DISTURBERS OF MEETINGS.
1To THE EDITOR OF THE 'SPECTATOR -J SIR,—In your article on "Superfine Politicians," you show how prone is human nature to generalise from a single case, and derive therefrom a rather unsafe guide for political action. Years ago I learnt from the writings of Professor Tyndall and others to guard against that practice, and form an opinion only after the observation of many cases.
I wish to act on that principle in reference to the very serious subject of the disturbance of public meetings. I have lately attended nearly thirty meetings in support of a dozen or more Liberal candidates, and venture to lay before your readers the conclusion at which I have arrived.
I must protest most strongly against the common opinion that disorder generally prevails at the meetings of agricultural labourers. As a general rule, the quietest, the most thoughtful and attentive, have been those composed of men whose daily work is appointed on the land or sea I believe the same is true in a rather less degree of meetings in London and the large towns. On the other hand, the districts where disorder is most rife are the suburban divisions and the smaller towns. I believe that to be the safest general rule, and I will not at present ven- ture to inquire into the reason for it.
I feel sure that all will agree in the necessity of ascertaining the causes and the best mode of suppressing it.—I am, Sir, &c.,