1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1b832567dfd2c1cae918d8e4ae32bfab.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AxsJLCArsAdXJM7cqWhNUR1gUb5Ffun8clPDcDdqkZT%7Ex4APJqdV3xpy3MlgCR%7EUuJApmsVTPubyMJDH%7EmMD2%7EDqmsERykWZbBVCgiV1e2xp5AQTJnHMGzPHm3ZCYTkxyGWxWhElsCvu3XBOZY9ZikNObfFpT9tRlawG6CsrwS16jwxzStdvjZ9UrHSO%7EZYiriH-qMXUaU0kbuVNghHGa6xjYuEbVILzBYMcrtozMZCOu1QJdCwhGOJqxuoERNlvUTn1chfAa%7E-K-W92ZhM-gPX7yX1qe-1wSwiQxOR%7ERkVqEzM9tcgGasusSkSkbqL2iUiLIuRnTwBtVeHScnLQFA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c30af156f18c6ce5a6b32a23bbfd2777
PDF Text
Text
Speech for the Defence
BY
JOHN BURNS,
IN THE
Trial of the Four Social - Democrats for
Seditious Conspiracy.
Heard
At
the
from 5TH to ioth of
Central Criminal Sessions
April, 18.86,
at the
Old Bailey
Before Mr. Justice Cave.
---- —♦---------
(From the Verbatim Notes of the Official Shorthand Reporter.)
����SPEECH BY JOHN BURNS,
DELIVERED FROM
The Dock in the Old Bailey, on 9th April, 1886.
My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury: As an unem
ployed worker, and a Social-Democrat I am placed in
a somewhat peculiar position in this case. I expected
when I was of the age of 16 or 17 that, at some time of
my life, I should be brought face to face with the
authorities for vindicating the class to which I belong.
I have from my earliest infancy been in contact with
poverty of the worst possible description. I may tell
you, my lord, that I went to work in a factory at the
early age of 10 years and toiled there until 5 months
ago, when I left my workshop to stand as Parliamentary
Candidate for the Western Division of Nottingham. I
have done everything I could, in a peaceful manner, to
call the attention of the authorities to the frightful
amount of poverty and degradation existing among the
working class. 1 have done my best as an artizan
to educate my unskilled fellow workmen, to point
out to them that they should educate themselves
and organise themselves in such a manner that by
peaceful demands a better state of things should be
�brought about. Our motives have been aspersed by
journalists, who are paid to traduce us. We have
been charged with being notoriety-hunters, with being
men anxious for our own advancement and self interest.
That is not the case. Since I was 16 years of age I
have done everything in my power to benefit the
workers in a straightforward way. I have deprived
myself, as many of my class have done, of hundreds of
meals on purpose to buy books and papers to see if we
could not possibly by peaceful consultation, by delibe
rate and calm organization, do that which I am inclined
to think the middle and upper classes by their neglect
apathy and indifference, will compel artisans to do other
wise than peacefully. I plead Not Guilty, my lord, to
the charge of sedition, particularly to the charge of
seditious conspiracy.
I PLEAD NOT GUILTY,
not to deny the words I used on February 8th,
or any other words I ever used, but simply because the
language which I used on that occasion had no guilt or
any sedition in it. I expressed the virtuous indignation
against misery and injustice of a man who from his earliest
infancy up to the present moment has struggled and
worked hard to support his wife and an aged mother,
both of whom would instantly repudiate me if I were
to go back from one single statement that I made
on February Sth. But I am here to repudiate state
ments made by other men. I object to being saddled
with speeches such as the “bread and lead” phrase,
and the “ powder and shot ” interjections made by
men in the crowd at Hyde Park. I do object to words
�7
spoken and actions done—not by myself but by men
whom I tried to control.
