§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Viscount Curzon.]
§ Mr. LANSBURYAfter the proceedings which we have had this evening, the subject I have to raise with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will appear very humdrum, and I would like to say I am sorry even to attempt to detain Members who are wanting to get away. But the subject I want to raise 1788 is one which is of some importance to my constituents, and to the working-people in London generally. It may he remembered that a fortnight ago I asked the Home Secretary some questions by private notice, and one of them was in reference to the behaviour of the police in regard to a procession which was marching from Wandsworth Prison. I would like to say at the outset, that I am not standing here to denounce all police constables as hard-hearted, brutal people, or to describe all demonstrators as angels. The police have at times a very awkward and a very difficult duty to perform, and I am sure very often their patience is very considerably tried. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman and those in charge at Scotland Yard ought to take into account the fact that in all groups of people there are some who occasionally allow temper to get the better of them, and tact to go to the wind. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I think there has grown up—and I have a great deal of experience of demonstrations—during the last couple of years a sort of antagonism between the police and some sections of the unemployed, and I think also with regard to the Communist party. Some of the bad feeling that has arisen is probably due to the fact that some few of the men think that they are pleasing those in authority by dealing rather differently with the Communists than was the case a year or two ago.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the position he occupies, is one who should be perfectly impartial, and absolutely neutral in regard to any political opinion. I know it. might be strictly difficult for a. person like me to be impartial, and so on, but when the right hon. Gentleman is placed in the position of Home Secretary, he is the principal Secretary of State, and is in a position which gives him great power over the lives and liberties of men and women, especially in London. I feel that sometimes, when he speaks about us, he allows his tact, and, I was going to say, wisdom, to depart from his utterances, when he talks about his hands itching when he reads certain people's speeches; and when he reproves me occasionally, he honours me with his denunciation, quite mildly, but it gives the impression that in his office he is rather more of a politician than a statesman or an administrator. I would like 1789 to say, further, that it is a tall order that he himself and the Attorney-General, who are very keen politicians, should have the deciding of what is a legal or an illegal procession, or what is a legal or an illegal declaration of political faith. I say that, because I feel that in all the dealings with these demonstrators lately, a kind of weight of official protection is placed on the side of those whose opinions coincide with those of the right hon. Gentleman. How far he is a Fascist I do not know, but this is quite true, that if a meeting be interfered with, you very seldom read—there are occasions when you do, but it is very seldom—that the Fascist has been arrested. It is nearly always the Communist who has been arrested. In regard to the particular occasion at Battersea, where I happened to be present, the right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer, which I can only describe as entirely inaccurate, and not in accordance with the facts. I asked him why the procession was broken up, and his answer to me was:
The police acted under their general authority to control the traffic, and on this occasion did so with great care and success until near Battersea Rise, when part of the procession became disorderly and spread across the road, blocking the general traffic, which was fairly heavy at the time. The police then tried to reduce the procession to order, when the crowd began to shout. 'Up the Rebels,' 'Come on Reds,' etc. No one was injured except one constable. In reply to the last part of the question, persons who desire to march through the streets of London must do so in an orderly manner.?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1926; col. 20, Vol. 194.]That answer I was not able to discuss at Question time, or to call in question in the same fashion I am able to do now. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to accept my word that at least I was present, that I was not drunk, and that I was simply walking on the pavement looking at the procession. The first part of the answer said that a portion of the crowd got across the road, and caused a blockage. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will believe that the patrols were at the head of the procession, that they went across the road with about fifty of the processionists, that then the bulk of the procession was stopped, and the disturbance, such as it was, took place not in the main road, where the traffic was, but when part of 1790 the procession had got across the road. There was no disturbance whatsoever among the main body of the processionists, and there was no disturbance in the road, the name of which I do not know, but which divides one side of Battersea Rise from the other. The only disturbance was with those 40 or 50 demonstrators who had got across the road. For some unknown reason, or a reason I have not been able to discover yet, the patrols, who were leading the procession across the road, directly they got across, or within a few seconds of doing so, turned round and charged into those 40 or 50 men and women, and dispersed them. I, myself, took a man in a fainting condition from a police officer who was holding him, offering to take charge of him. That man collapsed.The right hon. Gentleman said that no one was injured except a police constable. The man to whom I have referred collapsed at the feet of two or three police officers. The patrols were dancing round to such an extent that two women were knocked down, one of whom had to be carried off, and the other one about 10 minutes later collapsed in the procession, after the procession had been reformed. I spoke to the one inspector with whom I could get into contact, and asked him what it was all about, and what we were to do? I asked him repeatedly what he wanted the processionists to do, and he finally said, "We only want them to march on," and that in spite of the fact that we had three, if not four, patrols dancing around on horseback, making it impossible to move forward in any way. Only after a good deal of protestation were these men moved on, and finally the procession was reformed. Then six or eight policemen were set right across part of the procession, marching in the procession. What the reason was I do not know, except that I was told that they were dividing the unruly portion of the crowd from the orderly portion. