HYDE PARK MEETINGS, 1855.
In the summer of 1855, Mr Bradlaugh for the first time took part in
a great Hyde Park meeting. He went, like so many others, merely as a
spectator, having no idea that the part he would be called upon to play
would lead him into a position of prominence. In order to get a little
into the spirit of that Hyde Park meeting, I must recall a few of the
events which led up to it.
A Bill had been introduced into the House of Commons by Lord Robert
Grosvenor which was called the New Sunday Bill or the Sunday Trading
Bill, and had for its object the prevention of the whole of that small
trading by poor vendors, with which we are familiar in certain parts
of the metropolis to-day. Who has not seen or heard of the Sunday
marketing in Petticoat Lane, Leather Lane, Golden Lane, Whitecross
Street, and many such another place? This small trading is very useful,
and in many cases absolutely necessary to the very poor, who, being
at work all the week, would not otherwise have time for the purchase
of the Sunday dinner--the one real dinner of the week--shoes, or
such other articles of clothing as decency compels them to have even
when their slender purses almost forbid the purchase. Lord Robert
Grosvenor's Bill fell amongst these like a bombshell, causing the
wildest excitement and indignation.[16]
[Footnote 16: The following handbill, which was circulated after the
second reading of the Sunday Trading Bill, and put in evidence at the
Royal Commission subsequently held, will give a good idea as to the
extent of the proposed measure.
"Tyrannical attack upon the Liberty of the people. Proposed prohibition
of Sunday trading. The New Bill brought in by Lord Robert Grosvenor,
Lord Ebrington, and Mr M. Chambers proposes to prevent trading on
Sundays within the Metropolitan Police District and city of London, and
the liberties thereof. It enacts 'that all persons selling, offering,
or exposing for sale, or causing to be sold or exposed for sale (on
Sundays) any goods, chattels, effects, or things whatsoever, shall, on
summary conviction thereof, be fined 5s., and on a second conviction,
this fine may be increased to 40s.; and the fines will be cumulative,
and every separate act of selling will be a separate offence. The act
will not apply to the sale of medicines or drugs, nor to the selling
or crying of milk or cream before 9 a.m. or after 1 p.m., nor to the
selling or offering of any newspaper or periodical before 10 a.m., nor
to the sale of fruit, cooked victuals, or any unfermented beverage
before 10 a.m. and after 1 p.m., nor to the sale of meat, poultry,
fish, or game, before 9 a.m., from the 31st of May to the 1st of
October in each year, nor to the exercise of the ordinary business of
a licensed victualler or innkeeper. Butchers and others delivering
meat, fish, or game, after 9 a.m. on Sundays, will be liable to the
penalties above mentioned. Nor will that useful class of the community,
the barbers and hairdressers, be exempted, if they presume to 'do
business' after ten o'clock on Sunday mornings, in which case they
may be fined 5s., and 20s. for a second offence. It appears, however,
that the payment of one penalty will protect the offending barber from
any further fine on the same day. Clause 6 saves servants from the
operation of the Act, and visits their disobedience on their masters or
mistresses. The police are required to enforce the provisions of the
Act. Penalties and costs may be levied by distress, and imprisonment
may be inflicted in default of payment for 14 days in the common gaol
or house of correction. The penalties will be appropriated to the
expenses of the police force. No informations are to be quashed for
informality, or to be removed by _certiorari_ into the Court of Queen's
Bench. The Act (is) to commence (if passed) on the 1st day of November,
or All Saints' Day, 1855. A more tyrannical measure was never attempted
to be forced upon the people of this country, and if this 'Saints'
Bill' is allowed to pass, a much more stringent Act will doubtless
follow."]
