PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— MEETING IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE, JULY 14. (Hansard, 16 July 1888)

§ MR. CONYBEARE
, Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, rose 1417 in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the violent attacks made by the Metropolitan Police upon peaceable and unoffending persons in Trafalgar Square on the afternoons of Saturday the 30th June, and Saturday the 14th instant.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have to say that there is on the Order Book of to-day a Bill dealing with Trafalgar Square, and the regulations for meetings there. At the same time, I must observe that any specific acts of' ill-treatment which the hon. Gentleman alleges to have been committed by anybody, he is at liberty to bring before the House if the House consents.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, that was precisely what he wished to do.

§ MR. SPEAKER
called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,

§ MR. CONYBEARE
, continuing, said, that it was the first duty of the Government to take some measures with the view of preventing what might, if they did not bestir themselves, result in scenes of bloodshed and danger to the Metropolis. The facts, which he felt it his duty to bring to the notice of the House, made it perfectly clear that it was not the peaceably disposed inhabitants who happened to gather in Trafalgar Square who were responsible for whatever might have taken place in the way of disorder, or who would be responsible for what might take place in the future. He had to complain that whenever they placed anything before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) on this subject, they were met with insolent flippancy. This flippancy was exceedingly ill-placed and ill-timed under the present circumstances, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to keep his moral miracles under control, he would be responsible for whatever scenes of bloodshed took place. These proceedings had resulted in an estrangement between the people and the police, which he should deeply regret if it 1418 were not desirable to enable the people of London to realize the odious tyranny which was being practised in Ireland. Sir Charles Warren had issued an illegal proclamation which required the police to assault, bully, and treat with violence everybody against whom they had a suspicion or a spite or a grudge.

§ MR. SPEAKER
reminded the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the specific cases on which the Adjournment of the House had been moved, and not go into general questions which were irrelevant to the subject of the Motion.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, that he was about to refer to what happened to himself on June 30. He was on the parapet in Trafalgar Square with his friend Mr. Saunders; there was no obstruction, but suddenly he saw a woman roughly used by the police, who made a rush on them with a view of dislodging persons from the parapet. They did not, however, touch Mr. Saunders or himself. These persons were perfectly justified in standing where they did. A gentleman named Borgia, who was also standing close to the parapet, was alleged to have said, "The police have insulted and assaulted a woman. Friends, will you stand this?" He believed it was a fact that Mr. Borgia did make a statement of that kind, but that did not justify the conduct of the police, who bore down upon him, two or three at a time, tore or wrenched his arms from the parapet, seized him by the collar and scratched his neck, which drew blood, had his coat torn off his back, and was otherwise illtreated. The hon. Member proceeded to read copious extracts from The Star and Lloyd's Newspaper, describing the occurrences and commenting in severe language upon the conduct of the police, and the arbitrary tactics of Sir Charles Warren. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) then went to Bow Street and asked for a summons. As the hon. Member was explaining the circumstances, and how he had been insulted, an Inspector of police outside remarked, "Serve him right." Even Londoners would soon learn to resent such conduct as that of the police on this occasion. If men, women, and children were struck without provocation by the police they were entitled to return the blows. The hon. 1419 Member for North-West Lanark had gone to the steps of Morley's Hotel and was supporting himself against the railings, when a rush of police was made at him, and he received a kick as he fell. The hon. Member, after reading extracts from Lloyd's Newspaper, said that these occurrences illustrated the indecent flippancy of the Home Secretary. He was in favour of suspending all meetings in the Square, so as to avoid all this disorder, which would before long result in something worse than disorder. But the Government would not suggest a reasonable solution of the matter. Mr. Saunders had written to the right hon. Gentleman, but no reply had been vouchsafed. All he asked was that proper control should be exercised over meetings, and he should be glad if facilities could be given for the discussion of the Bills on the question which was already before the House. But if the Government would not meet the matter in a fair and conciliatory spirit, and give an assurance that the police should act within the law, and not like Bashi-Bazouks, there would be scenes of disorder and bloodshed in Trafalgar Square, and he would take every opportunity of going to the Square, and would not hesitate to say whatever he could to make the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and Sir Charles Warren odious and detestable to the people of the country.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
, in seconding the Motion, said, that the speech of his hon. Friend showed that the people were getting warm. He was an onlooker in Trafalgar Square last Saturday, and saw Mr. Graham rushed off by about 40 policemen. They came behind him and pushed him at a run into the street. He saw Mr. Saunders rushed out in a similar manner. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know who took charge of Mr. Saunders in this affair, it was a sergeant of the G division, and his number was 13; he and about 20 others got possession of Mr. Saunders and rushed him into the street, and then Mr. Saunders very quietly and very wisely took a cab and went home. The Rev. Stewart Headlam was rushed off in the same way; but he was not so wise, for he very foolishly came back, when he was seized by three or four policemen and rushed out again. After having had his hat smashed and his 1420 clothes torn, he then wisely went home. He (Dr. Clark) thought it was time this sort of thing should cease. If the police crushed hats and tore coats others would follow their example. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would deal with the question in a practical spirit. If the meetings were illegal, the police should take proceedings against Mr. Saunders and Mr. Graham for a breach of the law. At first the police behaved well; they were chaffed, and they made good humoured replies; but after a time they got warm and lost their tempers. It was time that some one responsible for the police should prevent them from doing these illegal actions.

