THE GRAHAM-BURNS TRIAL.
THE result of the trial of Mr. Graham and Mr. Burns at the Central Criminal Court has been to show without doubt that those who refused to believe that the right of public meeting could under any circumstances become the right of public riot, or that the particular action of Mr. Graham and Mr. Burns in trying to force their way into the Square was legal, were justified in that refusal. After a most careful trial, after the reception of the fullest evidence on the part of the prisoners, after an argument for the defence from one of the most accomplished members of the English Bar, and after a charge from the Judge in which no attempt was made to influence the verdict unduly, a common jury of Londoners has come to the deliberate conclusion that Mr. Graham and Mr. Burns, though not guilty of riot or of assault on the police, were guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly. Into the question of the adequacy of the sentence of six weeks' imprisonment, or into a discussion whether the offence of riot was not actually committed, we have no desire to enter. It has not yet, we are thankful to say, become the business of the Press to retry criminal cases. If the jury, who had all the circumstances properly before them, thought that the only offence committed was that of unlawful assembly, there is not only every reason to believe they came to a right
conclusion, but there is a positive duty cast upon all good citizens to support their verdict, whether or not exactly the same conclusions seem directly deducible from the neces- sarily imperfect reports that have appeared of the pro- ceedings. For the same reason, it would be equally out of place to criticise Mr. Justice Charles's sentence. To him, as Judge, was entrusted the duty of punishing those against whom a verdict of guilty was found. That duty he had to perform without considering whether his sentence would find favour with this or that division of public opinion. Accordingly, now that sentence has been passed, all who wish to uphold the independence of the Courts of Law must, what- ever be their private opinions, acquiesce in that sentence. If the public is not willing to abide by the result of a fair trial, what is the use of having a trial at all ?
Though the question of Mr. Graham's and Mr. Burns's guilt or innocence in the particular cage was one of great interest, it was, in truth, not nearly so important as the general issue as to lawful and unlawful assemblies raised at the trial. At last the law as to unlawful assemblies has been carefully gone into, and its nature, though not in any way altered or made more clear to the minds of lawyers, has been brought home to the public in a striking manner by the publicity attending a great trial. From this time forth, the confusion in the minds of the public as to the law relating to unlawful assembly will be to a great extent done away with. At the trial the law officers of the Crown, the learned counsel for the defence, and the Judge were all practically agreed in their view of the law. The points seriously debated were those of fact, not of law. No one would be likely to find fault with Mr. Asquith's admission that in determining whether a meeting was lawful or unlawful, "the questions to be considered were the hour at which the parties met, the language used by the persons assembled, the persons who addressed them. and whether firm and rational men, having their families and property there, would have reasonable grounds to fear a breach of the peace,—the alarm being such as to affect not merely foolish and timid people, but people of firmness and courage." In fact, Mr. Asquith was obliged to admit that it is the actual demeanour and character of an assembly, not the objects for which it has come together, that make it lawful or unlawful. In other words, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. Starting with such an admission, it is hardly to be wondered that Mr. Asquith failed to convince the jury that the meeting of November 13th was not an unlawful assembly. He had, in fact, to contend that a meeting summoned in Tra- falgar Square, and to be held at a time when the police had been having almost daily conflicts in that same place during the past month with disorderly mobs, and intended to be addressed by a man like Mr. Burns, whose language on a previous occasion in Trafalgar Square had been publicly condemned by a London jury, would not be an assembly such as to make firm and reasonable men, having their families and property around the Square, fear a breach of the peace. It is needless to say that he could not manage even to make a show of doing so without recourse to one or two of those ingenious paradoxes which stress of legal weather will often force even the most clear- headed of advocates to adopt. For instance, he had to ask the jury to believe that the tumultuous and disorderly meetings held during the four or five weeks previous to November 13th, and the meeting of that date, had nothing whatever to do with each other. Further, he had to insinuate that the police were the real rioters, and that, but for their presence in the Square, there would have been no disturbance at all. "If the meeting had not been prevented, no confusion