The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-02 00:00:00

THE WAR.

On the vote of 3,000,0001. for the additional expense
of the war with Russia being put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that this sum had been allowed for in the additional
estimates that had been brought forward, and it only
required that the sanction of the house should be given
in order to enable the Treasury to meet the demands
that might be made upon it. It did not follow, in
granting the vote, that the amount would be required.
After some short discussion,
The vote was agreed to. •
Mr. PEEL then rose, pursuant to notice, to move a
supplementary commissariat estimate for the service in
the Crimea. The house had already granted to the
Government for this aepartment a sum of 1,440,0001.,
and a further sum of 2,260,0001. was required to
carry it out effectually. The right hon. gentle-
man at some length entered into the details
of the course that had been adopted by the Government
in buying cattle and providing for the provisioning of
the army, in the course of which he stated that large
depots had been formed in the Crimea, by which the
greatest comforts had been afforded to our army there,
and by which they were insured for four days a week
fresh meat. Equal attention hal been paid to the horses, '
and a full amount of food had been secured to them.
The right hon. gentleman, after paying an eulogium
upon M. Soyer, for the effective service he had rendered
in schooling the troops in the art of cooking in the camp,
concluded by moving the vote.
Mr. HENLEY deprecated the course that had been
punned by the Government, and expressed his surprie
that at the last moment the Government should come
down and talk about depots being made that ought to
have been erected months ago. He thought the greatest
neglect had taken place on the part of the Government,
r both with respect to the provisioning of the army and its
cattle, and he could not but raise his voice as an English-
man against the course that had been adopted. All that
he had seen only convinced him of the unfortunate man-
ner in which the Government had proceeded in the war,
and he felt bound to confess that it gave little credit to
jtheir foresight. (Hear.) He could not see why the
estimate should not have been brought forward in Fe-
bruary, and he blamed the Government for not adopt-
ing that course.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was anxious to provide for the
comfort of the army, but he was afraid that the adoption
of this vote would not carry so laudable an object into
effect. He thought that some explanation ought to be
, given of the fact that the pay of the soldier had been
raised 50 per cent.
After some observations from Sir F. BARING and Col,
NORTH,
Mr. F. PEEL affirmed that no green coffee was now
r issued to the troops.
Mr. WILSON said that whilst the destination of the
army was unknown the coffee was sent out in a green
/
state, but immediately it was understood its destination
was the Crimea, it was exported in a roasted state.
Colonel DUNNE said that the house ought to be
assured that the army was in an efficient condition to
endure another winter campaign. He thought the land
1 transport corps was not adequate to the wants of such
a number of troops. As to the provisioning of the army
it had been remarked that this was rather a late period
of the year to form depots for provisions. He contended
that such was not the case. He also observed that the
Government were making the Turkish Contingent and
the Foreign Legions as perfect as was possible ; al-
though, at the same time, they overlooked the defects
which existed in connection with the cavalry and other
regiments of the line. He wished to know whether the
injuries occasioned by the recent flood in the Crimea to
the Balaklava Railway had been repaired or not ?

After some further conversation,
Mr. STAFFORD said there were many questions in
con,-section with the commissariat department of which
the house ought to have some explanation, not the least
of whio:l was the question as to who was the real head
of that do,nartment. He would not, however, detain the
committee a‘t that late period of the day.
The vote wa.g then agreed to, and, it being 10 minutes
to four o'clock, the committee was adjourned.
MILITIA BALLOTS SUSPENSION BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
SALE Oh' BEER BILL.

This bill was also read a third time, and, after a pro-
test from Mr. Hadfield, t 3 the effect that the evidence
taken before the committee was ex parte, was passed.
The house then adjourned until six o'clock.

The house resumed at s:x o'clock.
ADULTERATION OF FOOD.
Mr. PELLATT asked the member for Birmingham
whether an opportunity would be given before the pro-
ragation of Parliament for scientific witnesses to be
heard by the Adulteration of Food, &e. Committee, so
that both sides of the question might be before the
public prior to the close of the session.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said that if the committee was
appointed next session, and he was at the head of it,
every opportunity would be given to elicit the truth, as
had been given by the present commitee.
[LEFT SITTING.]

THE LATB DISTURBANCES IVY HYDE-

PARK.

CONCLUSION OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE
CONDUCT OF THE FOLICE.-(THIS DAY.)

