LAST TUESDAY.
THE scene of Tuesday was a partial success, but only a partial success, for the friends of order and civilisation. The authorities, from the Home Secretary downwards, showed nerve and judgment, and proved conclusively that, when fore- warned, they can hold in a dangerous London mob with that moderated force which allows of no resistance, yet sheds no blood. The City has rarely been so clear, the great body of London was quiet to dullness, and even in the minute congested district round Trafalgar Square the worst thing that happened was a suspension of business, which must have cost the decent folk there a heavy addition to the outgoings of the year. Every shop that was boarded up paid, of course, a fine to Mr. Hyndman, to be taken, in the end, out of poor men's wages ; but there was no loss of life. The weather declared itself, as it so often does, on the side of the capitalists ; but the police assert that the criminal classes were out in their full force, and they certainly accomplished nothing in the way of their business. They may have taken a few watches ; but they plundered no shop, killed no property owner, stole no emeralds, as they did in February, and created no riot. Sir Charles Warren's dispositions of the force at his command were, as strategic dispositions, admirable ; and the mob, whether in movement or at rest, was everywhere over- mastered. The head-quarters was always warned, outlying detachments were always ready, and the whole force had visibly acquired a new mobility. The rioters saw that, and lost heart, and a day viewed with great, though suppressed apprehension, passed off in a quiet which, remembering the events of February 8th, proved that the civic force was again in competent hands. That force was not, indeed, quite adequate to its harassing duties. It was deficient in cavalry—the number of mounted men being only three hundred—and in a contin- gent of men armed and organised like the Royal Constabulary in Ireland, and held strictly in reserve for dangerous emer- gencies. The police were nearly beaten at one or two points, the weight of a rushing mass proving irresistible, and Trafalgar Square was, after all, cleared by the Lifeguardsmen. True, there was no charge, and no firing, the crowd melting as a crowd always does before the tall riders and their horses ; but still, if the soldiers had not been there, a contest might have arisen, and have shown that the police of this huge city wants the support of twelve hundred mounted men, and that it would be better, if arms are refused to the men on foot, to give them to the mounted patrol. Still, the work of restraint was well done, and showed that London is governed by men who, on necessity arising, will act. That little trot of the Life Guards round Trafalgar Square, though it revealed inadequacy in the police, had an immense significance.
On the other hand, a certain weakness was shown in dealing with the Socialists. They had announced their intention of holding a meeting in Trafalgar Square. The Commis- sioner of Police, with the consent no doubt of the Home Office, and under the authority of unmistakeable statutes, especially the one directed against the Spenceans, or Socialists of Lord Sidmouth's time, prohibited the meeting. The prohibition was placarded over London, and was, as is avowed, entirely understood by the Socialists ; but, nevertheless, the meeting was held. That is to say, the law was defied openly, wilfully, and with impunity. We quite admit that the meeting was of no importance, that the leaders kept away from it, that the speakers were unknown men, and that the listeners were mostly boys ; but still, the meeting was held, and passed its " resolutions " in regular form. To suffer that was weak ; and if Sir Charles Warren was, as Mr. Hyndman told an interviewer, taken by surprise, he for a moment, and on that particular point, failed. The failure is disagreeable, not because the Socialists exult, for their exultation changes nothing ; but because it increases one permanent danger. The Socialists cannot change our institutions until they have persuaded the people that they ought to plunder, not for themselves, but for other folk— which with Englishmen is difficult—and they cannot endanger London, where the hostility to them among the real " people " is of a strong and even rancorous character ; but they can, if allowed impunity, give endless annoyance. They effected nothing on Tuesday ; but they arrested busi- ness, fined hundreds of shopkeepers in their day's profits, threw all police arrangements out of gear, and cost the ratepayers, who are mostly struggling persons, some thousands of pounds. Yet they themselves suffer nothing. If they repeat the experiment frequently, they will add per- ceptibly to the burden of life in London, will increase all rates, diminish the value of all property, keep away those whose expenditure comforts the working poor, and turn the hearts of the charitable against the classes who most need relief. Socialism ends charity by its action, as well as its opinions. Those are serious results, and they seem to us to follow directly from the lesson taught on Tuesday, that the law may be defied without legal consequences following as inevitably and, as it were, naturally as pain follows a blow. We can conceive of no answer to this argument, or but one,—that the law is considered doubtful ; and in that case, the proclama- tion ought never to have been issued. There was a blunder here ; and though, in face of the general order maintained, no one would wish to press it at all severely, it does diminish in a degree that general confidence in what Charles Lamb called "the sweet security" of London streets, to which London owes much of its wealth, and therefore of its means for pro- viding work for that great mass of workmen—five-sixths, pro- bably, of the whole population—to whom the Socialists are, consciously or unconsciously, so hostile. They hoot carriages, for example, because, as they openly avow, they are carriages, that is, they desire to ruin working coach-builders, working coach-painters, working drivers, working grooms, and working saddlers, in order that their wages—for this is what it comes to—should be distributed at the discretion of the State, guided by self-elected agitators. Even if it is alleged that the wealthy have their own compensations, it is not right that these industrials, who represent scores of thousands of others, should be deprived of even part of their wages by agitations which in the very nature of things can only be sterile. There must be order in London, lest its workmen suffer ; and partial failure, like that of Tuesday, imperils order.
It is to be noted that the vast reserve force of London, the six or seven hundred thousand grown men who will all be dead or scattered before Socialism is allowed to prevail, was in this instance not called upon at all. Thousands of them looked on, and thousands more, it is said, offered their aid to the police ; but the authorities accepted no assistance. The Times seems inclined to blame that decision ; but it was, wa are disposed to think, wise. The occasion was not grave enough for a levee en masse which could not be inces- santly repeated. The object was not to overwhelm the Socialists, still less to oppress them, but to show them, once for all, that the guardians of the law are strong enough to maintain the law from day to day, and without the assistance of a ple'biscite. If they wish to prevail, they must, as their friend, Professor Beesly, tells them, persuade the people, not foster riot by senseless demonstrations in the streets of London. They were shown that, though not com- pletely; and it was wisdom even to try to show it. Socialists all over the world are so impatient of arguments that the only way to induce them to argue is to convince them, with as little bloodshed as may be, but still to convince them, that argument is the only weapon they can effectively use. You cannot discuss a project for giving relief through work with men who begin by saying that the well-to- do will do nothing for workmen except under the influence of fear. There is no answer to the demand of 1789, 'Be my brother, or I will kill you," except evidence that if the right of killing exists on neither side, the power of killing remains with those who refuse to be coerced.
Previous page
