LORD TEYNHAMasked Her Majesty's Government whether they were aware that a serious disturbance took place at a Church Defence Meeting at St. James's Hall on Monday 24th ultimo; whether Inspector Shannon, of the C Division, who was in charge of police outside the building, was informed that a breach of the peace had been committed; whether his refusal to interfere constituted a neglect of duty; and 1716 whether, if not, the Government would give such instructions as would insure the prevention of similar disturbances in future. He begged for that indulgence, in the brief remarks he had to make, which their Lordships were always good enough to extend to Members of their House in addressing it for the first time. No doubt, the Notice he had placed on the Paper had rather the flavour of another place, and the question might, perhaps, have been better put by a Member of the House of Commons to the Home Secretary, but for the fact that the interview with Inspector Shannon mentioned took place with a Member of their Lordships' House. Probably some of their Lordships had read the newspaper accounts of the meeting, which, though not very accurate, gave some kind of description of what occurred, and it would, therefore, be unnecessary for him to go into the matter in any detail. The entire proceedings were well described in a letter written by Mr. Boscawen to The Times, in which he stated that it was one of the most disorderly and disgraceful scenes that had probably occurred in this country for many years. Before the disorder had reached its climax, and while a few isolated fights were going on, he left the meeting in search of the guardians of the peace, and found standing outside, in front of the building, Inspector Shannon and two constables. They did not appear to be doing anything in particular there, and he mildly suggested to them that they might as well be inside the hall as out, considering what was going on within. He, in fact, briefly told them that a disturbance, amounting to fighting, was going on in the hall. A gentleman also came up and told them the same thing. The Inspector airily replied that it was "no business of his; that it was our meeting, and that we must turn the disturbers out." He endeavoured to overcome the Inspector's objection, suggesting that even if he did not see his way to active interference, he might, at any rate, by his presence show that he disapproved of the proceedings inside the hall. But his appeals were in vain, and the disturbance and fighting went on. He would like to ask why the police were there at all, and to hear whether the Chief Commissioner had informed Her Majesty's 1717 Government why three police officers were placed outside the building like so many wooden sentinels? They were certainly not regulating the traffic. On returning to the hall he found matters a good deal worse than when he had left. The chairman had left, apparently in disgust, and the remainder of the occupants of the platform, including several Peers, two Bishops, and three Canons, were standing up, unwilling spectators of a "free tight" going on below. He maintained that that disturbance need not have taken place if the police had done their duty; and he believed they would have done their duty on this and on other similar occasions when they had in the same way so lamentably failed in performing it if they had believed that they had the Government at their back, and if there was not at the present time an impression abroad that the Government rather favoured a riot than otherwise. He believed he should not be contradicted in saying that the meeting at St. James's Hall, on the 24th April, was a disgrace to London. But it had one satisfactory aspect — that violent and shameless display of Gladstonian dissent and agnosticism had surely driven the nails still further into the coffin of a very sick Government far more effectively than any successful meeting could have done. However, that did not affect the matter he had ventured to bring before their Lordships' House—namely, that the police had failed to act when called upon and told that a disturbance, amounting to fighting, was going on upon this occasion. That, he submitted, was a matter which certainly called for the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD VERNONMy Lords, the meeting to which the noble Lord calls our attention this evening seems to have been a very extraordinary one for a meeting called by the Church Defence Association. But, to start with, I will tell your Lordships what the orders of the police are. They are under orders, and they are bound to obey their orders. Their strict orders are that they are—
Not to enter or interfere within a building unless called upon to suppress an actual breach of the peace, or to take into custody any person charged by another with committing an offence of which the police can take legal cognizance.1718 Now, the police were in sufficient force outside the building to prevent any disturbance outside, and they would have entered the hall if a definite charge of a breach of the peace had been made. The Inspector, when appealed to by the Rev. C. Dixon, who, it seems, had, with others, more or loss the management of this meeting, to enter the building, explained that he could not do so unless they could make a definite charge of a breach of the peace against an individual or individuals, and asked the rev. gentleman whether he would make a charge of committing a breach of the peace. The rev. gentleman said—" No, but it may occur." Under those circumstances the police could not interfere, and they acted as they invariably do on such occasions. I may tell the noble Lord there have been many precedents of this sort at public meetings, and the police have never been allowed to enter a building. They acted here in accordance with the orders they have received, and I think they would have been very much to blame if they had entered the building unless they had good reason to do so.
