Mr. E. Forbes Lankester has sent us, too late for
publication, a long letter showing that in the case of " McClenaghan v. Waters," it was assumed (rather than decided) by the Court of Queen's Bench that the police have no right to put down a pro- cession which is intrinsically lawful, and that the public may resist by force any attempt to put down such a procession, without being liable for any breach of the law by so doing. Unquestionably, if the case had been argued and decided on this issue, it would be a decision quite opposed in principle to that of Mr. Justice Stephen. But the case was not argued, and all that we can say at present is that Mr. Justice Stephen's decision is opposed to the legal assumption of Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice Field, and also, apparently, of Mr; Arthur Charles, now Mr. Justice Charles, in "MoClenaghan v. Waters." When we wrote last week, we had not this case in view, which undoubtedly bears in a very important sense upon the situation, and, so far as it goes, tends to overthrow Mr. Justice Stephen's decision. Still, we rely more on the deliberate decision of Mr. Justice Stephen than on the virtual assumption of Lord Coleridge, Mr. Justice Field, and Mr. Justice Charles. If Mr. Justice Stephen is wrong, the police have a bad look-out for the future.
Previous page
