The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-01-21 00:00:00

CHEAP GERMAN GOODS.

Mr. Raine, the Ame_dean Consul-General in Berlin,
at the conclusion of a lengthy report, containing
numerous and varied statistical tables, on the trade
of Germany, sums up the results at which he
arrives as follows: "My report shows conclusively
that Germany, encouraged by 15 years of peace, and
forced by its increasing population and the demands
of the times, applies all of its industrious levers not
only to hold its own, but, if possible, to excel its
numerous competitors in the world's market. The
disciplining forces of the Government, more or less
centralised, give every possible aid, and the two-fold
object of fostering industry and trade and augment-
ing the taxpaying ability of the nation is clearly
discernible. Still it is feared that the uncontrollable
spirit of competition neutralises in many directions
positive success ; and while sales and exports make
a tolerably fair showing, this is chiefly attributable
to low wages and the consequent possibility
of underselling foreign competitors. .. . I
notice a feverish anxiety to produce cheap goods, and
if much of the latter, notwithstanding our high tariff,
can be sold in the United States, with greater or
smaller profits, it demonstrates the fact that German
goods are in demand more on account of their cheap-
ness than quality. Germany is more than ever de-
pendent upon foreign markets for the disposal of its
manufactures. Its protective policy may secure to it
the advantages of the home market, though my state-
ments show that the anticipated rise, as, for instance,
in grain and many other articles of home origin, has
not been realised. On the contrary, my report shows
that the general effect of the protective policy is far
from having met all the anticipations of its advocates.
. . . I cannot say that in the great strife among
nations, especially of Europe, a permanent commercial
policy must be considered as doubtful. There is a
drifting tendency in all directions, and positive calcu-
lations as regards the future are impossible. The
factors at work on this side of the Atlantic are of so
conflicting and uncertain a character that a report
can only treatupon present appearances."

IN Turkey, when any man is the author of noto-
rious falsehoods they blacken the whole front of his
house. We presume, however, that the law is off
during the pendency of a heated political campaign;
otherwise the city streets would look like a proces-
sion of hearses.

THE TRAFALGAR SQUARE
DISTURBANCES.

MESSRS. CUNNINGHAM GRAHAM, M.P., AND

JOHN BURNS AT THE OLD BAILEY:

At the Central Criminal Court on Monday, before
Mr. Justice Charles, Mr. Cunningham Graham, M.P.,
and Mr. John Burns, surrendered to take their trial for a
riot and assault upon a police-constable, the assault
arising out of the riots in Trafalgar-square.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Mr.
Poland appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Asquith and
Mr. French defended Mr. Graham; and Mr. Burns
conducted his own defence.

