HC Deb 31 March 1926 vol 193 cc2044-6
Mr. MARCH (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that a demonstration organised by the London unemployed was forcibly broken up and dispersed by the police in Hyde Park on Tuesday evening last, and whether he could tell the House what breach of the law the demonstrators had committed which led to the forcible breaking up of the meeting; and was he aware that the major part of the men who took part in the demonstration were ex-soldiers demonstrating their demand for work?

Mr. LANSBURY

I desire to put a similar question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer both together.

Mr. THURTLE (by Private Notice)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the disturbance which took place in Hyde Park on the occasion of the unemployed demonstration on Tuesday, and whether he has received a report from the Commissioner of Police as to the reasons which brought about the disturbance, and led up to the charge of the police on the demonstrators?

Mr. BUCHANAN (by Private Notice)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make as to the reason why the police authorities forcibly dispersed a demonstration of unemployed which was being held in Hyde Park on Tuesday last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

I have received a Report from the Commissioner of Police on this incident. I understand that the declared object of the demonstration was to secure the release of certain Communist prisoners. After the speeches were over, disorder broke out in the crowd that was present, and the police had to intervene and disperse it. One arrest was made. I am not aware that the major part of the crowd were ex-soldiers.

Mr. W. THORNE

Is it not a fact, in accord with the statements in the newspapers this morning, that the real cause of the trouble was that one of the Fascisti waved his flag and a Socialist waved the red flag?

Sir A. HOLBROOK

Was not the trouble caused by the fact that at the head of the procession were banners bearing the words "Release the Communists,"and that that aroused the indignation of the crowd.?

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it not a fact that the men who were involved in the procession were giving every indication of going home, that there was no sign of rowdyism until certain people who wished for a row started to arouse the feelings of a certain number of the crowd; and is the right hon. Gentleman taking the same steps to suppress other organisations having demonstrations as he has taken in this case?

Commander WILLIAMS

Before my right hon. Friend answers, will he say what proportion of this crowd was of foreign origin?

Mr. BUCHANAN

The same number as in your party.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

It is quite impossible to say what proportion of the crowd were of foreign origin. It is equally clear that the object of the crowd was not that suggested by the hon. Member opposite. I have here a speech made at the end of the meeting, and in it I find one of the principal organisers saying: We have held up the traffic of London. I say if these men are not allowed outside we will hold up the business of London, and the only way to do it is this. We have been able to hold up the traffic in the West End for nearly an hour"— They deliberately marched through London at a very slow pace, in order to incommode. His Majesty's subjects. Another gentleman said: The main reason we are here this afternoon is to show our solidarity and bring the necessary pressure to bear on the illegal action of Joynson-Hicks, the present Home Secretary of this country, in putting 12 members of the working class behind prison bars in a civilised country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Is that not true? Do you deny it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

There were other speeches of a similar character which had nothing whatever to do with the question of the unemployed.

Mr. LANSBURY

Can a demonstration he broken up, legally, because of speeches in the terms just quoted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Certainly not; but the suggestion was made by the hon. Member opposite that this demonstration, broken up by the police, was a demonstration held bybona fide unemployed men. I say that was not the case, and that it was a demonstration followed by riots in the crowd. One man was arrested, but I do not wish to say much about his case, because he has already been charged. Hon. Members opposite will see the subject matter of the charge against him in this evening's papers.

Mr. LANSBURY

Has the right hon. Gentleman the least evidence that the persons, whoever they may be, who organised this demonstration were creating any disturbance at all; and is it not the duty of the police, if they interfere, to take into custody the people who foment and make the disturbance, and not always to charge Communists? The Fascists get away with it every time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

As far as the Fascisti are concerned, or any other body, I have repeatedly given instructions—and it is well known to the police that these are my instructions—that whoever creates disturbance is to be dealt with, whether he be Fascist or Communist or anything else. On this occasion, I understand there was only one arrest, and that was for using obscene and insulting language.

Mr. LANSBURY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of people were very badly mauled and knocked about by the police; that it was not merely the men on foot who dispersed the crowd, but the constabulary on horseback, who charged the crowd and did a considerable amount of damage to many of my constituents?

Mr. SPEAKER

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.