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but it was one of his inspectors who told me this.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe, men who were in the leading part of the procession were the Deptford contingent. From beginning to end there was no trouble with these 1791 men. The inspector was known to them, and he knew them, and they were getting along very nicely. I am confident that if that inspector had been in charge of the whole demonstration there would have been no disturbance whatever, because he had the usual tact and goodwill of an inspector of police who is accustomed to deal with people who live in the poorer parts of London. I am confident that if our own Poplar inspector had been in charge what did happen would not have happened. When it is said that these six or eight policemen were put there to separate the sheep from the goats, as it were, well, I do not understand that one scrap. The people in front were singing Socialist songs, and those behind the policemen were doing the same. I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman: Would he think it right and proper for police to be put across a Primrose League demonstration in that way? This is what happened. Everybody who has marched in a procession, a London procession especially—we are the most slovenly marchers possible; we never march in proper order—knows that one's heels are continually trodden on, or one's toes are trodden on, though it is all quite orderly, and there is not any bad feeling about it. These constables who were put in the procession had their heels trodden on every now and then, and then there was very bad language between them and the people in the crowd, and there might easily have been quite a riot. I do not say is because it was me, but I took at least half-a-dozen men who were in danger themselves of "getting a thick ear," as the saying is, or of giving one, and pulled them to the rear of the crowd. There need have been none of that if these police had not been put in, and I think it was a very bad thing indeed, on the part of whoever did, to act in so provocative a manner.
The only other thing I want to say in connection with that demonstration is that, in spite of a good deal of provocation on both sides, we did manage to get from Battersea Rise to the Elephant and Castle without any disturbance whatever. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that of itself proves that there was no need for the sort of provocative action that was taken by the authorities. If he disputes what I say, I am prepared to 1792 bring complete evidence from people not connected with the Communist party or with the Socialist party, simply onlookers, who will verify my statements in regard to the beginning of the disturbance and will corroborate what I am saying about the police being put across the procession. What I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do to-night, because of next Saturday—next Saturday is May Day; I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is so badly informed—next Saturday is a day on which there will be probably the biggest demonstration of the year in London.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI hope there will not be another row.
§ Mr. LANSBURYNo, they are not proposing to have another row, if the right hon. Gentleman will give his officers proper orders as to what they are to do. I would like to point out that up to the time the right hon. Gentleman took office there had been thousands of demonstrations in London and thousands of meetings in Hyde Park, and hardly any break-ups of the demonstrations by the police and very few arrests, even in Hyde Park. What I was going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the May Day demonstration, is that he should make up his mind whether he and the police are going to permit the demonstrators to march home; because, as I see it, there were two reasons why there was this disturbance. The previous week the right hon. Gentleman answered a question of mine in reference to a disturbance in Hyde Park, and, in a supplementary answer, he told me that the demonstrators had decided to walk home slowly and not at the pace the police told them. I would like to know under what Regulations the police can compel a procession to march at a given pace? I would like a straight answer to a straight question, "Are you going to lay it down that there must he a certain rate of progress?" I want the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind on that question before next Saturday—when they are marching home.
Then I want him to make up his mind as to whether the police will permit these people to march home at all, because, in my opinion, apart altogether from the fact that some officers may want to please 1793 the right hon. Gentleman in giving good, drastic treatment to this nuisance, this Communist nuisance, and the people who create it, I do not think the police like the job of marching back again. It is a long way from the East End of London to Hyde Park. The police have to march to the Park, stand about while the demonstration is on—and they are not interested in that—and then have to form up to march back. That is a pretty big day's work for men coming from the East End, and something out of the ordinary. It may be said that the demonstrators ought not to want to march back, but they do want to march back, because many of them have not the money to ride back, and it is easier to walk behind a band than to walk along the streets by one's self for that great distance.
If they are to march back, I think the right hon. Gentleman has got to give orders that they are within their legal rights in doing so, and are not to be interfered with by the police at all. If in going back they are a nuisance to the traffic, well, so is a. Royal procession, and so it is when somebody is buried, or there is a wedding at Westminster Abbey or some other fashionable church. There are plenty of other nuisances which stop the traffic besides these processions, Which cause the minimum of inconvenience, because as a rule they are held late in the afternoon, and it is in the evening when they are marching home. I do want to get a ruling from the right hon. Gentleman on this point—whether he has given orders that the processionists must march at a given pace, so that there shall be a minimum disturbance of the traffic. If so, will he tell us at what rate they are to march. Further, I want to ask him to make up hits mind whether the processionists are to be allowed to march back after the procession.
