The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-11-19 00:00:00

TIIE CASES OF SIR. CUNNINCRIAME GRAHAM AND JOHN

Mr. Cuninghame Grahame, M.P., aged 35, Riving
his address at the Hotel Metropole, and John Burns,
aged 28, of Wickersley-road, Battersea, were charged
at Bow-street, on Monday, with being concerned with
divers other persons in unlawfully and riotously
assembling together to the terror of her Majesty's
subjects. Mr. Graham was further charged with
assaulting the police. Mr. Poland and Mr. R. S.
Wright, instructed by Sir A. K. Stephenson, and Mr.
Pollard, on behalf of the Treasury, appeared for the
prosecution; Mr. W. Thompson appeared for the
defence. Mr. Graham's head was encircled by a
bloodstained bandage.
Mr. Poland said that in this case he was instructed
by the Solicitor to the Treasury to prosecute the two
defendants on a charge of Laving aef aalted the police
in the executien of their duty in rrafalgar-square.
He would give a brief history of this matter. It was
determined to issue a notice, dated the Bth Nov.,
which was extensively circulated, and signed by Sir C.
Warren, stating that, with the sanction of her Majesty's
Secretary of State for War, and with the concurrence
of the Commissioners of her Majesty's Works and
Public Buildings, until further intimation no meeting
would be allowed to assemble in Trafalgar-square,
sad requesting all well-disposed persons to abstain
from attending such an assemblage. No one who
took an interest in public efairs could have failed to
become acquainted with that notice. He would call
attention to the statute regulating Trafalgar-square I
—the 7th and Bth Vic., cap. 60. Having read a por-
tion of the Act, the learned counsel said it showed
that Trafalgar-square was Crown property, and
the
_notice was issued in the name cf the Crown.
That being so, Trafalgar-square was in the position
of other Crown property, and no person had any
right in that square except with the permission of
the Crown. The notice was not intended to interfere
with the use of the square to the public for ordinary
purposes. The Crown, through its Ministers, had
allowed the public the use of the square as a place of
passage, and, to some extent, as a place of recreation.
Some persons, however, conceivel the notion that be-
cause they had not been always interfered with they
had a right to go there and stand on the base of the
Nelson Column and attract crowds of people to come
there to listen to their speeches, In the first place,
every person who stood on the Nelson Column
without the permission of the Crown was a trespasser;
and he ventured to say, further, that every person
who went into the square without the permission
of the Crown was a trespasser also ; and
that any person who had had his attention
directed to the subject and conceived that he had the
right to stand on the Nelson Column and attract
people to listen to speeches, was about the most idle
contention ever raised. The same ridiculous con-
tention was raised in 1872. People thought they
had a right to go into Hyde-park and make speeches
there. Crown property was like the property of any
private individual. In 1872 it was thought right to
regulate the mode in which some of the parks should
be used for public meetings. Mr. Poland proceeded
to quote from the preamble of the Act of Parliament
of 1836, Vie., cap. 15, to show that, while enjoying
such parks, steps were taken to prevent the public
being molested or annoyed, and said that, in view of
I public meetings, the public were allowed, subject
to rules and regulations, to go to Hy de-
park, Victoria-park, and, he believed, Battersea.
park. These rules were plain and simple,
but they were questioned by a Mr. Bailey,
and a case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice of
England (Lord Chief Justice Cockburn), and Justices
I Blackburn, Mellor, and Quain. It was contended that
the public were entitled te.the use of the parks as a
right for the purpose of ni.yeing through them, and
for the purpose also of dtlivering addresses. The
Lord Chief Justice said this was a proposition which
was very startling, for he hart always understood that
the parka were the property of the Crown, and that
the enjoyment of them by the people was subject to
the consent of the Crown. He controverted the idea
which seemed to prevail that the public could do as
they liked in the Park, and said he was aware of no
legal principle and no authority for that idea. That
being the state of the law, the Crown, through her
Majesty's Ministers, had deterraed ill the in-
__ ,
_ -

