The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-02-20 00:00:00

ear , g:o-alloly --,;CertespOtrit.-

' (We deem It right ff., state that we do at all tuma?
mitt*, ourvlvei_ rah our Correapondent'a opt:Ilona.)

The recent riots, which have at once terrified
and astOr:ished the West-end, have called atten-
tion in an even more striking manner than could
have been expected to the lawless elements which
are always present in so vast a population as
that of London. It is not always considered,
when speaking of the metropolis, that among its
four millions of inhabitants there must be a vast
number whose predatory instincts are very
strong, and that it is only the continual evi-
dence of the presence of a lane body of police
. that prevents the habitual and the would-be
criminals from overpowering the more peaceable
and honest dwellers in that "province covered
with houses" called London. Whenever the
constabulary fail to assert themselves the rough
element comes to the top, and it has always been
recognised that if that section of the commu-
nity could only organise the amount of destruc-
tion it could cause would be appalling. .Foreu-
nately, it does not know its own poNk-er, and
those who had most intimate dequaintance
with the recent disturbances express themselves
as certain that, had they been organised,
more mischief would have been caused. Isle:Are
and not the leaders of the rioters,onla have!
dreamt that the police would havvbeen taken see
utterly by surprise, and it is understood that
some of the wilder spirits among the Socialists
have been heard to express regret at not being
aware of the fact, or they could have created
much more damage than was actually the case.
It is a testimony to the spirit of fair-dealing
which animates the English people that the fund
started by the Lord Mayor of London for rec.
lieving the more acute distress suffered by the
unemployed, has not lacked support because of
the lamentable outbreak perpetrated in their
name. No one who just now takes a walk
through the East of London can doubt that a very
large number who would be willing to work, if
only the opportunity for work were afforded
them, are experiencing dire distress because of
the slackness of the times. These may not be
more slack than they have been at previous periods,
but the distress is certainly more apparent, and it
must require a heart of stone to refuse succour
and sustenance to those who are starving, not
because they are opposed to work but because
they have no work to do. The Lord Mayor
has done well to give a public opportunity to
those possessed of means to assist their fellows
who are not so well provided with this world's
goods; and it would be the extremity of unfair-
ness to refuse to help the deserving because the
undeserving have been riotous. In all public
charity we must duly discriminate, and when it
is known that the fund will be administered by
qualified persons, who are not likely to be de-
ceived by the professional impostor, the amount
raised ought to reach such proportions as will
appreciably alleviate the suffering of the unem-
ployed.
Now that the principal Ministers have been
re-elected, and Parliament has once more
assembled for the despatch of business, it will be,
an object of interest to most of those who read'
their newspapers to see the various forms of:
work despatched by the new House. Perhaps.
one of the points which strikes most forcibly
those who watch Parliamentary proceedings with
care is the confirmation which is every year given
of Pope's maxim that "Hope springs eternal in
the human breast." On tho order-book of the
House of Commons at this moment, despite the
alteration of the franchise, the change in the
constitution of the assembly, and the substitu-
tion of one Administration for another, are to be
seen a number of notices of motion which have
been given year after year almost from a time to
which the memory of man runneth not. Young
members grow old, old members pass away, and
the places which knew them once know them no
more for ever, but still the "hardy annuals" of
the Parliamentary garden continue to grow and
to flourish.
An official return has just been issued which,
in giving a list of the peers of Scotland and
Ireland—a 3 distinct from those who are peers of
the United Kingdom shows that several
members of our nobility derive their titles from
more than one country. The Prince of Wales,
as is but natural in the case of the Heir
Apparent to the Throne, takes a title from
every section of the kingdom, for he is Duke of
Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, and Earl of Dublin
as well. But his Royal Highness is followed
closely by the Duke of Abercorn, who, while
holding that title in the peerage of Ireland, is
Marquis of -Abercorn in that of Great Britain,
and Earl of Abercorn in that of Scotland. The
Duke of Buckingham and Chandos in the peerage
of the United Kingdom is also Earl Nugent in
that of Ireland, and Baron Kinross in that of
Scotland; and the Earl of Verulam, in addition
to having that title as a peer of the United
Kingdom, is likewise Viscount Grimston in the
peerage of Ireland, and Baron Forrester in that
of Scotland.