On the question of reporting, which I told the right hon. Gentleman I should raise, I want to say this. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reporter took clown a verbatim report of what he considered, in his judgment, were the sort of statements that required the attention either of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Attorney-General. That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—that the reporter made selections from the man's speech for decision as to whether they were sedi- 1794 tious or not. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when this question was raised last year, I think, we could not carry on the discussion for want of time, and at the close he very kindly showed me an extract of a speech of my own. I told him then, and I want to tell him again now, that if I had been taken to Court on that extract I should have said it was a most unfair extract from a speech I delivered at Poplar Town Hall.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General are itching to see whether I cannot appear at the Old Bailey or somewhere else. They have not said it, but I have been warned by the Attorney-General, my political opponent, from the Front Bench, of what may happen to me at the Old Bailey, while the right hon. Gentleman has told me that he has special precautions taken in order to get my speeches. That particular speech was a speech which had not been taken down verbatim. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no police reporter takes down a speech verbatim. I will make him an offer that if he produces a speech of mine verbatim I shall never speak on this subject again.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYou will never speak again?
§ Mr. LANSBURYI will not go so far as that. I said I would not speak again on this subject.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI thought it might be an offer worth having.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am not afraid about myself in this matter, because I am quite capable of taking care of myself, and if I go to prison I shall be a bigger nuisance to you inside than out. When I have been to prison it has worried the Home Secretary and the prison governor more than anybody else. But you prosecute poor people on these speeches. I watched your reporters at the meetings outside Wandsworth Prison and on Wandsworth Common, and I am very doubtful whether you get more than a few disjointed sentences from anybody's speeches. The man at the meeting on Wandsworth Common, quite openly and without any attempt to cover it up, did not take down the speeches verbatim. Hs was challenged about it and he simply 1795 smiled. It never does happen that one of your polite reporters takes a speech down verbatim and, if they do not do so, you have no right to prosecute men, who are unemployed and who may be Communists, by dragging out a few sentences here and there and making out a case against them in that way. This is a most despicable and mean work to put anybody to. I can quite understand a man sitting down at a table under conditions where he can take a speech down word by word and your judging it as a whole, but to say that these police reporters are to be the judges of the particular pieces they will take out of a man's speech for the purpose of putting him away is a very mean and despicable thing. It is because I feel that that I protest against it.
On the general question of Communist or Socialist propaganda, I do not believe in the Communist theory of force and violence. If the right hon. Gentleman ever had a single speech of mine taken down verbatim he would find that in 999 speeches out of 1,000 I speak against violence in any shape or form. I am glad to believe that in this country we have been saved from revolution and violence by allowing people freedom to say what they think and in whatever way they think. It is a strange thing that in this year of grace 1926 you should still be adopting this sort of Measure for putting down opinions you disagree with. If we had had a Home Secretary with the same point of view as the right hon. Gentleman in the days when the late Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain were looked upon as the very bad boys of politics, because they were Republican and were always saying very nasty things about Royalty, I can quite imagine how not only the hands of the Home Secretary, but his whole body would have itched to put them in prison. These two gentlemen in the end become pillars of the Constitution. It may be that one of these days the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) will enter into the sanctity of the Front Bench and the terrible things he is now saying will be forgotten. I would like the Home Secretary to remember the saying that "Hard words break no bones." We in England have 1796 always been accustomed to say what we think, and we never interfere with people who have done nothing. It was well said long ago by a much greater man that "it has been our ancient privilege to fling our airy thought into words, not caring." Once the people of England and Scotland give up that right then we may be in danger of revolution.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAIn supporting the hon. Member who has just sat down I wish to offer one or two serious considerations to the Home Secretary. In the first place, although the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has appealed to the Home Secretary to forget he is a politician and to forget his prejudices I feel tempted to say that, although it should be so, I realise that it never can be so. From our party point of view I only regret that the Home Secretary in the Labour Government did not follow the same policy of keeping his political prejudices inside his office. With reference to the reporting of speeches, I received this morning from a friend a newspaper from Otley containing a report of the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman referred recently. I shall forward him a copy and request him to compare it with whatever private report he may have of that speech.