terests of the public, these meetings shoiild not be
held in Trafalgar-square. If the people wanted to hold
meetings let them go to Hyde-park (obeying the regu-
lations),or to Victoria or Battersea-parks. They were not
the authorities said, to hold meetings in Trafalgar-
square, in the heart of London, when thousands and
tens of thousands might be collected together, and
where it was known from previous experience—as for
instance from what resulted in the beginning of 18SG,
when riots and disorder followed meetings there, and
while property was interfered with—that dangerous
consequences were likely to result. Accordingly
notices were issued prohibiting the meetings, but in
spite of these notices people said that they would
hold these meetings, and the two defendants before
the magistrate, Mr. Cuninghame Graham, a member
of Parliament, who ought to know better—(a laugh)
—and Mr. Burns, who, from what occurred last year in
Trafalgar-square, ought to have known better—
(Barns: Hear, hear)—determined to assist at that
meeting. They had no excuse, for they were told
what they were to expect, and they were warned
in plain terms. In order that the people should be
specially warned another proclamation was issued by
order of the Commissioner of Police, who had a clear
right to make any provision under the Police Act in
the interests of the public, and for the preservation of
public order. Notwithstanding these notices a number
of persons determined to defy the law and hold their
meetings, despite this last special notice. The police
were properly drawn up for the purpose of preventing
persons going into Trafalgar-square, and the two
persons in the dock determined to break their way, as
leaders, into the square, to defy the law, and to hold
the meeting in defiance of the authorities. Mr. Pol-
lard detailed the circumstances of the riot as they
affected the prisoners. In conclusion, he said that
Mr. Cuninghame Graham assaulted the police by
trying to force his way through. Owing to the skilful
arrangements which were made, and the courage and
good conduct shown by the police, comparatively
little disorder followed; but what might have hap
pened through such conduct the experience of the
magistrate would suggest.
The police evidence having been taken, Inspector
Hunt said that bail was declined at the police-station,
as it was thought dangerous to admit them to bail.
From certain information he received, it was feared
that there might be a renewal of the disturbances if
they were let out on bail.
Mr. Vaughan: Is there any opposi ion o bail ?
Inspector Giles : There is on the part of the police,
owing to the private information they have had, and
considering coming events.
Mr. Vaughan: I think you had better confer with
the ioTicior to the Treasury. Unless there is some
good rf a-on stated I should allow bail.
Mr. Poland was understood to say that there was
no objection to bail, provided there was no renewal of
the disturbances. -

Mr. Vaughan (to Burns) : Will you give the assur-
ance that nothing shall be done by you of a disorderly
character?

Mr. Poland: In the present state of things some
persons have peculiar notions of what is disorderly.
Burns: Nothing of a disorderly character will be
committed by me between this afternoon and when
I come up on remand. Mr. Poland's interpretation
of what is disorderly is out of place. I know the
English language as well as he does.
Mr. Vaughan: There is a clear difference between
orderly and disorderly, and I ask whether you will be
orderly and not commit a breach of the peace?
Burns: I know the difference between orderly and
disorderly.
Mr. Vaughan: Will you be orderly in your be-
haviour between this time and the day to which the
case will be remanded.
Burns: Yes.
The same question was put to Mr. Graham, M.P.,
who answered in the affirmative. _

Mr. Vaughan: In your case, Mr. Graham, I will
take your own recognisance in the sum of £2OO, and
you must find a surety in the sum of £2OO for your
good behaviour during the week, and for your
appearance here to-morrow week. With regard to
Burns, you must enter into your own recognisance in
the sum of £lOO, and find a surety for £lOO for your
good behaviour and appearance on the 22nd inst.
The Rev. Stewart Headlam was then accepted as
bail for Burns, and Mr. Haldane, M.P., for Graham
--
OTHER PRISONERS.—HEA.VY SENTENCES.

There were 75 charges at Bow-street on Monday
morning, the bulk of them having reference to the
riots on Sunday. The accused were charged with
being concerned, with divers other persons, in unlaw-
fully and riotiously assembling together to the terror
of her Majesty's subjects; and with a series of
assaults on the police in various parts of the metro-
polis, and throwing stones. In consequence of the
heavy list, Sir James Ingram Eat specially in the Ex-
tradition Court, while Mr. Vaughan was engag ed in
the Chief Court.

