DEMONSTRATIONS, WESTMINSTER. (Hansard, 13 February 1939)

§ Mr. Silverman
On Thursday last a number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, addressed questions to the Home Secretary referring to complaints against the conduct of the police on the evening of 31st January in Parliament Square, Whitehall and the neighbourhood of Piccadilly Circus. We found the Home Secretary's answer completely unsatisfactory, and I gave notice that I would taken an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. Before dealing with the particular points which I wish to make, I would say, first, that it is a little unusual for a Member who does not represent a London constituency to raise questions, particularly in Debate, on matters which, on one view, might be considered local London matters. I think, however, that the question of the conduct of the police in the Metropolis is a very important national question, and for that reason it has always been recognised that the proper authority to whom the London police should be answerable is the Home Secretary, and that he should answer for them in this House. I, therefore, make no apology for intervening about a matter which has not arisen in my own constituency.
Secondly, there are people who think that there is something almost improper in questioning the actions of policemen and that, when one asks questions about the conduct of policemen and implies that they have done something which they ought not to have done, one is taking part in some kind of conspiracy against law and order, and ought to be apologetic about making such complaints. I do not feel at all apologetic about making my complaint. I think these matters are so important that criticism of them, where criticism is legitimate, ought to be made without fear and without apology, and I am not of that other class of persons who think that the police are fair game for any kind of criticism and that credence should be lightly given to any kind of charge that any kind of person seeks to bring against them. The Home Secretary made a reply of which I can only say that either the charges and the information upon which those charges are made 1476 are fantastic inventions or the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is itself fantastic. I do not know which of these positions is the correct one, and I do not think anyone can know, unless and until the Home Secretary appoints some impartial authority to investigate the charges and to confront the witnesses on both sides with one another, to enable the witnesses on both sides to be subjected to cross-examination, so as to enable that authority, whoever he may be, to reach a considered and impartial judgment upon the evidence tendered by either side.
I think it was said by the Home Secretary, in answer to a supplementary question, that he ought to have the names and addresses of the witnesses and that their statements ought to be submitted to him before he considered whether an inquiry was justified. There are many occasions, no doubt, on which that course would be the proper one to follow, but I suggest that that is not true in the present instance. I do not think it would be advisable at this stage to allow the names and addresses of these witnesses and their statements to be investigated, presumably, by the very people against whom the complaints are made. Let us see what the Home Secretary said. Here is his answer: On the evening of 31st January, an organised attempt was made to evade the prohibition of mass demonstrations in the neighbourhood of Parliament. I do not know why people should not evade the prohibition if they can lawfully do it. After a meeting had been held in Chenies Street, a procession marched to Cambridge Circus. The demonstrators then made their way in separate groups to Parliament Square"— Why should they not?— and, in accordance with a plan outlined by a speaker at the meeting, a number of them attempted to justify their presence"— Why should citizens of this country have to justify their presence in Parliament Square to anybody?— by a pretence that they happened simultaneously to wish to take advantage of the facilities ordinarily available to individual members of the public for interviewing Members of Parliament. Who said that they only pretended to want to interview their Members of Parliament? Or is it being said that the pretence was that they simultaneously wanted to do it? 1477 Other demonstrators paraded in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament chanting slogans. It was the duty of the police, both under the Sessional Order and the general law, to disperse this crowd of demonstrators. The inquiries which I have made as to the steps taken by the police for this purpose indicate that they carried out their duty in a reasonable manner and with commendable restraint and patience. Later a number of demonstrators collected in Piccadilly Circus and a number of men and women tried to obstruct the traffic by lying down in the roadway. As a result 51 persons were arrested. My information is that at no time were truncheons drawn or used, and I can find no ground for the suggestion that there was any unnecessary violence. If specific complaints are sent to me, I wild, of course, investigate them, but on the information I have at present, I can find no ground whatsoever for the suggestion that there is a case for a committee of inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1939; cols. 1121–2; Vol. 343.] May I say, without wishing to exaggerate a single detail, that there is not a single statement of fact in that statement that is not hotly disputed, except that there was a meeting somewhere outside this area, that there was a demonstration in Cambridge Circus, and that they dispersed? Except for those things, there is not a single statement of fact there that is not the subject of the most indignant dispute by people who are entitled to be believed. Let me give the statement of one woman. I will not give her name and address, though I have them. It is as follows: I attended the meeting and then passed to Cambridge Circus. I went with four other women down to the House of Commons to see my M.P. At the side entrance of the Houses of Parliament, near the car park, at what seemed to be a given moment concerted action started on the part of mounted police, who galloped into the crowd. The foot police lost control of themselves and suddenly started using their fists against the people indiscriminately. One mounted policeman drew out his sword. A man was cornered and hit on the head. Other police forced him behind the statue of a man, and there about four policemen fell on him and started to beat him. The police were quite uncontrolled. The man had not been doing anything more than the rest of the crowd. He was just walking with us and was suddenly set upon by the police. I was struck on the back of the head by a policeman, and when I turned round to see who was hitting me another policeman got hold of me by the throat, and another policeman standing by hit me in the face. I attempted to defend myself by putting my hand up. A fourth policeman then got hold of me, turned me round and rushed me out of the crowd.… While walking along the pavement with crowds of other people a mounted policeman came on to the 1478 pavement with his horse and scattered the people. It seems to me that his only object was to intimidate the crowd and frighten people. … A policeman cornered and held a woman up against some railings and struck her. A man came up to him and said …. The mounted policeman charged the man, and his horse kicked him on the shin, and the man dropped like a sack and sat down on some steps leading to a house. I got behind this man and said, 'Are you hurt?' He said 'I cannot move my leg'.… A policeman came and pushed me aside. I said, 'This man is hurt; he cannot lift his leg' The policeman said to the man, 'Get up and walk.' I then stood up and said,' I do not think the man can walk.' The next thing I knew was that I got a smashing blow on the side of my face. I turned round to get the policeman's number, and he gave me a second blow on the side of my head. Another policeman got hold of me by the shoulders and flung me along the pavement. I walked and stumbled on a little way, and as I was running and stumbling one policeman gave me a blow on the back of the head, sending me crashing down two steps of the pavement on to the road. I fell on my face and lost consciousness. I was told afterwards that the policeman had hit me with such force that he lost his balance and fell on top of me. I do not remember that. The blood was pouring down my face. I said I wanted the number of the policeman who hit me, and thereupon they pushed me down Victoria Street. She attempted to get to Westminster Hospital and ultimately succeeded. I have seen that lady. I saw her two days after the event. Her head was bound up and she still showed obvious marks of violent treatment by somebody. She is not a person against whom the police have made any charge. They do not complain of her conduct. Are we to suppose that this lady dreamt about all this, that it was a kind of nightmare? I have had some professional experience of testing evidence and making up my mind whether it is likely to be true or not, and I am bound to say that if she were put on oath in a court of law and cross-examined she would probably be believed. She is certainly entitled to be believed in the absence of any answer. She was certainly hurt by somebody; she tells us by whom. Does the Home Secretary think that if that case stood by itself it would not amply justify an inquiry as to how that woman came by her injuries—on an occasion, be it understood, when apparently the police thought it was not necessary to use truncheons. I must read that into the Home Secretary's answer, which was that at no time were truncheons drawn or used. I infer from that that, in the opinion of those police officers who were 1479 responsible, there was no need to use any truncheons. The Home Secretary will forgive me if I am a little long, but this is an important matter. As we have plenty of time there is no reason why we should not state the case as we believe it. Here is the statement of another lady, from which I will read one paragraph: I saw a policeman take the number of a conductor who allowed a demonstrator injured by the police to board his bus. I would like to add that though the police's ostensible object was to disperse the crowd as quickly as possible, actually they drew cordons across each side turning on the way to Vauxhall Bridge so that there was no chance of escape. That is an extremely serious charge. The charge that is made there is that the police so conducted themselves on this occasion as not to disperse the demonstrators, who were wrongly demonstrating in the wrong place or at the wrong time, as quietly and as efficiently and as non-violently as possible. What this lady is saying is that they did the exact opposite. They saw to it that the people did not disperse. They prevented escape and stopped up exits so that they could be free to drive the people in the way they wanted to drive them. I am not saying that that charge is true. I am saying that it is made by responsible people who are entitled to have their complaints heard, and that if such a charge is made by a responsible citizen we are entitled to ask, and it is to the benefit of the police themselves, that there should be a proper inquiry into it to see whether it be true or not. Here is a statement from a man: In connection with the 'Arms for Spain' demonstration on the evening of 31st January, 1939, we were being moved on by the police down Haymarket at 11.10 p.m. That was some time after the alleged demonstration in Parliament Square. The statement goes on to state that a police constable, whose number is given, although I do not think it right to state it at this stage, pushed a lady, whose name is given, so hard in the back that she was flung full length on her face in the road. She was in no way hindering the police in moving us on. The statement then gives her address and the names of witnesses. A further statement says: I had started with the procession. On arrival at Parliament Square we were permitted to walk up and down outside the 1480 Houses of Parliament for 20 minutes, when the police suddenly drove us with cordons of mounted and foot police along the streets towards Lambeth Bridge. I was walking along the pavement in an orderly fashion as ordered by the police, when a mounted constable rode on to the pavement and I stepped into the gate of one of the houses opening into an area for refuge. A body of police came along and ordered me out. I stepped on to the pavement, and as I did so I turned and saw a woman being pushed by a constable on to the edge of the pavement. Another constable punched her in the face and she went down in the road. I exclaimed in horror, at which he turned and seized me from behind and pushed me into the road. I nearly fell, but saved myself and regained the pavement and sought refuge in Wood Street. Here is the statement of another lady whose address is given: I fell in with the rest of the crowd which was bullied and pushed all the way to the bridge. The police were extraordinarily provocative. On the bridge I again became isolated because they seemed to have singled me out after that first incident"— that is, an incident contained in a statement which I have not read. A police inspector, taking me by the back of the neck, shook my head so that I was quite dazed. Then he threw me violently forward and several policemen gave an extra push. I kept my balance, but a policeman in front of me pushed me backwards so that I fell, hurting my head and body. My arms are very bruised and cut. A woman pulled me up. I was half fainting and she tried to get me out of the crowd. I heard one policeman say something about an ambulance and the woman who was holding me up took me over to a seat that is built on the bridge. The police would not let me sit down but drove us on. That is the conduct of the police who, the Home Secretary in his answer said, "carried out their duty in a reasonable manner and with commendable restraint and patience." Here is a statement of another lady. These statements, except one, have so far been by women, all of whom were struck, but none of whom have had any charge brought against them: Last night at 11.35 p.m., just outside the Haymarket entrance to the Underground station, I saw nine or ten police attacking one man. He had resented being pushed off the pavement and they all turned on him and punched his head and slapped his face in a most brutal manner. Another lady gives a succinct account of what she saw, describing in four short paragraphs four incidents which she witnessed: (1) In Parliament Square. I saw an inspector of police violently kick an un- 1481 suspecting man with such force that he was sent falling into the roadway. Before he had time to get up he was set upon by three policemen in a brutal way. (2) Piccadilly Circus. I saw a police constable"— She gives the number— deliberately strike a man as he was walking on the pavement. (3) Piccadilly Circus, Haymarket Corner. I saw a sergeant"— Again the number is given— strike a man on the head as he was going into the Haymarket, and in less than five minutes strike a second man who was calling 'Arms for Spain,' with the ejaculation, 'Stop that noise and clear off.' (4) As the demonstration was passing Leicester Square a young fellow passed down the ranks saying, 'Keep the ranks.' A constable sprang on him and struck him on the head, which was the signal for another constable to spring on him. They pulled him out of the demonstration, and I was so disgusted that I immediately spoke to a nearby inspector of police in these words: 'You should be thoroughly ashamed to allow your men to treat that fellow so brutally '.