Then it was that the excitement of the people needed to find some
expression in action, and J. B. Leno, the working man poet, and others,
turned the popular feeling to account by directing it into the form of
an unmistakable protest against this class of legislation. Amongst the
handbills put in circulation was the following, calling a meeting for
June 24th:--
"New Sunday Bill to put down newspapers, shaving, smoking, eating
and drinking of all kinds of food, or recreation for body or mind at
present enjoyed by poor people. An open-air meeting of the artizans,
mechanics, and lower orders of the metropolis will be held in Hyde
Park on Sunday afternoon next, to see how religiously the aristocracy
observe the Sabbath, and how careful they are not to work their
servants or their cattle on that day (_vide_ Lord Robert Grosvenor's
speech). The meeting is summoned for three o'clock on the right bank
of the Serpentine, looking towards Kensington Gardens. Come and bring
your wives and families with you, that they may benefit by the example
set them by their betters.--_A Ratepayer of Walworth._"
The outcome of all this was that large numbers of people found their
way into Hyde Park on Sunday, June 24th. They came with the intention
of holding a meeting of protest. A space was set aside for the meeting,
and a Mr James Bligh called upon to preside. He began by addressing
the people in very temperate language, but was soon interrupted by
an Inspector of Police, who "politely told him he was authorised by
the Commissioner of the Police to prevent any meeting being held in
the Park; inasmuch as the Park was not public property, it would be
illegal." The Inspector said that his orders were imperative, and if
the speaker continued speaking he would be obliged to take him into
custody. Sir Richard Mayne was present with a Superintendent of Police,
and although the meeting was broken up, nevertheless many thousands
remained in the Park. These lounged along the carriage ways and greeted
the carriages with groans and hooting, or chaffing and good-humoured
sarcasm, each according to his feelings. The aristocracy and wealthy
commoners, who were taking their Sunday afternoon airing at their ease
in the Park, did not at all approve of the attendance and attention of
the multitude. The ladies and gentlemen reclining in their carriages
were asked why they allowed their servants to work on Sunday, or were
told to "go to Church," an order which some met by shaking their Church
Services in the faces of the throng, or by sneers; whilst others, such
as Lord and Lady Wilton, Lady Granville, and the Duke and Duchess of
Beaufort, were so frightened that they got out of their carriages at
the demand of the crowd and trudged it on foot.
This little taste of the delights of showing the wealthy their power
and of giving them a little bit of a fright only inflamed the people
the more. During the week following the 24th the excitement continued
to increase, and more handbills and placards were distributed. A very
witty placard issued by the "Leave us alone Club," and some amusing
lines, are quoted in Mr Headingley's Biography; while another which met
with great success was in the following terms:--
"GO TO CHURCH!"
"Lord Robert Grosvenor wishes to drive us all to church! Let us go to
church with Lord Grosvenor next Sunday morning! We can attend on his
Lordship at Park Lane at half-past ten: 'go to church' with him, then
go home to dinner, and be back in time to see 'our friends' in Hyde
Park. Come in your best clothes, as his lordship is very particular."
In the House, Lord Grosvenor fanned the flames of the popular
excitement outside by an express refusal to withdraw the Bill, and by
stating his fixed determination to press the measure. The signs of the
increasing agitation amongst the people were so marked that Sir Richard
Mayne, Commissioner of Police, became alarmed, especially as the police
superintendents of various districts reported to him that large numbers
of people were likely to attend the Park on the Sunday; and on June
29th he communicated with Sir George Grey, then Home Secretary, from
whom, as he stated later on to the Commission, he received instructions
to draft a document forbidding the meeting.
This notice was printed in one or two newspapers on the morning of
Saturday the 30th, but not issued in the form of a handbill until the
afternoon. It was then also posted throughout the metropolis, and on
Sunday morning at the Park Gates.
In common with the rest of the London public, Mr Bradlaugh read this
police notice, and directly he read it he felt convinced that the
Commissioner of Police had no power to prevent a meeting in the Park.
He therefore, after due consideration, resolved not to submit to this
order, but to take part in the general concourse--one can hardly
call it a meeting, since any attempt to form in a mass and listen to
speeches had been prevented on the previous Sunday--in the Park, and if
necessary to resist in his own person any active interference on the
part of the police.