Among the defendants tried before Mr. Vaughan
the following, who were charged with assaults on the
police and disorderly conduct (some of the policemen
who were called as witnesses appeared to have been
very severely injured by sticks, stones, baits, and
kicks) : Alfred Wilcocks, describing himself as
electrical engineer, 20s. or 14 days; Daniel Bailey,
44, labourer;* and William Pyke, 22, labourer, each
40s. or 21 days; Michael Kelly, labourer, four months'
hard labour; Henry Bartley, 41, labourer, 40s. or a
month; David Jones, respectably dressed, six months'
hard labour; Joseph E. Cantwell, basket maker, 40s.
Pr 20 days; Walter Lewis, 20, milkman, bound over
in .E 5 to keep the peace; Eustace W. Owles, solicitor
out of practice, bound over in £2O to keep the peace;
Thomas Lee, 41, labourer, and John Crawford, 37,
sailor, each 40s. or a month; Alfred Maynard, labourer,
20s. or 10 days; Peter Lewis, 32, warehouseman
two months' hard labour; John Morris, labourer, a
month's hard labour; Nathaniel Bailey, 31, fibre-
dresser, and James Mansfield, 18, ostler, 55., or five
days each; Arthur Cullen, painter, 14 days' hard
labour. Before Sir James Ingham the following
prisoners were tried: George Spicer, carman, three
months' hard labour; Frederick Sullivan, labourer,
and George Rowlands, labourer, six months' hard
labour each; Thomas Morris, 37, baker, £5, or a
months' hard labour; John Cateley, Joseph Davey,
labourer, Ernest Hepworth, mineral water maker,
and John Ki'ag, labourer, 14 dayb' hard labour each;
Charles B.Styles, £3, or 14 days' hard labour; Henry
Ritterhoff, labourer, William J. Harmont, Edward
Leggatt, 29, labourer, Samuel Grafton, 19, labourer,
three months' hard labour each; Joseph Avory, 23,
labourer, 14 days' hard labour; William Sherwood,
16, labourer, 40s, or 14 days. A number of prisoners
were remanded for inquiries, or allow-thom to pro-
duce witnesses.

MR. GRA.TIA.M, M.P., AND THE POLICE.
Mrs. Gabriell° 000ni02h5me Graham writes: In
the interests cf justice, allow me to point out an
inaccuracy in a widely diffused report of Sunday's
proceedings in Trafalgar-square. My husband, Mr.
Cunningham° Graham, was not released on bail until
after his bearing at Bow-street. As a matter of fact,
although I had bail all ready, it was absolutely re•
fused. My husband was kept for five hours, ill,
wounded, and fevered, before the police authorities
chose to make out the charge against him, and then
he spent the night in the police cell like a common

TUESDAY IN THE SQUARE.-ANOTHER

RIOTER PUNISHED.

There was no attempt on Tuesday to hold a meet-
ing in Trafalgar-square, and the number of police
who had been guarding the enclosure was reduced.
Two men were brought up at the Bow-street Police-
court, one charged with calling on the people to
attack the police last Sunday, and the other with
striking the horse of a mounted patrol. One prisoner
was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace, and
the other was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.

THE PROPOSED FURTHER ASSEMBLY.
The letter of Mr. Gladstone to the secretary of the
Bermondsey Gladstone Club, the appeal to the
London workmen of Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P., and the
advice given by Mr. H. Labouchere, M.P., to the
Eleusis Club, on Monday night, "not to run their
heads against a stone wall I—taken together, con-
siderably changed the situation in the metropolis on
Tuesday as to the probability of another determined
attempt to hold a Sunday meeting in Trafalgar-
square being made. It was thought the counsels of
those politicians who are recognised and trusted by
the Radical clubs would prevail, that the question of
right to assemble in Trafalgar-square would be
allowed to be decided in the law courts or by legisla-
tion, and that no further demonstrations of force
would be encouraged.