Several other English peers derive titles from
the sister countries; the Duke of Wellington, for
instance, holds the Irish ealdom of Mornington,
the Duke of Cumberland the Irish earldom of
Armagh, the Duke of Leeds the Scottish vis-
countcy of Dumblane, the Marquis of Ailsa the
Scottish earldom of Cassillis, the Marquis of
Hertford the Irish barony of Conway, and the
Marquis of Normanby the Trish barony of Mul-
grave. In many cases a higher title is held in
the peerage of Ireland or Scotland than that
enjoyed in the peerage of the United Kingdom,
the Duke of Argyll, the Marquises of Huntly,
Tweeddale Lothian, and Waterford, with several
other of the greater names in the Scottish and
Irish peerages, being numbered among the barons
of the United Kingdom; while in a few instances,
such as those of the Earl of Fife and Earl
Fitzwilliam, the same title exactly is
held in the peerage of the United Kingdom
as in that of Scotland or Ireland. But of all the
peers who have more than one title, the Duke of
Richmond and Gordon is the most striking
example, for his grace is not only Duke of Rich-
mond, Earl of March, and Baron of Lettrington
in the peerage of England, but Duke of Lennox,
Earl of Darnley, and Baron Methuen in that of
Scotland, Duke D'Aubigny in that of France,
and Duke of Gordon and Earl of Kinrara in
that of the United Kingdom.
Whenever a notice appears that a new boat
has been presented to the National Lifeboat
Institution, those who know the value of the
work done by that body see good reason to
rejoice. The inhabitants of inland towns do
not, and very naturally do not, appreciate to
the full the immense service rendered to
humanity by the institution named. But the
dweller by the tempestuous sea—he to whom it
is no new thing to be awakened by the gather-
ing of the winds and the howling of the storm
—is well aware of the good work done by the
lifeboat. It is perhaps in a newspaper para-
graph of eight lines that is packed a tale of
heroic adventure upon the deep that, expanded
by skilful hands, could fairly fill columns. None
who knew the circumstances can think it any
light matter for men to leave their homes in the
midst of a terrific gale, and to launch themselves
upon the deep in the hope of saving from a
watery grave their fellow-men. Those who
have only been to the seaside for pleasure,
and who, as a part of their autumnal holi-
day have 'watched the lifeboat launched
for practice, do not realise the danger
incurred by the crew when the storm rages at its
height, and the waves run mountains high. But
persons who have stood on a cliff when the wind
has been so violent as to sweep any but the
strongest off their feet, and who have seen the
crew of a doomed vessel, which is rapidly running
on the rocks, saved from destruction by a gallant
band of lifeboatmen, are always ready to give
praise, and in no stinted form, to those who have
done so much for duty.
• Among the difficult tasks which persons of
artistic tastes often set themselves is that of
making London beautiful. Much has, of course,
been done within recent years to improve the
appearance of the metropolis, and much is still
being accomplished; but a very great deal will
have to be done before London can be called
beautiful. The fact is that business considerations
stand in the way of the picturesque, and although
some plans which have recently been suggested
for the improvement of London's appearance are
feasible upon paper, they break down when tried
by the rigid standard of trade. Yet, unpictu-
resque as some parts of our metropolis are, and
will continue to be, it is not fair to forget that
striking pictures have been made out of the parts
of London most given up to purposes of busi-
ness. Mr. Whistler has placed before the public
some sketches of the Thames which can be called
nothing but picturesque, and the late Gustave
Dori; furnished several of the same kind. And
readers of Wordsworth are never likely to forget,
perhaps, the most famous of all his sonnets,
" composed upon Westnainster-bridge," in which,
looking at London in early morn'tig, he ex-
claimed: "Earth has not anything t 9 show more
- fair." _ _ _

Folks who do not live in the metropolis often
enjoy. a quiet laugh at Londoners when they
4-audly grumble about the log to which they are

-4


subject, for they think that a great deal of unne-
cessary fuss is made about a comparatively small
matter; but a fog, after all, is not such a
small matter to the Londoner as those who visit
the metropolis only occasionally may think. It
must not be forgotten that a vast proportion of
metropolitan workers go to their toil by train and
that it is usually in foggy weather that accidents on
suburban railways take place. Within the past
few days there has been a striking example of
this, in which, though fortunately no person was
killed, a large number going to their daily work
in the *City were injured. It is not much wonder,
therefore, that those who have to travel twice by
train every working day should feel strong ob-
jection to the presence of a fog. There may be
no means of preventing its occurrence but an
Englishman is nothing without a grumble, and if
the unfortunate dwelrers in a land of fogs are
not to be permitted to complain,
.what, possible.
comfort can be given: them? A. F. R.