§ Major Procter
Are those sworn statements?

§ Mr. Silverman
No, they are not.

§ Major Procter
Have they been using a solicitor to obtain them?

§ Mr. Silverman
I see no reason in the world why, if a respectable citizen comes to me with a statement, I should be compelled to put her on oath before I believe her. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is an improper way, but I do not know what authority I should have to put her on oath and take a sworn statement. If the right hon. Gentleman will grant the inquiry that we are asking for, I am certain that every one of these persons will be prepared to come forward and give evidence upon oath or in any other manner that the right hon. Gentleman may prefer.
So far I have dealt with statements made by people who themselves had some kind of connection with the demonstration. Either they had been at the meeting and then come to the House, or had not been to the meeting but had come to the House for the purpose of seeing the Members who represent them in the House upon the same subject-matter as the demonstration. I shall conclude these statements with two made by persons who had no connection of any kind with the demonstration. In both cases I have the name and address. In 1482 both cases the witnesses are perfectly prepared to come forward to give their evidence before an inquiry. This lady says: On Tuesday, 31st January, at about 10 p.m. I came out of the Monseigneur Cinema with my husband. We saw a number of police and asked somebody standing near what was happening. They said that they thought there was going to be a demonstration or something of that kind. We stood on the corner and waited to see what would happen. We could hear cries of 'Arms for Spain' in the distance, and presently a small group of demonstrators came by in a perfectly orderly manner. There were two mounted policemen in the road and their horses were both very young, nervous and undertrained. My husband, who knows a great deal about horses, said that they were not in a fit condition to be ridden. Suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, those two mounted policemen rode on to the pavement and started charging among the passers-by, many of whom were not demonstrators. Panic and disorder were immediately created, and it was the police who were entirely responsible for this. The demonstrators had nothing to do with it. The last paragraph of the statement hon. Members may think is a little cynical. Whether cynicism is justified or not is a point on which, perhaps, each of us is entitled to hold his own opinion: I was dressed in mink coat and a fur-trimmed hat and presented an obviously well-to-do appearance, and I was particularly struck with the deferential manner in which I was treated by the police as opposed to the roughness with which they treated the ordinary young people of the crowd. I do not know why anybody should smile at that.

§ Commander Bower
Nobody has smiled yet.

§ Mr. Silverman
I should not have made the remark if I had not noticed a smile.

§ Commander Bower
Will the hon. Gentleman say who smiled; because certainly nobody on these benches smiled? The only smile came from an hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan).

§ Mr. A. Bevan
That really is not so. I was smiling because I was looking opposite. The hon. and gallant Member has not got eyes all round his head and he cannot see his friends who are sitting on the same benches.

§ Commander Bower
No, but I know them sufficiently well to know that they would not smile at such a statement, and I know hon. Members opposite well enough to know that they would.

§ Mr. Silverman
I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member knows them so well as to believe that they would not smile although I tell him that they did smile, and I can see them.

§ Commander Bower
But you will not tell us who smiled.

§ Mr. Silverman
Well, if the hon. and gallant Member does not believe me—

§ Commander Bower
I do not.

§ Mr. Silverman
That is entirely what I should expect from the hon. and gallant Member. I wonder whether he would say that I am right in describing him as smiling now?

§ Commander Bower
Yes, I am smiling now.

§ Mr. Silverman
It seems to me that the charges I am submitting are very serious charges indeed, and if they are not true it is less funny than ever. If the impression made upon the minds of perfectly respectable people, with no police record, people against whom the police make no complaint, and who were not taking part in the demonstration, is such as I have described, then I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is ample ground for an inquiry. Let me read the other statement—not addressed to me, but addressed to another hon. Member of the House who is not a member of my party: Dear Sir,—I think it should be brought to the notice of the House that the police are responsible for turning an orderly democratic demonstration into a terrified mob. They behave more like Cossacks than Englishmen and make the most cowardly and unwarranted attacks upon a body of people expressing their views in a most orderly way. They charge on horseback into the very centre of the crowd, like madmen, striking out wildly in all directions at women and men alike. Are they losing their heads or simply obeying orders? I myself actually defended the police and rather tended to sympathise with them until yesterday, during the 'Arms for Spain' demonstration, I witnessed such brutal and uncalled-for attacks that I felt quite sick. I do not mind their complete ignorance and lack of courtesy, but such cowardly assaults on an unarmed crowd of people is, I consider, criminal and should be stopped before something very serious happens.—Yours faithfully. I conclude by saying by what I began by saying. I am not asking the House, and I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman, to regard these charges as proved. I am not asking him to assume that any single one of the statements made is true, 1484 but I am asking that he shall not assume that they are false. I ask that he shall accept them for the moment as statements made by three different witnesses concerning things which they say they observed. I am asking him also whether, on those statements, it is not his duty in fairness to the people against whom these charges are brought that there should be a proper inquiry into them in order that people should be asked to come forward and give their evidence and be cross-examined upon it; and that he should then consider the answers given, make up his mind about them and report to this House what in fact took place on that occasion.
I would conclude by making two general remarks, quite shortly. One is that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of time, courage and energy in seeking to put upon the Statute Book a new Criminal Justice Bill. If he succeeds, as no doubt he will, he will have done something which will do honour to his tenure of the office, but I ask him, What sort of chance would the best penal code in the world have if it were set in motion in the first place by officers of the law upon whom you could not rely? I am not saying that the officers in question are officers upon whom you cannot rely, but I am saying that if the charges which were made are true the right hon. Gentleman's very first line in penal reform becomes suspect. When the right hon. Gentleman is considering improving the penal code he should consider whether, when charges like this are made, he ought not to have them fully investigated.
The other general remark is that some of the people concerned were demonstrating in a cause in which they believed. The slogan that some of them shouted related to arms for Spain. I would remind the House that they are not alone in that belief. The opinion that the Government's treatment of Spain has been a betrayal of most of the things in our traditions that people in this country honour is not held only by a handful of demagogues but, I suppose, by millions of our people. I hope that those people are not to be prevented by police action from demonstrating their opinions, because if once you start upon that road you start upon a very dangerous road indeed. It is clear from these statements that large numbers of people in this 1485 country believe that the demonstrators were unlawfully and violently prevented by the police from demonstrating in a cause which did not happen to be pleasing to the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman may think that they were wrong, but if he refuses the inquiry which we are asking him to institute he will merely be reinforcing that belief and perhaps leading people to demonstrate still further. Let not the right hon. Gentleman imagine, if any such idea is held, that the people of this country are so tame or so cowed that they can be prevented from demonstrating in an orderly manner in favour of the causes in which they believe.