*LORD BALFOURI should be very sorry to add any fuel to this conflict, but I can give your Lordships some information of what occurred, as I was present myself as a spectator. I took no part in the meeting, but being interested in the question, and I attended the meeting for the purpose of seeing how meetings of this kind were conducted in London. It has been my unfortunate lot to be present at many political meetings, and I can appreciate the difference between organised rowdyism and the fair and reasonable interruptions of those who do not happen to agree with the speakers. I think that when we hold public meetings it is better that they should not be wholly unanimous, and in entire agreement with us. I think all your Lordships will agree in that expression of opinion, provided the opposition which takes place is reasonably fair. If this opposition had been fair and reasonable and had not taken the form of an organised attempt absolutely to put a stop to the meeting I should not have risen. As I have said, I have seen many of these meetings; but I have never in my experience been present on an occasion on which I could 1719 say with such confidence that the disturbance had been deliberately organised and carefully prepared beforehand. The persons who interrupted were assembled together in one part of the hall. I and a friend estimated them at the time as between 200 and 250, an estimate which has received curious confirmation from the fact that, as I am informed, 226 forged tickets have been discovered. The disturbance was wholly beyond anything reasonable and fair, and was, as I have said, obviously organised. The persons leading the disturbers were, as far as I could see, in clerical dress. Whether they were really clerical persons or were only masquerading in clerical dress, I cannot, of course, say; but most assuredly those who took the most prominent part in the disturbance were dressed in black coats and white ties. So far, my evidence as an eye-witness of the proceedings at this meeting will be good. As to the question whether the police were right or wrong in not interfering at the time they were asked to interfere, I am unable to express an opinion; but I assure the noble Lord who represents the Home Office in this House that before the meeting concluded there was a most serious disturbance. It seemed to me as if there was an organised attempt to take possession of the platform, but the attempt was not successful, and after a good deal of singing and a good deal more shouting the hall was cleared. My Lords, I should like, in one last word, to enter my very earnest protest against a system which seems to be growing up and becoming more frequent in its occurrence than it was formerly. I see by the newspapers that a serious disturbance took place last night, in another part of the Metropolis. at a meeting held to protest against one of the Government measures. I do not care on which side a meeting is to be held, but my protest is this: I deprecate disturbance, whether on one side or on the other side. It seems to me, if we are to be governed, as to a great extent we are being governed, by public meeting, freedom of speech is one of the first necessities; and I earnestly make appeal to noble Lords, and to those having authority on both sides, to express the strong detestation which I believe they hold of organised attempts to interrupt and disturb free discussion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI observe that this is one of the policies on which Her Majesty's Government prefer to maintain silence. There is, I believe, a very touching and impressive ceremony in the Roman Catholic Church by which the Pope closes the mouths of those whom he intends to rule the Church. My impression is, our Pope must have exercised that ceremony over noble Lords opposite, whom he has intended for the rule of this country. But I do not wish to disturb that silence, and I have no doubt they will maintain it; but I do wish to direct the attention of the noble Earl opposite to the extraordinary picture of police regulation which has been presented to our contemplation. As I understand, when there is likely to be a row at a meeting, the Commissioner of Police carefully sends down a large number of the Force to the place of meeting, but they are forbidden to enter the building, and they stay on the pavement outside meditating philosophically on the row going on inside. The only means by which they can be drawn from this philosophic attitude is by someone coming out and giving the precise name and designation of the person who is making the "row." I do not know whether any other descriptions or designations are required—whether you are required to give a description of the person of the individual as you do in a passport, or the particulars of his birth, parentage, and education—but, at all events, you have to give the name, and to indicate the position of the person who is making the row. I have been at public meetings at which there have been rows, and I cannot imagine how it is possible for anyone at a distance, in a large hall often imperfectly lighted, in the row made by the interrupters, who are generally standing back under a gallery, not only to be able to single out the man who is making a row, but to single him so perfectly as to be able to describe his position and appearance, and, as I understand, also give his name to the Inspector of Police. And, unless this is done, the Inspector of Police declines to depart from that perfectly neutral and Epicurean attitude which has been assigned to him outside the hall. I can hardly think this is a model arrangement for the police of a great Metropolis.