The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1866.

fore that meetings of a description like that which was in-
tended to be held will not be permitted. That notice was
communicated the moment it was in print by a letter to
the gentleman who was supposed to be the leader and pro-
moter of the League. It was hoped that after that notice
was sent to him that those who had advised the meeting
would be cautious before persevering in their object, and
would desist. They chose to think otherwise. I do not
hold myself to blame for anything which happened in con-
sequence of that determination—(cheers)—but I do think
I have seen letters written—(loud ministerial cheers)—by
others which involve the writers in a very grave responsi-
bility. (More cheering.) And now, sir, as to the instruc-
tions I gave. The instructions I gave were these, that
notices having been issued, that temperately and forbear-
ingly if the meeting did take place, the police were to warn
those who held the meeting against doing anything con-
trary to the notice which had been issued. They were in-
structed unquestionably, if they did anything contrary to
that notice, to stop the meeting, but not to have recourse
to force until obliged. They were also instructed in case
of necessity, but in case of necessity only, to call the mili-
tary to their aid. I have seen it stated in the papers that
the military was called .out before any serious rioting took
place. That is not true. The military were not called
out, as I firmly believe, a moment too soon I also gave in-
structions that the park should be closed at five o'clock,
thinking that was the best way Of preventing riot ; and I
have the best proof of that from what has happened, for
those who went as the heads of the meeting to address the
people in Hyde-park were those who went to the Marble
Arch and demanded admittance, to try the right, as they
called it, but who went away from the park, and who did
not take any part in the proceedings, as I am happy
to believe, subsequently took place. Other.persons were
under the impression that if they were not to be admitted
they ought to go quietly home, and they marched back in-
stead of trying to break into the park. But when you bring
huge masses of men together—and those who broke into
the park were those against whom such notices as this are
more particularly addressed—l need not say that when
thousands and thousands of persons chose to break the
law, it is jneither in the power of force nor of moral in-
fluence to prevent them. Well, that was the state of
things up to yesterday evening. I ought to say, in justice
to the military force that was called out, from all quarters
I have heard that they exercised the greatest forbearance
—(hear)—and that they did nothing whatever in the way
of severity or coercion; and I ought to say in justice to
the police, that I do not believe, from all I can hear, that
they took any measures of undue severity,but they did take
strong measures, which they were bound to take when the
railings of the park were being pulled down. I ought to
say also,and I think it fair to say,that those who were col-
lected together—l do not mean to apply this remark to all
—but I believe that the groat mass were orderly and good-
tempered. But it is extremely painful that the precautions
which we took did not prevent that great disturbance
which occurred yesterday evening. It acted in some mea-
sure as a preventive, but it did not prevent the pulling
down of the railing and the breaking into the park, and I
doubt if that could have been prevented by any such mea-
sures that could have been taken by way of precaution. It
has been doubted whether locking the gates was the best
thing to do. I hope the house will not judge after the
event, but will see on the other side of the question, that
if tens of thousands of men had been allowed to go into
the park it would not have been possible to have pre-
vented the meeting. (Hear, hear.) It would not have
been possible to take measures that would have se-
cured the preservation of the peace - (cries of "Oh!' )
that is my opinion—without great risk, without
great excitement consequent upon them, and upon
the whole, therefore, I am still inclined to think that the
measure taken of locking the gates was really the best
measure. (Cries of " No.") I hear some gentlemen differ
from that. I have expressed my opinion, and in expressing
that opinion I can only say that it has been tried before in
other cases, and I think I have heard it said in this house

that it was perhaps the best precautionary measure that
could have been taken. At all events, whether it was best
or not, no ono can doubt that those who began the distur-
bance wore not the police. The disturbance commenced
with men who came there for a different purpose than that
of open discussion. (Hear, hear.) The responsibility of that
rests with others, and not with me. I am bound to say that
I have to add that some disturbance has occurred in the
park this afternoon. The measures we have taken are as
moderate, I believe, as the circumstances of the ease will
admit of. I hope I may appeal to the right-minded people
of this metropolis, I hope I may appeal to all those who
really wish to have free discussion, and at the same time
that the peace of the metropolis should be preserved, that
they will not give a grudging support to the Government
in whose hands that peace is intrusted. (Cheers.) I have
nothing more to add than that I thank the house for the
kind manner in which they have listened to me, and having
made these observations I hope the house will be satisfied
that there is really no ground of complaint against the Go-
vernment for adopting that course which it was its impe-
rative duty to adop* •