Another point to which I desire to draw the Home Secretary's attention is that there is such a thing as the majesty of law and that by the processes which our Law Officers and the Home Secretary are now adopting they are completely destroying that mental conception of the majesty of law and are degenerating it a mere partisan squabble between the two parties. Tile other day I was charged with perfect sincerity with making utterances with regard to the national flag, the Union Jack. I may assure the Home Secretary, as well as all who hold the same political views as he does, that it has never been my intention to wantonly hurt the feelings of my hon. Friends opposite, but I do say that when the Home Secretary as a Home Secretary was making statements about. it he was making statements that do not bear the evidence of being proved as true statements. I was told about the attitude of my colleagues on these benches that everyone's blood boiled when I speak about the Union Jack. The Home Secretary is perfectly well aware 1797 with regard to the great struggle which the Conservative Association are having in Battersea with regard to the Union Jack, that every Labour member on the Council has views which are exactly opposite to what the Home Secretary said were the generally accepted views of the Labour party. I am going round Scotland, Wales, and England; I have held many meetings and met many organisations, and I have never found in one of these that sentiment about the Union Jack. I do not want to hurt the feelings of those who do hold them, but they have to see that the opposite of that feeling exists among British citizens, and it is worse than exaggeration to say that they all generally accept the superstition about the Union Jack. I have never come across, in all the meetings I have held, British citizens who told me that their blood boiled because of the things that I have said to British audiences. The Home Secretary keeps minute and detailed accounts of my meetings, meetings which have been attended by 5,000 people at the Stadium in Liverpool and outside the Battersea Town Hall, where there are crowds of 5,000, where there has been protest expressed against what I have said among British audiences. Some sentiments are expressed which are unpleasant and unacceptable to members of the Conservative party and the Fascist organisation, and we are prepared to accept their opinions in certain circumstances, hut it is untrue to say that I am violating a generally accepted principle.
I can remember in the last 15 years two or three occasions when a hall has been decorated, and if by chance a Union Jack has been hanging there, people have been careful to cover it up. The Home Secretary should test the challenge he is offering to the members of the Labour party. Next Saturday is the great day of the working classes of Great Britain. They and their families represent 80 per cent. of the population. I should like the Home Secretary to find out the Members from these benches and march with them at the head of May Day processions with Union Jacks in their hands. We do not take it as an accepted creed that. Imperialism, as represented and carried on by the party that takes up the Union Jack superstition, has proved to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Millions of men and women do not share the view which 1798 the right hon. Gentleman takes, but he takes it almost as a criminality for them to express that sentiment, and thus he puts himself into the wrong track. He is aware that the red flag is the accepted flag and the flag that is used, where flags are used, at Labour functions. Let any Members go to their constituents at the General Election and ask for working-class votes with a Union Jack in their hand and they will soon find out where they are. The Home Secretary and his party are largely responsible for carrying on that campaign against me personally and the Communist party generally, and the effect of it is not to inculcate a higher respect for the Union Jack, but to incite bad blood among the young Fascists, because it is considered a higher kind of patriotism, the third degree of it, to annoy those who hold different opinions from theirs.
If the Home Secretary would be good enough to correct his arithmetical calculations, he would find that the British Empire has 400,000,000 citizens and not 40,000,000, and he should realise that among that 400,000,000 people, 320,000,000 or 340,000,000 have no traditional sentiment in 'regard to the Union jack. It is the mistaken policy of the Government of this country to try to transport their national sentiment among other peoples. Although people in the conquered countries, out of fear, may not express themselves openly, behind the backs of the rulers they crack jokes about it and say all sorts of things about it. I appeal to the Home Secretary that he need not take it that it is the part of Communist politics or of working-class politics generally to hurt peoples' feelings and merely to excite disturbances Far from it. We are earnestly determined to give expression to our sincere thoughts, whether the Home Secretary and his party agree with them or not, and we are determined to say things which we believe will lead to emancipating and to curing the poverty of the working-classes. We are not concerned with 'hurting or respecting the feelings of this party or of that. If the Home Secretary will begin to give up his exaggerated opinion of what he 'and his party think is the accepted creed of the whole nation and the whole British Empire, he will be able to give proper directions and more workable and fair-minded instructions to his own officers in 1799 supervising these meetings. At the present moment what he says does not frighten any of us at all, but simply tears up altogether what has hitherto been known as the majesty of the law.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI rather apologise for intervening in a purely London Members' Debate. I recognise that the question of these processions and other matters arising from them naturally interest London Members, but the point I wish to raise is in connection with meetings in Hyde Park. I may, perhaps, be excused, as a Glasgow Member, for raising the question of Hyde Park, but, perhaps because of my nationality, I do take some interest in Hyde Park meetings, and, even before I came to Parliament, I often spent most of the evenings at Hyde Park—largely, I suppose, because it cost nothing, and was therefore in the nature of an entertainment. At the same time, I always thought that in every city, whether in Glasgow or elsewhere, it was a first-class thing to have some particular place w here groups of men could air what they were thinking on matters of politics, religion, and one thing and another. Therefore, I want Hyde Park to be preserved, because I think it is a grand thing to have an open-air place where people can gather together and interchange views and ideas.