The 1st of July arrived, and people from every district of London and
all round about flocked to the Park, crowding particularly towards the
north side of the Serpentine. Although showing every disposition to be
in the main quiet and orderly, the temper of the crowd was much less
good-humoured than on the previous Sunday; the police placards had
acted as a very successful irritant, and this feeling of irritation was
kept up and augmented by the sight of the wealthy ones parading up and
down in their carriages. As on the former Sunday, they were greeted
with groans and hooting, and so much vigour was thrown into the groans
that in two or three cases the high-spirited horses took fright, and
serious accidents appeared probable. At this point the police charged
the people, and naturally enough rioting (so-called) was the result.
Many persons were hurt, and seventy were taken prisoners. The police
accommodation at the Marlborough Street Police Station proved totally
inadequate for so large a number of prisoners, and the condition of the
cells was compared with that of the Black Hole in Calcutta. My father
was in the Park with my grandfather, Mr A. Hooper, and what he did
there may be learned a little later on from his own words.
This demonstration in Hyde Park produced such an impression that on the
following day, the 2nd of July, Lord Robert Grosvenor, in answer to a
question put to him in the House of Commons, said he was in "rather
an awkward predicament," a statement which we can readily believe.
His Bill, the Honourable Member insisted, was in reality intended to
increase the amount of holiday possible to "the overtaxed thousands of
the metropolis. But," he went on, "considering this is one of those
measures which are peculiarly liable to misrepresentation and ridicule;
considering also the late period of the session, and the formidable
opposition I am threatened with, I think it would not be right to keep
up the irritation that at the present moment exists for the bare chance
of passing this measure during the present session."
This abandonment of his Sunday Bill in a fright by "Saint" Grosvenor,
as he was nicknamed, was a tremendous triumph to all those whom
it affected, a triumph happily not marred by any punishment being
inflicted on the men arrested on various charges connected with the
demonstration, for when these were brought into court on the Monday
they were all discharged. At the John Street Institution a meeting was
held to protest against the action of the police, to express sympathy
with the injured, and to collect subscriptions on their behalf.[17]
[Footnote 17: Probably the re-formation of the National Sunday League
on its present basis in the autumn of 1855 was in great degree owing to
the attempted Sunday legislation of the summer; and it will perhaps be
news to most of the Sunday Leaguers of to-day that in the March of 1856
Mr Bradlaugh was actively engaged in trying to form a branch of the
League in the East End, of which he was the Secretary _pro. tem._, and
which was to hold its meetings in the Hayfield Coffee House, Mile End
Road.]
A Royal Commission was appointed "to inquire into the alleged
disturbances of the public peace in Hyde Park, Sunday, July 1st, 1855;
and the conduct of the metropolitan police in connection with the
same." This Commission sat continuously day by day from Tuesday, July
17th, to Thursday, August 2nd. The sittings were held in the Court
of Exchequer, and the Commission heard eighty-six witnesses on the
part of the complainants, and ninety-three for the police. Amongst
the eighty-six witnesses was my father, who was examined on the 20th
July. I quote the questions, with their often extremely characteristic
answers, from the Parliamentary Blue Book.[18]
[Footnote 18: Vol. XXIII. 1856, pp. 146, 147.]
"Mr C. BRADLAUGH examined by Mr Mitchell:--
"Where do you reside?--At No. 13 Warner Street South, Hackney Road.
"You are a solicitor's clerk?--I am.
"Were you in Hyde Park on the 1st of July?--I was.
"At what time?--From about half-past three to half-past six.
"Where did you walk during that time? I walked completely over the
park, round by the carriage drive, and all round during that time.
"Did you see a man in a cab with several policemen?--Yes. I saw a man
being driven along in a cab with three policemen in the cab, a man
with no shirt on; he was without his shirt, he was trying to look out,
and I saw a policeman strike him over the temple with his truncheon.
"There were three policemen in the cab?--Yes.
"Mr Stuart Wortley: A man without a shirt?--Yes.