The Attorney General, in opening the case, requested
the jury to dismiss from their minds all they had
heard in reference to the case, and be guided only by
the evidence. He should not go into the facts further
than to state that the defendants were charged with
taking part in what had been defined as a riot; that
they had been guilty of unlawful assembly; that
they had assaulted certain police-constables while in
the execution of their duty; and, that they had further
committed a cofnmon assault on the police. The
circumstances out of which the charges arose occurred
on the 13th of November, at Trafalgar-square and the
defendants would contend that what they did was in
pursuance of a claim to hold a public meeting in the
Square; but what he should contend was that they
had adopted a course in enforcing that right which was
perfectly illegal and which could not be justified. No
question could arrive as to the illegallity of the conduct
of the police. Their conduct, whatever their rights,
was contrary to the law. In the year 1844 an Act
was passed to take care of and preserve the rights
possessed by the Crown. There was no surrender
of any property, but only abdication of certain
private rights to the use of the public. By
the Act the care of the Square was handed over to
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and by a
subsequent Act the First Commissioner of Works was
substituted in order that the control of all the open
spaces should be invested in the hands of the one
authority. In all this there was no surrender of
her Majesty's rights, but only a consideration of the
public convenience. By the General Police Act of 2
and 3 Victoria, 47 c. 52 s., power was obtained to
regulate the passing of carriages and the movements of
crowds likely to cause obstruction, and to keep clear
all thoroughfares in the metropolis. The defendants,
however, insisted that they had a right to hold a meet-
ing in the square; but what he 'contended was that
they had no legal right:whatever to hold a meeting in
Trafalgar-square. The fact was that the defendants
had confused the right of public meeting with the
right of free discussion. There was no mistake about
the right of free discussion; it was a right of which
the country was proud; but there was no right to
hold a meeting anywhere, just where a person liked.
The question had been decided over and over
again. It had actually been held to be unlawful to
exhibit pictures in shop windows in such a way as
to cause an obstruction in the streets. It had been
declared to be unlawful to place a chair in the street,
or erect a temporary stand on which a band should
play, and which caused an obstruction, or to have a
pigeon match on private groundsleading to an obstruc-
tion of the thoroughfares adjoining. With regard to
the special circumstance arising on this occasion, the
Court would remember that in 1886 meetings were
held in Trafalgar-square which led to riot and
disorder at the West-end, and in the end an Act of
Parliament was passed under which a sum of upwards
of £BOOO was paid to persons whose property had been
destroyed by the rioters. There seems no reasons for say-
ing that because riots took place in 1886, riots would
also follow upon meetings held in 1887; but it was
necessary for the jury to understand how the former
riots arose. In October, 1887, bodies of men began
to assemble in Trafalgar-square, and there ensued
day by day riotous scenes of a very serious cha-
racter. These meetings resulted in processions
parading the streets, in deputations to the magis-
trates, in parades at places of religious worship—one
assembly gathered in Westminster Abbey on the
23rd, and behaved disgracefully. The meetings in the
square gradually increased in number, and there was a
greater and still greater proportion of roughs present.
On November 4 there was a meeting held
in the square by a Radical Association. He did
not wish to say anything about any particular politi-
cal association, because those who were responsible
for the maintenance of law and order would take
action against any political body, whatsoever mightbe
their creed. This meeting was called by Mr. James
Tims, who, in a placard invited the thousands who
were interested to come to the square, and protest
against the imprisonment of Mr. W. O'Brien by the Tory
Government. Now such an invitation as that went
far_ beyond the summoning of members of the club, and
was likely to bring together a most disorderly mass of
people. Mr. Justice Patterson in a sithilar case had
laid it, down that the authorities under such a summons
should interfere and prevent tumult from arising.
Under such an appeal to the thousands of London,
the police authorities came to the conclusion that they
must interfere, and on November 8, by per-