lINLAWINL MEETINGS.
(From-Cae '
314..ny comtnents.On the disturbanees of Monday
la3t might induce one to think':that a good deal of
misapprehension exists ,on!-;the subject of unlawful
anl.ritltous meetlpgr- So colifletely free from all
ha,ve naeetthgs big been in this country, so
ample in pticttee is the right of people to say what
thevhoose, that it is almost forgotten that there
mist any constitutional limits. We should have been
glad if it had been unnecessary to disturb this delu-
sion; and we shall have to thank hot-headed or de-
signing demagogues if there be any abridgment of
those great forms of civic liberty. Those who per-
sistently seek to stir up dangerous passions and preach
plunder cannot wonder if peaceful citizens with some-
thing to lose are curious to know how far license may
be carried, and whether law has no terrors for the
marauder who calls himself a Socialist.

First, as to the right of meeting at common Jaw
It is by no means unqualified. In theory the limita-
tions are considerable; the law is far from being so
mild as the immwaity of agitators leads them to
assume.

What is an unlawful assembly? It is somewhat
astonishing how little direct authority there is on
this subject, elementary though it is, and of supreme
importance. Still more astonishing is it that some of
the chief authorities upon the question should be
contained in books which are not readily accessible
even to lawyers. In Hawkins's "Pleas of the
Crown," it is said that "an unlawful assembly,
according to the common opinion, is a disturbance
of the peace by persons barely assembling together
with the intenticn of doing a thing which if it were
executed, would make them rioters, but neither
actually executing it or making a motion towards the
execution of it." According to this definition, the
essence of the offence is in the evil intention. But
that writer describes the definition as defective, and
states that "any meeting whatever of great numbers
of people, with such circumstances of terror that
cannot but endanger the public peace and raise fears
and jealousies among the King's subjects, seems pro-
perly to be called an unlawful assembly, as where
great numbers, con,plaining of a common grievance,
meet together, armed in a warlike manner, in
order to consult together concerning the most proper
means for the recovery of their interests; for no man
can foresee what msty be the effect of such an
a.sembly." According to this comprehensive defini-
tion—which would include many political meetings—
tile essence of the offence lies, not in the intention or
in the employment of arms, but rather in the effect
likely to be produced on ordinary minds. The matter
was fully considered in the prosecution of Hunt and
Bamford, and the action against the yeomanry for
their share in the famous " Peterloo " meeting at
Manchester in 1819. No full reports of these cases
at all stages, by the way, are to be found in the ordi-
nary books; and reports of the trials at York and
Lancaster ought to be included in the proposed con-
tinuation of the "State Trials." Mr. Justice
Bayley carefully points out in "Rex v.
Hunt" that, though the object may be perfectly
legal, there may be an unlawful assernhy. In words,
which seem directly applicable to the Trafalgar-
vinare gathering, he states that "if any persons, by a
plan among themselves, introduced such objects new
to the meeting, by placards or other means, which
obeets were likely to give to the meeting a direction
not before contemplated, so as to produce alarm or
endanger the public peace, and strike terror into his
Majesty's subjects, those persons were liable to be
indicted for illegally assembling, together." In one
of tho Chartists' trials, the late Baron Alderson put
the matter in a nutshell when he said that a meeting
which would alarm "persons of reasonable courage
and firmness "was unlawful.