I spent last Saturday evening at Hyde Park, and the point I wish to raise with the Home Secretary is one that has already been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), namely, the impartiality of the police. I went there, and I heard Catholics, Jews, Free-Thinkers, Prohibitionists, and various groups carrying on their meetings. I also heard Communists, anti-Parliamentarians, and mild Socialists like myself. I almost felt like not intervening in this Debate to-night, because I am sure there are none of my speeches at the Home Office; they are so mild that no one would bother to take them down. I am positive I shall never he, like either of the two hon. Members who have just addressed the House, confined within prison walls for offensive speeches. Therefore, I cannot be accused of holding the same views as they do, but I occasionally hold advanced views, and, if there is one 1800 thing about which I am quite frank, it is that I am a Republican: I am an anti-Monarchist, and I said so at my election.
Therefore, when a group of people began to sing the National Anthem, I did not take off my cap. "The Red Flag" is very dear to me, but it is not to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I would never expect him, if he were in my company, to take off his hat to "The Red Flag," because he does not hold the same view about it as I do. He must bear in mind, however, that I hold deeply convinced anti-Monarchist views. They may be all wrong, but I have thought them out, I have applied my limited reason to them, and I am frankly a Republican. To that view I commit no one, even in my own party. Even in the right hon. Gentleman's own party there arc people who are committed to different views with which, it may be, the whole of the party do not agree. For instance, the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is a Prohibitionist, but that would not commit the whole Conservative party; and it is the same with my republicanism—I do not ask any colleague to accept it, but it is my convinced attitude.
On Saturday I did as I have always done—I do not take off my cap at any time, or stand up in connection with it. That is not because I want to be discourteous to people, but because I cannot do it, because I do not believe in doing it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I rather like the Home Secretary, because I believe he is straight in what he does, and I do not want to be a hypocrite in my views. Therefore, on Saturday, I did not take off my cap; I did not do the orthodox thing, and I am not going to do it. Immediately I was surrounded by groups of people who seemed to think I should do it, but I am not going to do it; and what angered me was that the police seemed to side with some of the people who gathered about. I did not object much to that, however, but later on, as I watched, it seemed to me that the whole attitude of the police was to side with those who are commonly called the Fascist group.
I want to say that I do not think all the folks were Fascists; I think that one or two Socialists were entitled to some 1801 blame on Saturday; but the point I am concerned about is that the police should take sides, which was much more annoying to me. My observation may have been casual, but certainly I felt that the whole attitude of the police on that occasion, or, at any rate, of one or two of them, was to take sides with those who were opposed to Socialist views. I am not blaming them very much. The whole upbringing of most people is to respect, for instance, the Union. Jack and the Monarchy, and, therefore, if I hold unpopular views, I must suffer to some extent, even from the police; but I think that, after all, the police should be courteous and civil, even to people holding views like mine. I hope the Home Secretary, in regard to Hyde Park, will at least say that Republicans—and I am a Republican—are entitled to hold their views and propagate and uphold them, and that the police have no right to take sides in support of particular views.
I have intervened in this discussion because I want to see Hyde Park maintained as a free place of expression. I may say that I pleaded with some of the Socialists on that occasion not to do anything provocative, because I did not want to give the right hon. Gentleman any lever for taking away Hyde Park. I pleaded with them not to do anything that, would in the slightest degree give him and his party any chance of taking away Hyde Park, but to do anything in the way of playing second fiddle, as it were, rather than lose the right of public meeting there. I have more respect for the Home Secretary than most Members on the Front Bench, because I do not think he has the humbug and smug hypocrisy of many of his colleagues. I think he is straight; I think he hits out. He would do things to me that I respect; he would drive me out of public life, I suppose. I would respect him for that, but I hate the smug hypocrite who comes along and gives expression to his views. I hope he will see that we retain Hyde Park. I am not blaming the police as a whole. I know them in London and Glasgow fairly well.
There is one small matter, also, that I want to raise, as to which I have not given the right hon. Gentleman notice; I hope he will excuse me. It is the question of access to this House, which is a far cry from the question of Hyde Park. Whether it is that I am not so well 1802 dressed as the rest of my colleagues I do not know, but, when I come to the House of Commons, I always find that everyone can get the traffic stopped but my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie and myself. I see Labour Members walking in, and the traffic is stopped, but when the hon. Member for Camlachie and I come along—whether it is because we look so unlike Members of Parliament I do not know—no one takes any notice, and occasionally, when coming across the road, it is rather awkward to have to be jumping about. I am not blaming the police at all, but I should like to ask that the police might be given instructions that at least all Members of the House of Commons might get freedom of access into the place. The police do not do it because we are Labour Members, but because we do not make ourselves known, or some other reason. I should like to see the Home Secretary give instructions to the police to keep the access a little more clear. I hope my raising this complaint will not get anyone into trouble, or I would rather I had not raised it at all. I generally find the police in the building and round about the place courteous and decent. In fact, if a Glasgow person comes to London, the first instruction I give him is to ask a policeman anything. All round, and generally speaking, they are very decent. I hope the Home Secretary, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the office he holds, and for the sake of British freedom, will see that the police are neutral and hold a. fair balance of power in the big issues that divide men from men and prevent them agreeing one with the other.