Mr. OLIPITANT was of opinion that the measures of the
Government had not been judiciously taken, and did not
see how the executive could take any credit to themselves
for what they had done, or escape the imputation of serious
blame. At present the police were the laughing-stock of
London. He had witnessed the whole affair, and he felt
the greatest sympathy and compassion for both police and
people. For there they stood, face to face, with a sort
of unlimited order to attack each other on no pretext or
excuse whatever. After the railings were pulled down, it
was evident that to attempt to prevent the meeting was
useless, and that tho pohCe ought then to have been
withdrawn. The effects of the whole proceeding had
been seriously to impair the authority of the executive, to
bring the police into contempt, and to make the military
ridiculous. At tho same time he thought there was a
moral to be drawn from this little episode. He looked on
it as providentially sent to warn them that if they locked
the gates of Reform against the people they might have
them pulling down the paling of the constitution. (Cheers.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to call attention to a letter
which had been written by a member of that house, and
which ho considered had tended both to excite the people
and to incite them to a breach of the peace. (Cheers, and
cries of "No, no.") He referred to the letter of the hon.
member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), which he had
written after the declaration made by the right hon. gen-
tlemen the present and late Secretaries of State for the
Home Department, and when the hon. member therefore
knew perfectly well the force of the language he had used.
(Hear, hear.) It might be said that he (Mr. Cochrane)
ought not attack an absent man. (Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) The hon. member was not only absent from that
house, but he was absent from London altogether. The
language of the letter was not more remarkable than the
care and caution which the writer showed for his own
Personal safety. (Cheers.) It reminded him of lines
written of another great agitator—

With the cold caution of his patriot spleen,
Which seeks for treason, but which seeks a screen :
And keeps this maxim ever in its view—
" What's basely done should be done safely too."
(Laughter and cheers.) He (Mr. Cochrane) must protest
against that letter. (Cheers.) He regretted very much
that when he put a question to the late Secretary for the
Home Department some two or three weeks ago, as to the
legality of the meeting in Trafalgar-square, the right hon.
gentleman said it would be legal, unless it were held
for the purpose of petitioning Parliament. That
answer he thought at the time was calculated to mislead
the people, and he considered that it would have been more
to the credit of the right hon. gentleman if he had ex-
pressed some strong opinion against the legality of those
meetings, instead of leaving to his successor the whole
odium of putting a stop to them. (Cheers.)
Mr. LAYARD condemned the measure of the Govern-
ment as injudicious and foolish, and added that if the
Home Secretary had shown trust in the working men they
would not now have had to lament the riot and disturbance
which had occurred. For these results he held the right
hon. gentleman and his colleagues entirely and exclusively
responsible.
Major JERVIS administered a sharp rebuke to Mr.
Layard for the use of language which was calculated to
stimulate instead of assuaging exacerbated popular feeling.
He protested against the notion as absurd that, because the
paling had been thrown dowr, the police were bound to
retire.

Sir G. GREY confirmed the views of the Home Secre-
tary with regard to the illegality of holding political or
religious meetings in the parks, and regretted that the
leaders of the Reform League had not in this instance, as
on a preceding occasion,
held their meeting in Trafalgar-
square.

Mr. COWPER added his denial to that of Mr. Walpole
that exclusive advantages in the parks bad been granted
to any class of the community. He suggested that in
future such gatherings had better take place on Primrose-
hill.

Mr. J. S. MILL said that this was no ordinary occasion,
and it seemed to him that noble lords and honourable
gentlemen opposite were by no means aware of its great
importance, or of the very serious consequences which
might arise from the step which they had taken. He
did not intend to enter into the question as to the right
of the people to meet in Hyde-park. The Government had
the opinion of good lawyers that they had a right to ex-
clude the people, but lawyers were not unanimous upon
the point, and he could produce well argued opinions,
based both on legal and constitutional grounds, asserting
that the people had a right to meet in the park. He did
not, however, desire to lay any stress upon that circum-
stance. He maintained that if the people had not that
right, they ought to lave it. (Hear.) And further, that
if, for reasons which were unintelligible to him, it was ne-
cessary for the maintenance of some nominal right, that
permission should be asked before-such meetings were held,
that permission ought at once to have been granted.
(Hear, hear.) Ten thousand times more ought it to have
been granted when the people believed, erroneously
though it might be, that they had the right to assemble in
the park, because the fact that their minds were excited
upon another subject was the very circumstance that
ought to have warned right hon. gentlemen that they
might reasonably fear the consequences which had fol-
lowed, and which he believed that they deplored as much
as any one. He believed that the public ought to have the
use of the parks for this purposo, because what other place

