HC Deb 22 December 1932 vol 273 cc1223-5
9. Mr. MAXTON

asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions that have taken place within the last 50 years under Section 23 of the Seditious Meetings Act, 1817, and when the Statute 34 Edw. III, of the year 1360, was last used in a prosecution previous to last week; and whether he will introduce legislation to repeal obsolete Acts of Par. liament affecting the rights of public meeting and assembly?

Sir J. GILMOUR

It has not been possible in the time available to ascertain whether any persons have been prosecuted within the last 50 years for contravention of Section 23 of the Seditious Meetings Act, 1817, but no recent case can be traced. As I indicated in reply to a Private Notice question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on Monday last, the persons brought before the chief magistrate at Bow Street last week were not prosecuted for any offence, and no question of prosecution arises in such cases. The power, whatever its origin, of calling upon persons to find sureties for good behaviour and to keep the peace is well established and is frequently exercised. I see no occasion for any action in the sense suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. MAXTON

In the prosecution referred to, were not the Acts mentioned in the question definitely cited?

Sir J. GILMOUR

There is a number of Acts dealing with this problem, and it is a well established custom. Innumerable cases are brought up of a similar character.

Mr. MAXTON

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the particular prosecution referred to in my question was not brought under the Acts referred to in the question?

Sir J. GILMOURN

No doubt reference was made to those Acts, and quite properly.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Was not the indictment so framed as to come under this Act, and under no other Act; and, further, may I ask if this Act has been invoked in the case of any other persons who have threatened to assemble within the near precincts of the Houses of Parliament

Sir J. GILMOUR

I think it is perfectly clear that the procedure taken in this case is procedure that is taken in a number of cases. If I may give one very simple example, any woman who has an apprehension that she may be assaulted by her husband has a right to go to the court, and the court can bind over the husband to be of good and proper behaviour. These are constant cases, and it is quite proper that this case should be so dealt with.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the instance he has given deals with a different class of case altogether, where one person is going in fear of bodily harm, and that person, and not the police, starts proceedings in order to get protection for herself?

Sir J. GILMOUR

Of course, I am not a lawyer. I can only say that it is a proper power to use. As the matter is going to be debated to-day, I do not think we need further refer to it now.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

Is it not the case that information was laid in connection with this old Statute, which relates to anticipated disorder in the neighbourhood of this House, and that the person cited was merely called upon, as usual, to give undertakings to keep the peace? Is not that all that has happened?

Mr. MAXTON

Does not the Home Secretary think that this is just a straining of the credulity of the public in order to try and make them believe that there is a basis of justice for this action?

Mr. SPEAKER

I understand that notice has been given that this matter will be raised on the Adjournment.