in this House of the statement made by the hon. Member, namely, that in his opinion it is necessary that soldiers should be brought in.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I did not say that.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Oh! but you did. My hon. Friend said that soldiers were available.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

What I said was that, if the police were not sufficient to preserve the rights of free speech, the soldiers were there.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I want every trade unionist in this country to know that the hon. Member who has been preaching in all the Labour papers and denouncing on every platform throughout the country the Government and their predecessors for bringing in the aid of the military to support the civil power, in the year 1913 comes down to the House of Commons and says, "If the police are not sufficient to maintain order there are the military available. It is only a few months ago that the hon. Member made a violent attack in this House on the Government because they had brought in soldiers in South Wales during the time of the railway strike. Disorder had then prevailed, and it was such, at all events, that the man who was driving the engine was rendered insensible.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

That statement is not true.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It was in the report given by the police to the Home Office at the time, although the hon. Member disputed it. He disputes everything that does not accord with his own particular views. Let the House be clear on this, that despite all the statements made in the Labour press, and by the Labour leaders against capitalists bringing in soldiers in order to suppress the worker, the leader of the Labour party himself [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—at any rate the leader of the Independent Labour party, which is, I suppose, a more progressive party than that which sits on the benches below me, is of opinion that the military are desirable where the police fail to keep order. I only want to say with regard to the issue before the House, we hear much in these days about liberty; but what about the crimes which are being committed in the name of liberty? Here we have people on Sunday using public parks, which are intended for the convenience of the public, and they are converting those public parks into bear gardens, because certain people in the name of free speech choose to go there and incite to disorder and to breaking the law. Surely it is right that people who wish to enjoy the quiet of the parks on Sundays should be allowed to do so, without these persons going there and in the name of free speech preaching something which is contrary to the law. I think the Home Secretary in this matter has acted perfectly rightly. There is nothing to prevent speeches being delivered by supporters of the suffrage movement. There is nothing to prevent any militant suffragist taking a public hall and having the police there to preserve order. But so long as they deliberately preach disorder and incitement to breaking the law, for anyone to say they have a right to hold meetings in the public parks is to my mind absolutely wrong and a proposal to which the House of Commons ought not to listen for one moment.

Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT

I desire to say that I happened to have been in the Park during the last two meetings, and in my view, merely as an eye-witness, the statement made by the Home Secretary is substantially correct, while the statement of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) is a ridiculous understatement of what occurred. There was a general riot. I was within a few yards of the platform, and could not hear a single word of the speeches.

Question put, and agreed to. Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.