was there that was half so convenient? [Several Hon.
Members—Primrose-hill]—or where there would be so
little interference with traffic ? Was there less interrup-
tion of traffic in Trafalgar-square than in Hyde-park—or
did a meeting of this sort held once in two or three years
cause one-thousandth part of the interference with the
other uses of the park that was occasioned by a volunteer
review ? It was obvious that if such reasons as this were
to exclude the public from meeting in places which must
be considered to belong to them, there were no others for
their exclusion from which much stronger ones might not
be urged. Perhaps, indeed, that was what hon. gentlemen
opposite wished. (Hear, hear.) Ile fully accepted the
assurance of the Home Secretary that he did not wish it.
He believed in the perfect sincerity of the right hon. gen-
tleman, but he was not altogether re-assured, because the
right hon. gentleman only said that he had no objection
to meetings at proper times and in proper places; but he
did not, inform the house what, in his opinion, were
proper times and places. The newspaper scribes of her
Majesty's Government were already declaring that no
open-air meetings ought to be tolerated in the metro-
polis. Let them try to prevent the holding of
such meetings. In that case they would have to

encounter a resistance of a very different kind, and from
very different persons from any that they had Jet met.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) Noble lords and right
hon. gentlemen opposite might be congratulated upon
having done a job of work last night the impression of
which it would take wiser men than they, and the lapse of
many years, to efface. It had been and still was the anxious
wish of all those who, while they understood the age, were
likewise lovers of their country, that the necessary changes
in its institutions should be effected with the least possi-
ble, and, if possible, without any, alienation or ill-blood
between the hitherto governing classes and the masses of
the people. Her Majesty's present advisers seemed to be de-
termined that, so far as depended upon them, this hope,
this wish, this anxious desire should be frustrated. (Oh,
oh.) They all knew that there was a kind of people who
could do more mischief in an hour—(cheers from the Mi-
nisterial benches)—than all the wisdom in the world could
repair in a year. Some gentlemen opposite seemed to have
an honourable ambition to inscribe their names upon the
list of such persons. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I take it
for granted that tile speech which we have just heard is
one of those which were intended for delivery in Hyde-
park, and it may give us some idea of what will be the
style of rhetoric which will prevail at these poriodical meet-
ings. On the part of the gentlemen who sit on this side
of the house I would repudiate, and repudiate with some
indigation, the feelings, motives, views, and policy which
the hon. member fin. Westminster has, without any foun-
dation whatever, imputed to us. (Cheers.) No opinions
have been expressed on this side of the house which have
not been shared by the highest authorities opposite. Every
one must deplore what has occurred, but whatever those
who are so profoundly sage after the event may say, I be-
lieve that there is no prudent man who would not have
taken the course which we adopted, and which our prede-
cessors have generously stated that they would have pur-
sued. There can, I think be no two opinions, except
among gentlemen who desired to deliver speeches inHyde-
park, that meetings for political or religious purposes
ought not to be held in that locality. In the case of the
parks which have been established in our great towns
within the last few years, the rule always prevails that no
such meetings shall be held within their bounds. The good
sense of the people of England has brought them to the
same conclusion as has been adopted by the practical men
who are responsible for the management of the parks in
the metropolis. I should not have risen had it not been for
the extraordinary and unjustifiable tone of the hon. mem-
ber for Westminster, for which the debate has afforded no
foundation, and which was absolutely inexcusable—(hear,
hear, and no, no)—but as lam upon my legs I cannot help
making a remark upon the view which appeared to be the
foundation of the speech which introduced the discussion.
The whole speech of the hon. member for the Tower Ham-
lets rested upon the assumption that there was in the noti-
fication published by the Government a false suggestion
that this meeting would, if it took place, lead to riot and
disturbance. There was no false suggestion of the kind
in that notification. It was not assumed by those who
drew up that document that riot or disturbance would be
occasioned by those who promoted the meeting or by the
working classes who attended it. Quito the reverse. Wo
had great confidence-- (a laugh) —in the conduct of the in-
dividuals who had undertaken the management of the
meeting, because other person's behaviour had shown that
they would act with perfect propriety. We were equally cer-
tain that the real working classes who would attend the
meeting would not be the authors of riot or disturbance. At
the same time, we said to ourselves, that a meeting of this
kind was likely to lead to riot and disturbance, and has it not
done so ? I live close to the scene of the disturbance, and at
the present moment I am not sure whether I shall get home
safely to-night, or whether I have a home to go to. There-
fore I have some opportunity of observing what is taking
place. There was a great many people there, very noisy
and turbulent people, but I will be bound to say that they
do not belong to the working classes. It was, however, the
case that where meetings, however honest and honourable
may bo their promoters, and however good citizens may be
those who attend them, are taken advantage of by all the
floating scum of a great city to assemble and conduct
themselves as they did last night. I entirely repudiate
the views imputed to us by the hon. member for West-
minister that we are opposed to public meetings, especially
to those of the working classes. On the contrary, I look
to public meeting held, as my right hon. friend said, at
proper times and in proper places, as one of our great
political safety-valves. I am far from discouraging them.
I would throw no obstacles in their way. But I believe
that unless they are held at proper times and in proper
places they give opportunities for tumult, riot, and dis-
turbance, and what has occurred proves the soundness of
that opinion.

