48 .-

 amount put in by the Superintendent of Works -for all roads. Therefore,
 we have no money-this year to complete this work. The Superintendent of
 Works has, however, reinserted the arffount in his draft Estifmates for 1951
 under repairs of streets in Kingstown.
 12. Government having stated in reply to my-question in December, 1949, that
 the people of this Colony come under the provisions of the Atlantic
 Charter with regard to Freedom of Religious Worship, will Government
 please say if that .includes the right to establish a religion of their own?
 Reply: Yes, but that does not preclude the right of a- Government, in what it
 .considers the best interests of law and, oider, public health and morality,
 to prohibit cults which may be subversive of such interests.
 -13. Is Government aware of the fact that the Spiritual Baptists held their.
 patronal feast in Georgetown last year (1949) and was given police
 protection by the then Superintendent of Police, Major D. S. Cozier? .
S Reply: A procession was held in Georgetown on the 26th June, 1949. About 2000
 men and women attended, women dressed in blue skirts and white o prors
 with white skull caps and men in.loose whiti robes. The majority of those
 taking part were openly declared by all bystanders to be Shakers ". The
 police did-accompany the procession, but in this.instance, as in the case of
 all processions, the-police ,were impartial guardians of law arid-order, whose
 duty was to prevent breaches of the peace, either. by the persons taking'
 part in the procession, or-by other persons who might be opposed to the
 procession. They in no sense acted as protectors of the procession.
 14. Will Governiment please state why these religionists were prevented from
 holdihg a similar-procession this year?
 Reply: Application by letter dated the 19th June, 1950, signed by a Mr. McDonald
 Williams, describing himself as a pastor" of 'f Spiritual Baptists ", was
 .received, for a procession through the streets of Kingstow- f6r 2 hours on
 the 25th June, 1950. Nothing was known, of this group except that they
 were commonly accepted as "Shakers". The 'application was refused on
 the grounds that an unorganised body of personss sought to take charge of
 the streets of Kingstown foi 2 hours for unspecified purposes.:Furthermore,
 -as. this group was openly declared to be "Shakers operating under
 another title, there was reason to apprehend a breach of the peace, namely
 that a Shakers Meeting as forbidden by law, might arise'.
 15. Will Government lease quote the law under which the Superifltendeit of
 Police acted in preventing this Religious Body-from carrying on a peaceful,
 procession, and say whether the Crown Law Officer was consulted-in the
 step taken to suppress religious freedom in this case, by preventing a
 peaceful' religious procession?
 S Reply: All processions, religious or otherwise, are subject to the control of the
 Police as long as the public highway is used. Any control so imposed is not
 the suppression of religious freedom, but merely intended to preserve law
 and order. There is authority for this control in both Ancient Law 'and
 Case Law e.g.--
 SIn. the case of Winterbottbin vs. Lord Derby, 1-867, it was- held, that a
 person cannot insist on. his right to a highway. Police are guardians of
 highways arid byways and have power to close roads. .


- ''**'