HL Deb 08 February 1867 vol 185 cc136-44
THE EARL OF DUDLEY,

in rising to ask the intention of the Government with respect to the proposed procession of mem- bers of trades unions through several of the most crowded thoroughfares of the metropolis and the West End next Monday, said, he was fully aware of the delicacy of the subject to which he was about to address himself; but there was a general feeling that such processions assembling and taking possession of the principal streets of London, for the purpose of making what was termed a demonstration, was an evil that was on the increase, and if allowed to go on would assume a position to defy all attempts to interfere with them, and therefore it was that he had deemed it his duty to bring the matter under the notice of the House; and he must confess that, after the announcement Which had been made by Her Majesty's Ministers on the first day of the Session, he had hoped that those who took the most active part in promoting the intended demonstration would have come to the conclusion that there was no necessity for making it, for a most distinct promise had then been given on the part of the Government that they would lose no time in dealing with the great question of Reform, which was undoubtedly the great question of the day. He was, under these circumstances, greatly grieved to find that the leaders of the movement should, instead of waiting to learn what course Ministers might take on the question, deem it necessary to be beforehand with them. He deeply regretted that there should be any necessity for a Member of their Lordships' House rising for the purpose. In what he was about to say with regard to the proposed trades procession, he hoped it would be distinctly understood that he had no desire whatever to say a single word which might tend to irritate the public mind; and if he did use any expression of such a nature, he assured their Lordships that it would only be used in mistake and not from intention. Indeed, at the present moment the public mind was quite enough excited upon the subject without anything uttered in Parliament being construed into a ground of further irritation. He could look upon the proposed meeting and procession of Monday next in no other light than a monstrous demonstration of the trades unions of the country. He would be the last man to stand up in their Lordships' House and deny the right of the people to meet and discuss any political grievances under which they deemed themselves to be suffering, or for the purpose of procuring a fair representation of their opinions in Parliament. But that was a very different thing from the procession with which we were threatened on Monday next, which, under pretence of meeting in the Agricultural Hall, at Islington, was to assemble in Trafalgar Square, He felt that the fair and open discussion of political subjects was not the real object of the proposed meeting; for no one could fail to see that at such a meeting no discussion in the ordinary sense of the term could take place, but that it was held, if not for the express purpose of intimidation, at least by bringing immense multitudes of people to a central place in the metropolis, and then taking a circuitous route through all the most frequented streets of London, to cause such a demonstration as might influence Parliament in its deliberations on the question of Reform. Surely, if those persons who proposed to come from the north, south, east, or west of the metropolis, and congregate in the neighbourhood of Trafalgar Square, really wished to go to the Agricultural Hall at Islington, for the purpose of discussing their political grievances, there was no occasion to resort in the first place to a great central square, from which the start was to take place. He understood that measures for the preservation of the public peace had been taken, to the extent at least of procuring six out of every hundred persons being sworn as special constables. [The Earl of DERBY intimated dissent.] The noble Earl shook his head; but if he were incorrect in that statement, all that he could pay was that he was sorry that there should be less endeavour on the part of the promoters of the meeting to preserve the peace than he gave them credit for. Nobody could deny that the passing of such a procession through the principal streets in a circuitous instead of in a direct line was designed mainly for the purpose of producing an effect on the clubs and the West End of the town; and he reminded their Lordships that every time such a procession were permitted, it became a precedent which rendered every similar attempt less likely to be resisted. He thought it rather unwise that the Department of the Government which had been more in direct communication with the leaders of this proposed demonstration than had usually been the case in any similar circumstances, had not exercised their powers of persuasion more successfully for its prevention, and thus rendered it unnecessary to call the atten- tion of Parliament to the subject. He knew very well how difficult it was in discussing such a question with a large body of men to say that such a course could not be permitted; but he had hoped, at all events, that the counsel which the Government seem to have taken with the leaders of this movement, would have enabled them to have pointed out the loss and inconvenience which must result to the populace who happened to reside in the thoroughfares which were chosen as the route of the procession. But though these meetings might be permitted now, the matter was, after all, a question of degree; for it was possible that they might become such an enormous grievance that it would be absolutely necessary to put a stop to them. He should be the last person in the world to rise for the purpose of embarrassing the Government. On the contrary, after the course they had announced with reference to Reform, and which, he thought, was the only course they could have pursued, everybody must have wished that the proposed demonstration might have been dropped; but arrived as they were now within a few hours of the meeting, the Government must have determined upon the steps they would take; and there could be no want of discretion, therefore, in asking them to state, for the information of Parliament, what those steps were.