§ Commander Bower
I want to say one short word because, being the son of a man who was a police officer for 30 years, I think a word should be said in defence of the police. I start by dealing with the last point raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the question of Spain. I think I shall be in order in referring to it, as he did, and I cannot forbear from remarking that hon. Members opposite were talking quite recently about what they said was the dreadful and wicked trade in arms and the making of private profit out of arms and that for some time now they have been advocating exactly that which they for so long condemned. That strikes me as extremely inconsistent, but only what I expected.
I quite agree that we, being so far a democratic country, have a right to demonstrate within reasonable limits. The trouble is that those limits sometimes become unreasonable. As one who has suffered from the attentions of Socialist mobs I cannot help feeling that probably there was a great deal more to be said for the police than was said by the hon. Member opposite.

§ Mr. Silverman
I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that although I said nothing for the police I said nothing against them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cossacks."] If there is any misunderstanding let me make the position clear. In my speech I did not, and I do not now, identify myself with any statement that has been made. I said to the right hon. Gentleman time after time that I was not asking him to believe that the charges were proved and that I did not myself assume that they were proved. I asked him also not to assume that they 1486 were false, but I said that charges had been made by persons who were apparently reputable and who were making their statements in good faith, so far as I could judge from those whom I had myself seen. I say that those charges are not to be believed or rejected, but are to be investigated.

§ Commander Bower
I am very glad to hear from the hon. Member that he does not necessarily believe everything he has said. As I have already stated, the free people of this country are perfectly at liberty to indulge in such demonstrations within reasonable limits, but it all depends whether those demonstrations are within reasonable limits or not. It is a very peculiar thing that in this country every demonstration where there is violence is either a Fascist or a Left-Wing demonstration. When hon. Members were in office you never got groups of Tories, going to Trafalgar Square and then surging along to this House, contrary to the Resolution which is passed by this House at the beginning of every Session. You never have crowds of Tories assaulting the police.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
What did you do in Northern Ireland?

§ Commander Bower
We are not at the moment in Northern Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your friends are!"] Nor are we in Southern Ireland. I seem to recollect that we have suffered something in the last few days from the friend of hon. Members opposite who come from Southern Ireland.

§ Mr. Bevan
Withdraw.

§ Commander Bower
I am not prepared to give way to the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Bevan
On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to identify Members of the House of Commons with suspicions which have been alleged against persons of committing outrages in this country recently?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)
I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman could be said to have identified any hon. Member with them. As far as I understood him he made a statement in which he made reference to the friends of hon. Members opposite. It is no business of mine what the effects of that might be upon hon. Mem- 1487 bers, but merely to interpret to the House the Rules and customs of Debate; but I think I am right in saying that when statements of that kind are made about an indeterminate body of Members of the House, they are not considered as being outside the Rules of Order.

§ Mr. Bevan
Further on the point of Order. In the course of his statement the hon. and gallant Gentleman—there is no evidence of that so far in his speech—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member would certainly be more likely to have his complaint considered if he would at least try himself to avoid being offensive.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am asking your protection against the offensiveness of the hon. Member. In the course of his statement he said that on this side of the House there were friends of the persons, alleged to come from Southern Ireland, who have been committing outrages against innocent citizens in Great Britain, and I am asking you whether it is proper that an hon. Member should make charges of that sort in the House, and whether we ought not to have your protection against him?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think I am right in my statement of what the hon. and gallant Member said, and what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has just said does not differ very greatly from it. I gave my Ruling that I believe it to be in accordance with the general practice of this House that such a reference to a vague and indeterminate number of Members in the House cannot be regarded as being outside the Rules of Order.

§ Sir Stafford Cripps
On that point of Order. May I suggest that the reference of the hon. Gentleman opposite is necessarily limited to those who are present in the House on this side? It cannot have any other meaning. Would it be in order for me to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are the friends of every cut-throat and thug in London? Surely it would be most grossly improper to make a remark in this House identifying the 15 or 20 hon. Gentlemen opposite with a very undesirable class of people; and surely we on this side are entitled to the same protection?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think the hon. and learned Member will agree with me 1488 that the case would be more fairly tested if he were to ask whether it would be in order for him to make, about hon. Members on the Government side of the House, precisely the same remark that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). My answer to that question would be that which I have already given.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Would not a remark of that kind, to the effect that people who have been causing damage in this country are the friends of Members on this side of the House, leave, if it remained unchallenged, the impression among the masses of the people of this country that Members on this side of the House were quite definitely associated with the acts of terrorism that have been alleged against certain people?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am bound to say that I do not regard it in that way. One has to take all these things in the way in which they strike one, and decide the question of order and not try to be a judge of what is or is not in good taste in debate. I certainly did not regard the remark about the friends of hon. Members as being one which clearly and definitely identified anyone with those particular individuals—[Interruption.]—Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to observe silence while I am addressing the House—I did not regard it as being a definite accusation that any hon. Member of the House was connected with those persons in their nefarious conduct.

§ Commander Bower
I will now continue. I shall be within the recollection of the House when I say that my remark was nothing more or less than a retort to a taunt from the opposite side of the House that we were identified with Northern Ireland. I cannot see that my remark was any more objectionable.

§ Mr. Lawson
On a point of Order. May I now draw your attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has very definitely identified the Members on this side with the people who have committed outrages whereby many persons have been injured?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think the hon. Member is mistaken. Naturally, I have been listening very carefully, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Member, 1489 in his reference to friends, mentioned any individual, but only friends of Southern Ireland, and I do not suppose that the hon. Member would regard that as offensive.

§ Mr. Lawson
The hon. and gallant Member drew attention to the fact in a way which seemed to infer that you yourself are wrong in the interpretation you put on his remarks.

§ Sir Ronald Ross
Before you reply, may I ask—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not know whether the hon. Member was inferring that I was wrong in my Ruling, but, if he thinks I was wrong, it is open to him to draw attention to it in the appropriate way.

§ Sir R. Ross
I think, really, that I have a grievance. Might I draw attention to the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend described the suggestion that we are the friends of Northern Ireland as a taunt, whereas, of course, as you and everyone in the House will realise, it is just the contrary.

§ Commander Bower
It is so long since my speech was interrupted that I am in danger of forgetting what I was saying. I was pointing out that it is the privilege of citizens of this country to indulge in these demonstrations within limits, but that there is very little doubt that on this particular occasion the demonstration was not within the ordinarily accepted limits. Having, as I think I said, had some experience of these demonstrations, as a spectator and at my peril, all I would say is that I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that on these occasions the police—at least 98 per cent. of whom are drawn from the working class, and a very large number of whom, probably, from a political point of view sympathise with the demonstrators—are faced with an extremely difficult task, and that on the whole they perform that extremely difficult task very well indeed, and without fear or favour. On this occasion there were large crowds breaking the law, since this demonstration was in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, and the House does not permit such demonstrations to take place while it is sitting, that permission being refused, not only by Members on this side of the House, but, very rightly, by hon. Members opposite 1490 also. We agree that these demonstrations shall not take place while the House is sitting. There is no doubt that an attempt was made, if I may use a homely phrase, to gate-crash this House, and there is no doubt whatever that any members of the public, other than the demonstrators, who attend these demonstrations, must be subjected to certain risks if disorder of any kind arises.
I am perfectly prepared to admit that a great deal of the evidence produced by hon. Members opposite, although it is not sworn evidence, may be quite correct. But the police are only human beings, and it is very hard in a crowd, many members of which are rowdy, to discriminate between the law-abiding and those who are not law-abiding. I cannot see why, when we take into account the fact that these disorders invariably arise out of left-wing demonstrations, hon. Members opposite should be so extremely keen to attack the police. We all know that if you have a riot at a Fascist demonstration it is not a lot of respectable Tories who attack the police, and I am certain that on this occasion all those people who were brought up in the police court were very rightly brought there.

§ Mr. Dingle Foot
Even those who were acquitted?

§ Commander Bower
Naturally, in the case of those who were acquitted I accept the verdict of the court. But that reinforces my argument. Even the hon. Member who interjected that remark will admit that the police would not deliberately charge people whom they thought not guilty. If one is foolish enough to go to these demonstrations—and I gave it up years ago—one must expect if one gets in a scuffle, to suffer violence. A great deal too much is made of these matters. Time and again in the East End we have Fascist and anti-Fascist demonstrations and the demonstrators see fit to assault the police. One can understand a Jew attacking a Fascist, or a Fascist, in view of the peculiar mentality of Fascists, attacking a Jew; but why attack the police? It cannot be suggested that the police would attack these people without provocation.

§ Mr. Silverman
Does the hon. and gallant Member realise that that is the point of a great many of the statements I have made? Precisely that charge is 1491 made, and it is made not by people who went to demonstrate—and who, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member thinks should put up with what they get—but by innocent passers-by who were there on their lawful occasions, having nothing to do with the demonstration.