In reply to Mr. OTWAY, Mr. WALPOLE said there was
no foundation whatever for the statement that the Guards
had teen ordered to load their rifles.
Affer a few words from Mr. WHALLEY, who com-
plained of the employment of police spies at meetings of
the Reform League, and a characteristic speech from Mr.
lIADFIELD, the subject dropped.
PRISON MINISTERS.

The O'CONNOR DON called attention to the inefficient
working of the Prisons Ministers Act, relying chiefly on
the returns from the Middlesex prisons, and after recom-
mending that the Act should either be made compulsory,
or that the permissive power should be placed in other
hands, he concluded by moving a resolution pledging the
House to an immediate consideration of the subject.
Mr. WHALLEY strenuously opposed the motion.
Sir G. GREY agreed that in some respects the Act had
failed and required amendment, but he was not willing to
pledge the House to immediate action, knowing the diffi-
culties of the case, and hoping that when the advantages
of the Act became better known it would be more widely
adopted.
The motion was supported by Mr. O'REILLY, and op-
posed by Mr. NEWDEGATE.
Mr. WALPOLE acknowledged that, though the Act had
been carried out in the majority of cases, the intentions of
the Legislature had been defeated in many gaols where the
magistrates had refused to apply it. While admitting the
importance of affording facilities for religious worship to
these unfortunate prisoners, he thought the experience of
the Act was too short to justify an immediate interference
of the Legislature, nor could ho agree in the expediency
of vesting a power of interference in the Homo Secretary.
He promised to address remonstrances to the justices who
had not applied the Act, and he hoped that course would
be effectual.

After some observations from Lord E. HOWARD and Mr.
MAGuntx the motion was withdrawn.

On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONN, an interesting return
was ordered, described by him as a valuable addition to
the general history of the country, as it would show the
net public income and expenditure of Great Britain for
each year from 1688 to 1801.

The Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Bill passed
,hrough committee.

The adjourned debate on the Compulsory Church-rate
Abolition Bill was renewed by
Mr. HUBBARD, who contrasted it very unfavourably
with the Solicitor-General's Bill,and regretted the decision
of the Dissenters not to accept the morn equitable com-
promise which the latter offered.
A motion for adjourning the debate, made by Mr. Henley
was rejected by 108 to 64 ; and a second motion to adjourn
the house, by Colonel North, gave rise to a sharp discus-
sion, in the course of which Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Henley, Sir
S. Northcote, and Mr. Hunt expressed strong objections
to the Bill and urged Mr. Gladstone to drop it for the Ses-
sion. Ultimately the debate was adjourned until August 1
The remaining orders were disposed,of, andthe house ad-
journed at 25 minutes to 2 o'clock.

RINDERPEST IN SHEEP.—The first appearance of
rinderpest among sheep in the west of England has just
occurred, Mr. Parsons, farmer, Pethertod Bridge, Somert-
shire, having recently lost no sheep. Professor Simimds
yesterday examined the flock, and found the whole suffer-
ing from the rinderpest in its most virulent form. The
local committee order the immediate slaughter of the re-
maining flock of 450. Mr. Blake, magistrate, Ulset Farm.
had lost 15 cattle, and the remaining 38 were examined
by Professor Simonds, and their immediate slaughter
ordered.

CRYSTAL PALACE.-ONE SHILLING DAY, TUES-
DAY.—Admissions on payment, 23,351 ; ditto by season
tickets, 4,698; total visitors, 28,052.
rADVERTISEMENTd—HoIIoway's Pills.— Grateful Car-
minative.—When bowel complaints rages and cholera
threatens it is little short of madness to disregard the
warnings to ward off the portending mischief, which flatu-
lency and alvine pains providentially convey to us. The
above-named pills are designed for this very purpose, and
admirably hitherto have they fulfilled their office. Their
purifying virtues being combined with the surest aperient
qualities not only free the circulation from every taint, but
release the bowels from all unassimilated matters, and re-

lieve every organ and the system generally from deranging
causes. In childhood, and for all whose health from birth
has been delicate, Holloway's pills are peculiarly appro-
priate, because they act mildly, are gently laxative, and
highly salutary to the bowels.