§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)
said, he did not wish to enter on the discursive questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), but he desired to raise his protest against the needless roughness of the police. As a witness of what took place in Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to the good conduct of the police at first, and their violence afterwards. Near a fountain he saw a miserable, ragged old man walking, when some remark was addressed to him by a constable. Something was said which he did not hear, and then he saw a burly constable plant his fist in the face of this old man and knock him down with a violent blow. He heard his head crack on the pavement. The old man rose, evidently dazed, and further altercation took place, and the man was arrested and taken off down Parliament Street. He (Mr. Hunter) should certainly have made an effort to be at the Police Court that day to say what he had seen, but as be had to attend certain Committees of the House he could not do so. A very violent assault was made on Saturday by a posse of police on a number of journalists and others who were standing on the steps of Morley's Hotel, which, he apprehended, was private property. The persons on the steps were perfectly quiet and peaceable, and for the police to go 1421 and assault them when they were standing on the steps of the hotel was an assault for which there could be no kind of justification. In all these cases it was very difficult to bring home to individual constables any proof of actual misconduct, but there were two policemen to whose conduct he invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. One was Constable 29 L, who assaulted four persons without any provocation. He had the names and addresses of these four persons who were assaulted under his own observation. Constable 9 LR. also made a most violent and altogether unprovoked assault upon two ladies at the corner of the Square. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that proper inquiry should be made into these cases. The great majority of the police behaved very well under the trying circumstances to which they were exposed. If the Government believed that the holding of meetings in the Square was a violation of the law, why did they not prosecute? The persons who held the meetings and spoke were perfectly well known, and he could not understand why they were not prosecuted. By his present action the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was demoralizing the police of London, and exciting in the minds of the people feelings of intense and bitter hostility towards the police. If the right hon. Gentleman would grant an inquiry, he would not vote for the Adjournment, which otherwise he would be compelled to do.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)
said, he could have wished that the whole of the debate had been conducted in the tone and temper which had been exhibited by the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter) who had just sat down. The hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House (Mr. Conybeare) certainly did not exhibit the same calmness of language, and, moreover, the hon. Member placed him in a position of some embarrassment as to the facts, which were at the present moment under judicial decision. The hon. Member alluded, for instance, to a case which had been twice adjourned. The whole matter was therefore sub judice, and it would hardly be proper for him to comment 1422 upon the facts of the case or to state what view he took of that particular transaction. In like manner, the case of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) had been referred to.

§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)
said, he had withdrawn those summonses, as he did not wish to appear invidious against men who were acting under orders. He had now applied for a warrant against Sir Charles Warren.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
said, that it would obviously be improper for him to express an opinion on the facts. One hon. Member who had spoken assumed that the police were necessarily in the wrong, and that the people were necessarily in the right, and it was demanded that the Government should make some inquiry in order to satisfy themselves as to the truth of the assertions. Now, it had been established by at least two decisions of superior Judges that there was no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square. That was the law of the land, and he, who respected the constituted Courts of the country, must accept it as final. He was sorry to say that some of the hon. Members who brought on debates of this kind were among the ringleaders of disorder. If they were not content with the decisions twice given by the Superior Courts of Law, the proper course for them to pursue would be that which had been taken by the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), who thought that this law ought to be altered by legislation, and that some machinery should be provided by which meetings in Trafalgar Square might take place lawfully and peaceably.

§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM
said, in self-justification, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he, as well as the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division, had introduced a Bill dealing with the same subject.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
said, he did not wish to do any injustice to the hon. Member. But was it a reasonable course that hon. Members, who ought to be the first persons to respect the law, should go Saturday after Saturday into Trafalgar Square and incite those wretched and ignorant men to disorder?