§ Mr. NAYLORI want to add my voice to the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I, like other speakers, can testify to the general good and restrained conduct of the Metropolitan Police. Generally, we get on with them extremely well, but it is just one inspector here and one constable there who cause the trouble on occasions like this. I am extremely anxious as 10 what is going to take place next Saturday. We shall have probably the largest demonstration London has ever seen, and there will be men and women of all opinions in that demonstration. They will have the recollection of what took 1803 place only a few weeks ago in their minds. It would be extremely unfortunate if one or two constables, perhaps a little angry at the thought that they were put on extra duty for this special purpose, and not therefore being in the best of tempers, should do or say anything that would be likely in any way to disturb the orderly progress of the procession.
10.0 P.M.
I have had a little experience of these demonstrations. I made it my business to go to the demonstration of the Empire women only a few weeks ago. The conduct of the police on that occasion was beyond reproach. In fact they seemed to be enjoying themselves extremely, but I noticed that there have been occasions when I, with two or three others together standing on the pavement opposite the Victoria Embankment, speaking about the arrangements of the procession, have been moved on by the police as if we were causing an obstruction. On this occasion of the women's demonstration, the women were allowed to block the whole of the pavement, standing there possibly for half or three-quarters of an hour, and no policeman moved them on. I am not suggesting that they should have been moved on. Everyone was in a good temper, and the best possible use was made of the occasion. What I suggest is, if it possible for inspectors and superintendents and mounted contables to contain them selves on the occasion of a women's Empire demonstration, why cannot we have the same attitude of mind on the part of the police, on occasions when unemployed workmen or May Day demonstrators are marching through the streets? That is what we want.
The policeman's lot, we know, is not a happy one. He can make it happier than it is if he is prepared to show that tolerance towards our men and women when they demonstrate as he usually shows when he is passing a Member of this House. I appeal to the Home Secretary not to allow any order to prevent the people marching away after the demonstration. When you have a large concourse of people with their feelings highly strung on occasions like this, at the close of the meeting dispersing in all 1804 directions because they cannot march away in orderly procession, the position is much more dangerous to order than it would be if they were allowed to march back behind their hands and banners. I hope the Home Secretary will bear that point in mind and will make it clear that next Saturday at least there shall be no orders to prevent the marchers returning the same way they came.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI cannot complain at all of the speeches that have been delivered. They have been quite fair in tone, and hon. Members were quite entitled to take the opportunity of raising the grievances they have raised. I shall endeavour to deal with these points as fairly and as honestly as they have done. There are two questions that arise; first, the question in regard to the Battersea demonstration or procession, and secondly the general question that has been raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor). With regard to Battersea, I am in this difficulty. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is a Member of the House. I have known him for a good many years, and he gives me his, personal view of certain facts. The police give me a different one. I realise that there are always two views of most facts. I was engaged in litigation before I became a Minister for a great many years, and I have always found that there are three or four people who see one view of a London street incident, and three or four people who see exactly the opposite view.
The hon. Member has made a complaint against the police, but has not made any definite charges of bad behaviour. I will tell him the information I have obtained from the police. I have not only got the police report, but I have seen the inspector who was in charge of the matter. I must ask the hon. Member to forgive me for what. I am going to say. The inspector tells me—and this is supported by independent testimony—that the real trouble was that there were two sections of the procession, one of Deptford and Southwark people, who were quite decent, and the other the Bow and Bromley lot.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe right hon. Gentleman and his informant are quite misinformed. I cannot say anything else. There were none of my own friends there at all. There was no Bow and Bromley contingent, so they are quite wrong about that.
§ Mr. NAYLORThe right hon. Gentleman is not misinformed as to the good behaviour of the Southwark and Deptford sections.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSPerhaps I should not have said Bow and Bromley, but the hon. Member bulks so largely in the House that I regard all he says as coming from Bow and Bromley. What happened, as far as I can gather, is that the Deptford people, who headed the procession, had a band, and not a. bad band, and they were marching fairly behind it. Then someone intervened and came in front and stopped them, and said, "I must see if the others are behind." We know this man quite well. He is generally called Pruth, but his real name is Proothovski. I daresay the hon. Member knows him. He is the same man who intervened in the Hyde Park trouble a fortnight ago, and urged the Hyde Park people on the way home to go slowly so as to annoy the shopkeepers in the West End. This inspector says quite definitely that the whole thing would have gone all right and comfortably if this man had not searched behind, and had not been stopped and worried by these men. They were walking four abreast, and when he came on the scene they scattered across the road and interrupted the traffic and would not keep in line as the Deptford Inca did. The inspector directed two mounted police to disperse these people in front of the procession and that was done. In a melee of that kind it was quite possible that, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley saw something happen which the inspector did not see.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe disturbance took place across the main road, where the patrols had led this little group.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThen the hon. Member does know Pruth?