§ Commander Bower
I was coming to that. In view of these charges, which are not sworn charges, against the police, I was intending to support the hon. Member—and I do so now—in suggesting that there should be an inquiry, so as to show how fatuous these unsupported charges are. We agree that the name of the police should be cleared. Words which are spoken in this House echo not only around the country but around the world, and I think this inquiry should be made. That was my original intention, as the son of a policeman, in getting up, and I am sure the police will welcome an inquiry so that their name, which attempts have been made to besmirch, should be supported in its proud position.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
I am glad the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) has supported the demand which has been made by my hon. Friend. Nobody knows whether these allegations are true or not. They are serious charges, and I suggested in my supplementary question the other day that it is just as much in the interests of the police that an inquiry should be made as in the interests of the body politic. The hon. and gallant Member seems to suggest that these people demonstrating deserved all they got because they were demonstrating—or walking about—in Parliament Square, and it is known that there is a ban on processions in Parliament Square. My answer is that a good deal of this alleged trouble took place a great way off, in Piccadilly Circus, and, secondly, members of the public are entitled to be in Parliament Square and entitled to come and see their Members of Parliament if they want to do so. If a demonstration is advertised to take place in Parliament Square the police are bound to prevent that demonstration taking place, but there is no excuse for brutality on the part of the police, if such brutality took place. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the hon. and gallant Member to say that people taking part in those demonstrations deserved all they got.

§ Commander Bower
I said there had been no evidence in this Debate to show that these demonstrators had been attacked by the police, and I adhere to that.

§ Mr. Strauss
But all the allegations which have been put forward do say just that, and not a single bit of evidence have I seen, from a number of people who were there and a number of people who have written to the papers, suggesting anything else, while no evidence was put forward by the hon. and gallant Member, or by the Home Secretary the other day, which suggested any rowdiness on the part of the public or any attack by a member of the public on the police, or that any member of the public defended himself when this alleged baton attack took place. It is alleged that these attacks took place on the initiative of the police, and it is important that they should be looked into. I agree that the police have a difficult duty on these occasions. It is not easy sometimes to control a crowd, particularly if that crowd becomes offensive or attacks the police or causes any serious trouble. But there is no suggestion that there was any attack by the public, and this demonstration, as far as we know, was quite peaceable. There is no reason, therefore, why there should have been any attacks by the police on the public. I desire to quote the evidence of one or two people who were there. Again, I cannot say whether this evidence is correct or not, but I maintain that it comes from sufficiently respectable people as not only to justify but to demand an inquiry, so that we may know where the truth lies. Here is a letter—and I can quote the name because it appeared in a journal called "Time and Tide"—sent by Marjorie Battcock, Hon. Secretary of the Hampstead Peace Council. She says: It was while waiting in this queue"— that is, outside the House of Commons to see the Member— with several other constituents that a demonstration arrived shouting 'We demand arms for Spain.' This was their sole slogan, and their conduct was irrefutably orderly, a fact which did not, however, deter the police some ten minutes later from charging not only them but also the waiting queue. We were then not merely driven with the demonstrators towards Vauxhall Bridge, but each side street was deliberately cordoned off by the mounted police, so that there was no chance of escape. Many of the police were shouting 'If you're 1493 so sympathetic to Spain why don't you go there? 'Elderly men and women were being struck brutally from every direction. A poster bearing the words 'Food for the women and children of Spain' was snatched from a youth by a mounted policeman who struck him violently on the head, flinging his placard over an area railing. This lady was accompanied by an elderly gentleman who came into the Lobby a bit later and saw me. He was naturally very distressed and excited, and told me the story in outline, and I asked him to send a written statement to me telling me exactly what had happened. He did that, and I have it here, available to the Home Secretary or anybody else, confirming what that lady wrote, and adding various other details. I happen to know very well indeed a lady who went to Piccadilly Circus and saw various actions of the police there, and, as far as it is possible to vouch for veracity, I can certainly vouch for the veracity and honesty of this lady. She writes: I was in Piccadilly Circus at about 10.45 p.m. on the night of Tuesday, 31st January last, and saw a large number of foot police coming from the direction of Vine Street Police Station. On arrival in the Circus the police immediately set about pushing and prodding people in the back. Although I was one of the crowd the police adopted a more gentle demeanour towards me, the reason being, I assumed, that the fur coat which I was wearing placed me in the eyes of the police as a 'respectable person'…. The worst incident I saw was that of a young man, who was obvious because he had a dark beard—he was walking quickly along Coventry Street shouting, 'Arms for Spain.' He was followed by two young constables, who thrust through the crowd and continually punched the young man violently about the head. They followed him right along the street doing this …. I followed them with a view to giving my name and address to the man in case he should be locked up. The police, however, made no attempt to take him into custody. I would like to quote next the evidence of a man who is well known for his efforts to preserve the civil liberties of this country, Ronald Kidd. I know that sometimes his name is not welcomed in some quarters because he feels it his public duty to investigate allegations with regard to breaches of civil liberty and ill behaviour of the police. But I think everyone will recognise him as a man of very high repute who would not deliberately say something that was not true. I will read an extract from a statement made by him: 1494 As Big Ben struck 10 o'clock one police officer started roughly hustling a few of the young people, who offered no resistance and continued on their way. This same officer then drew his truncheon and immediately eight other officers drew theirs. Hon. Members will remember the Home Secretary said that as far as he was informed no truncheons were used by the police. All nine officers rained blows on the heads of the young people. I was in the roadway some five yards from these young people, and I could hear the thwacks of the heavy boxwood truncheons on the men's and women's heads. Most of the young women were wearing silk handkerchiefs over their hair and most of the young men had no hats. The blows were heavy, and the officers made no attempt to strike the young people merely on the arms or shoulders; every blow was rained directly on the head. The young people then started to run, and I was unable to get names and addresses of those who had been struck. I gave my card to a tall, fair-haired young man who had received a terrific blow on the head, and he promised to communicate with me. In the mêlée that followed this police attack I was only able to get the number of one police officer"— which he states, but which I will not give, who had struck the tall, fair-haired young man I have a number of other similar pieces of evidence from people who were there, and some from others whom I do not know, but I have no reason to doubt their bona fides and their honesty. I cannot say whether these statements are true or not. I was not there. But I say these charges are numerous and serious enough to justify the demand that there should be some investigation. The only small bit of evidence I can contribute is that I came from my constituency in my car into Palace Yard that evening a little before 10 o'clock. There were a number of police in Palace Yard, and quite a few of them certainly were in a very excited condition and behaving in a very unusual manner. I wondered what was up, because I did not realise that there was going to be a procession, but I made a mental note of the time and that groups of the police were behaving in an extraordinary manner. I do not suggest that that is direct evidence, but it is a piece of indirect evidence which may be of interest to the House.
There have been on previous occasions accusations made when other demonstrations have taken place that the police have not acted properly. There 1495 has been on these occasions evidence put forward by a number of people who are also respectable and who have offered to come forward at any inquiry that the Home Secretary agreed to call. The Home Secretary on those previous occasions, I think, has invariably refused to have such a public inquiry. I think that is very unfortunate indeed. It looks as if the Home Secretary is trying to protect the police from being subjected to inquiry which might prove that some of the police were guilty of behaviour which was unbecoming to them. I do not think that was the intention of the Home Secretary, but I think it is as much in the interest of the police as of the public that full inquiry should be made into those allegations. It is not just one person who writes a hysterical letter and says, "I saw something awful happen"; it is a large number of people who make these allegations, and there are sufficient of them, I suggest, to justify the Home Secretary in taking very careful note of what they say. If he does not have an immediate inquiry made into these allegations I suggest that he or the Under-Secretary should himself see some of these people, make a preliminary investigation himself to see whether there is a prima facie case. Then I believe he would himself become convinced that an enquiry of that sort is very necessary.
May I finally say that there is one very strong reason at the moment why these accusations should be cleared up? As the House is aware, it has only recently been announced that the air-raid wardens in London are going to come under the control of the police. I am not going to enter into the merits of that proposal. It is well known, however, that it has given rise to a great deal of resentment among numbers of wardens who do not like the idea of coming under the police, instead of serving the local authorities under whom they had enlisted. The Lord Privy Seal will have very great difficulty indeed in preventing many of these air-raid wardens from retiring or in getting new air-raid wardens to enlist as long as charges of this kind are flying about, charges which may be quite untrue, but which have been made in public quite honestly by people who believe that they are true, which give a bad name to the police.
As a Londoner I am not only anxious that demonstrations should be peaceably 1496 conducted and that our streets should be orderly, but that where there are processions of any kind, the behaviour of the police on all occasions should be of a high standard. The best way of ensuring that is for the Home Secretary, when serious accusations are brought against the police by a number of respectable people, to order an investigation to be made into these allegations without a moment's delay so that the Home Secretary, the House and the public shall know exactly whether such allegations are true or not.

§ Captain Heilgers
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said that the statements were not necessarily credible.

§ Mr. Silverman
I did not say that. I said nothing of the kind. I said that the statements were highly credible, but that they were not proved until they were given in evidence, which is exactly why I want the inquiry.

§ Captain Heilgers
If that is the case, I am sorry to find that the hon. Member read out a letter in which it was stated that the police behaved like Cossacks. That is a slur upon a very excellent body of men. I would point out that at just about the same time that this demonstration was being held, there was another demonstration in London—the Suffolk farmers' and farmworkers' demonstration. The promoters and organisers of that demonstration went to Scotland Yard a few days before and saw the police, and asked exactly what route they should follow and how they should conduct themselves.

§ Mr. Bevan
There was nothing unusual in that. It was a normal demonstration. There was no demonstration in Parliament Square.