As there has been much misapprehension in the
mind of the public, I would briefly refer to the motives
which prompted me to go to Trafalgar Square and to
the Holborn Town Hall meeting. Misapprehension,
not to say misrepresentation, exists in the minds of those
gentlemen who have had charge of this prosecution. I
heard that there was going to be a meeting of the
starving Unemployed of London in Trafalgar Square
on February 8th. I heard that this meeting was
convened by four of the most infamous scoundrels that
ever wore boot-leather in the streets of London—four
men whose antecedents were bad, who were prepared to
trade on the misery of the poor provided their pockets
were filled, who on the night after the meeting were
ejected from public-houses in Fleet Street for drunken
ness and disorderly conduct. I heard that these men
were going to trade upon the poverty of the Unemployed
and to advocate an economical fallacy, for puffing which
they were paid. I reached the place at 1.30. I was
recognised, as I am very well known to the workmen of
London, by a large number of people who were then
present. They called on me for a speech. I declined
to speak, and I told them that when the Fair Traders
arrived I would move an amendment, and that if they
declined to have the amendment moved I would hold a
meeting of my own. The crowd pushed me towards
the lower part of the Square and hoisted me on to the
plinth of the Nelson Monument. I then entered into a
consultation with the police, I told them I had no desire
to interfere with their authority, that I would use what
influence I had over the crowd as a means of securing
�a peaceful meeting and see that no property was
damaged. Superintendent Dunlap, in the exercise of a
wise discretion, allowed me to speak. I got up upon
the plinth and spoke to 13,000 or 14,000 men, and I
would here call attention to the fact that Superinten
dent Dunlap and the police frankly confessed that, prior
to the balustrade meeting, what influence and control
I had over the bona fide workmen was used in protecting
public property and not exercised against the police.
Superintendent Dunlap admits that I facilitated his
duty on that occasion, and it is admitted by other
witnesses that I did everything I could to control the
turbulent element in the crowd, and so far from my
language having a tendency to incite to riot and as
sault, it had directly the contrary effect.
What was the result of the first meeting at the Monu
ment ? I laid a resolution of the Social-Democratic Fede
ration before the meeting. I pointed out that a remedy
could only be found by bringing pressure to bear upon
Parliament and the local authorities, as I had tried to do
twelve months before, when I had to walk the streets of
London for 7 weeks for daring to speak as to the con
dition of the workers. For I was boycotted by the
employers, then as I have been since I came back from
Nottingham, simply because I was a Social-Democrat.
I ask you to remember this. I ask you, can you wonder
at a workman’s language being strong? I am inclined
to think that the day is not far distant when stronger
language will have to be used than even that of the
“ Loyalist ” members in the House of Commons.
Our meeting at the Nelson Column was satisfactorily
conducted. Quietness and order prevailed. After
speaking I called on several whom I recognized in the
�9
crowd, and resolutions were submitted to about 20,000
persons, for by this time the crowd had considerably
augmented. No damage was done. There was no
conflict with the police—we avoided that, as Superinten
dent Dunlap admits. When the Fair Traders came
I climbed up the balustrade and acted as Chairman of
that second meeting. Why? All know that the Fair
Traders, Messrs Peters, Kelly, Kenny, Lemon, and
others, are regarded as arrant impostors by the workmen
of London, and I was desirous that there should not be
a physical conflict between the Unemployed and those
honest but misguided men who are the dupes of these
bogus representatives. I decided upon giving them some
thing better for their purpose than listening to the
exploded nostrums of the Tory party or of others. The
day of these mercenaries I am pleased to say is now over.
The penalty for betraying the workers, I hope, will be
heavy enough to deter any man from selling their cause,
as it has many times been sold. We had a remarkably
good meeting ; in fact we completely stole the audience
ofthe F air Traders, m uch to the delight of the U nemployed
who were there. I made a speech which Mr. Burleigh
says would make about three columns in length—in fact I
almost reiterated the speech that I made on the plinth of
the Nelson monument. 1 pointed out the steps that were
necessary for a peaceful solution of the difficulties which
the industrial classes have to encounter and which press
so hardly upon the lower classes of society—as they are
falsely called. I pointed out how the unequal incidence
of taxation pressed upon the shop-keepers and others,
and how the. capitalists and the rich only were able to
tide over the difficulties. My speech was substantially
what the witnesses have said—that laws should be
�IO
passed ; that the Government should provide work for
skilled and unskilled labourers ; that the principles of
Socialism recognized to-day by the State in regard
to sewage farms and water-works, railways, post-offices
and telegraphs, should be further extended ; and that in
so far as they were extended it would conduce to the
well-being of the community—of which the Unemployed
in Trafalgar Square are a more important part than the
Club loungers think they are. Is it revolution to
demand that the workers should be allowed to live like
men ? Was it sedition for a man to ask his brothers to
combine ? If so, sedition of that kind was going to be
very popular in the near future.