THE EARL OE DERBY

My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that no apology was required from him for asking the question which he has just put to me. There can be no doubt that this question is one of very serious importance; and I can assure him, also, that he cannot regret more deeply than I do that those who have the conduct of the vast organization, and on which they have expended so much pains and care for several months past, should not have taken a more correct and a sounder view of the duty they owe to the public and the interests of the country generally than to persist in holding a procession which, although I am bound to say it is strictly within the law, yet is certainly liable to produce, and must produce, very great inconvenience, and perhaps, also, acts of illegality. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) does Her Majesty's Government too much honour in supposing that their powers of persuasion are such as to induce these gentlemen to forego the advantage of being allowed to display in the streets their immense organization, with marshals and sub-marshals, with stars, scarves, banners, and an exhibition of the most perfect military discipline. We certainly cannot pretend to such influence with the leaders of this movement as to have persuaded them, in deference to any opinions of ours, or to any measures which we are likely to introduce on the subject of Reform, to desist from the course on which they have long determined. Moreover, my Lords, much as I deprecate the course these gentlemen are pursuing, I entirely believe that they desire, as far as they can, that the procession may be perfectly peaceable and orderly. But the noble Earl will allow me to say that he is in error when he supposes that a certain number of each of these bodies are to be sworn in as special constables. It is not within the law that they can be sworn in as special constables; for no man can be so sworn in except upon information sworn before a magistrate to the effect that the person who swears such information believes that a breach of the peace is imminent, and that, in order to guard against such breach of the peace, he tenders his services to preserve the peace. Now, it is quite clear that these gentlemen, coming forward and saying—I believe most sincerely—that they are acting with the most peaceable intentions, could not be expected to swear that the assemblage of delegates and of various other bodies which they are organizing will be such an assemblage as endangers the public peace. Not but that I think breaches of the peace will be committed, though certainly not by those who are engaged in the procession; but when, in the heart of a crowded metropolis, processions of, it may be, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 men gather and occupy busy thoroughfares for a considerable portion of the day, it is impossible that the idle and vagabond class on such occasions should not cause much inconvenience and some danger. And I would have the gentlemen who undertake the conduct of these vast processions to recollect that although the procession itself may not be illegal, yet it may become illegal through the circumstances attending it; and in that case those who so recklessly expose the metropolis to danger cannot escape from the responsibility they thus incur. They must, and they will, be held personally liable for any loss to property or to person which may result from their acts. There can be no doubt that the proposed meeting will cause very considerable obstruction of the ordinary traffic, and great inconvenience—that it must cause great loss both to the operatives themselves, who will lose a day's wages, and also to the shopkeepers, and inconvenience to everybody to an incalculable extent;—and all for what? For the purpose, as they state, of making a demonstration in favour of Reform. But Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Earl says, are quite prepared to deal with that question, and bring it forward for the consideration of Parliament. And here I must remark that demonstrations of this kind are little calculated to promote that calmness with which so grave a question ought to be submitted to Parliament. Moreover, if we are to believe the assertions of the leaders of this organization, the multitudes who are about to assemble in this way are to meet for an object to which I will not say the present Government, but to which no Government, and no statesman who can ever be called upon to conduct the affairs of this country, would ever consent; because we are told that that which alone will satisfy these vast assemblages and their leaders is the adoption of manhood suffrage and vote by ballot—two things which, combined, would absolutely and entirely overthrow the Constitution of this country. Well, what encouragement has Parliament for entering upon the course of deliberating and considering how far it should extend the franchise and increase the liberties of the people if it is told, "All you do is nothing—is of no use whatever. Here we bring together a demonstration of our physical strength and our numbers, to show you, the Parliament, that unless you do that which we know it is impossible you can ever consent to do, all your labours will go for nothing—they will produce no gratitude, but will only lead to fresh demonstrations and exhibitions of force, until we obtain that which would be a practical