§ Captain Heilgers
There was no demonstration in Parliament Square because the Suffolk fanners and farmworkers were advised that they should not go to Parliament Square, and they took that advice. They were told that if they formed on Tower Hill they would be allowed to march as far as the Victoria Embankment. I saw that march. They marched to Victoria Embankment where, on the advice of the police, as they got to the Temple they quietly dispersed and made their way to Central Hall, Westminster, 1497 where they held an orderly meeting. Why did not this demonstration follow the same tactics? [An HON. MEMBER: "They did."] If they had there would have been a very different ending to the march, and there would have been no questions asked. I saw something of what happened, and I think the demonstrators on this occasion asked for trouble, and in some ways it was a pity they did not find it.

§ Sir S. Cripps
The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) has stated that the farmers did not meet with any difficulty. I think that there would have been very great difficulties with the farmers if certain action had not been taken by the Government. They were fortunate in getting their demands accepted before the demonstration took place.

§ Captain Heilgers
Whatever the reasons for the demonstrations, or whether they were changed at the last moment, I am certain from my knowledge of Suffolk fanners and farmworkers that they would have behaved very much better than these people.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I had the pleasure of addressing them in Hyde Park a year or two ago on the tithe question, and they were a very strong mob who might have been influenced to march on Downing Street with sticks and staves at almost any moment.

§ Captain Heilgers
I also happened to be there to listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion. My conclusion may be wrong, but I think that in his speech he did his best to incite them to violent action.

§ Sir S. Cripps
That only shows the danger of people speaking about things they do not know. I was present and I heard my own speech, so I know what was said. Let me turn to the events of 31st January, because, in my submission to the House, the matters which have been disclosed quite clearly demand some inquiry, and they demand it from two points of view. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman, if these accusations were made against him in public, would be the first person to say, "I demand the right to clear myself in public." Personally that would be my immediate reaction if I had had these 1498 things said about me, and I believe that the police are just as entitled to that public declaration that they did not do these things if these things were not done.
I was not present at these occurrences, but I have some little experience of dealing with statements taken from witnesses. Professionally, one has always to gauge the chances of success in an action by gauging the reliability of the witnesses' statements, and one therefore is naturally perhaps somewhat skilled in reading statements and judging from these the credibility of the witnesses. One of the rules, which, I am glad to say, is strictly observed in my profession is that you must never yourself see the witnesses of fact before the trial of the case, because of the obvious danger of an advocate influencing the witness as to what he may say at the trial. One does not have sworn statements. It would be highly improper and wrong under the Statute of Declaration Acts to have sworn statements. One has a statement made by a reliable witness and that statement is laid before one.
Before speaking this evening I made it my duty to read with care these statements which my hon. Friends have collected. I am bound to say—and I say this with a full sense of responsibility, with such knowledge and skill as I have—that after reading these statements there is a prima facie case which requires inquiry. The way in which the statements are made and the very circumstantial way in which the statements link up together, which is one of the tests always of evidence, is very circumstantial. They are not statements of the discredited or criminal party which one has sometimes to disregard in evidence. Suppose that instead of being a question for inquiry it was a question of an action in court for some reason or other I should have no hesitation on these statements in advising my clients to proceed with the action, because I should say that the nature and quality of the evidence is such that it appeals to me, as a person skilled in this matter, as being of the sort which is likely to turn out to be credible and reliable. Though I do not in any sense vouch for it, anyone who has had any experience of the law knows that statements which appear very reliable when tested often, by cross-examination, appear to be nothing of the sort. You cannot test them in any way except by cross-examination. There is no other way by which you can test these statements.
1499 If the matter is to rest where it is to-day, what will be the position? Statements have been publicly read out. Many of the statements have been printed in the newspapers in letters signed by people whose names can be tested and whose addresses can be visited. If nothing further happens, these statements will be taken as being the facts. However much the right hon. Gentleman may say that he has seen the chief constable, or the sergeant, and that he does not believe the statements are accurate, nobody will accept that as a test, because the people who are instructing the right hon. Gentleman are the very people who are accused. It is obvious, therefore, that nobody with a judicial mind could conceivably accept the excuses put forward by the very people who are accused. They may be perfectly justified, I am not for a moment suggesting that they are not, but they must be tested. Nobody can be satisfied with an answer that cannot be tested. Just as I should be completely unwilling to accept any of these statements that have been read out tonight as the truth without testing them, so I should be absolutely unwilling to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as the truth, without testing it.
The only argument that can be raised to the contrary—this is an argument which, unfortunately, anyone who practises in the courts knows from time to time does influence the mind, especially of magistrates—is that what a policeman says is true and what the ordinary citizen says is not true. If a policeman brings a motor charge against the ordinary citizen the tendency is always to accept the policeman's evidence. The policeman is an excellent fellow, a first-rate fellow, highly trained, but he is not necessarily any more truthful than anybody else. The ordinary citizen has as much right to be believed as the policeman. We, as ordinary citizens, are liable to-morrow to be stopped by the police in connection with a motor offence or something else, and if we are put in the dock and there are two policemen on the other side, we feel that we have as much right to be believed as they have, and we feel very hurt indeed when we find that it does not work out in that way. I know of many people who have made most violent protests, not people of the left wing but right wing people. They have said: "It is 1500 monstrous. I have been charged with so-and-so, and two policemen went into the box and their evidence was believed, and I was not believed. "All I can say is that they had their chance of cross-examining, they had their chance of giving their evidence and of themselves being cross-examined. If the law goes wrong, it does its best; it weighs up the evidence between the two—

§ Sir Joseph Lamb
Is the hon. and learned Member making a charge against the police or against the magistrates? I have experience. The policeman is always sworn and gives his evidence on oath, the same as the ordinary individual. Therefore, it is the magistrates who make the decision in the case.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Of course, it is. I am perfectly aware of that. What I said was that it is a well known complaint—the public largely shut their eyes to it—that there are benches of magistrates before whom the evidence of the police is in fact preferred to the evidence of the ordinary individual.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Not in my experience.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I am not suggesting that it is so on the hon. Member's bench of magistrates; but there are hundreds of benches, and it is a well known fact that on some benches the police evidence has cast over it a sort of halo which does not extend to the evidence of the ordinary individual. All I am suggesting is that there is no earthly reason why these statements at present before us should not have just as much credence given to them as anything that the right hon. Gentleman has been told by the police. Both of them are untested statements. Some people say that there was a demonstration. Other people say there was not a demonstration, that all that happened was that a lot of people came down to Parliament Square, but that there was no demonstration. It is said that there was a long queue of people which was charged by the mounted police, and that those were people waiting to see Members of Parliament.
These things are not proved one way or the other, and in such a state of affairs it is highly unsatisfactory that these suggestions should be left unanswered. They cannot be answered by the right hon. Gentleman. Much as I respect him, much 1501 as I believe in his honesty, I cannot accept his statement, which is based purely on what the police have told him and nothing else. I cannot accept the statement of a defendant which is not tested by some method or other. Therefore, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, for the sake of the whole atmosphere of the administration of justice in London and the relations of the public to the police, which is a matter of vital importance in preserving order, and may in certain circumstances which might happen in this country be of much more importance, to inquire into this matter further. Everything should be done to preserve unsullied the integrity of the police. When these grave accusations are made by responsible people it is vitally important that the allegations made against the police should be tested. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have an inquiry.

§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby
I have listened, and I am sure the House has listened, to the speeches made on both sides with the utmost care, and I appreciate as much as anybody else that both the hon. Members opposite who brought forward this matter dissociated themselves from the statements read out. They did not express a view either way, that the statements were necessarily true or untrue, but they put them forward in the course of what they believed to be their public duty. These accusations are very grave ones to make against the police. I do not think there is any difference between hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and hon. Members on this side in their desire to preserve the good name of the Police Force. On that we are all agreed. There is no one in this country who does not look upon the average policeman as a friend of the citizen. The policeman him self is an ordinary citizen, and as an ordinary citizen he is as much entitled as anyone else to have his accusers come out in the open and bring their accusations against him openly and to state their names and addresses. I do not wish to be offensive, but it is not fair to hide behind the anonymity which to a certain extent a read statement in the House of Commons is bound to confer upon the person who makes it—

§ Mr. G. Strauss
Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the persons whose statements have been read by my hon. Friend and myself are perfectly prepared to come forward and give their names and addresses to the Home Secretary or to any other inquiry that may be set up?

§ Sir A. Southby
I agree that that is so, but until an inquiry has been granted, and I hope it will not be granted, or until other action is taken, the writers of those statements remain anonymous. It is as much in the interest of hon. Members on the other side of the House as of hon. Members on this side that law and order should be preserved in Parliament Square. It is as important for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that he should be able to come to this House and to state his case as it is for the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). It is essential that all of us should have free and unrestricted passage to this House. It is absolutely essential that there should be law and order in Parliament Square, and that no demonstrations should take place. If demonstrations do take place, the police have a very difficult duty to perform. They must, obviously, use a certain-amount of force. Whatever demonstration takes place in Parliament Square must be dispersed, and to do that a certain amount of force has to be used.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said that in Piccadilly Circus there was interference with the traffic. As citizens we cannot go about our business if other citizens, misguided as I think they are, are going to lie about in the streets. If they do that, they must be removed.

§ Mr. Silverman
I must apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, but I do not want to be accused of things which I did not say. I did not say—I do not know, I was not there—whether there was any interference with traffic in Piccadilly Circus. That suggestion came not from me but from the right hon. Gentleman in the course of a reply to a question. I do not know whether it is true or not. No one knows unless there is an inquiry.

