The Sun. — London, England, 1855-11-22 00:00:00

Report of the Commissioners appoi ntal to Inquire into the Disturbance 117'. Hyde park on the Ist July. To THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT 31AJESTY. May it please your Majesty, WO, the •comnaissioners appointed by your and es ty's letters .patent under the great seal bearing date the 14th of July in the nineteenth year of to i your reign, and commanded inquire nt oan alleged disturbance of the public peace on Sunday the) Ist of July, 1855, i n H y d e -park and the adjoining streets , and i n t o a ll the circumstances thereof and all matters cons tected there with, an d particularly into the conduct of thu officers and constables of the Metropolitan police in comiection with the same, and into the truth of all and• singular the com plaints of the conduct of them or any of them upon that occasion which might be brought under our investigation ; Humbly report, that on the receipt of your Majesty's commission we gave notice by letter to several persons who had sent written complaints to your Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also gave general notice in the public newspapers of our intention to hold an inquiry into the matters submitted to us by your Ma jesty's said commission, on Tuesday the 17th day of July, 1855, in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, and at the time and place so ap- pointed we commenced our sittings. In the outset of the inquiry we were met by a difficulty as to obtaining evidence. Most of the persons who con sidered themselves aggrieved by the conduct of the police on the day in question were strangers to each other, and no combined arrangement had been made for the purpose of bringing their several complaints before us. Some of them could not afford to procure professional assistance, and perhaps felt unequal to speak for themselves. In fact, with one exception, no individual appeared to be prepared to make any statement or give evidence before us with re ference to the matters into which we had met to inquire. It happened that Mr. Mitchell, a respectable and intelli gent attorney, who had attended at the police court on behalf of a client taken into custody in Hyde-park on the lat ef-July, - also appeared before us on behalf of the same client to complain of the conduct of the police. In order to discharge this duty for his client, Mr. Mitchell had made himself acquainted generally with the occurrences which were to become the subjects of our inquiry. Under these circumstances we felt ourselves warranted in re questing Mr. Mitchell to give his assistance to any of the complainants who might be willing to avail themselves of it in bringing their several complaints before us. To this proposal Mr. Mitchell assented. The complainants wil lingly availed themselves of his assistance, and entrusted their eases to his management. To him, and also to Mr. Ellis, the attorney who conducted the case on behalf of the police, we are much indebted for their able assistance in eliciting the facts and discussing the points brought before us in the course of our inquiry. We continued our sittings in the Court of Exchequer from day to day until Thursday the 2d of August, when, after hearing Ur. Mitchell and Mr. Ellis on behalf of their respective clients, and repeating the statement which we had on several previous occasions publicly made, that if there were still any persons who had complaints to prefer we were ready to hear them, and receiving no answer to this invitation, we closed the investigation, having sat 15 l i days, and examined upon oath 86 witnesses on the part of the complainants, and 91 on the part of the police, a full report of whose evidence is annexed. The scenes in Hyde-park which gave rise to this inquiry seem to have had their origin chiefly in popular feeling against a bill introduced into the Commons House of Par liament by Lord Robert Grosvenor, to prevent trading on Sunday within the Metropolitan police district and City of London, and commonly called the Sunday Trading Bill. Prior to Sunday 21th of June, a handbill was printed and circulated referring to this measure as the New Sun day Bill, and stating that an open-air meeting, to see how religiously the aristocracy observe the Sabbath, would be held in Hyde-park on Sunday afternoon, at three o'clock, on the right bank of the Serpentine looking towards Ken sington-gardens. Accordingly, between throe and four o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday the 4th of June, a large multitude assembled in Hyde-park on the spot indicated on the north bank of the Serpentine. There the crowd shouted, hooted, and yelled at the carriages, and made such noises as to frighten the horses in the drive, to the annoyance and dan ger of those on horseback or in carriages. This interrup tion naturally caused alarm, and prevented many carriages driving in that direction. An attempt was also made by some persons to organise a meeting, and address the crowd, but they were required to desist, and stopped, by the police. In the course of the following week handbills were dis tributed and placards exhibited calculated to attract peo ple to Hyde-park on the next Sunday. It was stated in one of these at " Hyde-park the open-air fete and monster concert would be repeated on Sunday next." In another, " Let us go to church with Lord Robert Grosvenor next Sunday morning. We can attend his lordship in Palk lane at half-past ten, go to church with him, then go home to dinner, and be back in time to see our friends in Hyde park." The police superintendents of various districts also reported that large numbers of people were likely to attend the meeting in Hyde-park on Sunday the Ist of July. Under these circumstances, on Friday the 29th of .Tune, Sir Richard Mayne communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and prepared a notice cautioning and requesting well-disposedpersous to abstain from joining or attending the meeting announced to be held in Hyde-park, and stating that all necessary measures would be taken to prevent such meeting and to preserve the public peace. On Saturday, the 30th of June, this notice was published in the morning newspapers, and also posted at the entrances of the park in the afternoon. Sir Richard Mayne on the same day also issued orders for Superintendent O'Brien to take up a station with a party of police in the neighbourhood of Lord Robert Grosvenor's house on Sunday, and for four superintendents and 230 mere to assemble in Hyde-park at 2 p.m. Other parties were also directed to be in reserve at Stanhope gate, the Triumphal-arch, the Marble-arch, and Walton-street, Lowndes-square. On Sunday morning the Ist of July, owing to the illness and consequent absence of Superintendent May, the genera', direction of the police in Hyde-park was given to Super intendent Hughes, Sir Richard Mayne remaining during the day at the head office in Scotland-yard. The police constables, before they took up their stations in Hyde-park, were made acquainted with a written order of Sir R. Mayne, that the directions in the printed notices were to be firmly enforced, and that any persons com mencing a meeting or assemblage, or shouting, or making any noise, or acting in any way calculated to cause dis turbance or frighten horses in carriages, were to be cau tioned as to the consequences, and required to desist ; and that if they did not immediately do so they were to be removed, and, if necessary, taken into custody, and sent to the Police-station at Vine-street. Directions were given verbally to the men to sit or lie down quietly on the grass, and not to interfere, unless interference became absolutely necessary. Up to half-past two o'clock few persons arrived ; those few were orderly, and the Park was quiet. Between half past two and three o'clock the concourse of people in the Park increase I, and dense masses collected on the north side of the Serpentine, especially near the Humane So ciety's Receiving-house. The multitude assembled con sisted of various classes. A vast number of persons of all ranks were there, simply for the ordinary and legitimate purposes of exercise and recreation, to which the Park is specially dedicated ; others came led by curiosity to watch the proceedings of the clay ; others with a view of expressing by their presence their disapproval of the Sunday Trnding Bill ; a large number also, chiefly lads and young men, with a view of giving expression to their disapprobation by shouts, cries, and noises along the drive. There was also a mixture of thieves, pickpockets, and other reckless and disorderly persons, bent on plunder and mis chief, and seeking to effect their purposes under the shield of popular excitement. Soon after three o'clock noisy and riotous proceedings like those on the preceding Sunday were commenced by some of the crowd who lined the rails of the (hive along the Serpentine, Carriages and riders in passing were met by shouts of " Go to church" and other cries, yelling, hoot ing, whistling, and discordant noises. Missiles were occa sionally thro wn a t th em. O ne man, w h o was a ft erwa rds fined for the offence, was taken into cnstody for flinging part of a hurdle at a gentlemanon horseback. A boy ran before a carriage, and repeatedly struck at the horse's nose with his cap, and the crowd cheered him. The horses in an open b l it s k a , in which,and an officer and his daughter were seated, becam e frightened, plunged ; a clod of earth or other missil e p asse d over the and had it not been for the police, t who prevented ca rr i a g e , thepeople from getting in front of the horses, tho consequence might have been seri ous. Other vehicles experienced as e in i ar . reception, were pelted with stones, and narrowly es sugge stion of the police some carriages' escaped injury,rer backAt the the drive ; and eventually those vehiclesWidehdidfroal Persons who sh are d and sympa thised were chiefly filled with with the excit ement of th e crowd on the subject of Sunday legislation. About half-past three the danger to vehicles was greatly increased by the throng in the drive, where it 1V39 most easy to alarm the horses. It was observed that many of the most disorderly characters were c o llected in front of the rails on the south side of the chive near th e Receiv. ing-house. Superintendent Hughes consulted with Su perintendent Martin, and thought that the time was come to use more vigorous measures to clear the carriage-wa and also, pursuant to directions from Sir RichardMayn Y : to clear the crowd back to some distance fro the railings', and he accordingly gave orders to the police to clear the road and the rails, and to use their staves. In order to execute these orders the police advanced with their truncheons drawn along the carriage roa d of the drive, cleari ng it of the people ; so me of whom, not readily yielding or quitting the road, were pushed, struck, or roughly handled. The policemen also passed along the drive, striking on the rails, and brandishing their staves over the heads of the crowd there, and in soma instances striking at them, in order to compel them to fall back. Parties of police also passed with drawn staves on to the footpath