The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1867-08-10 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 1867.  THE HYDE PARK MEETING.  It is quite natural that those who individually may have little weight in the comic& of the nation should, when occasion seems L.) demand it, wish to show that they have power when united with their fellows. The poorest and humblest of our fellow subjects has an individual power when swelling tke numbers of a groat meeting; the hard hand of the most laborious tuechanic may help to pass a resolution tusetlet. ively as the kid-gloved hand of the aristocrat. And it is right that it should be so. Some of the greatest reforms which we now enjoy have been partially brought about by public meetings. Against the practice of public meeting, still less against the right to meet, we have not therefore a word to say, and we should be sorry were any. thing done by the Legislature—which is not at all likely, by-the•bye—against this right in the abstract. But the right of public meeting in fitting places, is one thing; the assemblage of large messes of people in a pleasure park is another.  The meeting in Hyde Park on Monday night was of the latter character. The Reform League may perhaps look upon this gathering with pride for that so many men should meet at their call, and pass resolutions which had been announced beforehand, shows their power and influence over a large section of the community: but we cannot see that the working class of the country generally has any occasion to rejoice at it. It was a great party meeting, with foregone conclusions, and at which there was not the slightest chance of opposing opinions finding expression. For instance, a gentleman on horseback, with two knights attendant, essayed to address a crowd around him in opposition to the policy of such meetings in public parks, but the crowd would not listen to him, and ha was obliged to make his escape amidst the yells of those who had met to proclaim the right to freedom of opinion. It is undeniable, also, that in any great public open-air meeting in London the rough element is always more or less demonstrative. The Reform League is not answerable for this, and the respectable working men who form the majority of such meetings may regret it, but they cannot help themselves. The rough has as much right to be there as the mechanic. It may be said that the same objection holds to meetings in public rooms. So it may, but such meetings are more under control; they are less numerous, and afford better opportunities for the fair expression of opinion..  There were, moreover, some features of this great meeting quite independent of its open-air character which most thinking persons cannot but regret. Here and there were " caps of liberty." as they were absurdly called, and the very name brings to mind Madame Rolaud's famous exclamation, "0, Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name " Every reader of the history of the French revolution is familiar with the associations which surround the bonnet rouge. It is the emblem of outrage and imprisonment, of pillage and murder; and it is a great pity that in any great public meeting such an emblem should be flaunted before the eyes of the crowd, foreign as it is to English love of fairness, to representative government, and to individual rights and liberties. It is much to be regretted too that a section of the crowd should have been so lost to a sense of propriety as to have gone to the House of Lords and to have yelled and groaned under the walls of the building. It is with such emblems as the cap of liberty, and such demonstrations as these that revolutions commence. We may have no fear of revolution in this country, and no reason to fear it, but such suggestive demonstrations as these are in themselves none the less , objectionable. More than any feature that may have charac tensed the meeting, however, do we lament that it should have been not without excuse in consequence of the attitude which the House of Lords has aAsumed 1, the Reform Rill. Their Lordships have to a great extent, changed the character of the bill as received from the House of Commons, and it was mainly to protest against these amendments that the meeting was held. Had the Royal Parks Bill been the only grievance the meeting would have bean far less numerous and demonstrative. It is not yet too late for the two Houses to agree upon such a bill as will give satisfaction to the great mass of the people, and we trust that the opportunity may be seised.