The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-03 00:00:00

close upon the people," striking respectably-dressed
ladies," &c. Of the persons making complaints one was
a colonel, a member of the aristocracy, and a relative
of Lord Harcourt ; five were gentlemen of independent
means, four barristers, six professional men, forty trades-
men, some carrying on extensive business, and thirty
working men. All of them were men of such character
and standing that not a word had been advanced against
their character by Mr. Ellice in the course of his cross,-
examination. If the charges he bad brought against
the police were true, they required serious consi-
deration. But how had they been met by the sclicitor
for the police? Why, by calling the men whose num-
bers had been taken, all of whom Denied the charges'
which, he (Mr. Mitchell) expected, because by the 2 and
3 Vie., chap. 47, sec. 14 (the Metropolitan Police Act),
it was enacted that every constable who shall be guilty
of neglect or violation of duty in his office of constable,
shall be liable to a penalty of 10/., to be deducted from
his salary, or, in the discretion of the magistrate, im-
prisoned, with or without hard labour, for a period not
longer than one calendar month. He proceeded to ad-
-1 vert on the evidence of the policemen, which, he said,
was not to be credited, or, at all events, to be looked
upon with extreme suspicion. He did not at-
tempt to deny that some carriages were hissed
at, and stones thrown, but all that took
place in. the .Park on the Ist. of July was
caused by the riotous conduct of the police. They
rushed in pell-mell amongst the people, striking
in all directions, using not the slightest discre-
tion. He next read extracts of the evidence given by
the complainants with reference to the character and con-
duct of the people and the outrage committed by
them, which he contrasted with that of the police.
The commencement of all the ill-feeling against the
police was their ostentatiously taking away the
dead eel. He thought the people might have
been allowed to amuse themselves with it without
the interference of the police. It would have been time
enough for them to bare interfered when a breach of the
peace was evident. It was not only his opinion, but
that of his clients, and a number of persons who sympa-
thised with them, that the disturbances were mainly
caused by Sir Richard Mayne. His evidence showed he
anticipated 'a meeting of a tumultuous character, and
probably a riot ; and, consequently, be should have
been on the ground, and given directions, instead of
remaining at his office, which showed great care-
lessness and want of foresight. As riots did not occur
every day, had Sir Richard been on the ground he pro-
bably could have prevented so serious a disturbance oc-
curring. It was a gross breach of duty on the part of Sir
Richard Mayne, if the clearing the railings was so neces-
sary, a sufficient number of police were not on the ground
to keep the line when the people were sent back. After
, adverting to Sir Richard's absurd- description of the
rushing of the police, and thenotices read by Sir Richard
Mayne, as well as his own, which requested all " well
disposed persons" to keep away, thereby inviting the
disorderly to attend ; and although so many persons
were apprehended, and the character of the crowd so
riotous, it was extraordinary that but four of the
police were reported as injured, and that but
slightly. Mr. Mitchell next alluded to what he
called a serious derilection •of duty on the part
of Sir Richard Mayne, in not attending that evening at.
the Vine-street station to admit the prisoners to bail, he
being, in addition to his chief commissionership, a justice
of the peace for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police
Act. Although he did not act as such, a routine so
mischievous in its results might have been departed
from, and Sir Richard have gone to the station, having,
if he were in doubt, first consulted one of the law ad-
, risers of the Government. It Was only from the expres-
sion of public indignation through the press such a change
was mace in the nature of the charges but at the time
he took no trouble to ascertain what the charges really
were. Aceording to "Burn's Justice" persons meeting
together for a public purpose and broke the peace was not
a riot but treason. It was the privilege and right of Eng-
lishmen to attend meetings and express their opinion in
a quiet and orderly manner, which was not to be set
aside merely because a few idle boys and thieves of Lou-
den - mixed amongst them and got up a row, and
it was not the duty of a Chief Commissioner of
Police, in consequence, to strain the law and charge
forty thousand or fifty thousand people with being
a riotous assemblage. The learned gentleman called
attention to Superintendent Hughes's conduct,
spoken to by so many witnesses, and to that of
Inspector O'Brien, whose men mistook his orders, which
he (Mr. Mitchell) thought shoyved the men pretty well
understood what they were to do. Ho complained of
Sir Richard Mayne's statement, that no complaint had
been made against the police under the 2d and 3d of
Viet., whereas Mr. Mair made a complaint, but with-
drew it in consequence of the issuing of this commission.
Reverting to Mr. Mair's case, Mr. Mitchell said he
charged the policeman in that case with having com-
mitted deliberate perjury.. The statement of 147 A
(Leech), relative to the sticks, required careful ex-
amination. He was charged with striking a boy
named King four times, and a woman once.