between the drive and the Serpentine River near the Receiving house, and drove the people back from the rails, and in an eastward direction along the bank of the Serpentine. This Ift,Tiement, owing to the crowd and the narrow space, was a Z riged with great alarm and confusion , and some fore e people, including well-dress e d w o man, were ed ankle deep into the water ; others wore struck with th e behind th s e t ay"' Parties of the police also passed railsback on the north side of the drive, and drove some cases f ur th er on the people 30 or 40 yards, and in the police did to not oae to the grass. After these movements s yor keep a line along the cleared spece, so as prevelue the quen tly crowds collected return of the people, cense "long the rails again, and were again driven back repeatedly, With more or less violence and con fusion. The " Pr o " n ee t.h d o e r er o o f dr e ed or increased irritation end ill feeling pa bled ; offensive expressions were used t, the people assem annoy the police, some stones were thrown at them, and frequent collisions took pace. The complaints bretight before ua for unnecess ar y vio lence and misconduct o n the Taro f the poli ce chiefly refer to transactions which took place during th ese effort s to clear the carriage-way and to remove the crowd. to a dis. tance from the rails. Some of the complaints we consider well founded, but postpone the particular conside ra ti on of the several charges, our preseut object being simply to Rive a,general summary and outline of the incidents of the day. From half-past three until half-past five o'clock a state of tumult and disturbance prevailed, especially along the drive from the east end of the Serpentine to the f lurnane Society's Receiving-house. The police were engaged in endeavours to prevent shouting and stone -throwing, and in cleari n g the crowd out of the drive and away from the rails._eM;eier persons were taken into custody for riotous o co r n o i n t and th row i ng stones. Some were ta k en i n c a bs foot to P Vine-street of the dai r y leao /CO Station, and the yard gnear the receiving-house was used as a temporary pie ce of e custody for prisoners. The police hay ing been strongly reinforced be the course of this period the commotion began gradually to subside, and at 6 o'clock the disturbance was effectually subdued in the neighbour ootl of the drive. At va:iqus times, and especially between six aucl seven I o ' c l oc k ; Luau groups cf people collected in open,paTtyl cf the park, and collisions took place during attempts made by the police rushing forward to disperse them or to arrest those who had thrown stones. Some of the complaints made to us arose out of these collisions. Soon after seven o'clock some young soldiers of the Guards who had mingled with a portion of the crowd seemed disposed to take part in the tumult. Information of this was brought to Superintendent Hughes, who sent to the Magazine Barracks, and a serjeant was despatched with a picket to bring in the soldiers. Some stones were thrown by the crowd at the serjeant and his party whilst engaged in the performance of this duty, and the crowd followed after the soldiers to the barracks, and remained there throwing stones. The serjeant in command then sent in his turn to the police for assistance, which was promptly rendered. One of the offenders who had hit a soldier with a stone was given into custody, and after wards fined, and the crowd was dispersed without any unnecessary violence. About nine o'clock in the evening the Park was cleared by Superintendent Hughes, with a body of about a hun dred policemen, formed in open line, with two or three yards between each man, extending northwards from the Serpentine, and advancing eastwards towards Hyde-park corner and Stanhope-gate. This operation seems to have been effected successfully. _ _ It has been stated that a party of the police had been stationed by way of precaution near Lord R. Grosvenor's house. About six o'clock in the evening a large mass of people set out from Hyde-park towards Grosvenor-gate and Park-street, with cries of" Now to Lord Grosvenor's." Soon afterwards a crowd, variously estimated by the wit nesses at two, three, four hundred,.or more in number, was collected before Lord R. Grosvenor's house in Park street. No actual violence, beyond throwinc , a stone at Lord R. Grosvenor's messenger, was committed by them ; but their number and clamour were alarming. The crowd yelled and groaned, calling " Chuck him out," and using other expressions of hostility to Lord R. Grosvenor, and their aspect and proceedings were sufficiently menacing to excite the fears of the inmates of the house, though s•me of the cries were of a jocular character. In the meantime, Superintendent O'Brien, who was stationed with a reserve of fifty men at Stanhope-gate, had received information of the movement from Hyde park, and brought forward his party with all despatch into the south end of Park-street. He there formed the men in a column of sections of ten, having a front of five men, and marched them up the street, in order that the crowd might see them coming, and have time to move off. A smaller body of police had previously mingled with the crowd, and endeavoured by persuasion to induce them to disperse, but without effect. On the approach of Superintendent O'Brien's party, some of the crowd retired ; but a large body remained, and received the police with a yell. On entering the crowd, Superintendent O'Brien called on them in a loud voice to disperse. Just at that moment he was tripped up, fell, and hurt his knee. The police who were following him rushed forward with their staves drawn. Though there was no serious resistance, some of them, whilst dispersing and pursuing the crowd, used theirjtaves, and otherwise acted with violence, inflicting severe Injuries on several persons who were not shown to have been guilty of any violence, but who refused to move off when requested so to do, or who, being inoffensively there, ran or stood still when the police came up the street. This conduct on the part of the police was complained of, and will be consi dered hereafter. Superintendent O'Brien states that he gave no orders to remove the crowd by force, but that he should have thought it his duty to do so if the crowd had disregarded his summons to disperse. He expresses his opinion that in the confusion when he fell, and was prevented from advancing alon&with his party, the nien mistook his call on the people to disperse for an order to themselves to disperse the crowd at once. One person only, the witness Lewis Frankland, was taken into custody in Park-street. During the afternoon 71 persons in Hyde-park and one person in Park-street were removed, pursuant to the order, to Vine-street Police-station. Ten of these were charged with felony, and the rest with riotous conduct, or assaults on the police. Great complaints were preferred before us of the insuf ficiency and unfitness of the cells in Vine street for con fining so large a number, and of the suffering experienced by those confined in them during the Sunday night, and in some instances on Monday night also. We visited and inspected these cells. Though they may perhaps be suffi cient for the purpose of receiving the ordinary number of prisoners daily brought there, they certainly were unfit to confine such large numbers us were placed in them on this occasion. Even after 31 prisoners had been removed by direction of Sir R. Mayne and of the superintendent in charge to the Marylebone and Edgeware-road Stations, the heat and closeness of the cells caused very great suffering, and serious risk to the health of those who remained. Seve ral, indeed, stated that their health had been affected in consequence of their confinement. Many of those taken into custody offered to procure bail, but the application was postponed by the inspector iu charge of the st ►lion, and finally rejected, after a reference to Sir Richard Mayne. This refusal was made the subject of complaint before us. It appears that under the 2,1 and 3d Vict. the inspector ou duty at any police station has a discretionary authority to take bail on all charges which might be summarily disposed of by a magistrate ; but in this case the charge against most of the prisoners was for riotous conduct, and the inspector doubted whether he ought to take bail, and requested instructions from Sir Richard Mayne. The instruction given was, that no bail should be taken for those charged with riotous conduct or actual disorder in the Park, and in the result, though bail was often offered for certain prisoners, it was uniformly refused. Complaint was also made of delay in bringing the per sons in custody before the magistrate. None were in fact brought before the sitting magistrate at Marlborough street until between four and five o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, the 2d July, and the consideration of many of the charges was postponed until Tuesday, causing deten tion in some instances during another night in Vine street. although bail was taken on Monday evening for all charged with misdemeanour who could procure it. The investigation before the magistrate lea to the fol lowing results. Ten had been apprehended as thieves and pickpockets; of these, five were committed for trial, two remanded, ono was committed for a month, awl two wore discharged. Twenty four were charged with riot or throw inc, stones; all of them were convicted, and fined, some 10 " s., with the alternative of imprisonment of seven days, others 55., others half a crown. Twenty were charged with riot or assaults on the police. Of these, four were fined 10s., three 55., one committed for fourteen days, two for seven clays, five were discharged on their own recog nisance to keep the peace, and four were discharged un conditionally. Eighteen were charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. Five of these were discharged on their own recognisances to keep the peace, and thirteen were discharged unconditionally. According to the police return, forty-nine policemen were reported as assaulted and hurt; of these twenty seven were struck with stones, thirteen with sticks or pieces of hurdles, seven kicked and knocked down, and one thrown down and his knee slightly hurt. In entering on the consideration of the violence and in juries imputed to the police, we may remark, that there has been no evidence before us of any loss of life or bone broken, of any limb seriously hurt, or permanent injury of any kind inflicted. Seeing that such formidable weapons, as the truncheons of the police undoubtedly are, were used on the occasion, we think there has been some exaggeration in the evidence which describes them as having been used with the utmost violence, and so indiscriminately that neither age nor sex was spared. Many witnesses deposed that on various occasions women and children were struck, vet no woman or child appeared before us to complain, nor was the name of any such sufferer ascertained ; and we are led to conclude that if such cases did occur they were less numerous and loss serious than some of the witnesses re present. The accusing witnesses were numerous ; but there were