would have taken place." Let us translate this apparently harmless generality into facts, and see what the result would have been. If the police had not prevented the meeting, they would have allowed pro- cessions from all parts of London, consisting of men armed with iron pipes, knives, and sticks, to enter the Square, and a meeting probably of some sixty thousand persons to assemble and be addressed by gentlemen like Mr. Burns, Mr. Hyndman, and Mr. Graham. Considering that a large portion of this mob would have consisted of the men with whom the police had recently been in conflict, that there would certainly have been a large contingent of roughs and thieves, is it not more than likely that the meeting would have ended in an attack on the clubs and hotels of the West End? If it had ended thus, and if London had been obliged to pay another £10,000 of compensation, what would have been said of the police authorities who had thus neglected their duties ? Would not all classes and all parties have exclaimed against their want of foresight ? The police can-
not try things both ways. If a crowd of sixty thousand persons once assembles within a narrow space, they are power- less to disperse it without military aid. Their only choice, then, is not to allow a crowd of such size to get together in our streets, unless they can feel absolutely certain that it will be harmless and peaceable. Though we cannot enter into a general discussion of the evidence at the trial, one point deserves special notice. It was the contention of Mr. Graham's counsel that his client and Mr. Burns did not, when in Trafalgar Square on November 13th, conduct or intend to conduct themselves in a disorderly or tumultuous manner,—that is, did not attempt to " rush " the cordon of police. When in connection with this is taken the remark in Mr. Graham's letter to the Pall Mall Gazette," It's owing to the fact that some of our men did not arrive in time that the meeting was not held ;" Mr. Graham's cry of "Now for the Square ;" and Mr. Burns's remark at the police-station, "We attacked the weakest point ;" and, finally, the evidence of Sir Edward Reed, the principal witness for the defence, that there was "a rush" made on the Square, it is surely impossible to give much weight to the intentions now expressed by Mr. Graham through his counsel. What did Mr. Graham and Mr. Burns mean, if they did not mean to try and carry the Square ? To this question Mr. Asquith's speech, wisely perhaps, affords no answer.
It is to be regretted that the question whether the public has any right at all to meet in places over which it enjoys merely the right of thoroughfare, was not more directly raised during the trial. It is true that it was dwelt on at some length by the Judge, who declared that, as far as he could find in the law of England, there was no right to hold public meetings in Trafalgar Square, or other public places which are dedicated to the public for people to pass along and use as thoroughfares, not as places for holding public meetings ; but since the verdict did not turn on this point, the question is left much as it was before. Had the point been raised in such a way as to allow an appeal, the result would have been far more satisfactory. It is difficult to leave the case without noticing how absurdly exaggerated and overdone has been the conduct of Mr. Graham on the question of the meetings in Trafalgar Square. He and his friends have fought the question as if it involved the whole right of public mass-meeting in England ; as if, were they to fail, the people could never again meet to discuss grievances or criticise the policy of the Government. Yet Mr. Graham and his friends are perfectly well aware that, as a matter of fact, the right of public meeting in general has never been challenged ; and that any people who choose are perfectly at liberty to meet in Hyde Park, Victoria Palk, Battersea Park, and Regent's Park,—places specially set apart for that purpose. Instead of the struggle being one for the right of public meeting, it is one for the right of irresponsible secretaries of political societies to dictate to those charged with the duty of keeping order in London, as to whether great public gatherings held in a public Square are or are not dangerous. It is admitted on all sides that if they are dangerous they ought not to be held—indeed, cannot legally be held—but A, B, and C are to be judges of the danger, not the police. When the nation gradually begins to understand the ground of com- plaint against the authorities, can it be doubtful which side it will take ? We cannot end our notice of the trial without contrasting the conduct of Mr. Tims, the Secretary of the Radical Federation, who quietly, and in an orderly and reason- able manner, demanded admission to the Square, and who was accordingly only refused admission, but not otherwise inter- fered with by the police, and that of Mr. Graham. Mr. Tims, however much mistaken, behaved in a manner consistent with the true traditions of law-abiding and law-respecting English- men. Mr. Graham conducted himself like a political fanatic of the Continental type. The working man could certainly give a lesson in dignity and self-respect to the well-born man of wealth.
Previous page
