§ EARL RUSSELL had the following Notice on the Paper—
§ To call attention to the rioting in Hackney, and to ask what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to maintain order in London.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I first put this Question down, some months ago, there had been a meeting at a place called the Brotherhood Chapel in South-gate-road, Hackney, which had been 737 attended with rather deplorable incidents of rioting. There was a good deal of damage to persons and property, and the Police did not appear on that occasion to have been very successful in keeping order, which, after all, is their primary function. Had I raised the matter then, I might have had to ask the noble Viscount to give some explanation of that apparent laxity on the part of the Police.
§ But since then there has been another meeting at the same place, and I am given to understand that on this occasion the Police, warned apparently by their previous failure, did adopt rather stringent measures. I am told that they drew a cordon round the entire building, and allowed to pass through the cordon only those who were proposing to attend the meeting, and they hoped, and I am quite willing to believe thought, that in this way they would avoid rioting. They did not succeed, because, I suppose, they had no means of knowing who was friend and who was foe; and there was, in fact, rioting on the second occasion, accompanied by incendiary conflagration of a portion of the chapel. On the first occasion, although a good many people were knocked about and injured, the Police only succeeded in presenting one case to the magistrates of a person guilty of disorderly conduct. That person was fined some small sum, on the general excuse that one could not expect public opinion to be too tender of a pacifist meeting. It is, I think, important for the Government to remember that they are responsible for impartially keeping order in London as between all parties. I am sure the Government do not themselves lose sight of that; and it would be unfortunate if the Executive, in the form of the Police, were to get into their heads anything in the shape of an idea that rioting can be allowed at a meeting which is not looked upon with favour by the Government, although it would be prohibited in the case of a meeting attended by a member of the Government.
§ There are a number of questions that I wish to ask the noble Viscount which do not appear upon the Paper. And let me say at once that I blame myself, and not the noble Viscount, if he is unable to give an answer to those questions to-day. I am told, and I believe it to be a fact, that the riots on the first occasion—I am not sure about the second occasion—were a combined affair; that in the public houses at Hoxton there appeared a printed notice 738 inciting people to go and create disturbances; and that there is a combination of persons, whose headquarters are connected with the. Daily Express newspaper, who incite people to break up these meetings. If so, there was an illegal conspiracy; and there is a duty upon the Government to discover the authors and to put a stop to these illegal incitements to riot. I am told, further, that leaflets and pamphlets have been published which do not bear the imprint of any printer, which is also a punishable offence. In other and different cases pamphlets and leaflets not bearing the imprint of the printer have been dealt with by the authorities. I think, if I may say so, that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and the same energy should be exercised in discovering the authors of these anonymous leaflets and pamphlets as was exercised in the other cases to which I have alluded. If the noble Viscount is not able to deal with the subject of the leaflets to-day—if he is not aware of it—of course I will not press the matter, but will simply ask him the question and leave it to him. I do not wish to make any complaint to-day of the conduct of the Police, because one must admit that an honest effort was made by them, on the second occasion of this unpopular meeting, to avoid anything in the nature of public disorder. I only wish to ask my question about those who incited to violence, and about the anonymous leaflets which are in themselves an offence.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTMy Lords, I am sorry to say, the questions not having appeared upon the Order Paper, that I am unable to give the noble Earl any information with regard to the collection of people at Hoxton or the leaflets to which he has referred. I think the first disturbance to which he alluded has been the subject of a debate in another place. At any rate, the matter has been raised there—
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTIt is ancient history, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. The two disturbances have been correctly described by the noble Earl opposite as having taken place. The strain on the Police, as he knows very well, is extremely severe, a large number having gone on foreign service or been given 739 employment in various other ways. This being so, after the second occurrence, the Home Secretary decided that, as meetings of this kind appeared likely to lead to breaches of the peace, some freer use should be made of the power to prohibit them under 9A of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Accordingly, when notice was given that a similar meeting was to be held—on, I think, October 21—the Secretary of State made an Order prohibiting that meeting. The noble Earl and your Lordships will clearly understand that the Secretary of State's action involves no suppression of freedom of thought or of freedom of speech. The object is to render the maintenance of public order a task which the existing Police force may be capable of carrying out without neglecting the other multitudinous duties which are incumbent upon them.
The noble Earl, in his speech, made sonic comments adverse to the Police. I would only say that it not infrequently happens that the Police are blamed for being over-zealous, while on another occasion it is said that their activities are inadequate to the circumstances. A good deal was said and written about this particular occurrence, but I am sure that whatever was said or written would not shake the confidence of the public in that admirable force. As I have said, I am unable to answer the full questions of the noble Earl, but I will make inquiries at the Home Office and bear the matter in mind.
EARL RUSSELLPerhaps the noble Viscount will not mind my saying, in reply, that I must not be taken in any way to accept what I think is the rather dangerous doctrine that he has laid down—namely, that a meeting of the character in question is to be suppressed because the Police are not able to keep order. I might approve of that doctrine if I found it equally applied at disturbed meetings held, say, by Mr. Lloyd George and the Glasgow munition workers. But it seems to me on the face of it to be rather a dangerous doctrine.