mission of the First Commissioner of Works,
and at the request of the Secretary of State,
Sir Charles Warren issued a proclamation prohibiting
future meetings being held in Trafalgar-square.
That notice was perfectly legal, was in accordance
with the powers possessed by Sir Charles Warren,
and in accordance with the powers possessed by
any authority charged with the preservation of law
and order. Now, what was the condnct of the de-
fendants? If they had a genuine grievance the
organisation ought to have shown that they respected
the proclamation and held their meetings in Hyde-
park. Instead of that, in defiance of the order, they
determined that the meeting should be held, but in
just such a way as was likely to cause what the First
Commissioner was afraid of. On Nov. 10 Mr. Graham
telegraphed to Mr. Tims that he would like to be a
speaker at the meeting, The police got to know that
concerted processions were to start at the same time
to meet at Trafalgar-square, and they had to consider
what course to pursue under the circmmstances. Upon
the night of Saturday, before this particular Sunday,
Sir Charles Warren issued a regulation prohibiting the
approach of any organised procession near to Trafalgar-
square on Sunday, the 13th November. The Sunday
came and the procession approached. It would be
proved that in every instance the men were armed
with sticks, pieces of pipe, and other weapons. How
they came to be armed w_as not of importance, but it
showed how accurate the knowledge was possessed
by the police with regard to the character of the
people marching. At Westminster Bridge the people
assaulted the police, and the result of the day's pro-
ceedings was that about 60 or 70 members of the
police force were more or less seriously assaulted.
At or about four o'clock on that day the defendants,
Mr. Hyndman and others, assembled at Charing-cross
and moved towards the square. They knew the pro-
cessions would about that time be converging on the
square; and what would the result have been if the
processions had been allowed to enter the square. He
insisted that the defendants meant to carry the square
by force. The defendants got to the south-east corner,
by Morley's hotel, and then crying out, "Now for the
square !" they rushed across towards the square,
accompanied by about 50 other persons,
Now, whatever their intentions, their actions
showed them to be guilty of riot ; and
acting tumultuously as they did, they committed
a serious offence against the criminal law. If they
wrongly believed that they had a legal right, they
were not exempt from the consequences. He re-
gretted that in what ensued Mr. Graham got some in-
jury by a blow on the head from a policeman's
truncheon. The injury, however, was not serious;
but persons entering into such things must not be
surprised at what they got. At first, on his arrest,
Burns denied his name, but he did not attach much
importance to that. On the way to the police-station,
Burns said they had attacked the police at the weakest
point, which showed what their purpose had been. That
same evening Graham addressed a letter to the Editor of
the Pall Mall Gazette, in which he said, "Our meeting
was a failure owing to superior force, I think the
victory, however, will prove a dear one for them. No
Englishman of any party can uphold a Government
who assault speakers at a purely political meeting."
He forgot to mention before that Mr. Graham
deliberately struck a constable in the mouth, making
him bleed. Then the letter went on to say that the
meeting would have been held but for the non-arrival
of their friends; and it wound up by declaring that
he would yet address a meeting of 100,000 men in
Trafalgar-square. Under these circumstances he con-
tended that the defendants had been guilty of riot, of
creating a riotous assembly, and had been guilty of
such unlawful conduct as could not be allowed to go
unpunished. It was perfectly impossible for any
government to be maintained if men were allowed
to do such unlawful acts to test the right which
they esteemed they had in holding a public meeting.
The law most distinctly laid down that if parties
assembled in tumultuous manner to effect their pur-
pose, then that constituted a riot. The outcome of all
the law upon the subject was this—that if, however
lawful the purpose might be, persons riotously and
tumultuously endeavoured to enforce their own
wishes, then they were guilty of an offence which the
law condemned in the strongest terms, and could not
allow to pass unpunished.
The remainder of Monday was occupied with the
examination of police and other witnesses for the
prosecution, the evidence received being in the main
a repetition of what had been previously given before
the magistrates.