§ Sir A. Southby
I accept, of course, what the hon. Member says, but if traffic is impeded in any part of London by individuals who deem it to be of some use 1503 to the community to lie about in the streets, quite obviously, in the interests of society as a whole, they must be removed; and they can only be removed by force. The difficulty which arises here is this. Hon. Members opposite are desirous of an inquiry. It is very easy to bring charges against the police, it is, I was going to say, too easy, and I deplore any fishing inquiry being set up to investigate charges against the police which may afterwards be found to be unsubstantiated. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the police ought not to lie under an imputation like this because it is bad for the good feeling which should exist between the police and the general public. But I have listened in vain during the Debate for any reference to the right which the general public have of applying for summonses against the police if they think the police have done anything wrong.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Surely the hon. and gallant Member has heard in the statements which have been read that in the circumstances it was impossible to identify the policeman. I dare say there are some cases where summonses may be brought, cases where the number of the policeman was taken as was done by Mr. Ronald Kidd, but in many of the cases they are unable to identify the policemen who took part.

§ Sir A. Southby
I am glad the hon. and learned Member has qualified his statement by saying that there are two or three cases in which the number of the policeman may have been taken. In the cases where the writers of these letters and the makers of these charges took the numbers of the police, if they have applied for summonses against the police, it would be impossible to hold an inquiry because their cases would be sub judice. But if these occurrences took place it was open to the people to make complaint to the Home Secretary. Nothing stood in the way of the writers of these letters writing to the Home Secretary, giving their names and their evidence, and asking the right hon. Gentleman what he could do in the matter. Where they have taken the number of the policeman they could have applied to the courts for a summons against the individual policeman. Listening to some of the evidence 1504 I am bound to say that I do not think it is necessary to test it in a court of law. There is the story of nine policemen frequently bludgeoning the heads of a number of young men and young women. Our policemen are not distinguished by their smallness or their weakness, and a truncheon is a pretty unpleasant weapon. If they used their bludgeon with great force repeatedly on the heads of men and women who were not wearing anything more than a silk handkerchief on their heads, I suggest that the victims of so gross an outrage, if it took place, must have finished up in hospital.

§ Mr. Silverman
I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was in his place when I made my speech or whether he listened to my speech. In my first statement I told him that one lady was set on and when she tried to get into touch with a superior officer she was set upon again, and did in fact end up in Westminster Hospital.

§ Sir A. Southby
I am afraid the hon. Member did not pay me the compliment of listening to what I said. I listened with great care to the speech he made. I was not referring to his statement about the lady, but referring specifically to the statement about nine policemen who deliberately bludgeoned a young man and lady on the head. I repeat that if the bludgeoning was of the character which has been stated in the evidence given by the individuals, it is fantastic to suggest that the victims of such an outrage would do anything else but finish up in the hospital.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that he knows better what happened in Whitehall at 10 o'clock at night than someone who was within five yards of it, or is he suggesting that the person who was within five yards, Mr. Ronald King, whom I know personally, is deliberately telling a lie?

§ Sir A. Southby
I suggest that the hon. and learned Member is not entitled to cross-examine me. I did not interrupt him when he was making his speech and he has already interrupted me two or three times. It may be that I have touched a weak spot in the hon. and learned Member's demand for an inquiry, but it is hardly fair for him by a process of cross-examination to endeavour to discredit me. I am not a witness nor is the 1505 hon. and learned Member a witness, although it is his profession to take either side on occasion.
In regard to these accusations made against the police I still say that the proper duty of a citizen who has a complaint against the police is to take out a summons in the courts. If these occurrences were watched so closely by these eye-witnesses it is, to say the least, extraordinary that they were unable to identify more than one or two of the police, and they should have made a complaint immediately to a superior police officer or applied for a summons in the ordinary way. It would be a bad thing if the custom grew up that whenever charges were made, unfounded charges as they may be, against the police of this country the Home Secretary should immediately grant a fishing inquiry. One thing we have to do, and that is to see that our police force does its duty honourably, fairly and impartially to the community. The view of most people in the country is that the police force is exemplary in the way it carries out its duties, and for that reason I think that no real case has been made out for the inquiry asked for The public have their rights against the police, and the police have their rights as ordinary citizens. I think they are entitled, when accusations are made against them, that the makers of these accusations should come forward openly in court, swear their accusations, and then the hon. and learned Member will be able to cross-examine either the police or the complainants, whichever side he chooses to take.

§ Mr. Kingsley Griffith
The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has made some cogent criticisms as to the credibility of some of the evidence which has been produced by hon. Members. It was not vouched for, and no attempt was made to vouch for it. It was merely produced as statements made by responsible persons. The hon. and gallant Member has stated his reasons for saying why these statements should not be believed. Is it not obvious that we cannot try the credibility of these statements this evening, and that that is one of the reasons why an inquiry should be granted? It is no use the hon. and gallant Member saying that people must produce evidence which is worthy of some credence, which can be tested. It can 1506 only be tested by an impartial and judicial inquiry. I cannot understand why again and again the hon. and gallant Member repeated, as though it were some kind of magic charm, the phrase "We must not have a fishing inquiry." Why would this inquiry be particularly fishing? A fishing inquiry is one that starts from nothing in the hope that it will get something.

§ Sir A. Southby
That is why I referred to it as a fishing inquiry.

§ Mr. Griffith
In that case the hon. and gallant Member assumed beforehand, and assumed arbitrarily, that any statement that is made which does not suit his case has got to be disregarded.

§ Sir A. Southby
I did not assume anything of the kind.

§ Mr. Griffith
In that case, the hon. and gallant Member used the words "fishing inquiry" without any sense or intelligence whatever.

§ Sir A. Southby
The hon. Member is not entitled to set himself up as the only judge of what is intelligent.

§ Mr. Griffith
I was examining the words used by the hon. and gallant Member, and I suggested their only possible meaning. The hon. and gallant Member confirmed it, and then immediately proceeded to deny it. His suggestion that there must be in Parliament Square and round about this House an immunity from demonstrations is one which I, at any rate, entirely support, but one of the issues in this case is as to how far there was a demonstration. I do not know, I was not there. It is a matter which requires to be inquired into. Even if there was a demonstration and, even if we are all agreed that such demonstrations are undesirable, surely that does not mean that any kind of violence is justified in getting rid of the demonstration. Even if an action which is illegal is taking place, the police can still be called to question if there is good evidence showing that they employed, in dealing with the situation, a degree of violence which was entirely unnecessary.
I have made these observations because I could not see why, on his own grounds, the hon. and gallant Member was opposed to an inquiry. I would add that my own accounts of what took place—they are 1507 not first-hand accounts—support the view which the hon. and gallant Member has taken. I have heard from a member of the Left Wing—from a gentleman who was, in fact, a candidate of the party opposite and who went specially to watch the demonstration with a view to reporting on it—that in his view no unnecessary violence was used by the police. I feel bound to give that testimony, but it is only one. One cannot prove a negative in these matters. A man who comes forward and says that he did not see something is not necessarily refuting those who, perhaps in another part of Parliament Square, did see something else.
What I am saying is that we cannot settle this matter entirely by quoting secondhand information from one side or the other. All we can do is to say that here is a certain amount of information constituting a grave charge against the police—which is not impossible in itself—which is put forward by people who believe it, which is supported by hon. Members who are prepared to put it before the House and therefore believe it to be worthy of reporting; and that as long as that lasts there will be an uneasy feeling in the minds of the public that something which has been raised, something affecting public order and decency, is being in some way hushed up and passed over. I believe that if an inquiry were instituted, the police at least would come out of it very well indeed, and I hope that is the case. It is in their interests that I desire that this inquiry should be made. I do not take the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom that it is wrong to raise the matter in this way in the House. I think hon. Members are eminently the proper persons to take up and raise the question, because we are ultimately responsible for what the police do. Through the Home Secretary, who is responsible to us, we are responsible for the action which the police take. Therefore, it is right that these questions should be raised in this House and that we should, wherever there is any doubt as to what has been done, ask for an inquiry.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare)
I was anxious, before intervening in the Debate, to hear the details of the case that is being made for an inquiry. Let me say 1508 at once that I make no criticism of any hon. Member for raising questions of this kind in the House. The police are a great civilian service in which every Member has a close interest, and the Home Secretary is the Minister who is expected to answer for their actions. I have made it my business, as far as I could, to make the fullest investigation into the allegations that were made at Question Time last week, and I will give the House the account which in my view—I say, in my view—is accurate. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—who I am glad to see is still on the Front Bench, and indeed, I would congratulate him upon having a Popular Front in being—seemed to be doubtful as to whether or not there was a demonstration. I am quite certain that there need be no doubt upon that score. A demonstration undoubtedly took place on 31st January. It was very well organised. The Communist party of London took a very active part in the organisation of the demonstration. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will have something to say about that later on. I have here the advertisement that was published on the subject in the "Daily Worker": All Out for Arms and Food for Spain. The greatest Effort Yet. To-night, 31st January (Opening of Parliament). 8 p.m. rally and march, Chenies Street. 9.15 p.m. All in Parliament Square.

§ Sir S. Cripps
What is wrong with that?

§ Sir S. Hoare
I am not saying whether it is right or not. I am answering the doubts in the minds of hon. Members opposite as to whether or not there was a demonstration. The advertisement goes on: 11 p.m. Rally in Piccadilly Circus. The London District Committee of the Communist Party calls upon every Party Member and supporter to turn out and make this protest the greatest action yet for Spain. In view of that notice and what took place subsequently, I do not think any hon. Member will say that a demonstration did not take place upon that particular evening.

