§ Mr. LANSBURY (by Private Notice)asked the Home Secretary if he will make a statement to the House as to the reasons which led him to sanction the arrest of Tom Mann and Emrhys Llewellyn, and the nature of the offences charged against them, and will he also state under what laws these proceedings were taken and the date when Parliament passed such laws?
§ Sir J. GILMOURAs the persons referred to were responsible officials of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, which was organising mass demonstrations which were calculated to cause breaches of the peace and breaches of Section 23 of the Seditious Meetings Act, 1817, application was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the approval of the Attorney-General, to the Bow Street Magistrate for the issue of warrants to bring these persons before the court to show cause why they should not be ordered to enter into recognisances and to find sureties for their good behaviour and to keep the peace. The Chief Magistrate at Bow Street granted the application. He has explained in open court, when the persons were before him, the nature of the proceedings. Whatever the origin of the magistrate's jurisdiction may be, whether it be derived from the Common Law or from the Statute 34 Edw. 3. passed in the year 1360, or otherwise, it has been the established law of this country for a period of years too long to be called into question that magistrates are empowered to require persons to enter into recognisauces and to find sureties, where there are reasonable grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace for which they may in some way be responsible. The whole law on this subject was considered by the High Court in 1913.
§ Mr. LANSBURYAre we to take it for granted now that the holding of demonstrations of the unemployed are to be forbidden by the Home Office, the police or other authorities, and, further, do the Government desire to convey the impression that the peace of the City of London depends upon the arrest and imprisonment of two men, and that those two men are such dangerous persons that they must be put under lock and key in this fashion?
§ Sir J. GILMOURNothing that has been done has indicated that orderly processions may not take place, but it is clear that the activities of this body and those responsible for operating it led to grave disorders in very recent weeks, and, in view of the fact that there was a possibility of these recurring, this step was taken. It is no more than asking that those who are responsible for the organisation of such processions shall give an undertaking that they shall be orderly. That undertaking was asked for and was not given, and that is the sole reason why those men are now in prison.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question which I put to him and which was perfectly simple. Does the peace of London depend upon the arrest and imprisonment of two men, and does the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues think that men demonstrate in the fashion which they did a few weeks ago just for the fun of demonstrating; also, is not it a fact that they demonstrated because of very grievous ills from which they are suffering, and would not the Government be better engaged removing the reasons which led them to demonstrate rather than imprison them?
§ Sir J. GILMOURAll that I can say is that we have no illusions that the arrest of two men will entirely prevent disorder, but it is clear it must be brought home to those who organise disorder, that certain penalties are bound to fall if they will not give definite undertakings which are simple and direct and which they can give if they so desire. That is the procedure which we have adopted. It is a warning to those who would cause street demonstrations out of the ordinary and lead to very grave disorder.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt would not be in order for me to attempt to discuss the matter, and I am not sure what opportunity we can get for discussing it, but what opportunity we can secure, I propose to avail myself of before the Adjournment. I think that the arrest and imprisonment of these men is a scandal and a disgrace.
§ Mr. MAXTONMr. Speaker, I wish to raise with you, Sir, a different aspect of this matter which I think is of the gravest importance to the House. As far 756 as I can understand from the police court proceedings, the question of Privilege—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must clearly understand that this is not the time for debating these questions. It is the time for asking questions, and I am afraid that I have given too much latitude already.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am raising a point on which I am sure that I have my rights as a Private Member, and I am sure that when I put it you will not deny it. I am raising a question of Privilege seriously affecting the rights and constitution of this House and of the country. As I read the reports in the newspapers, these two men, citizens of this country, proposing to present a petition to this House, have been forcibly arrested by the police and prevented from carrying out what is the right of every citizen of this country.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIs the hon. Member putting a question to me, or to the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. MAXTONTo you, Sir.
§ Mr. SPEAKEROn a point of Order?
§ Mr. MAXTONOn a point of Privilege.
§ Mr. SPEAKEROn the Privileges of this House?
§ Mr. MAXTONYes. I am asking you if it is not a serious breach of the Privileges of this House for the police, the magistrates or anybody else to arrest two citizens in their attempt to come to this House to present a petition asking for the redress of grievances.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is asking me a question with which I have nothing to do.
§ Mr. MAXTONLike my right hon. Friend I know that this matter cannot be carried through by way of question and answer, but, if the Privileges of this House are not in your custodianship, I should like you to tell me in whose hands they are.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI should be very sorry to enter into an argument with the hon. Member on a question of this kind. He knows quite well that no breach of Privilege has occurred as regards the Privileges of this House.
§ Mr. MAXTONI know nothing of the kind. I think it is a grave breach of Privilege.