§ 64. Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a mass meeting was held in Trafalgar Square, on Sunday afternoon, 10th August, to demand the unconditional release of George Lansbury, Mrs. Cohen, and others; if he is aware that the meeting passed a resolution of protest against magistrates having power to send to prison persons who may express views which they or the Government do not approve; and if he can see his way to grant an unconditional release of Mr. Lansbury and Mrs. Cohen, who were prosecuted and imprisoned under an Act 550 years old?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have received from the hon. Member a copy of the resolution passed by the meeting in Trafalgar Square last Sunday. So far as the resolution "protests against magistrates having power to send to prison persons who may express views of which they or the Government do not approve," I cordially agree with the view expressed by the meeting and should be ready at all times to support and to enforce it. There is no such power under English law; and if, while I hold the office of Home Secretary, it should be shown to me that any person has been sent to prison merely because he expressed 2508 views of which the magistrate or the Government do not approve, I shall have no hesitation in advising his immediate release. As I explained last night, Mr. Lansbury was required to find sureties, not on account of the views which he expressed, but because; he used words which incited to disorder and crime. Among other things, it was proved before the magistrate that, speaking at Albert Hall of the militant women who have been guilty of arson and other outrages, he said, "I ask all of us here to stand shoulder to shoulder with them; let them burn and destroy property and do anything they will, and for every leader that is taken let a dozen step forward in her place." There can be no question that this language was a direct and effective incitement to crime; but as I said last night, I am perfectly willing to believe that Mr. Lansbury does not intend in future to be guilty of such criminal incitement., and, if I receive an assurance from him to this effect, I shall be very glad to consider favourably the question of remitting the remainder of his sentence. Mrs. Cohen is not in prison, and her case has not come in any way before me.
§ Mr. W. THORNEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the language used by Mr. Lansbury was any stronger than that used by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir Edward Carson) and the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith)?
§ Mr. McKENNAI must have notice of that question.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the magistrates are the sole judges whether the words used may be an incitement to disorder or not, and whether it is fair to leave in the hands of a bench of country magistrates power to decide whether the words used by a strike agitator are, or are not, an incitement to crime?
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend is going into a much larger question here, and I cannot undertake to reply without notice as to general jurisdiction of the magistrates in the country.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs my right hon. Friend aware that this power which is exercised by the magistrates arises out of common law, and not out of Statute law?
§ Mr. McKENNAI do not think it would really be advisable to enter into an argument, and I hope my hon. Friend will not misinterpret what I say when I state that I do not think he has correctly interpreted the law.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the power of binding to the peace which is exercised by the magistrates is judge-made law and not statutory
§ Mr. McKENNAOh, no, I am aware of the contrary.