The meeting passed off satisfactorily. I found that the
crowd were becoming somewhat turbulent in conse
quence of the Fair Traders’ platforms being upset, and
I thought it my duty to listen to the suggestion which
was made to me from many quarters that we should
proceed in procession through the West End to Hyde
Park. And I would call the Attorney-General’s atten
tion to this significant fact, supported by the whole of
the evidence—and that is that no damage was done by
the procession from the time we left Trafalgar Square
until we reached the Carlton Club. And what was
the initial cause of the damage being done ? Probably
you, gentlemen, have not been in so many demonstrations
and processions as I have, but it you would consult the
working classes who think on political and social sub
jects and who have attended large mass meetings in
Hyde Park, you would find, on investigation, that there
is a class of men who make it a practice, on occasions
of political demonstrations, to laugh and jeer, from their
Club windows, at thepoverty of what they term “the great
�11
unwashed,” to jeer at the misery their own greed has
created, and yet at elections these very men crave votes
of those who previously had received their sneers
*
The crowd were not in a temper to stand
even mere laughing, and they were not disposed
to respond to contemptuous jeers by a smile. And
what was the result ? Stone-throwing commenced.
And that was the result of the stupid, ungentlemanly,
criminal conduct of the Carlton Club members. I did
my best to repress the stone-throwing, instead of incit
ing the crowd, believing, as I do, that window breaking,
except perhaps as a warning, is useless to effect a
change in our system of society based as it is upon the
robbery of labour. I did everything, as the evidence
proved—as you have heard said—that was in my power
to conduct the procession as peacefully as possible to
Hyde Park, where it was my intention to call on them
to disperse. The stupidity of the members of the Carl
ton decided otherwise. The stone-throwing continued
to Hyde Park, but not consecutively.
It ceased
between the Carlton and the Thatched House at the
bottom of St. James’ Street, and very little damage was
done between those places, as by this time I was able
to exercise some influence in keeping the men quiet.
That part of the route is a proof that we did exercise
our influence and control in a proper direction. But at
the Thatched House Club the contemptuous jeering was
renewed. It was more vehement than at the Carlton ;
and from the Thatched House right up to St. James’
Street and down Piccadilly, riot—if you define “riot”
as the breaking of windows—was supreme. I was
unable to check it. The fault was not mine.
We proceeded thus up St. James’ Street until we
�12
reached Piccadilly. Williams and I tried our best to stop
the stone-throwing, and to restrain the crowd instead of
inciting it. Against this system of Society I frankly
confess
I AM A REBEL,
because Society has outlawed me.
I have protested against this state of Society by
which at present one and a half millions of our fellowcountrymen, adult males, are starving—starving because
they have not work to do. I had very strong feelings
upon this matter of the Unemployed, particularly on
the day in question, when we were brought face to face
with men who for month after month had trod the
street in search of work, with men whom I knew were
honest, whose only crime was that they let the idler
enjoy that which the producer alone should have—not
loafers and thieves—but the real Unemployed of our
nation city. Talk about strong language I I contend
my language was mild when you consider the usage
they have received, and that the patience, under severe
provocation, displayed by the workers is almost slavish
and cowardly.
We reached Hyde Park. I got on the Achilles statue
and called upon the workmen to discontinue the violent
outrages which had taken place, as it was not by break
ing windows that an intelligent reorganization of Society
could be brought about. The men agreed with me.
Some hot-headed ones shouted out and asked that they
might be led against the soldiers. Mr. Champion and
I directed our replies in response to those suggestions.
And what was the result ? The crowd at the Achilles
statue quietly dispersed. And we have it upon the
�13
authority of the police themselves that although some
from the meeting did go into South Audley Street, and
there was rioting there, it was not due to the speeches
because the damage and rioting took place contempor
aneously with our speeches at the Achilles statue. It
appears that the prosecution have been strangely in
want of a case, or the legal gentlemen who are connected
with it have been totally at a loss for one, when they
waste the time of the Jury in listening to a case that
common sense would have dictated the rejection of.