"Mr Mitchell: Did you see anybody attacked?--Yes, I saw a rush made
out on to the greensward. I went forward, and I saw four or five
policemen striking a short man: his hat was knocked with a truncheon,
and he held up his hands and said, 'For God's sake, do not hit
me--take me!'
"Did they continue to hit him?--Yes; I ran forward, and put one
truncheon back with my gloved hand, and I said, 'The next man that
strikes I will knock him down!'
"What did they do then?--Then they left off striking him, and they put
him between two policemen, and I suppose he was taken away in custody.
"They found that you were rather a strongish man?--They would.
"Were you attacked by the police?--I was standing on the grass just
after that, and they made another sortie out from the roadway, and
ordered the people to move on, and they moved as fast as they could.
One of them came up to me, and began to push me with his truncheon,
upon which I said to him: 'Do not do that, friend; you have no right
to do it, and I am stronger than you are.' He then beckoned to two
others, who came up, and I took hold of two of the truncheons, one in
each hand, and I said to the centre one: 'If you attempt to touch me,
I will take one of those truncheons, and knock you down with it.' I
took the two truncheons, and I wrested them, and I showed them that I
could do it.
"Did they then leave you alone?--Yes; the people that came behind me
picked me up and carried me up about 100 yards back, cheering me.
"Mr Stuart Wortley.--Did they take you off your legs?--Yes, and I
thought it was the police behind for a moment.
"Mr Mitchell.--You were in the Park for three hours?--Yes.
"How were the people behaving?--I never saw a large assemblage of
people behaving so well.
"You were with your father-in-law, were you not?--Yes, I was.
"What time in the day was this particular occurrence?--About
half-an-hour before I left.
"Mr Henderson.--The people gathered round you?--Yes. I did not want to
be a self-constituted leader, and immediately I could I got away from
the press and came away. I left about half-past six, a few minutes
after or a few minutes before.
"Mr Stuart Wortley.--Had the excitement in the Park increased a good
deal at that time?--Yes; I felt excited by seeing men, unable to
defend themselves, knocked about.
"Mr Mitchell.--Did you see any other rush of the police at the
people?--I saw several rushes. I could not understand the reason for
them at all, except on one occasion; I saw one mounted superintendent
stretch out his arm, and I saw a rush immediately in the direction
that his arm went.
"What sort of a horse had he?--I could not see; I was on the sward. I
only noticed a mounted man.
"You would not know him if you saw him again?--Yes; I think so: I
should certainly know him if I saw him mounted.
"Can you say whether he had whiskers or not?--Yes; I think he had, but
that is more an impression than anything else.
"Did you see them strike any woman?--I saw in the rush, in one of
them, a man and two women thrown down, and I saw the police run over
them. They did not strike them, but they ran right over them. I made a
remark to my father-in-law: 'It is lucky they are no sisters of mine,
or else they would stop to pick them up.'
"You did not go into the Park to resist the police?--Decidedly not.
I went in consequence of seeing the notice of Sir Richard Mayne
forbidding it, and to see what took place there.
"Out of curiosity?--Not exactly. I had heard it said that they were
rabble, and I did not believe it, and I went to see for myself.
"Your indignation was not excited till you got there?--Not till some
time after I had been there. At first I should have come away. The
police were doing nothing, and at first everything seemed to be very
quiet. There was no kind of meeting, except that there had been a
large concourse of people. I should have come away but for those
rushes of the police amongst the people.
"They were not a disorderly crowd?--No.
"Cross-examined by Mr Ellis:--
"You spoke of Sir Richard Mayne's proclamation as forbidding this
meeting. Did you read it?--Yes.
"Does it forbid it?--The tenor of it seemed to me to be forbidding the
assemblage, and I had not heard then, and have not heard now, that
Sir Richard Mayne has any power to forbid my going into the Park;
therefore I went.