also many witnesses who came forward, impelled, as they said, by a sense of justice, and bore testimony to the good conduct of the police in all that fell under their observa tion in the course of the transactions in question. Not a few of the complainants accompanied their accusations as to the incidents on this day by stating that the conduct of the police on the let of July was at variance with all their former experience, freely admitting that the general cha racter of the police stood high for moderation and for bearance, and that many policemen on the Ist of July showed great self-control in the execution of their duty. On the other hand, it is satisfactory to find that none of the crowd came armed in any manner, and that no vio lence seems to have been contemplated by the general mass even of those who conducted themselves in a disorderly or riotous manner. Their intention seems to have been to limit their interference to shouts and petty annoyances to those riding or driving in the Park. Nevertheless, we con sider that the crowd contained a sprinkling of bad and dangerous persons, who required the control of the police, and who, but for such control, might have led the way and been followed by the thoughtless and inconsiderate to mischief and damage to property, the extent of which would only have been limited by the resistance met with. Whatever view may be taken of the conduct of the police, their presence and acts on the Ist of Julyhad the effect of preventing any such result. After the proceedings in Hyde-park on Sunday the 24th of June, it was fit and proper th a t measures s h ou ld b e taken to secure to all classes the undisturbed exercise of their right to ride or drive in the Park. The arrangements for this purpose seem to have devolved on the First Corn misioner, Sir Richard Mayne, according to the distribu tion of duty sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. With the prospect of a recurrence on the Ist of Jnly of the tumults of the 24th of June, it was right to issue some warning to th e pu b lic, and to, apprise the unwary that such proceedings were illegal and would be checked by the police. The police notice h which ! I nch was advertised, and a l so p P rinted and pl acarded also (as we under s t an d i t) the n view these objects, and ing in the Park, at which it Warseant icipated thea pn beitiicb subject e o t f the Sunday Trading Bill would beid iscuss e w d and th e t the usualas sembled multitude addressed by speakers, attempt to hold such a meetin g had b een f o il e d b y the police on the 24th of oJune. It se ems to us that meet ings of this nature might properly be intercliete a d u a a n re d na sti fo p r the discussion of popu pre , ma d as novel, and not sanctioned_ by usage, or th e re gnlations of Hyde - p ark. ar T a n o dmake topics Hyde-park exciting epics wou ld b e in consistent with the chief purp?sesfor which it is thrown f e e n t notice n gani n wasthis understoodlinaited sense b open to and used by the tpeublica.Whethdeirthe holding any such meeting was conm plted it ie ffio lilt to sa y but it is certain that the p o ii b m u a t n a y ; interdicting not as p i s ' meeting or a ssem b ly of large numbers of persons in Hyde-park on the let of Ju Thl. This construction induced m any to g o to the park t o assert a right which they imagined to b© impugned by the notice of the Police Commissioners. Thelanguage of the notice, and especially the use of the term " meet In ina sense not clearly defined, seems to have given some ground for this construction. The notice, however, produced a good effect, by inducing many to abstain from going to the park in carriages or on horseback. SUPERINTENDENT HUGEIES. The appointment of, Superintendent Hughes, accidental, seems to have been warranted by his experiencealthoiigh of n ear ly t wen t y -fi ve years , a t E psom , A sco t, the opening of Parli a m en t, an d o th er occas i ons w h ere l a rge crowds are congregated, on which he had directed the police with ge neral approval. The first object which the police had to effect, in 'order to protect persons using the drive, was to keep the car riage -way clear. When it is considered that an open iron railing, extending for several hundred yards on both sides of the way, was lined with a dense multitude, any one of whom could pass with ease in a moment under the rail, and that many of the foremost were disorderly, and eager to balk the police, and choke the road, the moment they were not restrained, it will be easily understood that this was a task of great difficulty. The next object was to check shouts, noises, and other proceedings which might by alarming horses endanger the safety of those seeking health and recreation in the drive. Owing to the excitement of the crowd, and the di s p os iti on of many to give noisy expression to their sentiments, it way imposibll to effect this object somplately. The at tempt was harassing to the police, and leading, as it did, to arrest of individuals, produced irritation in the crowd. The measure most likely to be effectual was to remove and keep the people back at some distance from the rails, so that the noises and gestures of the crowd might produce less effect, and the drive be kept clear. Sir Richard Mayne, anticipating that this course might become advi sable, mentioned it verbally in the forenoon to Superin tendent Hughes, and at 5 p.m. directed it in his written instructions. It was, however, an oper a ti on req uiring judicious management, nob to be attempted without ade quate force, and every precaution which tact and temper in dealing with a crowd could supply. The conduct of Superintendent Hughes, in his en deavours to surmount these difficulties, has been impugned on several grounds. He has been accus e d of undue excite ment, of using improper language, of having been per sonally guilty of many assaults with his horsewhip, and with issuing to the police, without sufficient grounds, orders to use their staves, and with failing to control many excesses on the part of the police under his command. It is impossible to reconcile the evidence as to the super intendent's personal acts of violence. Several witnesses assert that they saw his horsewhip used, and men and women struck with it. Superintendent Hughes most dis tinctly denies having struck any person, but says that he cut the air with his whip, with action which might mis lead some of the witnesses. His evidence is corroborated by several witnesses. If women had been struck, as re presented, we think it highly probable that we should have had some woman or her companion as a witness. No such testimony, however, was laid before us ; neither was the name of any woman or other person alleged to have been so struck ascertained. On this state of the case we consider that, whatever suspicion may arise on the evi dence, we might do Superintendent Hughes injustice if we were to hold this imputation to be proved. As to excitement, the evidence is again oonflicting. Superintendent Hughes says he gave his orders with deci sion, and showed himself prominent in order to encourage his men. Assuming that there were moments when he did not, in giving his orders, or addressing the bystanders, preserve that coolness of language and manner which is always desirable, yet, under the difficulties with which he was beset, we think allowance ought to be made, and that this charge affecting his demeanour and language, as distinct from his acts, may be passed over. In offering an opinion now as to the orders given, we are sensible how mach easier it is in such cases to criticise the past than to choose the right course of action at the moment. Superintendent Hughes states that at about 10 minutes past three or 20 minutes to four in the afternoon he ordered the men to use their staves ; meaning that they were to be moderately used. This order was given on his own responsibility. He states that he gave it considering that the critical moment was come when, unless controlled, the dangerous elements in the crowd would become un manageable, and serious mischief ensue. The road was then much obstructed, the rough people in the carriage way and at the railings were obstinate, and some stones were thrown at himself and Superintendent Martin. Weighing all the evidence, however, we think this resort to violence was not warranted. No attack had been made by the people, no combined or serious resistance had been made to the police, the carriages and riders passing were few; and, considering how many inoffensive individuals were mixed up with the disorderly portion of the crowd, the execution of such orders would of necessity be dangerous, and attended with unjustifiable violence. If the order to use the staves had been strictly limited to the clearance of the road we might have considered it justifiable. There was an obvious propriety in clearing the carriage-way, and we think there should be little sym pathy for those who at such a time refused or delayed to quit the road, expecting the police to enter into discussion as to their right of way, or to make exceptions in their favour. But there was not the same necessity to drive the crowd from the railings, and still less to clear the space between the rails and the water of the Serpentine, to which object it is clear the order extended, and it was in the course of executing it that the witnesses Vassie, Maxwell, and others were struck. It also appears that, after orders issued by Superinten dent Hughes, staves wero used by the policemen, who passed under the rails to drive the crowd back, and who rushed upon the people from time to time, driving them back thirty or forty yards over the grass on the north side of the drive. In the course of these proceedings the wit nesses Woodward, Martin, and others wero struck with staves. The object of these movements were frequently unintelligible to the people, and consequently the acts of the police had the appearance of wanton outrage. If the attempt had been made by an adequate force it seems to us that the people might have been moved with out resorting to the use of staves, and a line might have been formed and kept at a suitable distance from the rail ; but the attempts made with inadequate force pro duced much of the violence which cannot be justified. Tt might indeed be difficult to know, before the experiment was made, how far it would be practicable to remove and keep hack the crowd from the rail ; but prudence required that this experiment should have been abandoned imme diately the collisions attending it were perceived. But those charges or rushes of the police on the people were numerous, and continued for a considerable space of time. Again, up to a late hour in the evening, when groups were collected even at a distance from the erive, parties of the police came rushing forwards, and used their staves to disperse them. The witness George Jennings and others were hurt on these occasions. We do not know on what principle such dispersions by violence can be justified, as it does not appear that any riotous or other illegal proceed ings were going on in these groups. Some of the witnesses remarked that the conduct of the police posted along the drive from the east end of the Ser pentine to the statue of Achilles contrasted favourably with the conduct •f those more immediately under Super intendent Hughes, and the complaints made before us seem to support this view ; but it must be considered that Superintendent Hughes had the chief post of di<turbance along the line from the east end of the Serpentine to the Dairy Lodge. On a review of all the facts in evidence we think that Superintendent Hughes, in endeavouring to discharge a difficult and embarrassing duty, gave too much sanction to the use of the staves, and exercised less control over his men than a due regard for the safety of unoffending indi viduals required. We believe that by a more calm and forbearing course on his part much angry excitement at the time, and complaint afterwards, would have been avoided. Upon such an occasion of expected tumult it appears to As that the presence of a superior officer on the scene of action would have been desirable, and preferable to any attempt to direst the proceedings from a distance. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY .EVIM:NING, NOVEMBER 22, 18'55. SUPERINTENDENT O'BRIEN. For the excesses committed on the part of the police in Hyde-park some extenuation may be pleaded from the annoyance to which the police were subjected by the crowd; but the case was different in Park-street, as the police called info action there had remained at Stanhope-gate, and had not previously been in the presence of the people, yet seve ral cases of serious injury to unoffending individuals there prove a discreditable exercise of violence. We have no hesitati in expressing this opinion, though we have found it impossible, exoept in two instances, to fix on the offending parties. As to Superintendent O'Brien, who led the police here, an injury which befell him at the moment of collision seems to have incapacitated him from command and control at the time. CASES OF THE COMPLAINANTS WHO WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. Nine of the seventy-two individuals taken into custody on the Ist of July appeared before us as witnesse!. these persons have a common ground of complaint as to the sufferings to which they were exposed, owing to the state of the cells in which they were detained ; another ground of complaint common to many of them is the re fusal cf bail. Before adverting farther to these points we propose to consider the facts in evidence, with a view to• ascertain whether any just ground of censure exists against the police for apprehending the complainants. The evidence in each case assumed before us the shape of a charge against the police, and a countercharge by the police, by way of justi fication, against the individual for misconduct. I❑ several instances the facts have been the subject of inquiry before a magistrate, but we have deemed it our duty to express our opinion on those cases on the evidence given on our inquiry. CASE OF T. H. MAIR. We think that Mr. Mair did not mean to encourage r iot or commit an assault, but this may not have been equally clear to the policeman at the time of the occurrence, and the prominent and excited manner in which Mr. Mair spoke and s.cted then was capable of a different construc tion. We consider that Mr. Mair's Apprehension was not justified, but that the circumstances attending it extenuate the conduct of policeman 370 A in making the arrest. There is evidence from several witnesses that Mr. Mair was handled and treated roughly when apprehended and taken along the Drive ; but, seeing that Mr. Mair was not struck or hurt, it is difficult to censure the police, as it is impossible to lay down any precise rules for their conduct in securing a prisoner. CASE OF J. CALROW. The companion of Carlow did not come forward to give evidence, and we cannot on his unsupported testimony censure the police. If Calrow's conduct was such as was stated by the four policemen examined on the case it was quite right that he should be taken into custody. CASE OF H. R. MARiLWICK. This witness, who gave his testimony in a very candid and creditable manner, seems to admit conduct which mado him liable to be taken into custody. Markwick is probably the individual in behalf of whom Wm. Davis went forward to Marlborough-street, but we do not consider that the testimony of Davis clears him from the effect of his own admissions. CASE OF W. REYNOLDS. On the evidence we are of opinion that the witness Rey nolds hissed and shouted at carriages, after having been cautioned ; and such conduct would, we consider, warrant his apprehension ; and the resistance made by him may probably account for any violence actually used towards him. CASE or J. BOWSTEAD. We are of opinion that this complainant took no part in any riot, and offered no obstruction to the police, beyond perhaps expressing by indiscreet cries his disapprobation of the manner in which a prisoner was being taken past at the time • and that as there was no attempt at rescu e , and no actual at that time and on that spot, his arrest was not warranted by anything he had done before he was col lared, and if that were so, his subsequent resistance did nut justify his detention. CASE OF A. HOULDING. Houlding's story is a strange one. On the balance of evi dence we believe the account given by police-sergeant 12 A, and think that in this case the apprehension of the com plainant was justified. It has be en that it i 3 t 9 Ta s owing evi dence as it st w a a n e ds n . .CASE WHITE. intimated to us since our inquiry was closed theu,aa polic emanno-atbuthteorneev to accident and inadvertence that w ot e re ar c e al h led enn a d s a tn w a i t t a n t e e s t s h ; sufficient grou n d for the apprehension of J. J. 'White, and even if th ere had been • sufficient ground the violence used towards him, mph wholly inexcusablee.n in custody by this policeman, was CASE or H. AUSTIN. The discrepan c y i n th policemen is rem ar k a b le eevidence given before us by the , a nd as we cannot place any reli ance upon their testimo n y, of H. Austin by policemyanlg find that the apprehension 3 A was unjustifiable. CASE OF L. r "" The arrest under the circumstances seems justified. There was a tumul tuous iees seems to have been fo riotous crowd as sembled, which it was proper police to remove. Frankland admits he was hissing , a nd expressing his dis approbation of theproceedings o f the poli ce ; but Inspector Webb, who was on the ground be l f ) o ej: m i O'Brien's party came up, says that he had cautioned F rankland to be quiet, and that ho was making a noise in to encou rage resistance to the police. The injury 17 way v a blow onithe head would be inexcusable, and highly deser v ing hension and punishment ; but the evidence as tooftliepree in. in jury having been inflicted is conflicting, and if it were flieted there is no proof who was the offender. Ellen ro; sea, e7iience way perhaps be viewed as corroborstin . _ _ Frankland's evidence as to injury being inflicted, but sup plies no information as to the offeinder. REFUSAL TO BIM. Looking to the facts, we regret that all the nine com plainants whose cases we have been considering were not admitted to bail, but when we refer to the provisionsof the statute which confers the only power on the subject which the constable at a police-station has, it seems clear that they do not authorise him to take bail for any person charged with riot, which seems to have been the charge made and entered against all of these complainants. When, therefore, application was made to Sir Richard Mayne for directions we de dot think that he could properly have advised the police constable to transgress the limits of his legal autho rity. Some of the persons apprehended for minor offences, which, though amounting to actual disorder, were not charged as riot, might, in our opinion, have been lawfully admitted to bail by the constable in charge of the station, if appication for that purpose had. been made; still, as the power is discretionary, we do not think that the advice given to decline to exercise it, or the refusal to exercise it, can justly be made a ground for censure. We do not think that Sir Richard Mayne was called upon, as was suggested, to interfere and act as a justice of the peace, in this case, by taking bail, or that lie would have been warranted so to take bail, seeing the restrictions placed on the exercise of his authority as a magistrate by the following proviso in the statute which first estab lished the New Metropolitan Police :—" Provided always, that no such person shall act as a justice of the peace at any court of general or quarter sessions, nor in any matter out of sessions, except for the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crimes, the detelation and committal of offenders, and in carrying into execution the purposes of this act." COMPLAINTS AS TO THE CELLS. The confinement of the prisoners at Vine-street station during the night is a painful part of our inquiry. It was impossible to hear the evidence of the witnesses who un derwent this infliction without being surprised and shocked at the sufferings to which they were subjected. It appeared that at one time 4:3 persons were shut up in a basement cell, imperfectly ventilated, and said to have been disused, except as a place of confinement for refrac tory prisoners. The dimensions of this cell were 24 feet in length by eight feet in breadthi, and the height seven feet ten inches. The asphalte floor was partially wet with water, and there was an open convenience in one corner. The sufferings of 43 inmates, or of the 33 who ultimately remained there during a sultry night, may be imagined. One witness passed a second night in this cell with 18 other persons, and declared, when examined, that he had never been well since. The cell in which Mr. Mair was confined, and the other cells were also described to us as distressingly overcrowded and oppressive. We feel bound to point attention to the defective nature of the arrangements under which all persons taken into custody in Hyde-park and Park-street were sent to Vine street Police-station, without regard to their numbers, and without suitable provision being afterwards made for their accommodation. The measures too tardily adopted for their relief by Sir Richard Mayne and the inspector in charge were insufficient. It appears to us highly fit that steps should be taken to prevent a recurrence of similar evils. Every cell might easily be inspected, the number it was adapted to contain certified and fixed, and precautions taken that the proper limit should never be exceeded. CHARGES BY OTHER COMPLAINANTS AGAINST THE POLICE. In proceeding to consider the charges against policemen for misconduct, it will be proper to bear in mind the diffi culties with which they had to contend in Hyde-park. They were engaged in efforts to check disorder and tumult during several hours, exposed to annoyance and insult, and often obliged to act under circumstances where it was difficult to discern the exact line of duty. Although sur rounded by a vast multitude, they received little or no sup port in their exertions to maintain order. It is but just that a liberal construction should be put on the acts of men employed in such