Now what have we done ? We have pursued the same
course for the last five years. These are remarkable
Defendants who stand in this box. There must be
some unusual agitation to prompt one of the idle classes
like Mr. Champion, a skilled artisan like myself, an
unskilled laborer like Mr. Williams, and a middle-class
man like Mr. Hyndman to stand in this box for one
simple cause. There must be something unusual to
bring us here. We have gained nothing by this agita
tion, on the contrary we have lost what material well
being we had, and we come before you not as paid
agitators pecuniarily interested in creating riots, tumults,
and disturbances, but men anxious to change the existing
system of society to one in which men should receive
the full value of their labor, in which society will be
regarded as something more than a few titled non
producers who take the whole of the wealth which
the useful workers alone produce. We are indicted
for seditious conspiracy. If it were not so serious a
charge in itself, it would be enough to raise a smile.
Seditious conspiracy ! Why, if there is one thing that
the Whigs, Radicals, and the Tory party accuse us of it is
this—that we have brought these questions—and we
�are the first who have done it—into the . open street!
When we are again accused of conspiracy it will be
when all open methods of securing redress have been
tried and have failed. I can understand why the xoth
count has been added to the indictment—because the
Jury would have to reject the nine counts unless the
charge had been bolstered up against us.
It is not my intention to lay before this Court any
more reasons for my conduct on this particular occa
sion ; but if you want to remove the cause of seditious
speeches you must prevent us from having to hear,
as we hear to-day, of hungry poverty-stricken men
who from no fault of theirs are compelled to be out of
work, who are fit subjects for revolutionary appeals.
If you want to remove a seditious agitation, as it is
called, you must remove not the effect, but the cause
of such agitation, by bringing about in this disorganized
system of society some change—as you were told
by the witness Condon, who is compelled to accept
starvation wages, and who cannot in his trade get work
for more than five months out of the twelve. We are
not responsible for the riots; it is Society that is res
ponsible, and instead of the Attorney General drawing
up indictments against us he should be drawing up
indictments against Society, which is responsible for
neglecting the means at its command. I have not one
single word of regret to utter for the part I have taken
in this agitation. Some of the phrases that are attri
buted to me in the indictment are proved to have been
used by other men. And if my language was strong,
the occasion demanded strong language. I - say we
cannot have in England as we have to-day five millions
living on the verge of pauperism without gross discon-
�i5
tent. I am inclined to predict that unless the Govern
ment adopt our proposals, the shadow of which they
have adopted by a recent circular issued by the Local
Government Board, I am inclined to think in the near
future if Society does not recognise the claims of the
workers to a greater share of the comforts and neces
saries of life, these meetings would, by hunger and
starvation, be made the rule instead of being the excep
tion. Well-fed men never revolt. Poverty stricken men
have all to gain, and nothing to lose by riot and
revolution. There is a time, I take it—and such is
the present, a time of exceptional depression—when it is
necessary for men, particularly for the working classes, to
speak out in strong language as to the demands of their
fellows ; and I contend it would be immoral, cowardly,
and criminal to the worst degree if I, having what little
power I possess to interpret the wishes of my fellow
workers, were not to use every public occasion for
ventilating thegrievances of those who, through no fault
of their own, are unable to ventilate them themselves.