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)The noble Marquess has given a very amusing description of what he supposes to be the orders of the police. I imagine that they are those which I have understood for many years to be the orders of the police throughout the country. For many years the police have had orders that they are not to interfere at public meetings unless there is likely to be a breach of the peace. I understand the noble Lord who spoke previously to say that there was a great deal of singing and shouting at this meeting; but the police could not be expected to interfere unless there was something more than that. The noble Marquess would not wish the police to come in and put an end to that. Then there was an attempt made, it is said, to carry the platform; but unless there was some breach of the peace committed in doing it the police could not interfere. They would, of course, have interfered had that been the case.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYStorming the platform was, I think, very much a breach of the peace.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI understand from the noble Marquess there was some attempt of the kind; but it does not appear to have been very serious from his description of it. At any rate, there seems to have been a very considerable row; but it apparently did not amount to a breach of the peace. I apprehend that the orders to the police are well known, and I think everybody will approve of those orders, that they are only to interfere if there is positive disturbance, and, in fact, that they are not to interfere with a meeting unless a serious breach of the peace is likely to occur. No one would approve of the police going into a political meeting where there was merely the possibility of a little disturbance. All the public have a right to demand is that if a serious breach of the peace is likely to occur the police will afford the protection it is their duty to afford. If that was likely to occur on this occasion and they did not afford protection it seems to me they did not do their duty. I must add that I know nothing of the matter beyond what I have learned in this House and what I have seen in the newspapers. 1722 I have no reason to believe that the police neglected their duty, and I should be rather surprised to hear that the Metropolitan Police, who generally perform their duty very well, do not understand their duty sufficiently well to deal with circumstances such as have been described, or were unwilling to perform it on this occasion. The noble Lord who spoke before the noble Marquess (Lord Balfour) disapproved the violent, interruption of public meetings, and I suppose everyone will admit such violent interruption is extremely undesirable. At the same time, I must point out that this is not the first time that has occurred, and I have no doubt noble Lords in their own neighbourhoods have often found that violent quarrels have taken place in public meetings. I have often heard that on these occasions a certain class of persons is employed who are usually called, I believe, "chuckers-out." They are persons hired for the purpose of ejecting people who may too loudly differ from the opinions of the promoters of the meeting. That is not a practice to be at all encouraged, and I hope that on neither side in politics will such a practice obtain in future. The more peacefully these meetings are conducted the more creditable it will be to the persons who attend them. But I would venture to point out to noble Lords that, according to the precedents we have had, we can hardly expect to find that political meetings will be attended with complete quiet and tranquillity; and now and then scenes will, no doubt, occur which we must all deplore and deprecate most strongly.
§ LORD HALSBURYI would only call attention to one word which has escaped the noble Earl. Does the noble Earl adhere to the word he used, I suppose inadvertently, that it is not the duty of the police to interfere unless they apprehend a "serious" breach of the peace?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThe word "serious" may, of course, be variously interpreted. What I meant was that there must really be a serious disturbance amounting to a breach of the peace. I am obliged to the noble Lord for calling my attention to the word "serious."
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI was about to rise to obtain a precise 1723 interpretation of the noble Earl's language on that point. Am I to understand him to lay down that if a number of gentlemen in black waistcoats and white ties storm, or attempt to storm, a platform that does not involve a breach of the peace?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI do not understand that they did storm the platform. I understood from my noble Friend that some mild attempt of the kind was made—some small movement towards the platform. If they had stormed the platform I quite agree that that would have been a breach of the peace.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWill the noble Marquess define what he means by the words "storming a platform?"
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYSomething in the nature of a forlorn hope I have no doubt. But might I ask the noble Earl whether the orders of the police will be laid on the Table?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYIf the noble Marquess will put the question on the Paper for some other night, no doubt my noble Friend will communicate with the Home Office.