Yesterday week, Mr. Bradlaugh resumed his speech in the Commons
on the meetings in Trafalgar Square, accusing the police of various acts of brutality in the treatment of those who made the demonstration, and moved his amendment asking for an inquiry into their proceedings on November 13th. The Attorney-General, in reply, taunted him with bringing before the House what ought to have been brought before the Magis- trates, and challenging Sir Charles Russell's law, maintained that not a vestige exists of any legal right to meet in thorough- fares intended for the passing and repassing of the people. Sir William Harcourt quoted cases in which the Law Officers of the Crown had advised the Executive to permit such meetings,— which is clearly true,—but did not show that the Law Officers of the Crown had declared that there is any public right to hold such meetings in thoroughfares. Mr. Baumann (M.P. for the Peckham Division of Camberwell) said, with a good deal of shrewdness, that in this case Trafalgar Square had clearly been chosen not because it was convenient to the people, but because it was inconvenient to the public and gave large opportunities for intimidation ; and Mr. Jesse Collings made an admirable speech, assuring the House that the provinces perfectly well understood the question, and knew that Trafalgar Square is no longer a suitable place for such meetings as these. Sir Henry James declared that the purely legal aspect of the question was utterly insignificant compared with the question of public safety,
on which very properly the police authorities had rested their decision ; and after terse replies from Mr. Matthews and Sir
Charles Russell, Mr. Bradlaugh's amendment was rejected by a majority of 115 (322 to 207), and Sir Charles Russell's more moderate motion by a majority of 92 (316 to 224).
Previous page