The Commissioners took their seats for the last time
this morning shortly after 11 o'clock.
Mr. Mitchell, in addressing the commissioners, said he
had to thank Mr. Duncombe, on the part of his client,
for calling the attention of the House of Commons to the
circumstances complained of, and getting this inquiry
appointed, and farhimself he thanked the commissioners
for the courtesy they had shown him in conducting the case.
He was not there covertly to support any particular
views with reference to the Sunday Trading Bill or the
Boer Bill ; and, in reference to the better observance of
the Sabbath, remarked, he thought an improvement in
that respect might be obtained by employers paying
their servants on Fridays instead of Saturdays. He,
however, looked upon Lord R. Grosvenor's Bill as an
attempt to revive an almost obsolete statute of Charles
11., which oppressed the 'poor to make amends for the
profligacy of the rich. He was there to complain on
the part of his clients against a gross outrage committed
by the police, and which they would never cease to
complain of by all lawful means until they obtain re-
dress, and the persons so complained against punished.
Mr. Mitchell next adverted to the number of persons
who had voluntarily come forward to speak to these out-
rages—men knocked down by the policemen's bludgeons,
being in everywomen whipped, and other acts of violence, the people
way insulted and ill-used, locked up in
cells, at which the Commissioners bad expressed
dis app r o
wholenbi thito,n ,
bailan diniv h
there
er they i
nwere
nogo n
lneegda
ya
refused them. Many of these persons, it would
be remembered, were confined all night, and not brought
before a magistrate till 5 o'clock in the afternoon of the
next day, and then they were discharged—some with-
out charges being made against them, whilst others were
not liberated until Tuesday. Some of these were work-
ing men, who sustained great injury by loss of time,
and their characters much injured in the estimation
of their employers. The police acted outrageously,
and were led on by one man against whom half
his witnesses spoke. Of the 86 witnesses he had
called, 20 spoke to specific acts of violence on
his part, whilst others described him as being
"mad " "raving mad," "a lunatic," mad.
o
man," "striking with his whip," swearing, "riding
cloy© upon the people," striking respectably-dressed
ladies," itc. Of the persons making complaints one w.as
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 had brought against
the police were true, they required serious consi-
deration. But how had they been met by the solicitor
for the police ? Why, by calling the men whose num•
hers had been taken, all of whom denied the charges,
which he (Mr. Mitchell) expected, because by the 2 and
3 Vic., chap. 47, sec. 14 (the Metropolitan Police Act),
it was enacted that every constable who be guilty
of neglect or violation of duty in his office of constable,
shall be liable to a penalty of 101., 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-
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 w
at, and stones thrown, but ail that took
p'ace in the Park on the 1t of July -INas
(wised by the riotous conduct of the police. They
rushed hi pell-mell in all directions 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 have 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, he 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 the notices read by Sir Richard
Mayne, as well as his own, which requested all " well
disposed persons " to keep away, thereby inviting the
disorderly io 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-
visers of the Government. It was only from the expres-
sion of public indignation through the press such a change
was made in the nature of the chages 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 Lon-
don mixed amongst them and got up a row, and
it was not the duty of a Chief Commissioner of
Police, in consequence, to strait 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 showed the men pretty well
understood what they were to do. He complained of
Sir Richard Mayne's statement, that no complaint had
been made against the police under the 2d and 3d of
Vict., 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 be
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 charges 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, "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 Govern-
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 Commissioners
on the part of the police. He said the corn-

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 conside-
ration of the commissioners was whether the meeting
was of a riotous nature, or an unlawful assemblage, and
if so, it was undoubtedly the duty of those charged with
the preservation of the peace to disperse or suppress it ;
and then, if so, was the means taken on this occasion to
do so pr,per ? 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 had 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. Severed 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 en, 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 Wore swearing to the
police. With regard to Superintendent Hughes whip-
ping women, he 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 use 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 riotous 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 to the Park
and take tea—Lord Robert Grosvenor providing
hot water. There could be no doubt this was a monster
concert with a drum 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
lives. As to the invitation to tea and hot water, he
thought evidently showed there was to be a row. Num-
bers of the witnesses admitted they went to the psrk 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 he
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 had given his account of the trans-
action in a firm and frank manner. He thought
there might have been cases of violence inflicted in the
Park other than by the policemen, from the fact of pieces
of hurdles, stones, and sticks being used by the public,
as deposed to by the policemen, who, he believed, were
entitled is be credited. The charge that Superintendent
Hughes struck a woman would, it true, be a disgraceful
thing ; but he was happy to say no much charge could
be proved against him or any of the police. Surely, if
females hanwdmcietbh,re.cetinhniesitmitecrne,uck they would have come forward,
or their fathers, mothers, brothers, or lovers, who possi-
ljethviYiedsveevneicrdeee. dtwihnoeguo l;tdha
there
rasevo ewmcaeovmle
length,
gf
nothingofhr forward rtedoo at n d gi
throughve
inculpaten
the police, and defended the conduct of Sir R. Mayne ;
and
the
f rat
e w,
introit could
oh odrl
ude
cf
net
irooe
not take
tci
aenktt
oeo
bail,bt
ha ei , said Sir Richard, as a mag is-
ao
police
et
bill
heof
the
es
clausethe cagu
giving
nogf
inspectors power to take bail in certain cases. He next
referred to the cells, and remarked the authorities did all
they could under the circumstances.
Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley said no doubt the
suffering must have been great that night from so many
persons being confined there. He should not consider
the long cell a safe place for the confinement of prisoners
in the winter.
Me, Commissioner Armstrong said he should have
thought so large a number of persons could not have
been confined in the long cell for a night without endan-
gering life.
Mr. Ellice said the Police
jllCdoantilomn.issione were desir-
ous of getting better accono
Housemis s i oofn er
Commons,Wortley
ifs
theyaid tl iv aott pd ear htartopfs.
ueftnhCteoofmoney for it.
rested with
awColoihthi
Mr. Ellice, after a few other remarks, concluded his