On February Sth a meeting was convened, and we put
before the workers legitimate proposals; and, singular
to say, that meeting has had a decided effect upon the
Local Government Board, Before the riots they would
not admit that there was any exceptional distress, and
I am sorry to say that it seems to be characteristic of
the Government and the governing classes to be
influenced only by fear—at least, Mr. Gladstone, Lord
Randolph Churchill and Mr. Chamberlain say that their
Governments are not susceptible to reason or appeals,
unless the Hyde Park railings are pulled down, and the
club windows are smashed. It shows at least that the
riots had a good effect upon the Local Government
�i6
Board in the direction we indicated. It is true Mr. Cham
berlain denied prior to the riots that exceptional distress
prevailed ; but about a fortnight afterwards he admitted
that it was exceptional and severe, and he actually sent
round a circular to the Boards of Guardians, who
partially adopted our proposals such as having unskilled
labour on sewage farms. It also made the landlords
and capitalists surrender to the Mansion House Fund
some of the proceeds of their past robbery in the shape
of charity. Riot it was not, it was nothing more nor
less than honest poverty knocking at the door of selfish
luxury and comfort, poverty demanding that in the
future every man should have the wealth created by his
own labour. That meeting of February 8th called the
attention of the people of Great Britain to this fact—
that below the upper and middle strata of society there
were millions of people leading hard, degraded lives—
men who are forced to live as they do, but who would, if
possible, work and live virtuous lives—men who through
the unequal distribution of wealth are consigned to the
criminal classes, and women into the enormous
army of prostitutes, whom we see in the streets of
our large cities. And as an artisan I cannot see poor
puny little babes sucking empty breasts, and honest
men walking the streets for four months at a time—I
cannot hear of women of the working classes being
compelled to resort to prostitution to earn a livelihood
—I cannot see these things without being moved not
only to strong language, but to strong action, if neces
*
sary.
My language on this occasion was the language
of a man anxious to obtain some system where, by a
* In his summing up, Mr. Justice Cave referred to this phrase as
a proof of the absolute sincerity of the defendant.
�!7
peaceful change, this poverty could be removed. The
Social-Democrats, who advocate these changes, are the
true policemen and true “ guardians of law and order,”
by preventing poverty and riot by removiug the causes.
And when the Attorney-General says we incited to riots
I say that the social system is to blame. It prompts
men to thieve, and it prompts women of the working
class to resort to dishonest acts, by not giving all a fair
start in life and not giving them an opportunity to get
honest work. Society journals demand our imprison
ment. Why? Because ^11,000 worth of windows
have been broken. But how about the sacred human
lives that have been, and are, degraded and blighted by
the present system of capitalism.
We have been told that our meetings had a seditious
character. Well, my lord, I have been unable to hear
what sedition is. I frankly confess I am inclined to
think if any man is to be indicted for seditious speeches
you will have to indict the 650 members of the House
of Commons. We have not done as the “ Loyalist ”
members have done in and out of Ireland. We have
not asked the Unemployed to line the ditches with rifles
to enforce their demands ; we have not suggested to the
crowd as Lord Randolph Churchill has suggested, that
civil war would be the only product of giving Ireland
Home Rule. On the contrary we have gone to
the Government and calmly and deliberately sug
gested to them matters of an economical character.
We have gone with deputations to the Local Govern
ment Board, to Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. G. W. E.
Russell, and Mr. Jesse Collings, and we have told them
for the last three years unless they move in the direc
tion we indicate there would be sure to be riot and re-
�i8
volt in the streets of London. My predictions made
twelve months ago to a Cabinet Minister have proved
true. The responsibility, however, is not with us, but on
those who neglect the warnings that have been given
to them ; and I contend everything that we did on the
8th February and at the Holborn Town Hall was con
sistent with the conduct of peaceful law-abiding citizens.
I ask you, gentlemen, not to forget that the times are
exceptional, that the poverty is excessive; all through
out the country people are suffering through no fault
of their own ; and I ask the jury to recognise this fact—
that what might be seditious on an ordinary occasion, is
an honest man’s duty when destitution exists. Here
we have a disorganised mass brought together in Tra
falgar Square—not called together by us, and I did my
best to lead a portion of the crowd away, for one thing
in order to avoid any conflict with the police. If we
had not taken this crowd to Hyde Park the result
would have been that the Strand would have been
looted from the Grand Hotel to Ludgate Hill. That
was the opinion of the Police, and that was mine too.
We adopted what we thought the best course. We took
the crowd as quickly as possible to Hyde Park. We
asked the crowd to disperse, and they did. The
Prosecution, instead of indicting those who were re
sponsible for the preservation of law and order, indict
those men who at great risk to themselves stopped the
thieves who were plying their trade, stopped men who
were inciting others to rob men and women, and
asked the crowd to protect the public property.