§ Mr. LANSBURYYes, I do, as well as I know the Home Secretary.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThen if the hon. Member will leave this man and myself on one side, it would be much better for himself and the East End. A perfectly independent man told me what the police did on this occasion. The second point raised by the hon. Member was very much more important, but what I would say is that if a procession is going along orderly, and if the hon. Member and others will work with the police instead of allowing men like those we complain of to work against him, things will go on all right. I believe the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley paid a compliment to the police for doing their best with a very difficult job, but- the difficulty arose from the action of this one man, Pruth. The hon. Member knows his record very well. He is an alien, he has been convicted of larceny and of causing obstruction before, and naturally he is known to the police. When you see a man of that kind trying to create trouble as I am informed he was doing, the natural thing to say is, "Here is this fellow again trying to create a disturbance."
There was very little trouble on this particular afternoon, but the question as to the position of the police is very important. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has suggested that since I have been in office I have given instructions to the police under which they have adopted different methods in dealing with these processions. That is a serious accusation, and while the lion. Members makes that accusation in one breath he tells me that certain police behaved admirably, and the hon. Member for South-East Southwark confirms that view, and so does the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I may say that since I have been Home Secretary I have not issued any instructions which would cause any police officer to assume that I wanted these processions dealt with in a different manner to that in which they have been dealt with before, and I have given no such instructions of any kind.
The police arc under superior officers and it is the duty of the Chief Commissioner to be responsible for the organisation, discipline and conduct of the police. If there is any real trouble and anything goes wrong, then I am the ultimate authority, and that is why the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley lays 1807 his complaint before me, which he is quite entitled to do, instead of laying it before the Chief Commissioner of Police. I want to make it quite clear that it is not my wish that the police should in any way depart from the way in which they have carried out their difficult duties in regard to processions under previous Home Secretaries. I want to see good feeling between the police and the public, and I want that feeling to continue to exist. A procession of this kind, in plain language, is a nuisance to everybody who is not in the procession, because it obstructs traffic when it takes place on an ordinary afternoon and it obstructs accesss to tradesmen's shops. Therefore a procession of this kind cannot be other than an episode which is not desirable in the interests of the public. What is more, it is illegal. I say to all those who take part in these processions while they are illegal, and while I will take no steps to prevent them, I want hon. Members opposite to use their influence to sec that they are conducted with as little annoyance as possible to other people. If my statement is true about this man Pruth, it is quite plain that he wished to create a disturbance. If we help you with your profession and prevent? obstruction along the East End or along the Embankment to Hyde Park I think it is up to you to cause as little nuisance to the people of London as possible. I am certain that we are not going to do anything to prevent processions going hack again in proper order. It is much better that they should do that rather than straggle back in unregulated mass formation. Do it as decently as you can and cause as little inconvenience to other people as possible. I understand there is to be a large procession on Saturday next. They will come and return without any orders of any kind from the Home Secretary to hinder them or any orders from the Chief Commissioner of Police. I say "Go back as decently as you can." The Deptford people walked at quite a decent pace, and caused no trouble.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThey nearly killed me!
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThen the hon. Member must go into training before going into these marches, and then he will be able to go more than two 1808 miles an hour with the procession. On the subject of reporting speeches, it is not correct to say that no verbatim reports are taken. I have seen them. I have spoken during the last 10 days to a police sergeant who took verbatim reports of some speeches on Clapham Common. This particular sergeant had his book torn from his hand, and a couple of pages were torn out in the grab that was made at him by somebody, I do not. know who it was who saw him taking the report. It is a little difficult—the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will perhaps forgive my saying this—to take a verbatim report of all the froth talked on Clapham Common. It is quite unnecessary.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHear hear!
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is rather a special favourite of mine, because I am a student of English literature, and I like to read his speeches. I have had very fair reports of them, I congratulate the hon. Member that, up to the present, he has either been sufficiently loyal or sufficiently clever in his speeches not to come within my clutches.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWhy do you want me in your clutches?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not want that. I would much sooner the hon. Member behaved himself, made his speeches in this House, and attacked me as often as he likes, rather than go to the Albert Hall, and make a declaration which put him very nearly within the clutches of the law, if not of myself. There is very little more to be said about reports of 6-speeches. It is my duty to carry out the law. I cannot put people into prison; I can only ask the Attorney-General to prosecure. When people are prosecuted it is, not for me, and it is not for the Attorney-General, but it is for the jury to say whether or not they are to be convicted. As long as I am Secretary of State, I must take steps if I have information, and I have reason to believe that the law has really been broken in such a way as to be detrimental to the well-being of the community.
