§ Earl Stanhopewished for a few minutes to draw the attention of the House, and particularly the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government, to the contents of a petition which had been placed in his hands. It came from a number of persons at Birmingham, denominated the Working Men's Association, and related to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in that town on the 4th of July last. The petitioners complained, that the Metropolitan Police had on that day made a most wanton and unjustifiable attack on the people of Birmingham. They denounced that force as unconstitutional, and contended that the employment of such a body by the Government evinced a design to destroy the right of the people to assemble at public meetings, and was calculated to subvert every principle of constitutional freedom. The petitioners, therefore, earnestly entreated their Lordships to institute a serious and searching inquiry into the allegations contained in their petition. Before he presented the petition, he (Earl Stanhope) had an opportunity of conversing with the party to whom it had been intrusted, who, he believed, was a person of great respectability, and who was described by those who had long known him as a man of a strictly moral character. He alluded to Mr. Taylor. That individual was present when the attack was made on the people. He had seen the party that morning. He had questioned him on the subject, and he had committed to writing what his informant had described as having occurred. That minute he should take the liberty to read to their Lordships. The noble Earl read as follows;—
The informant was at Birmingham on the 363 4th of July last, and returning from the post-office about a quarter before nine in the evening, he passed through the Bullring, which is a space capable of containing many thousand persons, and in which, round Nelson's monument in the centre thereof, was assembled a crowd of persons, in number, as he believes, between 500 and 800, who were listening to a person reading a newspaper, but without obstructing the thoroughfare, and leaving a wide open space all round them. He did not perceive that they were armed or carried sticks, and he did not hear any shouts, or groans, or hissing, or menacing language. They intended to separate, as was usual for them, at nine o'clock. At four minutes before nine o'clock, Dr. Booth and the Mayor came, attended by London policemen. He heard Dr. Booth say to the policemen, and pointing to the man who was reading the newspaper, ' There is the man, do your duty;' upon which the policemen drew their staves, and began to beat the people, some of whom were knocked down, some had their heads broken, and the blood flowed. The people fled in all directions, but afterwards rallied, having procured staves of casks, and shutters taken from the shops, and then the riot began. He was told the next day, by two of the policemen who were employed on that occasion, that they were ashamed of having been so employed, and one of them said that he would leave the service, which was different from what it was when he entered it. He believes that the above-mentioned proceedings created sympathy in Birmingham, in behalf of the Chartists. He was present on the 5th of July last, in New-street, Birmingham, when a bricklayer, who was returning from work, at a little past 9 o'clock in the evening, was desired by a London policeman to move on. The bricklayer said he was moving on, and was struck by the policeman on his mouth, knocking out six of his teeth, and felling him to the ground. The bricklayer rose from the ground, and exclaimed, ' Gentlemen, am I in England?'From this statement it appeared very doubtful whether any commotion would have taken place had it not been for the appearance of the Metropolitan Police. He questioned whether any disturbance would have occurred but for the violent interference of that force. He did not know what particular charge there might have been against the individual who was reading the newspaper, and he was yet to learn whether reading a newspaper of any description was to be considered as a misdemeanour, leading to a breach of the peace. But, if it even were an offence, the person committing it should have been arrested in a different manner, and the parties assembled ought not to have been treated with such violence. Injudi- 364 cious, violent, and outrageous conduct, such as was here described, must naturally excite the indignation of the people, and bring into disrepute and discredit those who adopted it.
§ Petition laid on the Table.