Those are the men who are indicted for sedition—
inciting to a breach of the peace. It is to be regretted,
my lord, that your time has been wasted by the hearing
�19
of a case of this description. I am inclined to think
that public opinion has completely changed since
February the 8th. A doctor cannot give one pill to
five men. Why was Sir Edmund Henderson dis
missed from his post? He had not been guilty of
seditious speeches, or of seditious conduct of any
kind—he has been forced to resign in consequence of
the faulty police arrangements on that occasion. His
dismissal exonerates us for occurrences that took place
because there were no police on the route from Tra
falgar Square to Hyde Park. Inthe opinion of the Com
mittee who were called upon to investigate the cause
of the riots the only reason for the damage of property
which took place was because there were no police from
Trafalgar Square to Hyde Park. And I am inclined
to think that we cannot be held responsible; the police
having been held to be responsible by an important
committee held upon the cause of the riots.
This Committee found, according to their official
report, that the condition of things in Trafalgar Square
was most threatening. What would it have been if, as
chairman of that meeting, I had not exercised the
control that I did over the large crowd that was there
assembled ? We find the police was in such a dis
organised state that according to the report of the
Committee the condition of Trafalgar Square on that
occasion was almost inconceivable. It was not incom
prehensible to me. I recognised the turbulent nature of
the crowd that I had to deal with, and I perfectly know
the working class over which I have some control—
perhaps in consequence of my strong voice—and I
exercised what capacity I had in the direction of making
up for the disorganisation of the police. Superintendent
�20
Dunlap proves that conclusively, so does the official
report; and when I heard that I was going to be prose
cuted for inciting to riot I was inclined to think, as Mr.
William Thompson has truly said, that this was
A Panic Prosecution.
It is a panic prosecution, my lord, and it has been
conducted in a state of confusion by the gentlemen
on behalf of the prosecution. Where is the evidence
to support their charge, in the tenth count, of seditious
conspiracy ? They have not brought a single witness to
prove the meeting was held for the purpose of taking
deliberate concerted action to commit a breach of the
peace. The only evidence they have brought has been
that of three witnesses, of whom two are descriptive
reporters of the Daily Telegraph, which is generally
known by the public as making spicy reports, and
giving descriptive summaries, sometimes of things that
do occur, but very often of things that do not happen.
This was the evidence on which the Government rely
in their prosecution. It is not necessary, or I could
give you dozens of instances and prove it distinctly,
that the Daily Telegraph is known throughout the world
as a rather lively journal, not particularly confined to
facts.
Of the reporters they bring two are on
the staff of that journal. The only independent witness
brought to corroborate this testimony is a gentleman
who makes cricket bats for the police; and probably
on the occasion of his visit to Scotland Yard he thought
he was killing two birds with one stone by acting as
informer to the Crown and getting an order for cricket
bats from the police for the ensuing season.
Gentlemen, you cannot rely on such evidence against
�a plain straightforward statement such as I have called
many witnesses to confirm. Superintendent Dunlap says
I was doing everything in my power to repress violence.
At 2-30 the witnesses who heard me speak point out
clearly that I tried to stop damage, and even at 4 o’clock,
when the procession left the square, I exhorted the men
not to damage public property, but to behave themselves
as men while they proceeded through the West End.
I contend, my lord, they have not adduced a single bit
of evidence upon which to build up the tenth count of
this indictment for seditious conspiracy. How could it
be a conspiracy ? At the Holborn Town Hall, when I
addressed 3,000 men there, I asked their opinion as to
the course to be pursued upon the subsequent occasion.
How could that be conspiracy when 3,000, including
detectives and inspectors of police, are taken into your
confidence ? If this is conspiracy the English language
to me has lost its import and effect. They simply call
four persons who testify to things done along the route
from Trafalgar Square. They have not brought a single
witness to prove that between Trafalgar Square and
the holding of the meeting our object was to cause a
breach of the peace on that occasion. And I am in
clined to think the gentlemen of the jury will not do
other than say we are not guilty, because, unless the
prosecution say we had a sinister motive, we most
certainly have the right to ventilate our opinions, unless
the right of free speech is interfered with in this case.
If the Government are anxious to get rid of what they
think to be dangerous and very competent critics, if
they want to strike a blow at our agitation, they will
not do it by putting the defendants in prison.
I am prepared to stand by what I said on that day.