Let me make the point quite clear to the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley in regard to opinion. I spoke very fully 1809 on this point on Thursday last, when we had not the privilege of seeing the hon. Member in his place; he was otherwise engaged. I spoke very fully on the question of opinion. Opinion is perfectly free in this country. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley may say that he is a Socialist, or that he is a Communist. He may try to persuade the people to that effect. He may try to persuade them that the Socialist system is far better than our capitalist system, and he may try to get them at the ballot box to change the existing constitution of the country. That is perfectly legal, but when you come to the point of revolution by force of arms—
§ Mr. LANSBURYHas the right hon. Gentleman ever, on any occasion, had one single word that I have uttered in favour of violent revolution, anywhere or at any time?
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf so, I challenge him to produce it.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member is entitled to ask me that. I have not. He asks me whether he has ever said anything of that kind. I say that the Albert Hall speech was very near it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt was telling the people not to be violent. That is very important. I am a well-known pacifist. The only charge you have against me is that I call upon people to follow the pacifist line in national and international relations. That is the only thing you have against me. You must not mix me up with the Communist point of view of substituting armed force, when occasion arises, as against this House. They dislike my point of view as much as you do. I object to you talking about me in the same manner as you do about them, in regard to violence. I am against violence in any shape or form, and am always preaching it everywhere. When I preach it in this House I am laughed at by hon. Members opposite.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI will abstain in future from classing the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley with the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala).
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn that point you must.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member for North Battersea has his own point of view. He is perfectly sincere. He told the House on Thursday, in language which was perfectly unmistakable, what his views were. He is always perfectly honest and clear as a logical exponent of the law of force and in this House he is entitled to express those views. Whether he is so entitled outside is another question on which I am not going to give an opinion to-night. Still I am glad to have had the declaration from the hon. Member that he is not in any way in favour of force of any kind in political questions.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs it an offence for me not to pay homage to the Union Jack?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am coming to the hon. Member. He has asked me about the meetings in Hyde Park. I agree it is very desirable that there should he some place in a great city like this where everybody can meet and expound every form of view of politics or religion, and may I say where every form of crank can speak. But there is this to be said. It is very foolish indeed of the Socialists and Fascists to have a pitch side by side. Have an anti-vaccination pitch in between them. After all, the Marble Arch end of Hyde Park is big enough and it is very foolish to have pitches side by side. Have one at one end of the Park and the other at the other, and all sorts of odds and ends in between. The hon. Member asked me about removing his cap when the National Anthem is sung or played. There is no law in this country which compels a man either to stand at attention or remove his hat while the National Anthem is being played. It is purely a matter of taste, and the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that as long as this is a monarchist country he would be doing no real harm to his personal convictions but something which would please his political opponents if he paid that tribute of respect to the National Anthem. It might also perhaps prevent a lot of trouble. The police cannot guard everybody. It would be wrong undoubtedly for anybody to take any notice of the hon. Member because he did not remove his hat, but he knows that passions run high—
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe point is this. I maintain that the police have no right to take sides as against me. In the Hyde Park meeting I got the idea that the police deliberately took sides against me because I did not do what the majority wanted me to do. Honestly I cannot, and I am not going to do it. I hope the Home Secretary is not going to instruct the police to take sides as between Republicans and Monarchists. I can be as good a citizen as a Republican as anyone else.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am sure there is no such suggestion by any officer of the police to give such instructions, and after what I have said to-night I am quite sure the police force will take note that they are not to take sides in these matters. The duty of the police is to preserve peace and prevent any disturbance from any section of His Majesty's subjects.
The last thing is in regard to access to this House. I am sure that the police would give the same attention in the hon. Members as they do to all other hon. Members. I suggest that when next they come to the House one of them should say to the inspector in charge at Westminster, "We are Members of Parliament." The time was when I was quite unknown to the police: but gradually one gets more known. If hon. Members would do me the honour of giving me a photograph, I would see that it was handed to the police inspector, and then 1812 I am sure that a way would be made for them to cross the streets to the House. I am very proud of the Metropolitan Police. I think that the whole of England and the whole world are proud of them. Americans, Frenchmen and Germans all say that there never was and never is such a police force for the ability, great kindness and courtesy they show, and for the way they do their duty with as little friction as possible. It is a great honour to be the head of a great Force of that kind. I am always willing to receive any suggestions to improve it. After what I have said to-night, I am very hopeful that there will be no further trouble in regard to anything like coming to the House of Commons, as I hope that what I hare said will reach the ears of the police, and will make them realise that my desire is that there shall be no conflict of any kind. At the came time, I repeat the appeal I made to hon. Members opposite, those who have the responsibility for these processions, which cause a good deal of trouble, "Do your utmost as gentlemen and Members of Parliament to help the police, and make their duty on May Day next and every other day as little irksome as possible and as little of a nuisance to His Majesty's subjects as possible."
§ Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Ten o' Clock.