Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History BookOpen Original Text 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 stri Previous Next |