HC Deb 22 November 1926 vol 200 cc21-4
63. Mr. CHARLETON

asked the Home Secretary whether it was upon his instructions that the public meeting proposed to be held at Stapleford on 7th November last was prohibited; if so, will he state the reason for this action; and whether there have been any breaches of the peace in the neighbourhood in question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

This meeting was prohibited by the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire under the general authority given by me on the 19th ultimo in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations. Although there had been no disturbances in Nottinghamshire, near Stapleford, there had been disturbances lust over the Derbyshire border, and the Chief Constable accordingly thought it necessary to prohibit the meeting.

Mr. CHARLETON

Ts it not rather strange that a meeting should be prohibited in Nottinghamshire at all, seeing the way the miners have acted throughout this dispute?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I agree that the miners have acted admirably, hut the Chief Constable certified to me that he thought this particular meeting at that particular time might lead to a breach of the peace. It was one of the very few that have been prohibited.

Mr. PALING

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this meeting was held under the auspices of the Communist party, or whether a Communist was billed to speak?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Member must give me notice of a detailed question like that.

62. Mr. LUNN (for Mr. GRUNDY)

asked the Home Secretary if it was on his instructions that, a meeting at Swallownest, Bother Valley Division, was banned on Sunday evening, 14th November; and whether, seeing that a similar meeting under the same auspices and with the same speakers was allowed to proceed at Woodhouse, two miles distant. he will explain what is the principle governing in these eases?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The meeting at Swallownest was prohibited by the Chief Constable of the West Riding under the general authority given by me on the 19th October in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations. The meeting at Woodhouse was in a different police area, and the chief constable concerned was entitled to use his discretion.

65. Mr. CHARLETON (for Mr. RITSON)

asked the Home Secretary whether it was on his instructions that the Chief Constable of South Shields took exception to a meeting of millers only, proposed to be held in the Pavilion Theatre Hall, South Shields, because he had not been notified of it, so that the Letting of the hall was withdrawn by the proprietor on representations from the chief constable; whether he has issued instructions to all chief constables that they must be notified of all meetings proposed to be held in their respective areas; and whether there have been any breaches of the peace in South Shields?

STATEMENT showing the Number of Persons in receipt of Domiciliary Poor Law Relief (excluding Casuals and Persons in receipt of Medical Relief only), on the Saturday nearest to the Sixteenth Day of each of the under-mentioned Mouths in 78 Poor Law Unions in England and Wales. These Unions account for about 85 per cent. of the Mining Population.
Name of Poor Law Union Year 1921. Year 1926.
16th April. 14th May. 18th June. 15th May. 19th June. 17th July. 14th Aug. 18th Sept. 16th Oct. 6th Nov.*
Cumborland:
C ckermouth … 1,236 2,112 4,121 4,731 8,462 9,017 9,359 9,607 9,697 9,036
Wh[...]tehaven … 1,751 1,820 1,112 3,870 12,029 12,029 12,162 12,205 12,187 12,103
Derby:
Belper … 404 428 665 1,09[...] 2,592 3,941 5,878 5,538 3,632 799
Chesterfield … 1,760 2,689 13,736 16,566 28,756 26,625 27,270 24,034 17,105 12,382
Durham:
Auc[...]land … 4,629 7,298 15,517 25,994 28,329 29,343 29,537 30,534 30,139 29,017
Chester-le-Street … 856 858 847 28,854 35,937 40,418 40,951 36,921 35,934 35,794
Durham … 897 938 942 6,881 27,088 30,580 29,008 30,008 29,839 30,306
Easington … 1,002 1,311 2,478 20,632 39,562 43,786 46,681 47,809 48,864 49,577
Gateshead … 1,672 16,150 19,054 38,111 41,291 40,834 41,343 42,147 42,481 42,494
Houghton-le-Spring … 918 4,917 2,343 14,549 26,781 27,707 28,980 27,840 28,049 28,410
Lanchester … 1,665 15,603 24,801 10,239 41,961 42,222 42,541 42,342 43,110 41,937
Sedgefield … 493 1,588 1,643 2,130 15,105 16,532 17,173 16,949 16,788 16,658
South Shields … 3,919 9,330 22,096 16,840 35,661 35,788 36,411 36,965 37,605 37,217
Sunderland … 2,007 2,184 2,290 14,967 23,678 24,239 25,287 25,727 26,067 26,467
Teesdale … 251 272 425 252 950 1,013 1,015 1,028 1,004 974
Gloucester:
Westbury-on-Seven 386 396 399 339 3,794 3,677 388 802 387 370
Lancaster:
Ashton-under Lyne … 1,853 2,253 3,521 3,028 2,971 2,806 3,023 3,193 2,653 2,751
Ba ton-upon-Irwell … 447 554 574 3,029 3,984 4,369 4,557 4,550 4,067 4,116
Bofton … 1,194 1,271 1,381 5,190 10,421 9,910 5,268 5,930 5,601 5,810
Burnley … 1,432 2,395 9,156 4,593 7,581 7,984 6,291 6,372 5,248 4,909
Leigh … 536 3,116 3,657 924 5,27[...] 8,045 9,225 10,137 7,617 7,599
Prescot … 2,066 2,239 2,363 25,644 26,631 25,323 25,017 24,949 24,391 23,958
Warrington … 5,239 6,884 9,016 6,647 10,499 10,360 9,420 9,505 9,070 8,832
Wigan … 2,664 30,897 38,769 6,454 45,377 46,132 46,425 44,407 41,278 40,923
Leicester:
Ashby-de-la-Zouch … 454 475 563 707 9,086 11,481 10,946 8,818 5,403 1,822
Market Bosworth … 258 250 239 256 1,534 1,783 1,349 582 391 248
Northumberland:
Alnwick … 155 525 675 216 1,561 1,581 1,632 1,608 1,556 1,604
Castle Ward … 418 897 1,301 3,384 7,384 7,687 7,865 7,445 7,693 7,332
Hexham … 344 941 1,226 1,687 3,944 4,084 4,050 4,113 4,026 3,912
Morpeth … 705 4,051 6,627 1,831 23,368 25,543 29,855 31,254 32,310 31,006
* Latest date for which figures are available
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The answer to the two first parts of this question is in the negative. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.