revolution in this country?" My Lords, I have not so poor an opinion of the House of Commons as to believe for a single moment that any demonstration of this sort will intimidate them or lead them to consent to extreme demands. On the contrary, I only hope it may not have the opposite effect of deterring them from fairly and candidly considering the merits of the case, and that they may not be induced to refrain from giving that which may safely, reasonably, and justly be given, owing to exhibitions of physical force and of numbers on behalf of that which is wholly alien to the Constitution and the spirit of the country. In regard to the noble Earl's inquiry as to what the Government are going to do in respect to the proposed procession, it is only necessary to say that they will confine themselves within the limits of the law. We have carefully considered what measures it might be in our power to take to put a stop to this demonstration and interfere with its progress; and we are informed that this procession, however mischievous, injurious, and liable to produce loss of property, and it may be of life, is not in itself illegal, and that we should not be justified in interfering with it so long as it conducts itself peaceably, and only passes quietly through the streets. There are two Acts of Parliament which bear on this subject. One of them, passed in the reign of Charles II., prohibits any persons, under a penalty, from attempting to present petitions to Parliament in greater numbers than ten together. There is another Act of George III., to which, I suppose, the noble Earl referred, in respect to assemblages within a mile of Parliament. It provides that if any persons shall assemble within a mile of Parliament for the purpose of either passing resolutions, petitions, or remonstrances with regard to matters concerning the State, in that case the assembly shall be an illegal assembly, with all the penal consequences attaching to it as such. But there is nothing in the statute to say that persons shall not meet within a mile of Parliament for the purpose pf there forming a procession—not to come down to Parliament with a view of intimidating it, but, as is said to be intended in this instance, with a view of proceeding exactly in an opposite direction—to Islington, there to hold a meeting in the great Agricultural Hall. There is nothing absolutely illegal in that. The duty of the Government, therefore, must in this case be confined to taking care to have an ample amount of force ready to interfere, if necessary, for the preservation of the public peace, or for its restoration, if that peace is disturbed. Further than that it is not within our legal competence to interpose. But the noble Earl said—and it is a point very well worth consideration—that the constant repetition of these processions and demonstrations may render it necessary to make some alteration in the law. I trust that nothing of the kind will be required, because we know that such an alteration of the law, however just or necessary, would meet with very great resistance, and might be thought an undue interference with the liberties of the people—an interference which could not be justified, except by a general feeling on the part of the country, that these demonstrations had become quite intolerable, and a source of evil and mischief so grave as to render the interposition of Parliament imperatively requisite. Therefore, I can only say that, while deprecating the holding of this procession, yet finding it legal, we can do nothing except provide a force sufficient for the preservation of the peace. We much regret the course about to be pursued by its promoters, and we think it one which is liable to lead to the most unfavourable consequences, and likely to create a feeling of bitterness between the different classes of the community, which it is the duty of every good citizen as far as possible to prevent.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, I speak in the presence of noble and learned Lords who will correct me if I am wrong, but the impression on my mind, from my recollection of former statements in Parliament and elsewhere, when matters of a similar nature have been under discussion, and from the decisions of the Judges, is this—that when any great assembly of persons is held under circumstances which create fear—reasonable fear—in the minds of firm men, such assembly becomes of itself illegal, whether any act of violence be committed or not.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble Friend has not exactly stated the proposition correctly. It is true it has been frequently decided by the Judges of the land that large assemblages of persons, in terrorem populi, would constitute an unlawful assembly; but no mere assemblage of numbers would make a meeting illegal. There must be a fear of violence or disturbance of the public peace in order to constitute an unlawful assembly.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

But this is not a mere assemblage of persons, but an assemblage of persons sufficiently drilled to carry a column of 40,000 or 50,000 men in military array through the streets of London. That is not an ordinary meeting of men, it is not one of the meetings within the contemplation of the law.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand it, they are sufficiently drilled to be able to proceed peaceably in procession through the streets.