On Tuesday, after one or two police witnesses had
been examined, Sir Charles Warren was called. He
said: I have had the meetings which went on in
October and November under my personal supervision,
and used to attend to see the class of people who
assisted at them. I have also had information
regarding them from my officers. Previous to Nov. 8
the character of the people who attended the meet-
ings necessitated extra police precautions, as they
were dangerous to the peace of the neighbourhood.
It was absolutely necessary that they should be
followed from their meetings in order to protect
property and persons. Up to the Bth these meetings
were becoming more and more organised, thus
increasing the danger to the public. I issued the
proclamations produced with the sanction of the Home
Secretary and the concurrence of the Commissioners of
Works. Before the 13th it came to my knowledge
that it was intended that processions should converge
upon the square on that day, a thing which would
have been most dangerous to the Public peace. It

would more than have taxed the resources of the
police if that had been allowed. I took the steps
to obtain the attendance of a magistrate in case the
Riot Act should have to be read, and I also arranged
for a body of troops to be in readiness. There
were actually round the square about 2000 men, but
many more were in the immediate neighbourhood.
I myself made all the dispositions of the police
round the square, and it was by my direct order that
the police kept the square from the public after ten
o'clock. I left the square about three o'clock, and
in my opinion from what I saw there would have
been most decided danger in allowing the class of
persons who were about to have held a meeting
there. To have allowed organised processions to
approach would have been most hazardous. About
four o'clock I received a communication from Tra-
falgar-square, in consequence of which the military
were called out. A disorderly mob continued to
hang about the square until about 6.30, when I
ceased to be anxious about the state of affairs. A
considerable number of policemen were injured in
and, around Trafalgar-square.
Cross-examined by Mr. Asquith: I do not know of
any officer who was injured actually in the square. I
should not think the meetings held before the Bth
were of a political character.
Were they not meetings to " discuss the alleged
grievances of the unemployed workmen of London ?
No. I should say they were meetings of roughs.
What were the topics of the speeches ?—Sedition.
Have you arrested anybody for that ?—Prosecu-
tions for sedition are not in my hands. The procla-
mation of the Bth Nov. is still in force, but was sup-
plemented by another of the 18th Nov. That pro-
clamation was issued under a special Act (the Police
Act).
Then under what was the first proclamation issued ?
—Under the Common Law, I suppose. _ _

_
By Burns: Were the people you saw in Trafalgar-
square worse than those who attend Lord Mayor's
Shows, public processions, racecourses, or the Lillie-
bridge running grounds.
I was satisfied that they were more ready for mis-
chief. I heard of a good many robberies in connec-
tion with these meetings, and I do not believe that
the men who attended them were really the unemployed.
They gradually became more and more organised.
What did they meet for then? To loot shops, but
the police prevented that.
Was there an attempt to loot shops? There was
every disposition to do so. After the 13th registries
were opened for the unemployed at the diffarent
police stations. I thought it would be good for the
genuine unemployed, and it was suggested to me that
it would be a good means of distiaguishing between
the latter and those seditious persons who call them-
selves the unemployed.
By the Attorney-General: I do not pretend to be a
lawyer. The second proclamatica is meant to pre-
vent speeches being delivered in streets and thorough-
fares adjoining the square, whereas the first referred
to Trafalgar-square alone.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Asquith then called for the defence,
Mr. Edward Reed, M.P., who said that on the 13th
Nov. he was at Morley's Hotel between three o'clock
and five. He observed the character of the crowd, and
although it was a very largo one it showed, so far as
he could see, no signs of disturbance. It consisted in a
surprising degree of very young men—big boys.
Soon after four o'clock he saw Mr. Graham and
Burns. They were arm in'arm, and rushed across the car-
riage way from the post office towards the opposite pave-
ment. Before they arrived at the pavement by the square,
the police who were stationed there rushed forward
and before Mr. Graham reached the pavement he was
struck by the police, and by the time he reached the
place where the police had originally been standing,
his head was bleeding. He saw Mr. Graham's arms
waving about as if in self-defence, but did not see him
strike anybody. When he was secured and quite
powerless, several policemen stepped up in suc-
cession and struck him violently over the head.
Not more than a dozen people seemed to be
associated with or accompanying Graham and Burns,
but after they moved forward a score or two of other
persons pushed after them apparently out of
curiosity. It was the case throughout the afternoon
that whenever there was a movement of police the
people always rushed to see what was the matter.
He did not see any of those who followed the defend-
ants use sticks against the police. He was never more
astounded in his life than when he saw the military
brought out for such a crowd.
By Burns: I did not see you strike anybody, and
in fact from the time you came in collision with the
police I thought you were treated with most astonish-
ing cruelty by them.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General: I only
knew that Mr. Graham was going to be in the square
from the newspapers, and I was very sorry to hear it.
I looked upon it as a personal indiscretion of his. I
have said before and it is my opinion now that it was
the duty of the police, being under the orders of their
superiors, to resist the rush made by the defendants
and those who followed them, and to master and
arrest them.

Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, M.P., gave evidence as to
having used Trafalgar-square as a place for public
and political meetings; and among other witnesses
who followed for the defence were Mr. H. Hyndman,
Mr. Bennet Burleigh, of the Daily Telegraph, and a
number of other persons who were present in the
square on the occasion of the disturbance. At the
close of the case for the defence the Court rose.