§ Mr. Silverman
I do not think anybody said there was no demonstration. I said there was no demonstration in Parliament Square or, alternatively, that one of the issues involved in the inquiry would be whether or not there was a demonstration in Parliament Square.

§ Sir S. Hoare
Let me continue, and the House will judge whether there was a demonstration in Parliament Square or not. The times shown in the notice are significant—8 p.m., rally and march, Chenies Street, Tottenham Court Road; 9.15, Parliament Square; 11 p.m., Piccadilly Circus. At 8 p.m. Mr. J. A. Mahon and Mr. Edward Bramley, of the London District Committee of the Communist party, addressed a gathering of about 2,500 people at Chenies Street. Mr. Bramley concluded his speech as follows: Sir Philip Game holds me responsible for this meeting and demonstration and I fully accept responsibility on behalf of the London District Committee of the Communist party of Great Britain. I fully understand exactly what it means. It means that legally we have no right to march beyond Cranbourn Street. Therefore, I accept no responsibility for any procession beyond Cranbourn Street … I intend … to march in an organised procession from this meeting to Cambridge Circus. I will have the banners removed and I will myself walk as a citizen of this great city on the pavement to Parliament Square and no one in this country can stop me, and if you care to do the same thing no one can stop you. At 8.30 a procession was formed in Chenies Street and marched by way of Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross Road to Cambridge Circus chanting all the time, "We demand arms for Spain." At Cambridge Circus the demonstrators broke into groups and continued on the footway to Parliament Square, where some of them joined a queue awaiting admission to the House of Commons but the majority paraded up and down the vicinity of St. Stephen's entrance still chanting. Up to about 9.20 p.m. there was no queue outside the Palace of Westminster, but about that time a queue was rapidly organised about five or six persons abreast and several hundreds of persons gathered in Old Palace Yard, St. Margaret's Street and the neighbourhood; passage to and from the House became impossible and traffic could not proceed. This is not only my unsupported description of what happened. It is confirmed by the "News Chronicle," a paper in which, I understand, many criticisms have been made against the action of the police, and a paper which, as hon. Members will see, would not be biased in favour of the police action on that particular evening. The "News Chronicle" on the following day said; By the time the crowd reached Parliament Square there was no holding them and they streamed along the side of the Parliament 1510 building, calling their demand so loudly that Members came out of the House to see them. When the pressure on the doors and gates grew so great that they might have been forced, police reinforcements galloped up. I quote that to the House to show that the situation looked like being a serious situation.

§ Mr. Silverman
What is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?

§ Sir S. Hoare
The "News Chronicle."

§ Sir S. Cripps
Does he accept every statement which appears in the "News Chronicle" or only what suits him?

§ Sir S. Hoare
That is rather a general question. In pursuance of their duties under the Sessional Order which requires the police to keep clear the passages leading to the House, and under the general law which prohibits the assembly of more than 50 persons in the streets within one mile of the Houses of Parliament while Parliament is sitting, it was the clear duty of the police to clear Parliament Square and the police therefore began to shepherd the crowds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat the words "shepherd the crowds" from the front of, and to the north and south of New Palace Yard carriage gates. This was effected fairly easily until a point opposite St. Stephen's entrance, when the queue lost its formation and became merged with the shouting crowd which completely filled Old Palace Yard. The crowds went south as far as the Peers' entrance and then returned to Parliament Square, when they were again turned about. Instructions were then given that cordons should be placed in position to prevent any further demonstrators entering Parliament Square, and a line of police was drawn across St. Margaret's Street and the crowd shepherded in a southerly direction. All this was done quietly and cautiously, no truncheons were drawn, and senior police officers who mingled with the crowd definitely assert that there was no unnecessary force used by the police.
I may say, in passing, that the Commissioner of Police was himself present. After Parliament Square had been cleared, the demonstrators started to reassemble, in accordance with the plan, in Piccadilly Circus, where from 10.30 p.m. onwards they paraded in groups, shouting, "We demand arms for Spain." The police were present in large numbers and were 1511 able to prevent any noticeable interference with either traffic or pedestrians. At 11 p.m. a number of men and women attempted to lie down in the roadway, but were immediately arrested. The police kept the crowd on the move, and normal conditions were restored by 11.45 p.m. Altogether 51 persons were arrested, and in 47 cases the persons charged were found guilty. In one case a man was given one guinea costs against the police on the ground of mistaken arrest.
Now I come to the complaints, or rather the absence of complaints, at the Home Office in connection with these incidents. There have been a number of letters published in the newspapers, and the Commissioner has received about a dozen letters complaining of the action of the police, but I have received no complaints, and that is a very curious fact, because as a rule the Home Secretary receives many complaints on occasions of this kind. The Commissioner has received about a dozen letters complaining of the action of the police, but none of these—and I ask hon. Members opposite to note this—is in a sufficiently definite form to enable the complaints to be investigated. Typical examples from the letters written, to the Commissioner are as follows. One writer refers to the outrageous and brutal behaviour of the police in Piccadilly Circus. Another says: I witnessed police intelligence that only bears comparison with that of the sub-humans of the second ice age. A third says that the "police were mad"; and a fourth that innocent people were pushed, kicked and ridden down with horses and that young girls, old ladies and young boys were lying unconscious on the pavement, while the police arrested anyone who tried to aid them.

§ Mr. Silverman
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that those charges are indefinite?

§ Sir S. Hoare
I do. In all former cases the complaints received have been sufficiently definite to base investigations upon them and to inquire into the particular police against whom complaints have been made. Here, so far as I understand, no complaints have been made against individual policemen, and neither the Commissioner nor I have been given 1512 the name or number of any individual constable. In former cases of the kind we have always been given information of that kind. Secondly, there were 51 prosecutions in open court, with evidence taken on oath, and there were 47 convictions for various offences. Then I come to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silver-man) and find that various injuries are said to have been inflicted upon various individuals. It is a fact that three cases, so my information goes to show, were brought to our notice. Two of the cases were of men. One of the men was drunk and the complaint was dismissed. In another case there was found to be no foundation for the complaint. The case of the lady which the hon. Member quoted was, I think, the case of Miss Joyce Lee, who, I regret to find, is a constituent of mine. She was seen in Abingdon Street being picked up from the edge of the double curb against the upper one of which, it appeared, she had struck her head. She was seen to be bleeding from a cut over the right eye. When medical assistance was offered, she shouted "Arms for Spain," and rushed away into the crowd.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

§ Sir S. Hoare
Yes, I do. Does she deny it? It was subsequently ascertained that she attended Westminster Hospital where she was treated for a cut over the eye, and she alleged that the injury was due to the action of the police. That is the only case of injury that has come to our notice. I cannot help thinking that if there had been cases of men and women bludgeoned by truncheons we should inevitably have had complaints. We have not had a single complaint until to-night. No hospital in London, so far as I gather, treated any case of this kind.

§ Mr. Silverman
Here you have a case where a woman is admitted by both sides to have been injured. She gives one account of how she came to be injured. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has obtained another, and a quite different account of how the injury was caused. Could there be a clearer case for inquiry and for witnesses on both sides to be confronted with one another and cross-examined?

§ Sir S. Hoare
The hon. Gentleman's interruption has confirmed me in the view 1513 I am about to express. I was coming to the complaints that have been made by the hon. Member and others of his hon. Friends this evening. I desire to point out to the House that this is the first time that I have heard the details of these cases. Why have I not received them before? In former cases it has always been the practice—I do not mind who was Home Secretary—for the Home Secretary to be given information before cases of this kind are brought to the House. I am prepared to investigate cases of that kind but I am not prepared to accept them without investigation, and I express my regret that I was not given notice of them before.

§ Sir S. Cripps
When the right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to investigate them, does that mean to send the police to investigate them?

§ Sir S. Hoare
No.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what means he intends to use?

§ Sir S. Hoare
Let me continue my comments upon the proceedings of 31st January. It is quite obvious from the account which I have given that it was a carefully organised demonstration, so organised that it was almost certain to lead to trouble in the streets—this picketing of the House of Commons, this prearranged demonstration in Piccadilly Circus just at the busiest moment of traffic in the evening; and I can well understand in the confusion that was bound to take place in conditions of this kind that many people honestly believed that things were going on that were not going on. That inevitably happens in conditions of this kind, but I am satisfied, and my information comes not exclusively from the police, that throughout this very difficult evening the police behaved with great restraint. I claim that I am supported in stating that to the House by the evidence I have just given to the House, namely, that no complaints in detail were sent either to the Commissioner or to me, that cases which came before the courts were decided against the people who took part in these demonstrations, and that only this one case of injury was treated in any London hospital.
Lastly, I say to the House that it is impossible that any Home Secretary, at a few minutes' notice, hearing for the first 1514 time the details of cases that may or may not be true, should agree to an inquiry of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne into the conduct of the police when he is convinced himself that the conduct of the police was exemplary; but standing as I do here, and hearing the cases as they have been put to me, I will say to hon. Members opposite that whilst I am not prepared to grant a public inquiry I am prepared to look into these cases myself if hon. Members will give me the details. I am prepared, if necessary, to see some of the complainants myself, and if I then find that there is a case for further investigation it will be my duty to order it, but as things are now I hope I have convinced the great majority of hon. Members that there is no case at present for any such inquiry and no justification at present for the charges which have been made against the police.