"I think that the language of this proclamation is, that all
well-disposed persons are requested to abstain. You do not call that
forbidding?--When those police notices are put up I remember one place
where I was requested to abstain from going to, some few years ago;
and when I went there I found that the request to abstain was enforced
in a precisely similar way, by striking the people with truncheons who
went there. That was at Bonner's Fields.
"Were any persons struck with truncheons there?--Yes.
"Surely the police were armed with cutlasses?--I think I remember
two being drawn as well; but I know some of them were struck with
truncheons. I was struck with a truncheon myself, so that I am
perfectly capable of remembering it.
"You were at Bonner's Fields?--I was.
"Mr Stuart Wortley.--Is there anything else that you wish to
add?--Nothing.
"The witness withdrew."
In his "Autobiography"[19] Mr Bradlaugh says: "I was very proud that
day at Westminster, when, at the conclusion of my testimony, the
Commissioner publicly thanked me, and the people who crowded the Court
of the Exchequer cheered me.... This was a first step in a course in
which I have never flinched or wavered."
[Footnote 19: The Autobiography of Charles Bradlaugh. A page from his
life, written in 1873 for the _National Reformer_.]
Before dismissing this Sunday Trading question altogether, I may as
well notice here that in the succeeding year my father made a short
humorous compilation of some of the more striking "English Sunday
laws" for the _Reasoner_. I am ignorant how many of these are still
in force, but I repeat part of the article here: as a trifle from
my father's pen, it will be welcome to some, and in others it may,
perhaps, provoke inquiry as to how many of these restrictions are
binding (in law) upon us to-day.
"Travelling in a stage or mail coach on a Sunday is lawful, and the
driver is lawfully employed. Contracts to carry passengers in a stage
coach on a Sunday are therefore binding, but the driver of a van
travelling to and from distant towns, such as London and York, is
unlawfully employed, and may be prosecuted and fined 20s. for each
offence; and presuming that the laws of God and England are in unison,
the driver of the van will be damned for Sabbath breaking and the
driver of the coach will go to heaven for the same offence.
"Mackerel may be sold on Sunday either before or after Divine service.
"There is no offence against the common law of England in trading
or working on a Sunday; therefore the statutes must be strictly
construed. If a butcher should shave on a Sunday, he would commit no
offence, because it would not be following his ordinary calling.
"Persons exercising their calling on a Sunday are only subject
to one penalty, for the whole is but one offence, or one act of
exercising, although continued the whole day. A baker, a pastrycook,
or confectioner, is liable to be prosecuted if selling bread or pastry
before nine or half-past one o'clock on the Sunday.
"If the Archbishop of Canterbury's cook, groom, footman, butler, and
all other his men servants and maid servants do not each of them
attend church every Sunday, they may be prosecuted and fined.
"If the Archbishop of Canterbury's coachman drive his master to church
on Sunday, if his footmen stand behind his carriage, these being their
ordinary callings and not works of charity or necessity, they may be
prosecuted and fined 5s. each.
"Tobacconists may be prosecuted for selling tobacco and cigars on a
Sunday.
"Railway officials may be punished for working on a Sunday; certainly
on excursion trains.
"The stokers and men employed on the steamboats plying to Gravesend,
etc., are also liable to prosecution, although a few watermen enjoy
the privilege of Sabbath-breaking by Act of Parliament.
"Civil contracts made on a Sunday are void with some few exceptions,
viz. a soldier may be enlisted on a Sunday. A labourer may be hired
on a Sunday. A guarantee may be given for the faithful services of
a person about to be employed. A bill of exchange may be drawn on a
Sunday.
"Civil process must not be served an a Sunday, but an ecclesiastical
citation may; therefore the Church reserves to itself the right of
Sabbath breaking on all occasions.
"A cookshop may be open on a Sunday for the sale of victuals.
"Every person who should go to Hyde Park, or any of the other parks,
to hear the band play, if out of his own parish, is liable to be fined
3s. 4d.
"If two or three go from out of their smoky city residences to the
sea to fish, or to the green fields to play cricket, they may each be
fined 3s. 4d. if out of the parish in which they reside."