§ MR. CONYBEARE
rose amid loud cries of "Order!" when—

§ MR. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
continuing, said, that he also had received information from eye-witnesses and bystanders, and he learned from them that Mr. Saunders and the hon. Member for the Camborne Division were the persons who had done everything in their power to provoke conflicts.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
That is absolutely false; I was not in the Square on Saturday.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)
said, he wished to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that the hon. Member had stated that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated was absolutely false. He desired to know whether that language was Parliamentary?

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. Member used that expression, I hope he will withdraw it.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he would certainly withdraw it if he had said that of the right hon. Gentleman's words; but he said it with reference to a statement which the right hon. Gentleman had brought before the House from witnesses whom he did not name. He (Mr. Conybeare) had said that that statement was untrue, and so it was absolutely.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
said, he wished to repeat, in the face of the House of Commons, that Saturday after Saturday Gentlemen who ought to know better went to Trafalgar Square, where they were surrounded, of course, by a mob consisting partly of idle persons and partly of sightseers drawn there by curiosity; and these Gentlemen endeavoured to come as near holding a meeting as they could without violating the law. They held what they called a conversazione. One of them stood up and appeared to be about to make a speech. They occupied their leisure moments by jeering the police and hooting them without bringing themselves within the reach of a summons for holding a meeting. Having done their utmost to look like breaking the law and to provoke the police to disperse them, they came to the House of Commons and made statements which it was impossible to test with anything like accuracy and precision, because the statements were not made upon oath and were not liable to cross-examination. The hon. and learned Member 1424 for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) had brought two cases under his notice. That of the old man had, it seemed, been brought before the magistrate to-day. If the hon. Member had been present at the hearing and made his statement there it would have been much more to the purpose.

§ MR. HUNTER
said, he had explained that the reason he had not done so was that he had to attend a Committee of the House at half-past 11 o'clock.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
said, that the hon. Member might have asked for an adjournment of the case. Another case he mentioned was that of police-constable 29 L, who was said to have assaulted four persons whose names and addresses the hon. Member had. Well, every one of those four persons could bring a summons for assault, and the hon. Member's evidence would be available. He repeated that the law was now settled as regarded meetings in Trafalgar Square. He admitted, however, that it was quite regular and legitimate to bring in Bills on the subject. Gentlemen who ought to know the law and to know better incited ignorant persons to come into conflict with the police in the endeavour to heap discredit on the force and to evade the decisions of the Courts of Justice by which the law had been laid down. It was idle to endeavour by discussions in that House to raise a prejudice against the law and against the police, who were only acting in obedience to a proclamation which had been held by Courts of Law not to be illegal, and by highly coloured ex parte statements in the House to seek to raise a feeling against those charged with the administration of the law. If hon. Members thought the law was unjust, then their proper plan was to do as two hon. Members had already done, and bring in a Bill to amend it, and not to make wild, random charges against policemen who were engaged in carrying out orders which had been proved in Courts of Law to be legal.

§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said, that the question was not whether meetings in Trafalgar Square were statutably permitted or not, but whether under the proclamation Sir Charles Warren had the right to hinder them. Not only the hon. Member for the Camborne Division felt that there was a certain amount of arbitrary injustice in the action of the Police Authori- 1425 ties with respect to Trafalgar Square, but a large number of other persons felt aggrieved by the situation. The circumstances were not so clearly determined in law as the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make out. Mr. Saunders had endeavoured to bring a case before the Law Courts with a view to have a decision as to how the matter exactly stood, but the Solicitor to the Treasury had taken his stand upon a point of law and defeated that effort. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman as being responsible for the confidence felt in the police of London whether he would not take some step for the solution of the matter? If Sir Charles Warren was a strong man, and had the conviction of his position, he would allow some case to go forward so as to have the question decided in its full legal aspect. Sir Charles Warren should withdraw the proclamation prohibiting the meetings, and if they were an obstruction or disorderly he should prevent them. He would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give facilities for the discussion and passage through the House of the Bill he had introduced with reference to the right of meeting in the Square. He begged to support the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
said, he trusted that the House would now think this debate had gone on long enough. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had been informed by his right hon. Friend that these cases were at present sub judice, and that their proper course, if they thought they had grievances, was to take them to a Court of Law to get relief. Under those circumstances, as the House was not a Court of Appeal on which questions of fact and of law should be decided, he claimed to move "That the Question be now put."