§ Sir S. Cripps
As far as I am concerned I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Is he prepared either personally or through his Under-Secretary to interview any persons sent to him by those who have brought this matter forward and who are considered worthy of his interest; that is to say, if we select a dozen or fifteen people whom we believe to be reliable people and worth his interviewing will he or his Under-Secretary personally interview those persons?

§ Sir S. Hoare
I could not give so wide an undertaking in reply to the hon. and learned Member's request, but I will see how far I can go.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I would press the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. He has tentatively, at least, said that he would make some inquiry. While we are grateful to him for the distance he has gone, what we are anxious to know is what that inquiry is going to be. If it is going to be an inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary we are quite prepared that this should be the preliminary stage; and if as a result he thinks some public inquiry ought to be held we know that he will say that a public inquiry should be held. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman should get the first-hand evidence and not have it investigated by somebody else, unless that is somebody who is outside the police. [An HON.
1515 MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the police force are those who are accused in this matter and, however reliable they may be, quite clearly they cannot be the people to investigate it. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that a limited number of people who are put forward for the purposes of this investigation would be seen either by himself or by his Under-secretary?

§ Sir S. Hoare
I must see the actual proposals, but I can tell the hon. and learned Member that when I said I would make an inquiry myself I meant an inquiry of that kind.

§ Major Procter
If my right hon. Friend inquires into these events will he see in what way the people can be protected against the annoyance and the nuisance of large crowds of people going about the streets at night in this way interfering with individual liberty? Will he see whether these processions can be cut into sections so that the traffic can get through and whether they will obey the traffic lights?

§ Mr. Gallacher
Before saying a word or two about the "carefully prepared demonstration" I would like to clear away two illusions that seem to exist. An hon. Member at the back spoke about a fishing inquiry, but he did a bit of fishing himself and caught a red herirng which he seemed to consider represented the weak argument in our case. He asked, and the Home Secretary took it up, that if batons had been used, where were the hospital cases? I can tell the hon. Member and the Home Secretary that I have been attacked by half a dozen police and my head has been opened in several places. I have been soaked with blood as a consequence, but I never went near a hospital. I have seen dozens of people with blood pouring from their heads and they never went near a hospital. It is an utter illusion to think that when batons are used and heads are split and blood is flowing, people go to hospitals. They go to the nearest friend, get their heads bandaged and carry on.
The other illusion relates to so many people having been taken to court, where 47 were convicted of obstruction and 1516 other offences, as the Home Secretary said; but whenever there is a demonstration of a like character it is the easiest thing in the world to get the ordinary magistrate to give a verdict against the demonstrators and in favour of the police. In the case to which I referred, and in which I was attacked by half-a-dozen police and knocked all over the place so that I was completely soaked with blood, I was arrested and given three months for assaulting the police. It is in the records. I heard the police come into the witness box under oath and tell stories that beat anything that ever appeared from Hans Andersen or Grimm's fairy stories. As a matter of fact, when I came out of prison and visited a certain centre in England, I came along the platform of the station where a lot of the local lads were standing. I was looking at some of their badges but they were looking over my head. Then I took the opportunity of asking whether they were waiting for me. They asked me who I was. I told them, and they gazed at me in consternation. All the time they had been looking up; they had been looking for some sort of Goliath; they had been reading the police evidence. If you get that evidence, which was given in court, you will see that according to it I was knocking big, heavy policemen about like ninepins. Therefore, it is an illusion to think that, because batons are used, there must be hospital cases; it is an illusion to think that, because there were 47 convictions, the police were correct. If it were a question of myself or anyone else trying to make a case against the police, we should have to go round and try to get witnesses and evidence, and find out who the policemen were, and it would be very difficult to make a case.
In the ordinary way, if something happens, we have to take as lenient a view of it as possible. We know that as a rule the police do not like demonstrations, because it means more work for them; it means their being continually on the move. I have been responsible for organising all kinds of demonstrations in Glasgow, and the police never liked to be given the extra work that followed as a consequence. The fact that they did not like the demonstrations and the extra work made them irritable; they are human, though possibly the Home Secretary will tell us that a policeman could not get irritable. We do not mind the irritation; 1517 we quite understand, and, if there is a bit of trouble now and again, we do not make a noise about it. This, however, is not a question of that kind, but one where there are actual accusations of brutality. There was a queue outside, and several people, after it was over, got into the Lobby. A lady who spoke to me in the Lobby came from a constituency in Leeds, having come here to see her Member. She was a Conservative; I have her name and a letter she sent me; and she spoke to me as a result of what she had experienced. The body of people who got into the queue was attacked and broken up, and allegations were made of very great brutality.
That is what we are concerned about, not about the conduct of the average policeman. I have been in all kinds of demonstrations that went through without trouble, and I have been in others that have been broken up with all kinds of fighting with the police, or attacks by the police. That sort of thing can be understood. But here is a case where brutality of a quite unnecessary and violent character is alleged against the police. It is not the ordinary police that are responsible. Some of the leading people in official positions in the police here in London have time and again been shown to be favourable to Fascism, and definitely opposed to Left-Wing demonstrations. Take some of the generals and commanders that are in this House, men who move in the same social circle as the leading officials of the police. Take their attitude on any question that can be described as a "Red" question or a "Red" demonstration. They are ready at any time to show the utmost violence towards it. One can understand, when one sees the reaction of the Members of this House who move in the same social circles as many of these police chiefs in London, what the attitude of these police chiefs towards demonstrations is. Somehow "Red" demonstrations seem to be unlawful in themselves, while Tory demonstrations are quite all right. As long as it is Tory demonstration, in favour of the Prime Minister and the National Government, God bless it, whether it stops the traffic or not. But if it is a demonstration against the Prime Minister and the National Government, anything can happen to it, and every kind of excuse is made.
1518 Here is what the Home Secretary calls a carefully planned demonstration. May I inform him that all our demonstrations are carefully planned and carefully organised, and never at any time has one of our demonstrations caused trouble to anyone unless it has been broken up by the police? I remember a demonstration in Glasgow over which there was a lot of trouble. We were having a demonstration the following week, to protest against that demonstration being broken up. The Sheriff Fiscal sent for me. I went to the Sheriff's office and had a talk with the Fiscal. He said, "Why cannot you run a demonstration without trouble?" I said, "We have had lots of demonstrations; we have had 50,000 or 80,000 people in the streets of Glasgow, without the slightest trouble. We will run a demonstration any day of the week, and if you keep the policemen in the background there will not be the slightest possibility of trouble." We can organise demonstrations and carry them through without any trouble.
I was at a big demonstration in Sheffield, and we marched through the streets to end up at the City Hall, and there was not a policeman to be seen anywhere. The Chief Constable of Sheffield was of opinion that the Communists of Sheffield were quite capable of organising and taking care of the demonstration. It is many of the chiefs of police, and not the policemen themselves, who have the—what was the Home Secretary's term?—"jitterbugs" whenever there is a "Red" demonstration proposed. We decided to have a demonstration down here. We organised it at Chenies Street. There is an order that there shall be no marching within a mile of the House of Commons, so there was no marching. Have the people a right to gather outside this House? I ask the Home Secretary, did the citizens of London gather outside here some time ago? After the Munich affair? The place was black with them. But they were cheering the Prime Minister.

§ Sir S. Hoare
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Gallacher
They have the blessing of the Home Secretary. If the generals and commanders were here, they would have their blessing as well. Nice respectable citizens, mistakenly applauding the Prime Minister and the National Government, are allowed to gather in front of 1519 the House of Commons; but working-class people who are prepared to take a stand against the Prime Minister and the National Government are classified as "Red" and that is sufficient to warrant any kind of treatment. Why did not they drive the crowd away when they were cheering the Prime Minister?—[An HON. MEMBER: "It wasn't organised."]—They came down in masses for the specific, concerted, purpose of supporting the National Government. And these other people came down to Parliament Square for the specific purpose of opposing the National Government. But it seems that while it is permissible to come down to demonstrate in favour of the National Government, it is a different thing to come down against them.
The demonstration was carefully organised, and there was no need whatever for police interference, and no need for police brutality, and the very allegations of brutality that have been made are sufficient justification for an inquiry. The Home Secretary says that the noise was so loud—it is a terrible thing to have noise outside this House—that some Members went out to see what was the matter. Well, I challenge the Home Secretary. I challenge those who talk so glibly about preserving the right of Members to go to 1520 and fro on their duties in the House of Commons, to produce one Member of the House who that night, was affected in any way, either going to or coming from the House of Commons. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman cannot. This is only raising a superficial bogy.
These people were quite justified in demonstrating their hostility to the National Government, and there was no need to interfere with them while they were doing that. The charge against the police is made from many sources. I have met many of the people who are affected, and I have had letters, and in view of the whole circumstances of the treatment of the public on that occasion I would support the demand that the Home Secretary should grant a full inquiry. The police themselves deserve it as a right in view of the fact that the allegations are made, and certainly the public are entitled to an inquiry in order to be satisfied that when they demonstrate they can do so with full confidence that the police—who are supposed to protect the rights of the citizens—will not be allowed to use any brutality towards them.