duties, and that their conduct should not be censured, except on clear and decisive testi mony. It will be found that the difficulty of identifying police. men is peculiarly great. The similarity of dress, and the general similarity of size and deportment, exclude many distinguishing marks which assist in other cases. The numbers and divisional letters o which recourse is had for identification are very apt to be mistaken or sais recollected. Two cases occur in which the witnesses state that they had inverted the numbers of which they were at first confident, namely, 155 for r,51, and 174 for 147. Several witnesses admit that they had mistaken the number 80 for 84, and in many cases it was clearly proved that the witnesses were mistaken as to the numbers. The divisional letter, too, is another element of mistake, and we think has been the source of at least one error. These considerations show that we should be cautious in con demning any man on evidence of identity derived solely or chiefly from the number and the letter. It was stated by several witnesses that the scroll or border round the num ber and letter confused their sight, and was a great impe diment in ascertaining the number. The first class of these cases consists of those in which the parties aggrieved appeared as witnesses against known policemen. W. FLOYD'S AND J. VASSIE'S CASES. The defence of William Bewlay, 20 D, in this case, as in the case of Floyd's charge, seems to resolve itself into a question of identity. On weighing the evidence on each charge, we think that Floyd's and Vassie's complaints are both well founded agst 20 D. Floyd swore most distinctly to the identity of 20 D, after ample opportunity iu Hyde park for noticing his person and number. Vassie's oppor tunity for remarking the policeman who struck him was much less favourable, yet he spoke with perfect confidence to 20 D, and Bewlay's statement that he believes Vassie to be the same lie struck at tells against himself. J. MARTIN'S CASE. Tho wounded sailor's story is a bad one, and was told in a simple honest manner, but the police sergeant accused dixelai toed striking him with great appearance of sincerity; and, looking to the evidence, we think Martin may have fixed on the wrong man. — J. T. KING'S CASE. It is clear that Leach, 147 A, had a boy in custody, who was rescued about the same time when King was pushed against him. Leach may have attacked and struck him, under the impression that he was assisting in the rescue. Leach gives a different account from Charles James, and describes an encounter in which he got possesfion of two sticks, and struck a lad who had got possession of his trun cheon. There is no evidence to corroborate Leach as to the encounter he speaks of, and we have no doubt that Leach struck the complainant. The most favourable interpreta tion is, that he struck King supposing him to have been engaged in the rescue; but if so, he struck him with unne cessary and reckless violence. The rescue and excitement may in some degree palliate this offence; but Leach's want of candour and misrepresentation are bad features in the Case. B. L. SMITH'S CASE. Complaint was also made against Charles Leach, 147 A, for apprehending Mr. B. L. Smith, a barrister, who was confined all night in one of the cells at Vine-street sta tion. Originally there was a charge made by Leach against Mr. Smith, the hearing of which the magistrate adjourned for a week, and the charge was ultimately withdrawn by Leach, but under what circumstances, or why, is not very clear. Leach, however, stated on oath before us that Mr. Smith assaulted him, and that his conduct was riotous. Mr. Smith did not appear before us, and no evidence was given to affect the statement of Leach on this point, and under these circumstances we cannot hold that Leach exceeded his duty in making this arrest. R. WOODWARD'S CASE. We entertain no doubt that Woodward was struck and injured by some policeman, but policeman 593 A was in Westminster Hospital ill of typhus fever when we sat to take evidence, and we have since ascertained that he died in the hospital on the 10th of August. G. B. COUCHES'S CASE. As to the charge against policeman 229 A, the witness Coukher did not appear when 229 A was produced in the court to identify him, and it was proved by this policeman, confirmed by the testimony of his landlord, that 229 A was at home and not on duty on the Ist of July. As to the con duct of Superintendent Martin, we consider that the remo val of the complainant out of the carriage -way was proper, and that the superintendent could hardly be expected to dis cuss the point under the pressure of duties which required his attention. The pmc3edings to remove the complain ant were rough, but if he would not quit the carriage-way voluntarily he exposed himself to some degree of compul sion, and it does not appear that he was hurt. If Mr. Coulcher bad a right to remain, other foot passengers had also a right to remain in the carriage -way, and it would be impossible to clear it for carriages. W. STEPHENS'S CASE. There is no doubt that the savage attack on Stephens was unjustifiable, and that he was seriously injured. The only question is as to the identity of the policeman 81 C as a party concerned in the attack. Stephens is almost certain that Charles Madgett, 81 C, is the wan who struck him on the mouth. Nightingale and Humphries both swore positively as to identity of Madgett, and as to his taking part in the violence done to Stephens. We consider that there is sufficient proof that Charles Madgett took part in the illegal violence in this case. R. F. SANDALL'S CASE. Mr. Sandall does not speak with any well grounded con fidence as to Inspector Lester being the man who struck him, and after Lester's denial on oath it would be wrong to hold him to be the offender. J. STAPLES'S CASE. It is certain the policeman was not the man of whose conduct Mr. Staples complained. Mr. Staples said he was not the man, though it is difficult to account for his mis take in taking the number. T. M'LEOWNAN'S CASE. Thomas Prowse did not appear before us; if he had come forward as a witness this case might have been cleared of doubt. The evidence, as It stands, is conflicting, and we do not consider the alleged misconduct and improper lan guage to be proved with certainty against the policeman John Bray. H. B. MAXWELL'S CASE. Mr. Mitchell afterwards stated that he did not pre ss th e charge against this policeman, and we exonerat e p o li ceman 345 A from this charge, but there is no doubt unwarrant able violence was used towards Mr. Maxwell by some po liceman on duty. T. CANNON'S CASE. The witness Cannon was maltreated, but his evidence is insufficient to prove who was the offender. The Second Class of these cases consists of those in which witnesses complained of misconduct on the part of known policemen; but the persons alleged to have been injured or aggrieved were not examined or known. CASE OF A BOY HURT. The policeman's explanation seems satisfactory, and con sistent with the witness Blanchard's evidence. CASE OF A. MAN STRUCK. If the time of the transaction in question had been dis tinctly fixed as at 5 o'clock , th e p olice man 375 A would took place about 6 o'clo c k. Th e ge which make s it pro have disproved the charge by sh owin g th at he was then at Vine-street, but, the time is not so fixed ; and Blanchard mentions that 10 minutes after the transa c t ion he saw the h policemanb that w t i h t e h t a ra b n o s y ac i t n iont his oo c injured person does not appear, but Blanchard and Berry speak so distinctly to the facts, and also to the person and number of James Teasdale, that, notwithstanding his de nial, we think this charge of violence is sufficiently proved against him. CASE OP A BOY KNOCKED DOWN. It is impossible to reconcile the account which this wit ness gives with his guilt, yet the witness Daniel took down the number, A 344, at the time. The witness Daniel does not identify the person of the policeman, and the boy stated to have been hurt does not appear. Under these circum stances we give the policeman the benefit of the doubt. CASE OF VIOLENCE IN THE DRIVE. The young gentleman alleged to have bees ill-treated does not appear. The facts admit of the explanation given, and we cannot fix blame on the police, who were engaged in clearing the carriage-way at the time. CASE OF THREATENING. The explanation given in this case is probably correct; :heroforo we see no reason to censure the policeman. CASE OF ♦ MAN STRUCK, SUPPOSED TO BE BINCROFT. We Ma 3 1 0 person to whom Olives evidence ifs appli• cable except Bincroft, and, assuming tiara, he was the per son, we think the policeman has answered the charge. CASE OF VICLENCE IN PARK-STREET. We find that Vincent Gummer, police-sergeant C, acted with unjustifiable violence in dispersing the crowd in Park-street. In a number of other cases the Commissioners find that either the case was explained, not proved, or the particular policeman not identified ; and as regards six others they state—We see no reason to doubt that in all there cares the violence spoken to was committed ; and in the absence of any explanation it appears to have been wholly unwar ranted. After full inquiry into the complaints submitted to our consideration, we have deemed it our duty to report mis conduct on the part of various members of the police ; a result the more to be regretted on account of the high character of that body; but if excesses were shown to have been committed by some, ample testimony WAS also borne to the moderation and forbearance of other mem bers of the same body on the same occasion ' • and what ever blame may attach to indi v id ua l s , it was through the exertions of the police that accidents were prevented in the park, and property in that vicinity protected from damage. When the events of the day are properly appreciated, we think they will not be found to afford any ground for les sening the confidence of the public—a confidence founded on the experience of six-and-twenty years—in the general good conduct and efficiency of the Metropolitan Police. All which we humbly submit to your Majesty's most gracious consideration. 