�22
If I go to prison (as I think very doubtful) I shall serve
my cause, as Mr. Champion said, as well inside a prison
as out. The word prison has no particular terror for
me. Through the present system of Society life has
lost all its charm, and a hungry man said truly (as Isaiah
said in the Holy Book) that there was a time in the
history of our lives when it was better to die in prison
or better to die fighting than to die starving. As the
holy man said of old, so millions of men are thinking at
at the present moment; and if the governing classes
want to bring on a revolution of force, such as has been
mentioned by the counsel for the prosecution,
they will find it will come more speedily, and with
more violence, and with more saddening consequences
if they deny to the poor men of England (who are too
poor to pay for halls) the right to express their grievances,
and opinions in public meetings in the open air. Have
we not shown in Hyde Park, at the Holborn Town
Hall, and, since the riots, at Manchester and Glasgow
before 50,000 men, that we are able to control our
meetings ? The meeting in Trafalgar Square was not
convened by us. If it had been, no windows would have
been broken or any damage done. It is true that
damage was done, but it was a surprise to me that no
more windows were broken and no more damage done
through the streets, considering the angry derisive
jeering from the Carlton Club. The wonder is that
there was not more destruction of property, and that
no life was lost. If we had given the word not a single
inmate of the Carlton Club would have been alive
to-day.
We had no desire to excite tumult and
riot then ; we repressed the crowd as well as we could,
and with the control we exercised over a large crowd of
�23
40,000 or 50,000 people you may have some conception
of what might have taken place if our influence had
not been used to control those angry feelings. As the
learned counsel admits, no damage was done until we
reached the Carlton Club, because the incentive did not
exist till the crowd came there. That is the view I
have taken.
I have no more to say than that I thank your lord
ship and the jury for the courtesy and the respectful
attention that you have given us, placed as we are in
this singular position. But before I conclude, I should
like to say that the reporters of the Daily Telegraph are
in themselves unreliable because one of their staff has
given to a speech, which would have occupied more
than three columns in length, fifteen or sixteen lines.
How is it possible for a brief descriptive summary to be
given in fifteen or sixteen lines, when according to the
evidence of the more accomplished journalist of the
Times it should have occupied three columns ? Therefore
it seems that phrases have been picked out and twisted
and contorted to suit the ends of the Government in
their prosecution. They have given no qualifying sen
tences. They have contorted the context, and their
object has been to put before the jury five or six phrases
of a condemning character, without giving the whole
of the speech. In fact they have thought the jurymen
were placed in that box simply to prove that we were
guilty irrespective of evidence to the contrary. They
have successfully distorted that which they might have
taken intact.
What we have done has been to confine our agitation
within legitimate channels. We have used what in
fluence we had over our fellows to prevent any breaking
�of the law, any causing of disorder, and for that we are
indicted for seditious conspiracy. I say there is no
evidence to substantiate either of the two clauses, and
I would ask the jury, as they are for the moment the
guardians of the right of free speech, as they have in
the present instance an opportunity of laying down
either a good or bad precedent, I ask them in the
interests of justice,particularly in the interests of the
great mass of poverty-stricken men and women in this
country, not to allow this opportunity to pass without
stigmatising by their verdict as absurd, stupid, and
frivolous the prosecution that has been brought against
us by Her Majesty’s Government.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Speech for the defence by John Burns : in the trial of the four Social-Democrats for Seditious Conspiracy : heard from 5th to 10th of April,1886, at the Central Criminal Sessions at the Old Bailey before Mr. Justice Cave
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Burns, John [1858-1943]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 24 p. : ill. (port.) ; 19 cm.
Notes: "From the verbatim notes of the official shorthand reporter." John Elliot Burns was an English trade unionist and politician, particularly associated with London politics. He was a socialist and then a Liberal Member of Parliament and Minister. [Source: Wikipedia 3/2018]. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Modern Press?]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T402
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Trials
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Speech for the defence by John Burns : in the trial of the four Social-Democrats for Seditious Conspiracy : heard from 5th to 10th of April,1886, at the Central Criminal Sessions at the Old Bailey before Mr. Justice Cave), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Social conflict
Socialism
Trials (Conspiracy)