THE DISTURBANCES IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE.

HL Deb 09 March 1848 vol 97 cc331-5

The MARQUESS of SALISBURY

begged to call the attention of the noble Marquess the President of the Council to a paragraph which had appeared in a newspaper, and which attributed language to a magistrate which he would fain hope had never been made use of by him. It was a very disagreeable duty to perform to make any observations which might be considered as making a charge against an individual, especially when that individual was not present, at once to give an answer or to offer an explanation. If the paragraph were not correct, he was sure that the gentleman to whom it referred would enable the noble Marquess publicly to deny it. The paragraph in question had its origin in the disgraceful disturbances which had occurred in some of the streets of the metropolis during the last two or three days, and was part of what purported to be an account of the examination of certain persons who were accused before Mr. Hall, acting as magistrate at Bow-street police office, with being concerned in those disturbances. He would call the attention of the House to the first case:— A young man, named James Marchant, was also placed at the bar, charged with exciting the mob by exclaiming, 'Down with the Police! No National Guards!' and throwing stones promiscuously among the people. The prisoner said that in the confusion it was impossible for the officer of the C division by whom he was apprehended to distinguish who was the aggressor; and he denied ever having made use of the language imputed to him, or to have incited the mob in any manner.—Mr. Hall ordered him to pay a fine of 20s., or be imprisoned for eight days. He would now call the attention of the House to the second ease, observing merely, that we ought to be very careful before we found fault with the sentence pronounced by a magistrate in his judicial capacity. Presently he should have something to say as to the inequality of the punishment in the two cases:— ASSAULT ON THE POLICE.—James Drebilthorne, whose head was severely wounded, was brought up charged with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty. Sergeant Shepherd, of the A division, stated, that he was suddenly assailed by a volley of stones by the mob, while standing with other constables, and, on attempting to force the crowd back, they were again assaulted in the same manner, during which he was knocked down and struck by the prisoner with his fist in attempting to rescue a prisoner, in consequence of which he was compelled to use his staff to protect himself The prisoner said he did not belong to the crowd, but had just parted with some friends, when he received a blow of a truncheon on the back of his head, which stunned him. Mr. Hall ordered the prisoner to be discharged, the constable being unable to satisfy him why he used his truncheon in such an indiscriminate and cowardly manner. Several other cases of a similar description were brought up, which detained the magistrate beyond the usual hour. In his opinion the constable thus rebuked by the magistrate was justified in law in acting as he had done. It was rather singular, that on the same day on which the paragraph he had just read appeared, he received a newspaper containing some observations made by Mr. Justice Coleridge, on the trial of some prisoners at Hertford for riot and assault on the police; and the learned Judge's remarks were so apposite to the subject, that he would take leave to quote one or two of them. Mr. Justice Coleridge, in his charge to the jury, said that— If a numerous party be engaged in the pursuit of any unlawful act, and any blow be struck by one of the party, each person is considered by the law as guilty of every one of the offences committed by the party, even though his may not be the hand that inflicted the particular blow in question. It is important that those persons who are ignorant of this provision should be made acquainted with the danger of joining with others to effect a breach of the peace. In passing sentence upon the prisoners, the learned Judge said that— He knew very well that the police were not a popular set of persons; but at the same time allowance ought to be made for the conduct of ministers of the law, who must perform disagreeable duties with regard to persons against whom they were called on to act. He hoped the prisoners and others would take warning from what had passed that day. The lesson he wished them to learn was twofold; first, they might depend upon it that the law would be found too strong for unlawful resistance; they might overcome a small force, but they would find in the end that the arm of the law was not shortened; that it would reach them, and overpower them, and punish them. The other lesson was, that if they determined to resist the law in carrying their designs into execution, they should take care that, in doing so, they were guilty of no violence. If the language attributed to Mr. Hall were correctly reported, it was evident that he was unacquainted with the point of law referred to by Mr. Justice Coleridge. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) could not see why policemen's lives were not to be protected as well as other men's. He believed there never was a body of men collected together better disciplined, and who exercised their duty so thoroughly well, and with so much temper. Their manner of dispersing crowds was so quiet, but so firm and judicious, that they were entitled to the gratitude of the country for the manner in which they had conducted themselves during the last three days. The noble Marquess concluded by observing that the agricultural riots of 1830 were chiefly caused by the very timid and lenient sentences that were then passed. It would be much to be regretted if an impression should get abroad that the magistrates did not act in support of the police.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

was not at all surprised that the noble Marquess, more particularly in the situation he filled in the county of Middlesex, should have been led to notice the singular expressions attributed in some of the newspapers to a most respectable police magistrate of this metropolis. They had attracted his (the Marquess of Lansdowne's) attention, and he had intended to make inquiry upon the subject; but he must do the magistrate the justice to state, that before any inquiry was made he had been at the Home Office, feeling what an imputation such a report cast upon him, for the purpose of entirely denying it, and to say that the statement of his having given that opinion with respect to the conduct of the policeman was entirely false. Mr. Hall stated that he not only did not give utterance to the expression that that constable had used his truncheon in an indiscriminate and cowardly manner, but that he used no expression whatever reflecting upon the conduct of the police; on the contrary, he said that the constable had done no more than his duty—a duty which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was happy to say was promptly, efficiently, and universally discharged by the police in the very disgraceful, though at the same time very contemptible, disturbances of the last few days. Although Mr. Hall did not think it necessary to inflict any sentence upon the individual whose case had been particularly referred to, a doubt being raised as to whether he was one who attacked the constable, he could not be said to have escaped punishment, for he appeared at the bar with a bloody head—quite enough, it might be thought, to cure him, and probably others, too, from mixing with such an assemblage again. He would take that opportunity of adding, that in the somewhat more serious disturbances in the northern part of the country, the greatest credit and praise were due to the police for their conduct, and also to the respectable citizens who had come forward as special constables to assist them.

LORD STANLEY

also applauded the forbearance, coolness, and temperance with which generally, and especially on the recent occasion, the police had discharged their duty. There never was a more objectless and purposeless assemblage of people than that which had been disturbing the peace of this town, or an assemblage that gave more unequivocal proof of the rankest cowardice; yet that mob bad excited very serious alarm among the citizens of London, and, but for the excellent conduct of the police, there might have been a great loss of property, and perhaps of life. The cases brought before the magistrate, therefore, could hardly be supposed to be cases for very light sentences. At the game time, it was very difficult for their Lordships with this information to judge of the merits of any particular case. It was evident that the disturbances in the north were utterly unconnected with anything of a political character; and the effect of this passing excitement in London had been to call forth a manifestation of public feeling which would show not only to this, but to foreign countries, that in the metropolis there was no sympathy with the disturbances for political objects, and that it was the fixed determination of the sober, quiet people of this kingdom, to use their utmost exertions to prevent disturbances. He (Lord Stanley) knew that there had been very gratifying offers made on the part of the tradesmen of London to assist in preserving the peace of the town, and he believed there had also been on the part of men in a lower class of life; and the events of the last few days had shown that the vast, the overwhelming body of the people, were determined to use their personal exertions, if necessary, for the defence of order and good government, and to put down all attempts at riot.

Subject at an end.

House adjourned.