MIA > Archive > Hyndman > Adventurous Life
It was out of the unemployed meetings and agitations that the so-called “West End Riots” came. They made a great stir in their day. Now, so many years having passed, they are frequently mixed up with the meeting on “Bloody Sunday” in Trafalgar Square, which led to the death of the unfortunate man Linnell, and the imprisonment of Cunninghame Graham and Burns. The circumstances of the case were, however, quite different. There had grown up at the East End of London during 1885 and 1886 a more or less subsidised agitation, arising out of the collapse of the sugar refineries and the consequent throwing of a large number of men out of work, which led to an organisation called “The Fair Trade League.” I am willing to admit that there was a good deal to be said for their contentions in themselves, but brought up as they were in direct opposition to Socialist palliatives and Socialism as a cure for unemployment, the whole movement was used by the capitalists against us.
These people, headed by two shrewd persons, Peters and Kelly, called a meeting in Trafalgar Square in favour of Fair Trade in the autumn of 1886. The Social-Democratic Federation at once summoned a counter demonstration against it. The two bodies met, many of the Fair Traders, as is now well known, being people who had been brought up at so much a head, ready for any little diversion. There was a good deal of friction in the Square itself between the two factions, and the whole thing seemed likely to degenerate into a free fight, when the police came to me and suggested that our folk should go off to Hyde Park, and thus avoid a serious breach of the peace. As the meeting was not our meeting, and we had made our protest in several speeches, we all thought there was no objection to this course. So Burns took a red flag to lead the way, and we called upon the people to follow. Many of the other side came too, and a wholly unorganised mob went rushing down Pall Mall and up St. James’s Street where, as speedily appeared, there were no police at all.
The trouble began at the Reform Club. There, owing to a member wishing to get into either that Club or the Carlton, a halt occurred: some of our supporters helping him to get through without being crushed or assaulted. Champion and I who were in Pall Mall among the crowd, on the opposite side of the pavement, saw some of the servants of the Reform Club throw down missiles at the crowd in the shape of old nail-brushes, shoes, etc. Thereupon stones were thrown at the windows, and a great hubbub ensued. Happily the people did not raid the Club, but hurried along. As we passed up St. James’s Street, however, we noted that much heavier stone-throwing had begun – the roadway was then macadamised, and there was more than one big heap of metal ready broken for laying down – and that many of the Club windows were smashed all to pieces, including the windows of the New University Club, from which I had not long before been expelled for making a speech on the Embankment in favour of the unemployed. It was said at the time that the crowd did this particular window-breaking job there so thoroughly in revenge for my expulsion. But this was a preposterous statement, as I don’t suppose a single man of the mob, who were not our people anyhow, knew one club from another.
As we left St. James’s Street, however, and went along Piccadilly things got worse and worse. Nearly all the shops, especially the tailors’ and hosiers’, had their windows broken and were looted. It was a funny enough scene to observe these people from the East End of London, brought up from their poor quarters at five shillings a head by the funds of the Fair Trade League, freely helping themselves to new garments and then putting them on in the Green Park. In South Audley Street matters got worse still, and some of us saved a barouche-full of ladies who were being roughly threatened by some of the fellows from what seemed likely to be a very ugly encounter. Later we learnt that the whole of South Audley Street had been pretty thoroughly looted, and that several ladies in carriages and on foot had thought themselves lucky to get off with the loss of their jewellery and purses. But of that we saw nothing, as we made our way to the Achilles statue, where we held our renewed meeting.
Now came a series of most amusing events. The scare throughout London which followed upon this unexpected and disorganised raid was more cowardly and ridiculous than anything ever known in my day. The rich classes who up to that moment had been quite indifferent to the sufferings of the unemployed, and had allowed the Mansion House Relief Fund to languish on at £2,000 or £3,000 were stirred to a sudden outburst of heartfelt charity. The Lord Mayor actually received £75,000 within forty-eight hours from persons whose bowels of compassion were moved and their purse-strings loosened by a swift-born pity quite undistinguishable from craven fear.
Those who had anything to lose were adjured to arm themselves in haste, and scions of the illustrious house of Campbell, whose head is the Duke of Argyll, remarkable even in Scotland for their inequitable acquisition of the lands of others, were specially anxious that the methods of conveyance practised by themselves and their ancestors beyond the Tweed should not be introduced into London. One member of the family assured the public that he had laid in a stock of Winchester repeating rifles wherewith to supplement the efforts of the police, and experiment on the vile bodies of the expropriators from below. Then the newspapers kept up the panic and fanned fear into terror. The days following the disturbance were exceedingly foggy, and all sorts of rumours were abroad. We, nous autres pauvres apôtres, numbering at the time a few score thorough-going Socialists in the whole of the metropolis at the outside, read with delighted laughter the placards, “London in Danger from Socialist Plots,” “75,000 Socialists marching on the West End from Deptford,” “Arrangements perfected to protect private property,” and similar idiotic announcements. Some of these “arrangements” were exquisitely funny. One comrade well known at that time was instructed by the firm to which he was engineer to make ready to turn a hose with boiling water on to the mob. The whole thing was a remarkable evidence of the pusillanimity of the profitmongers when they imagine, however foolishly, their class domination is threatened by the wage-earners
One result, however, of the West-End riots was that Champion, Burns, Williams, and myself were indicted for – well, frankly, I never exactly knew what we were indicted for – sedition of some sort, were arrested, committed for trial and allowed out on bail. During the period between the committal and the trial Champion and Burns, the former more particularly, made very injudicious and dangerous speeches, talking about lopping a million heads off, and that sort of thing, which, even if we had had the power, would have been undesirable, and being as we were could be no better than ridiculous. But such incendiary utterances naturally aroused strong prejudice against us all.
