The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-10 00:00:00

THE TRAFALGAR SQUARE RIOTS.

The Marquis of SALISBURY, seeing the Noble
Marquis in his place, wished to ask him a question
regarding the recent riots in Trafalgar-square, and the
conduct of Mr. Hall, the Chief Magistrate at Bow-
street, in adjudicating on the cases brought before
him. In the case of James Marshall, who was
charged with inciting the mob by calling out " No
police !" " No national guard !" and with throwing
stones, the prisoner denied that he had formed pars
of the mob, or that he had thrown stones, Mr. Hall
sentenced him, on the evidence of the police-constable,
to be imprisoned for eight days. In the case
of James Meddrith, charged with assaulting the police,
prisoner said that he did not belong to the mob
and complained that he had been struck On the head
by the police-constable with his staff. In conse-
quence of the police-constable being unable to satisfy
Mr. Hall why he had used his staff, Mr. Hall ordered the
prisoner to be discharged. He (the Marquis of Salisbury)
wished to know whether the Government adopted
Mr. Hall's exposition of the law. It was perfectly
different from the law as recently laid down by Mr.
Justice Coleridge, who declared that when per-
sons were riotously assembled, the act of one was the
act of all ; a blow struck by one was a blow struck by
all, and the constable was therefore perfectly justified
in striking down one of this riotous assemblage.
The police had a very onerous and a very important
duty to perform, and he considered the remarks of
Mr. Hall as not only uncalled for, but as calculated
to prevent officers executing their duties properly.
He could not see why a policeman's life should not be
protected as well as that of another man. Of what he
saw of the conduct of the police in Trafalgar-square,
he felt bound to say that never did any body of men
perform their duty with more temper, kindness, and
forbearance than did the police on that occasion.—
(Hear, hear.) He objected to magistrates taking
upon themselves to decide summarily in cases of
flagrant assaults upon the police. They could corn
alit the prisoners to Quarter Sessions, where, in the
event of conviction, they could be sentenced to two
years' imprisonment, with hard labour, for such
assaults. The agricultural riots in 1829 were occa-
sioned solely by the timid sentences passed upon the
first culprits, and therefore a severe example ought to
be made of the rioters in London and Glasgow, and a
stop would be at once put to their proceedings.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that as soon
as Mr. Hall had seen the report he went to the
Home-office to deny its accuracy, and declared that
he made use of no expression casting any imputation
on the police .constable, but that, on the contrary, he
declared that the constable had done no more
then his duty, and he discharged the man
only because he thought he had been sufficiently
punished for his offence by the detention he had
undergone, and the broken and bloody head he had
received.

Lord STANLEY bore testimony to the forbear-
ance, coolness, and temper with which the police in
general discharged their duties. There was never a
more contemptible, cowardly, and objectless mob than
that assembled in Trafalgar-square, yet they had done
great mischief, and he thought that the magistrates
ought not to have passed very light sentences upon
those convicted of having formed part of it. Ile
thought that in one point of view it was well that
this mob had assembled, because it would prove to
foreign countries that there was no sympathy with
mobs on the part of the great body of the people,
the overwhelming majority of whom had shown that
they were determined to come forward and enrol
themselves for the protection of order and good
government.—(Hear, hear.)
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Mcneh 9.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

Mr. W. EVANS presented a petition from Derby-
shire against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome
Bill.

Colonel P. THOMPSON presented a petition from
Bradford on the subject of the health of towns. The
petitioners stated that they felt that some such Bill
was necessary, but they objected to the principle of
centralization. The Gallant Colonel also presented a
petition from Bradford against the imposition of
the income-tax, and praying that the legacy
and probate duty might be imposed on real pro-
perty in the same way as it was on personal
estate.—(Hear, hear.) _

Mr. LAW presented petitions from parishes in
York against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome
Bill, and praying for the better observance of the
Sabbath.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented a petition
from the city of London, complaining of the practice
of breaking windows that had latterly taken place in
the metropolis, attributing it to the present state of
the poor-laws, and praying for the appointment
of a Committee to inquire into its operation. The
petitioners stated that under the existing law the poor
were treated more like pigs than human beings. The
Hon. Member gave notice of his intention to-morrow
to move that the petition be printed with the votes.
Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from the
heads of colleges of the University of Cambridge
against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.

On the motion of Mr. LAW, the petition was
read at length by the Clerk at the table, and the
Hon. and Learned Member gave notice of his inten-
tion, to-morrow, to move that it be printed with the
votes.

Mr. C. PEARSON presented a petition from
Lambeth praying for the reduction of the expenses
of the army and navy, and against the income-tax.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Ex-
mouth and Lipscombe against the admission of Jews
into Parliament.

Mr. P. SCROPE presented a petition from a place
in King's County, Ireland, for an alteration of the
poor-law.

Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from
St. John's, Westminster, praying for a reduction of the
expenditure of the country, and against the income-
tax.