10th November, 1855. (L. S.) JAMES STUART WORTLEY. (L. S.) ROBERT BAYNES ARMSTRONG. (L. S.) GILBERT HENDERSON. COPY OF A LETTER TO SIR RICHARD MAYNE, K.C.8., COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS. Whitehall, November Li, 1855. I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to transmit to you a copy of the Report of the Commissioners ap pointed to inquire into the disturbance of the public peace in Hyde-park on Sunday, the Ist July, and into the con duct of the Metropolitan Police on that occasion. This Report, which was delivered to Sir George Grey on the 10th instant, has received his serious attention. From the description given by the Commissioners of the nature and character of the assemblage in the park on the day in question, of the noisy and riotous proceedings which took place, and of the danger caused by them to persons in carriages and on horseback, as well as from the statement of the Commissioners that the crowd contained a sprinkling of bad and dangerous persons who required the control of the police, and who, but for such control, might have led the way and been followed by the thought less and inconsiderate to misAief and damage to property, the extent of which would only ha - re been limited by the resistance they met with, there can be no doubt that the interference of the police was indispensably necessary ; and Sir George Grey is happy to find that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the presence and acts of the police en the Ist July had the effect of preventing any such result, and that it was through their exertions that accidents were prevented in the park, and property in that vicinity pro tected from damage. It is a l so sa ti s f ac t ory t o k now t h a t there was no evidnce before the Commissioners of any loss of life or bone broken, or of any limb seriously hurt, or permanent injury of any kind inflicted. It is, however, with great regret that Sir George Grey finds that the result of the inquiry has been to establish, in the opinion of the Commissioners, charges of serious misconduct on the part of some members of the force, while they report that ample testimony was borne to the moderation and for bearance of other members of the body on the same occa sion, and that when the events of the day are properly appreciated, they would not, in their judgment, be found to afford any just grounds for lessening the confidence of the public in the general good conduct and efficiency of the Metropolitan Police. This high character which the force has acquired, and which is highly creditable ,to it as a body, and to those under whose immediate directions it has been placed, renders it the more important that every precaution should be taken to prevent its reputation being compromised and its efficiency impaired by misconduct on the part of any of its members. With this view lam to call your parti cular attention both to the general statements of miscon duct contained in this Report, and to the particular in stances in which the Commissioners have recorded their opinion that such misconduct has been proved against in dividual members of the police force. The latter cases are not numerous, and may properly be dealt with in the first instance. The first to which Sir George Grey feels it his duty to advert is, the case of Superintendent Hughes, who was charged with the general direction of the police in Hyde park on the Ist July. The Commissioners state him to have been accused of undue excitement, of using impro per language, of having been personally guilty of many as • sanits with his horsewhip, of issuing to the police without sufficient grounds orders to use their staves, and of failing to control many excesses on the part of the police under his command. The evidence in support of the first three of these charges was insufficient. to satisfy the Commission ers of their being well founded ; but even after making allowance for the circumstances in which ho was placed, for the obstruction of the road, for the obstinacy of what they term the "rough people" in the carriage-way and at the railings, and the fact of stones being thrown at himself and Superintendent Martin, the Commissioners think that Superintendent Hughes was not warranted in the order he gave the men to use their staves at the time that order was given, and that, although if the use of the staves had been strictly limited to the clearance of the carriage -road, they might have considered it justifiable, there was not the same necessity to drive the crowd from the railings, and still less to clear the space between the rails and the water of the Serpentine. They also think that prudence required that the experiment of removing and keeping back the crowd from the rail should have been abandoned immedi ately the collisions attending it were perceived. The Com missioners further advert in this part of their Report to the conduct of parties of the police in dispersing at a late hour in the evening groups collected at a distance from the drive, though it does not appear that any riotous or other illegal proceedings were going on in these groups. They do not, however, state that tlrse parties of police were under the immediate orders of Superintendent Hughes. The opinion of the Commissioners with regard to him, on a review of all facts in evidence, is, that in endeavour ing to discharge) a difficult and embarrassing duty he gave too much sanction to the use of the staves, and exercised less control over his men than a due regard for the safety of unoffending individuals required ; and they believe that by a more calm and forbearing course on his part, much angry excitement at the time and complaint afterwards would have been avoided. It is right, how ever, to notice the opinion of the Commissioners that, to remove and keep the people back at some distance from the rails, BO that the noises and gestures of the crowd might produce less effect, was the measuie most likely to be effectual for the protection of persons using the drive, and keeping the carriage-way clear, and that it was expressly directed by you, though under the circumstances detailed in the report, they state it to have been a task of great difficulty. They intimate, moreover, that it was attempted with an inadequate force, and that to this cause is to be attributed much of the violence which cannot be justified. Sir George Grey presumes that Superintendent Hughes was not responsible for the amount of the force at first employed, which must have been determined by the Commissioners of Police, and that the strong reinforcements which arrived between half-past 3 and half-past 5 o'clock were sent upon his application. With respect to the order for the use of the staves, Superintendent Hughes says that he gave it on his own responsibility, and that he gave it considering that the critical moment was come when, unless controlled, the dangerous elements of the crowd would become un manageable, and serious mischief ensue. There can be no question but that calmness and forbear hfp the a theseu factsb position.l i public o peace, t qualitiesh scar and s owe aus that lsdt lance are as essential as firm ness an d reso l ut i on i n an officer placed in command of a b o d y o f men engaged in reserv igmarkedraend e ra m o a r n habitual wholly unfit ab for e- n George ata Greyein the has report,caref ully andth; consi dered opinion of the Commi ss i oners, i n or d er to determ i ne whe ther n cs:ab sence : ther the conduct of Superintendent Hughes, under the circumstances in which he was placed on the Ist of July, was such as to disqualify him from holding the office of a Superintendent of Police. After taking into account all the circumstances as detailed by the Commissioners, and after considering the long service of Superintendent Hughes in the force, and the general approval with which he had during such service discharged duties requiring great judgment and discretion, Sir George Grey is of opi nion that while it is necessary t o mark with ()ensure the conduct which the Commissioners have thought justly liable to blame, his dismissal from his office would be harsh and uncalled for. You will convey to him the disapproval of the Secretary of State of his want of forbearance and judgment on this occasion, and enjoin upon him, in the strongest terms, the of maintaining perfect self-control in the highlyperform responsible d u ti es , an d of checking, perfo th rm ance bo si fy ty hhiiss ex example and his orders, any unnecessary vio lence on the part of those under his command. In connection with this part of the report, I am to direct your attention to the recommendation of the Commis sioners, in which Sir G. Grey entirely concurs, that on oc casions similar to that of the Ist July, a superior officer of the police ought to be on the spot. He is aware that this course has been adopted on the occasions on which, since the Ist of July, the attendance of large numbers of police has been required for the preservation of the peace, and it is obviously one which ought in all such cases to be taken. Sir G. Grey has also already directed you to ensure on all such occasions the presence of a force fully adequate for the duty it may be called on to perform. The amount of force requisite for any particular duty must be decided by the judgment and experience of the Commissioners of Police. But it is obvious that the presence of an adequate force at any spot which is likely to be the scene of tumult or disorder, is not only the best precaution against a breach of the public peace, but the surest means for the prompt and effectual suppression of any outbreak which may oc cur. He is happy to know that the amount of force em ployed by you, and the measures taken for its distribution and employment on the recant occasions on which the ex traordinary services of police have been required, have been such as completely to effect the object in view. misconduct specified by the Commissioners in which theirey have named individual constables against whom, in I am next to advert to the particular instances h of judgment, charges of such misconduct have been . estab lished. Sir George Grey has felt some difficulty in n decid ing ing on the course which it is his duty to take h • •offence, and it has been a these, amounts to an indictable matter for consideration whether indictments shonl4l not • t all of these policemen for their alleged be preferred against cases. The misconduct imputed in most, if not in all of illegal conduct ; but considering the length of time which llas elapsed between the occurrences in question and the date of the report, the probability that some of the wit nesses who appeared before the Commissioners may not now be forthcoming, and the fact that in some of these cases the persons alleged to have been injured or aggrieved were not known or ascertained, it appears to Sir George Grey that the better course is to leave the majority of these cases to be dealt with upon i the report by th e exer cise of the power vested by law n the C omm i ss i oners of Police. The cases themselves are few i n num b er, and Sir George Grey is of opinion that, with the ex ce pti ons t o b e presently mentioned, the ends of justice and the object with which the inquiry was instituted, can be satisftic torily obtained by this means. The policemen against whom the Commissioners have especially reported are - - • 398 A, since ascertained to be William Gearing, charged with the apprehension, without sufficient ground, of J. J. White, and of inexcusable violence to him while in custody. George Thorpe, 363 A, charged with the unjustifiable apprehension of Henry Austin. William Bewlay, 20 D, charged with unnecessary violence towards Wiliiam Floyd and James Vassie. Charles Leach, 147 A, charged with unnecessary arid reckless violence towards John Thomas Kin... Charles Madgett, 84 C, charged with taking part in illegal violence against William Stephens. amos T! 19, 375 A, and Thomas Wade, 385 A, charged with violence towards persons who were not known or examined. And Sergeant Vincent Gurnmer, 21 C, charged with unjustifiable violence in dispersing the crowd in Park street. Of these men Sir G. Grey is informed that all are still serving in the police, with the