So it came about that when the time arrived for our trial at the Old Bailey, there was quite a general opinion that we should all four suffer for the sins of the Fair Trade mob. I am bound to say, to our joint credit, that we showed no signs of fear or depression on this score in the dock. I don’t believe so jolly a quartette ever stood for trial in the wretched old place which then served as the principal criminal Court of the metropolis or ate lunch more heartily in the vaults below. We drank the health of Mr. Justice Cave, our Rhadamanthus, and eke of Sir Charles Russell, our prosecuting counsel.
Among my other numerous personal drawbacks, as already stated, I was brought up to the Bar, and, not for the first or last time in my life, this circumstance proved useful to me. “Whatever you do, Hyndman, and no matter what counsel are employed on your side, defend yourself and speak last. Remember you may perhaps have to outweigh with the jury not only Sir Charles Russell’s reply but the Judge’s charge. Don’t be brilliant. On the contrary be a trifle dull. Interest them in your career. Tell them all you have done so far as it bears upon your case. You can argue for your co-defendants as well as for yourself.” Such was the advice of my friend Sir Francis Jeune (afterwards Lord St. Helier) who was kind enough to go carefully with me into the whole matter. I followed his suggestions to the letter. W.M. Thompson, our barrister, and Mr. Richardson, our solicitor, did admirably for us. Champion, Burns, and Williams did well, too. For myself I had made up my mind to keep well within bounds and to argue the case of Burns and Champion, who really were in some serious danger of being convicted, owing to the speeches referred to, rather than my own or that of Williams, seeing that we were tolerably sure of acquittal, or so I thought.
Only one jest, also, did I allow myself. Strange as it may seem, the trial had proceeded for quite a day without the exact charge upon which we were indicted having been formulated precisely. Whether we were being prosecuted for sedition, or for seditious conspiracy, or for seditious words, or some modification of these accusations, was not really known, though more than one change had been made in the form of indictment. The Chief Commissioner of Police was called and had given his evidence, and I was about to use my right to cross-examine, when I said, addressing the judge: “Before I cross-examine this witness, my lord, it would greatly relieve the awkwardness of the position and give me much sounder ground to go upon if your lordship would kindly inform me what is the exact charge brought against myself and my co-defendants.” Ere the judge had time to utter a word the foreman of the jury leant forward and said, “The jury, my lord, would also be glad to have some enlightenment on this point, as they are a little in doubt as to what is the particular offence alleged.” Thereupon, Mr. Justice Cave, speaking to Sir Charles Russell, began, “I think myself, Mr. Attorney, there has been some ambiguity in this matter, and I myself ...” He had got thus far when I took the liberty of interrupting him with: “If, my lord, we, the co-defendants, are ignorant of the indictment under which we are being tried, if the jury are in doubt as to the charge upon which they are to render their verdict, and you yourself, my lord, have some hesitation in regard to the matter on which you will adjudicate, I venture to think the position becomes exceedingly difficult for all parties.” The whole Court laughed, the judge included. Sir Charles arose in a towering rage, using, as usual with him in such circumstances, the foullest of foul language under his breath, but being most polite and mellifluous in his address to the judge. Of course, he would not admit any dubiety in the matter; but this little episode undoubtedly helped us with the jury, as one of them told me years afterwards.
I spoke last and, as stated above, followed Sir Francis Jeune’s advice as closely as I could, and I believe I did succeed in interesting both the judge and jury. The former treated us throughout most handsomely, and summed up decidedly in our favour. We were acquitted, and I must say I think Burns and Champion were very well out of it, to say nothing of Jack Williams and myself: At the Alhambra, whither we went that night for diversion after the strain of the trial, the two former, several comrades being present, warmly thanked me for having “got them off.” In view of what Burns said and did afterwards, I have some satisfaction in recalling his profuse gratitude to me at the time. Our acquittal was well received, and many old friends warmly congratulated me on my escape. The trial finished on 10th April, the anniversary of the failure of the great demonstration on Kennington Common in 1848.
It had been very useful to the propaganda of Socialism from start to finish. It had awakened people to the fact that there really was a Socialist party in Great Britain, and that the party numbered among its members men who knew what they were talking about. Moreover, the SDF was encouraged at a moment when encouragement was specially needed. But the advertisement and reputation which Burns and Champion got through it did not improve them at all, and eventually led them out of the organisation.
Marxists’ Internet Archive | Hyndman Archive
Last updated on 30.7.2006