The performances of the Skeleton Array—which
has been an education in lawlessness to a part of the
population —lately gave practical importance to this
question. Certain magistrates bound over members
of the Salvation Army who projected a procession,
not because they were likely to riot, but because their
foes, the Skeleton Army, might do so. The Queen's
Bench Division thought that the magistrates had mis-
conceived the nature of an unlawful assembly, and
stated that there was no authority for the notion that
"a man may be convicted for doing a lawful act, if
be knows that his doing it may cause another to do
an unlawful act." If sound law—and we have our
doubts as to it—this ruling would shield the original
promoters of the Trafalgar-square meeting, even though
they might have reasonably apprehended that Messrs.
Ilyndman and Co. would take occasion to air their
incendiary doctrines.
Thus stands the common law as to meetings. It is
comprehensive and elastic; capable of being made
very much what juries desire; tolerant if the spirit of
the time is such, ready to be the instrument of
severity whenever people generally feel that abuses
are creeping in. From time to time the common law
has been strengthened, and been made more precise.
The Malicious Injuries, Act, 1861 i 24 and 25 Yid.,
c. 97), is in point. It states that "if any persons
riotously and tumultuously assembled together to the
disturbance of the public peace shall unlawfully and
with force injure or damage any.. .house, &c., every
such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and
being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discre-
tion of the Court, to be kept in penal servitude for
any term not exceeding seven years and not less than
three years, or to be imprisoned for any term not
exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."
There is one most important statutory addition to
the definition of an unlawful meeting. Every meet-
ing consisting of more than 50 persons, and held in
any street, square, or open place in the city or
liberties of Westminster, or county of Middlesex,
within a mile from the gate of Westminster Hall,
and out of the parish of St. Paul's, Covent-garden,
for the purpose or on the pretext of conveying
or presenting any petit ion to the Queen or to bode or
either of the Houses of Parliament as to matters in
Church or State on any day on which Parliament
meets or sits or is summoned, is unlawful.
The common law prohibits what are called " routs"
—that is, disturbances of the peace by three or more
persons assembling with an intention to do a thing
which, if executed would make them rioters. So, too,
it punishes riots proper, that is, tumultuous dis-
turbances by three or more persons assembled together
of their own authority to assist any one in the execu-
tion of an enterprise of a private nature (in distinction
from high treason), and afterwards executing the
same in a violent and turbulent manner to the terror
of the people. Then there is the famous Riot Act (1
Geo. 1., s. 2, c. 5), which declares that if 12 or more
persons unlawfully assemble, and do not disperse
after being commanded, they are to be treated as
felons and may be dispersed by force. Two popular
errors prevail with respect to this statute. It is as-
sumed that the Act must be read before measures
are taken to disperse a tumultuous crowd.
This is not so; only the short proclama-
tion contain 1 in the statute, calling on all persons
to disperse to their habitations or lawful business,
need be read. It is also erroneously assumed that
soldiers may not be lawfully employed to disperse a
mob until this proclamation has been read by a magis-
trate. This is not strictly correct. It is an error
which has been productive of much mischief. Like
all her Majesty's subjects, soldiers are bound, in
preseing and immediate danger, to intervene promptly
to preserve order without being called upon by the
civil authority to do so.
Such are a few of the chief provisions with respect
to unlawful assemblies. The law, it will be seen, does
not err on the side of leniency; nor are the punishments
for such offences mild. Thus, under the Riot Act
offenders may receive as a maximztnz sentence penal
servitude for life or three years' imps isonment with
hard labour; and the punishment is much the same
under the Malicious Injuries Act.
It is true that nobody in these days fears being in-
dicted for seditious language, but the immunity en-
joyed by those who labour to overthrow the Govern-
ment or to break up society comes not from the law,
but from the spirit in which it is administered. It is
a misdemeanour to publish libellous words with a
seditious intention, and that includes the most diverse
offences, ranging from exciting disaffection against
the Crown to inciting people to commit a breach of
the peace or stirring up ill will and hostility among
classes. Whenever people generally see fit to with-
draw or curtail the liberty now accorded to men to
meet together and sneak as they please, they will find
few obstacles in the Statute-book or the common law,
If juries exercise their rights to the full, they might
bring back a state of things similar to that. which ex-
isted in the days of Sidmouth and the Six Acts.

Willie Mullethead is a very practical youth, and
apt to take practical views of things. "Now be a good
little boy, Willie," said his mother to him one day,
wishing to impress upon him the reward in store for
the :just, "and when you die you will have a gold
harp to play on. "I don't know how to play on a
gold harp," he grumbled, "and I dcn't want nuthin'
anyway what I've got to die to git. Let Johnny be
good and git the harp, and gimme a drum."
An eccentric laird once bad business to transact
with the Duke of Hamilton, at Hamilton Palace, and
the Duke politely asked him to lunch. A liveried
servant waited upon them, and was most assiduous in
his attentions to the duke and his guest. At last the
I,ird lost patience, and, looking at the servant,
a :dressed hirn thus: "What for are ye dance,
4aTic4ng about the room that gait? Can ye no draw
in Tour chair and.sit doon ? I'm sure there's pleatv
on the table for three."