RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 29 June 1893)

LORD TEYNHAM

asked Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been drawn to a Report published in The Daily News of 21st June, in which it was stated that a man was forcibly ejected by the police from a public meeting, held on the previous day at Exeter Hall, for interrupting the proceedings; and whether the action of the police in so doing was not contrary to the prescribed practice; and to move— That the regulations affecting the conduct of police officers at public meetings be laid on the Table of the House. He reminded their Lordships that last month he brought the case of a disturbance at a meeting at St. James's Hall before the House, when the police did not think it their duty to interfere although told that a conflict was going on within the Hall, and their inaction was defended on the ground that they had no right to interfere unless the offenders were given into custody for breach of the peace. Though at this meeting at Exeter Hall, which was also of a semi-political character, there was no disturbance and only oral interruption, the police did interfere. All he knew about the meeting was from what appeared in the Press, that it was held by a few fanatics of the Stead type to discuss the social evil in India. It was unanimous as to the existence of the evil, though one person disagreed with his fellow-fanatics as to the cure, and advocated some panacea of his own. He accordingly mounted the platform to move an amendment; but the chairman ruled him out of order, and he was requested to withdraw. He declined to leave, saying—"Not me; not without I'm chucked." Then an Inspector of Police and two constables appeared upon the scene, and, after an exciting struggle, he was rolled off the platform and removed, but not taken into custody. According to Lord Vernon's statement on the last occasion 324 as to the Police Orders, if the police could not take the man into custody, what were they doing there at all? No breach of the peace had occurred, no storming of the platform, no "forlorn hope"; and, in fact, the police really acted as the private chuckers-out of the chairman. This was in strong contrast to the other case, where a serious disturbance happened, and they refused to interfere when appealed to. Those two instances did not stand alone, and frequent complaints had been made of the action or inaction of the police at public meetings. No doubt they did their duty to the best of their ability; but it was clear that great uncertainty existed in the force as to what their duty was.

LORD VERNON

said, he could add very little to his reply the other day, that it was the duty of the police to regulate traffic and to prevent obstruction at the entrance of buildings where meetings were being held; but that it was no part of their duty to enter buildings and take persons into custody unless an actual breach of the peace had occurred. It was for noble and learned Lords to say if a breach of the peace had taken place. He was informed that the gentleman in question was upon the platform using language so un parliamentary that he could not repeat it. Being requested to leave the platform he declined to go, and held on to the railings. The stewards were trying to draw him from the platform, and in the course of the struggle he kicked the secretary. The police were then called in, and, an Inspector having touched him upon the shoulder, he walked quietly out of the building, and, therefore, had not to be forcibly ejected. He had on a previous occasion informed the noble Lord that he could not place the Police Regulations upon the Table.