exception of Charles Leach, who quitted the force in August last, and is therefore no longer subject to the authority of the Commissioners of Police. With regard to all these cases, with the excep tion of those of Wm. Gearing, Wm. Bewlay, and Charles Madgett, lam to desire that you will take into considera tion the facts stated in th 3 report, as affecting each of the policemen, and the finding of the Commissioners, and that in the exercise of the power vested in you by law, you will award in each case such punishment, either by suspension or dismissal, as 3 on shall think right, having regard to the ordinary course adopted by the Commissioners in the case of constables who are proved to have committed illegal or unjustifiable acts in the performance of their duty. In the three cases, however, of Gearing, Bewlay, and bladgett, the acts of violence deposed to before the Commissioners appear to have been so gross and unprovoked, that if they are satisfactorily proved, the mere dismissal from_ the force would be an inadequate punishment for the offence; and as the description of the witnesses against them renders it probable that the same evidence which was given before the Commissioners will be available on a trial, Sir George Grey thinks it right that an indictment should be pre ferred against each of these men. Sir George Grey has not included Policeman Joseph Butcher, 109 .B, in the list of those against whom the Commissioners \ have re ported, because, although they record their opinion that the arrest of James Bousted, who was taken into custody by him and other policemen who are not named, was not warranted by anything he had done, the constable appears to have acted in obedience to the orders of Superintendent. Hughes, and no complaint is made against Butcher per sonally. The apprehension, moreover, of Bousted, after the caution he is said to have received, may reasonably be supposed to have been sanctioned by your written order, quoted in the report (p. 7) directing that any persons shouting or making any noise, or acting in any way cal culated to cause disturbance or frighten horses, were to be cautioned as to the consequences and required to desist, and that if they did not immediately do so they were to be removed, and, if necessary, taken into custody. In addition to these cases, in which the policemen were identified, there are others of a similar character, in some of which no evidence affecting particular constables was given, while in others the evidence of identity was not satisfactory. Some r f these occurred in Hyde-park, but itr Park-street especially the Commissioners state that there were several cases of serious injury to unoffending individuAls, which proved a discreditable exercise of vio lence.. It is impossible not to regret that persons of the charac ter described by the Commissioners should have been mixed up with a crowd such as that which is stated in the report to have been collected in Hyde-park, and at a later hour in front of Lord Robert Grosvenor's house in Park street, as it cannot be always easy to distinguish between persons mingling in such a crowd accidentally or without any bad intention, and those taking a part in its illegal proceedings. The Commissioners, however, have not been unmindful of the difficulties with which the police had to contend. In Hyde-park they say the police were engaged in efforts to check disorder and tumult during several hours, exposed to annoyance and insult, and often obliged to act under circumstances where it was difficult to discover the exact line of duty, and although surrounded by a vast multitudethey received little or no support in their exertions to maintain order. The Commissioners' opinion theriffore, ou the several cases they have detailed is entitled to the greater weight, as having been formed after taking all circumstances into account, and I am to direct your particular attention to it, and to desire that injunctions may be given to all the officers of the police to exercise a strict control over their men, and carefully to restrain them from any acts of needless violence. The police will receive the full support of the Government in the execution of the important duties they have to per form, but those duties can only be usefully or efficiently performed by a cautious abstinence from any abuse of power, and from all acts which, if not strictly illegal, indi cate a want of the temper and discretion which are pecu liarly requisite in persons charged with the preservation of the public peace, and which Sir George Grey is happy to know generally characterise the Metropolitan police. I have now to turn to some other portions of the report, affecting some of the general arrangements connected with the occurrences of the lstiof July. The first relates to the confinement of the persons taken into custody at the Vine street station. The remarks of the Commissioners on the defective nature of the arrangements with regard to the numbers sent to that station, and the inadequate provi sion made for their accommodation, appear to Sir George Grey-to be fully warranted by the facts ; and although he has been informed that the want of any provision for send ing a portion of the prisoners, in the first instance, to other stations, arose from the number having greatly exceeded what was anticipated, he is not aware of any satisfactory reason for a larger number not having been removed from Vine-street to other stations after the insufficiency of the accommodation in Vine-street had been ascertained. From communications, however, which he has had with you since these occurrences took place, he is glad to know that arrangements have been made by your directions for pre venting, on any future occasion, the recurrence of mis management attended with such serious results. Another subject very properly noticed by the Commis sioners is, the delay in bringing the persons in custody before the magistrate. The utmost diligence ought undoubtedly to be used in taking before a magistrate persons arrested without the authority of a warrant; but as the delay in this instance was inquired into at the time, and its cause explained, and as directions have been given which will prevent the occurrence of any such delay o❑ any future occasion, it is unnecessary further to advert to it here. Sir George Grey does not understand the Commissioners to impute blame in any quarter owing to the refusal to admit the prisoners to bail. With regard, indeed, to those charged with riot, they correctly state that the constable at the station was not authorised by law to take bail, and that you could not properly have advised him to trans gress the limit of his legal authority. With regard to the others, although the Commissioners think that they might have been lawfully admitted to bail by the constable in charge of the station, if application for that purpose had been made, they decline to censure the advice given not to exercise the power, and the refusal to do so, and they alto gether acquit you of any blame for not having personally interfered for the purpose as was suggested. There is one other remark of the Commissioners which Sir George Grey thinks it right to notice. They advert to the difficulty of identifying policemen, and they give the statement of several witnesses, that the scroll or border of the number round the letter on the coat confused their sight, and was a great impediment in ascertaining the number. Sir George Grey is not aware that any better means of identification can be provided than the use of the numbers and divisional letters, but these ought to be made as distinct as possible ; and I am to desire that you will consider whether any alteration can be made in the man ner of affixing these numbers and letters in order to afford greater facility for prompt and easy identification.— I am,'&c.; (Signed) W. MASSEY. THE ALLEGED MURDER OF A MILD BY ITS MOTHER. Yesterday Mr. Bedford, coroner for the city of West minster, held an inquest at the Prince of Orange, Ro chester row, on the body of Wm. G. Allen, age 1 six, wlio was found in the Thames, near Vauxhall-bridge, on Sunday last, under circumstances already fully reported in The Sun. In addition to the evidence given at the Westminster Police-court. John M&zey deposed that he met Mrs. Allen and the three children on Thursday evening, about 10 minutes past five. The mother had one child in her arms and one on each side of her. Mrs. Allen said to witni.ss, "It is very foggy," and went on towards the river. She spoke rationally, and seemed as usual, but he had known her three years, and she always appeared to have something on her mind. John Reynolds, Waterman, having spoken to the rescue of the two children, by him-elf and another man, said that the children might have fallen into the river from the pathway, but nit %ery easily. There were railings by the river side. They might all 11..ve gone down the steps to the water, as the gate was open, but they could not thence have floated to where he found them. Groves, 55, Thames Police, recalled—Thought tho children might have fallen through the railings, and floated to the spot where two of them were rescued. John Goddy, pierman at the Cadogan Pier, picked up a child, aged 11 months, under circumstances similar to the above. There was a post and chain along the path way by the river side. Children c3uld get under it pur posely, but not accidentally. The Coroner having summed up, the jury without hesitation returned a verdict of "Found drowned, with out evidence to show how deceased came into the water." Before the commencement of the inquest, it was men tioned to the coroner that the elder of the two children rescued from a watery grave had sinne the exa , ninatton of its mother at the Westminster Police Court, on Thurs day, been questioned by its father, in the presence of a police sergeant, as to whether it fell into the water, and that it had answered "No ; mother throw me in— mother throw me in." As the mother was not present when the question was put to the child, the coroner de clined to allow its answer to be put before the jury, but probably a lull statement upon this point will be made today, when Mrs. Allen will appear at the Westminster Police Court for re-examination. The Independance Beige publiAhes the following letter, dated Hamburg, 17th i nst. :—" The bay of Kiel present; a spectacle of great animation, in consequence of the arrival of the English line-of-battle-ship the Duke of Wellington, on board of which Admiral Dundas has his flag, and of the two French liners Duquesne and Toor• ville, with Relr-Admiral Penaud and the staff of the French squadron. [AnvErcrisamisrr.]—lt is ever a pleasing duty of a journalist to introduce to his readers some new discovery calculated '‘o benefit that vast portion of our fellow-creatures which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids to the following extracts from Du Barry's interesting report of cures without medicine of Indigestion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and Liver Complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consurnptioa and Debility, by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food ;—Cure No. 52,422.—Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d April, 1854.—1 have suffered these 33 years continually from diseased lungs, spit ting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, singing in the ears, constipation, debility, shortness of breath and cough, and during that period taken so much medicine that I can safely say I have laid out upwards of a thousand pounds at the Chemists and doctors. Indeed I was in utter despair and never expected to get over it, when I was fortunate enough to become acquainted with your Revalenta Arabica, which, Heaven be praised, restoredmelto a state of health I long since despair. ed of attaining. My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are all right, my hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances.—Jaitas ROBERTS, Wood Merchant.— In canisters, llb. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d.; 51b. I Is. ; 121 b. The 121 b., carriage free, on receipt of Post-Oflice order. Barry Du Barr y & Co., 77, R ege nt-street, London ; also at 152, Piccadill; 60, Gracecliurch-street ; 330, and 451, Strand; 4, Cheapside ; 60 awl 68, Cornhill ; 49, Bishopsgate-street; 55, Charing-cross; 54, Upper Baker-street; 63 and 150, Oxford-street ; 89, High-street, Camden-town ; 18, p a ll; mall. 7, Pall-mall-East • 132, New Bond-street ; 24 , M o t. comb-street ; 13, King iVilliam-street, City ; 30, Conduit straet; 21, Cockepur - st reet ; 145, Faniugden-st ree t ; 67,5 t. Two (Amoliyard; G l Eilwardltreet, Pprtmoz.lvare, BIRTHS. OF A SON. Thou On the 20th inst., at 7, Kingsland-green, M rs . Tho— Ma xwell. On the 19th inst., at Eton, the wife of the Ref• Fre wer. OF A DAUGHTER. 91 0 On the 21st inst., at Prince's-gate, Hyde-park, the of Henry Gillett Gridley, Esq., barrister-at-law. On the 21st inst., at 2, the Terrace, Great Dean's-7 1 ! 14 , 0 ; Westminster, the wife of the Rev. Henry J. Hose—tifP MARRIED. On the 20th inst., at St. Michael's, Queenhithe, Ec 4 o i Rsyment, of Broken-wharf, to Mary, eldest d a nghter_ d i Frederic Joyce, Esq., of 57, Upper Thames-street, Waltham Abbey, Essex. On the 20th inst., at Brighton Church, Frank 01„; Wright, Esq of New West-end, Hamp s t ea d, to Eliza, daughter of 'the late Joseph Billion, Esq., of Notting- 11i square. Country Markets. EDINBURGH ArEAL MARKET—Nov. 20. There were in the market to-day 18 sacks oatmeal, ems: weighing 280 lbs imperial, which sold at 50s. EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET— Nov. 20. Oat straw, from 102 Od to 13s Od per kemple of 16 stoat trop; wheat do., Gs Od to 7s Od; barley do., 5s Gd to 6 6d. Hay from 10d to 15d. DALKEITH MEi L ' Oatmeal, per sack of 2801bs . imperial Barleymeal, per ditto Peasemeal, per ditto Flour, per ditto Pot-barley, per ditto .ARKET—Nov. 19 First. Second. Thing 47s Od 45s Od 449 ( 36s Ott I—s. Od —s 0 —s Od s. Od -—s —s Od —s . Od —9 —s Od s Od KIRKCALDY—Nov. 17. We hail a fair supply of grain, and sales quick for over kind. Wheat and ba► : ley is per qr. dearer, and oats near). 2s g her. Wheat. Barley. Oats. I Beans. First Seco n d . 80 86 s Od sOd I 45s Od I 33s Od I Os Od Thir 38s Od 295 Od I Os Ocl DUBLIN —Nov. 21. White wheat, 44s O 1 to 48s Od ; red ditto, 41s to 46. 0 1 barley, 17s 6d to 24s Od ; oats, 16s Od to 183 Od ; rapeseo 40s Od to 44s Gd per 1)1.1; oatmeal, 16s Od to 18s Od ; bakes' flour, 2.4 s 6d to 27s Od per cwt ; limiaucorn, 46s Od to 4840 1 per 4801bs, BRISTOL SUGAR—Nov. 21. Our sugar market remains moderately active, and price~ remain unchanged. Very few sales have been effected. COAL MARIE' krices of Coal per ton at t' !.—Nov. 21. ;he close of the market. s. d. Byass's West Hartley lB 3 Hasting's Hartley lB 3 Holywell Longridge's Wet Hartley 18 3 Tanfield Moor l7 9 Walker Primrose l7 0 Grey's West Hartley l7 West Hartley 18 3 Wallseno, Wallsend, ko. : t p. Belmont 20 Braddyll .. ~. ~ 21 ! Hetton Lyons Main 20 ' Lambton 21 Russell's Hetton 21 ' South Hetton 22 Stowart's 22 Cassop .21 Hough Hall " 2O ' South Kelloe Tees , 22 Whitworth . ' . i 19 ' Derwentwater Hartley lB 1 Heaton Lawson l9 Northumberland 18 0 1 Riddell l9 9 i Wharneliffe 2 i 01 Eden Main 21 3 Ships at market... 63 I Sold 's6 RAILWAY TRAFFIC RETURNS. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY. —Traffic return for 0 1 week ending Nov. 11, 1855 £26,172 10 Corresponding week last year 23,x63 9 LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY.--Trafllo torn for the week ending Nov. 18, 1855 220,146 I Corresponding week last year 18,629 4 CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY.—Traffle return fa, the week ending Nov. 18, 1855 Corresponding week last year -4,32 1 4 _, Increase in 1855 , £524 9 CORK AND BANDON RAlLWAY.—Traffic return for Wel ending Nov. 17, 1855 Corresponding week last year 2lB 11 SRA BORNE MAILS. (I , i Mg/idles that the mail* arc sent from the General Post 0/ 111 sy the mght—ancl, M by the mornin4—despatch.) iO 1 TRli t Day wftcji ;Et General Po Ofneo, London.. kt Vitt Port doe En , law Every Friday unerica(bylirit.pack)N mericr.tby United Sts packet) .... ~N imerica (by U. Statts packet) N t.ustralia (via South-, ampton) !Jitto (via Marseilles) N; t)itto (via Cape of idood - , Hops) ifrica (West Coast) N N kleaandria ........ .31 Cahamas ......... Belgium ......... N Brazil Buenos Ayres —5l Cape of Good Hope N Cape of Good Hope ..N , Cape de Verde Ceylon (see In-11a) Ceylon Channel Islea N Mon 241 & 17th of moat , China lOnce a month.... Constantinople .... ,8,13,18,23,tic23 orni Constantinople _ „14th & 20th of mon. Cont. of Europe M6c N Twice daily _ .. 1 ggypt (see India) France ........ N Twice daily Gibraltar m 7, 17, Rn, 27 :fn, ilreeco (see India) I 3reytown .2nd & 17th of Mon. flarnburgh ....NiTnesd ay & Friday Elavannah .......... 5112 n/ -f the month golland „ „ Dr , t Fil7 . ilonduras 44 the month. India (viaSouthampt.)M 4 111 70th of moo. India (via Marseillcs)M9m,.... 45th of month .lonian Wes (see Ind'a)l7, 1 7, & 27 of mon Ireland & N 'Twice daily • .... 7, 9,.17, & 27 of m.,1 Madeira „DI 9th of the month Madeira N i 23d of month • ... Siena (see In . dia . ) Malta N 8, 18, &28 of mon, ifaurititis (see India) gauritius 14th of the montt 9nri ", I Llverpoo iLiverpou Nov. !South= • ! Southamotor. Dover „ , Meet Plymouth .. Des.. Dover .. t Southampton Southampton i Dover ...... DOW., Southamptoi, Dec. t: Southampton Dec. tip Various port I tlncel - T 23d of the month . 8,9, 24, & 30 of at 4th & 20th of mon , 17th of the moot! Daily 19th of the month.. 19th of the month.. 9th of tbz month leouthampto. Dec. if SouthamptohlTu Tll-P ° Southampt. Doc. 4 Dover -.... Bouthampto;l Dover .......Tvricc 4o iTvrlcedP Dover ..... Southampt3f Southf.mpton London Southampton Dec. l• Dover lgatithamptm 16tholr Plymouth .. NoY. 1v Dover_ ......; D0ver...... Liolihead Twiet, Bouthamptor NOV Southampto.; Liverpool ... 'Dover „, ,„ Nov. 40 M ex i co 1/12nd of the month.. t athlath2sthefmon New Granada ,2 & 17 th of monti _ _ l iloathsnipt.F. Dee. 1 ;Dover Bouthampto;.! Various pirt:, Uneert al° Dover !Southampton i'.zonthampton' Various ports 'Cited !Dover Dover .0 0 'Southampton 1 &Ju— -1 New Zealand ..........BT Private slip Papal States ~ ... . . . Iti stlllsth2sthoftnon. Peninsula ..........lsl Ithl7th27thofmon. P eru 2d & 27th of mon. Port Natal private ship... 14,15 thl sth2sthofmon, Tuscany „.../15th1.5025thofinon,1 Venezuela .. ...... ..31j 2 d 17th ofniontl , tan Diemen's Lane (se.! An3tralia) „,„ „ I We tuni, 17th. o month Southampton 1 & 1 6 l'3sl --- Whenany of these : late r f a ll on a Sunday, the rnallA d 11 .3patched on the following day. with the exception of the Indft 'Ol outhampton), and the Malta, both of which will be despatch preceding day. . rADVERTIREMENT. 1— &GM' AND HEAR ENG. —DRARNSES Derzciivs Visit N RELIEVED.— Messrs. S. and B. Moyle' opticians, 39, A lbemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe-00 site the York Hotel. De , faess—New Discovery.- - If Organic Vib ra t or , an extraordinary powerful, small, ne l o invented instrument for deafness, entirely different frop o t others, to surpass anything of the kind that his been, o f probably ever can he, produced. Being of the same 0 0I° v as the skin, is not perceptible ; it enables deaf personei hear distinctly at church and at public assemblies ; the .4 pleasant sensation of singing noises in the cars i s en ti r el9 moved ; and it affords all the assistance that P o ss ibly 04 2,p be desired.—Newly-constructed Spectacle Lenses or the g; est transparent power. The valuable adva n t age derlo from this invention is, that vision becoming impairedo preserved and strengthened, and very age d perso ns of enabled to employ their sight at the most minute O C A , pation—can see with these lenses o f a muc h l ess mag ma' ing power—and they do not re qu i re th e f requen t dial. to the dangerous effects o f f ur th er powerful assistseAJ By her Majesty's Ro al Letters Patent for valuable '1;11 extraordinary improvements in, the most powerful brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Racecourse, Opera, and . ,; spectivo Glasses, to know the di s t ances o f o bj ec t s through them—of great importance to the army, 2e.di and others. These telescopes possess such extraordw;es. powers that some three and a-half inches, with an e xtrsl, piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Saturn's 90 1 and the double stars ; with the same telescope es T: L o tt! seen a person's countenance three miles and a half die' and an object from 16 t o 20 miles. They, are of larger an d s sizes, with increasing powers accordingly ; while their 1 11 ) . ing from 4 to 6 inches enable us to discover more than f si above, and the Georgian, with his 6 Patellites, Exhibition, 1851.—Valuable, newly-invented, very eliols oowerful waistcoat-pocket glass,the size of a waln u t, by if o f a person can be seen and known 1 miles distant ; they as o o o, every purpose on the race-course, and at the opera helot, country scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 8 to 101: 0 ' tp They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yaehtiat of sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. 081 race-course, camp, and perspective g lasses, with woncle.l power.-39, Albemarle-street, Pic ca d i lly. Observe— opPv" the York Hotel. DIED. On the 21st inst. ' at Lim mer ' s H o t e l, Lieutenant-urti rad Frederick Markham, aged 50. On the 21st inst., Mr. Thomas T. Broughton, of Oxford-street. On the 20th inst., at Greville Cottage, Kentish-to t° Henry Cox, Esq., aged 32. On the 19th inst., at Queen's-read, Dalston, Mr. Si' Hasell. On the 19th inst., at Effra-road, Brixton, Mr. 11 09 Lee, formerly of Leadenhall-street, aged 81. wh , ' On the 12th i ns t., a t Ra c h an H ouse , P ee bl ess hi re , Tweedie, Esq. of Quarter, Physician-General J.P. amDepay-Lieut. of the county of Peebles. Ou the 14th inst., at Florence, Rowland F.W. Childe f./ aged 25. „I On the 20th inst.., at Worksop, Mrs. Froggatt, age , . On the 18th inst., at Snaith, Yorkshire, Mary, the I I of Edward Clark, Esq., aged 35. LONDON . : Printe.l and Publislito oy MIIRDO YOUI 4 , (1 1 : Jf No. 11'2, Striva:l, Printer, at The Sun 0 flee, lfr a t Strand, in the Precinez of the Savoy, in the 0 024 Thurscisil Kfromber,22,lB66,