After entering into the details of the chargeri made
against individual policemen, contrasting their state-
ments with those of the complainants, and pointing out
the discrepancies in the evidence of several of the police,
he proceeded to observe that the manner in which the
persons were apprehended and taken to the station was
the most brutal and violent imaginable. If the Commis-
sioners thought any particular persons were in fault- he
hoped they would not fail to name them, so that the
Government and the people at large might know who
were the real offenders in this transaction. He hoped
the result would be to teach the police, as Carlyle ob
served, 't that though the people of England have an in-
born reverence for the constable's staff, and will always
submit to such an amount of restriction of their natural
liberties as is necessary for good government, they looked
with a jealous eye upon the least attempt by the Geyer 1-
ment or by the police in any way to limit their liberties,
and that they view with abhorrence any unnecessary
appeal to physical force." (The concluding sentence was
received with applause.)
Mr. Ellice then rose and addressed the Commissionere
on the., part of the police. He said the com-
plainants had no reason to be dissatisfied with Mr. Mit-
chell, who has conducted their cases with ability, and
Participated most fully in their feeling. The question
before the commissioners resolved into one of no great
difficulty or extent. The first question for the considi -
ration of the commissioners was whether the ineeth g
was of a riotous nature, or an unlawful assemblage, and
if so, it was undoubtedly the duty of those charged wsth
the preservation of the peace to disperse or suppress it ;
and then, if so, was the means taken on this occasion to
do so proper ? And as to the orders given, that must be
considered a matter of prudence, or discretion by them.
And the question then was, had a few of the constables
out of about 300, who were brought into collision with
50,000 persons in the execution of their arduous duty,
exceeded the limits the law would assign for it ? He
next referred to the nature of the inquiry, and
the number of witnesses called in support of
the charges against the police, so that of the
latter he must make some deductions from them, and the
disadvantage he laboured under in having to answer
charges the nature of which was unknown to him until
he heard them in that court. He offered to give evi-
dence that might have shown that the wounds inflicted
on the Ist July were not done by the police, but he was
stopped, and probably rightly, which gave a slight ad
vantage to the complainants. A large number of the
witnesses had spoken to an indiscriminate striking by
the police of men, women, and children, yet none of
them, in their cross-examination by the Commissioners,
could say they distinctly saw a woman or child struck.
He considered these witnesses bad given their evidence
so loosely as not to be entitled to great consideration by
the Commissioners. He would not charge them with
perjury, but they spoke to impressions of things done
which they had not seen. Several of the witnesses had
spoken to the difficulty of taking a policeman's number,
and others -to numbers, some of whom identified the
men, but others could not do so, whilst some of the
men so spoken to were not in the Park. It was quite
possible there was difficulty in taking a policeman's
number, and if that were so there should have been some
caution used by the witnesses before swearing to the
police. With regard to Superintendent Hughes whip-
ping women, be thought he might venture to deduct
them from the evidence and infer no such thing occurred.
What struck him as remarkable in the evidence given
by the complainants was the frequent was of the word
"indiscriminate" attack, which, to say the least of •it,
was suspicious. Mr. Ellice then referred to the nature
of the gathering, quoting Lord Chief Justice Tindall, on
what constituted a riot, or rioteue assembly, and said
it could not be doubted but that the meeting had for its
object to protest against Lord R. Grosvenor's Sunday
Trading Bill, and alluded to the notices issued previ-
ously, one of which was headed a "Monster Concert,"
and another an invitation to come t ) the Park
and take tea—Lord Robert Grosvenor providing
hot water. There could be no doubt this was a monster
concert with a arum accompaniment, if they believed
the witnesses that persons drummed on their hats with
sticks, and a chorus of 50,000 people, the effect of
which was to alarm persons and endanger their
lieee. As to the invitation to tea and hot water, lie
thought evidently showed there was to be a row. Num-
bers of the witnesses admitted they went to the park to
make a demonstration which might be legal or illegal,
but the witnesses did not state the whole of the truth,
that they went there to make an alarming demonstra-
tion. That being the case, it was the duty of the police
to suppress or disperse it. As to the means taken for
that purpose they were fully before the commission, and
as to the notice issued by Sir Richard Mayne, had be
not done so he would have been blamed and very justly.
Orders were given to the officers which warranted what
they had done under them, and he thought Super-
intendent Hughes bad given his account of the trans-
action in a, firm and frank manner. He thought
tliere 1..i,z1.t have ip.c n pass of vhdene, incliet-,d in the
P;u:k otii,r than by the polie,tne,n, frooi the !net of nice( 3
of hurdles, stones, and stinks beiago7leieclbbeyw6ed, were
entitled public,ee
as deposed to by the policemen, who,
entitled to credit. The charge that Superintendent
Hughes struck a woman would, if true, be a disgraceful
thing; but he was happy to Nay no much chars coald