November 1888 saw the first anniversary of the protests in Trafalgar Square that had culminated in “Bloody Sunday” on the 13th of November 1887.

However, the issues that lay behind Bloody Sunday were still being discussed a year later, as is evidencec by the following article that appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette on Tuesday the 13th of November, 1888:-

THE TRAFALGAR SQUARE QUESTION

SIR CHARLES WARREN’S RESIGNATION AND AFTER

The Dillon Lewis Liberty of Public Meeting Committee, composed of delegates from Liberal and Radical clubs and associations, met in a rejoicing mood last night.

The committee had come together to consider the progress of the “case” taken for the purpose of getting the decision of a high court upon the legality of the action of Sir Charles Warren in suppressing public meetings in Trafalgar-square.

THE FUNDING OF THE BATTLE

Mr. Dillon Lewis has hitherto fought the battle in the police-courts at his own cost; now a guarantee of £50 for the Crown expenses and a further fund for the feeing of counsel were required before the “case” could proceed in the higher courts.

The metropolitan Liberal members, it was announced, had come to the rescue of the committee – in the words of Mr. Cuninghame Graham, “none too soon, the metropolitan members have thrown the egis of their name around our struggle.”

Professor Stuart wrote on behalf of the Liberal members, guaranteeing the £5o required to secure a legal decision on the question, and on his own behalf undertaking to solicit funds from his private friends.

EMASCULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT

It was stated that the “case ” drawn by Dr. Pankhurst (the chairman of the evening) had been in the teeth of the bargain made by the Government emasculated by the omission of all the most vital points at issue at the hands of Mr. Poland, and it was added that the “case” which would ultimately be tried, if tried at all, would be the work entirely of Mr. Magistrate Vaughan, who had, in the exercise of his discretion, refused a sight of it until the Treasury costs had been guaranteed.

THE RIGHT OF PROTEST

Sir Charles Russell wrote:- “I am not sanguine – far from it – that any valuable result will be obtained in the way of legal decision from the stated case” – an observation upon which Mr. Dillon Lewis animadverted. Mr. Conybeare, M.P., who had discussed the points at issue with Sir Charles Russell, expressed his belief that, although they had to prove a prescriptive right extending over forty to fifty years to meet in Trafalgar-square, they might not be able to establish a legal right, but they might reasonably hope to succeed, on maintaining that neither the Government nor the Police Commissioner had, either by statute or common law, the authority or power to proclaim a meeting in Trafalgar-square for any length of time.

TREATMENT OF THE QUESTION

But, as Mr. Dillon Lewis pointed out, the question whether the matters in dispute would get before the Supreme Courts in the present case would greatly depend upon the character of the case stated by Mr. Vaughan.

If, said Mr. Lewis, who spoke with considerable warmth of the way in which this question has been treated by Treasury representatives and judges if the “case” is not stated in a way to raise most of the all-important questions at issue, it would become their duty to again go to Trafalgar-square and raise them in such form that no Government, by any possibility, could avoid them.

On the other hand, if the “case” permitted of the issues being tried, it was agreed that a fund should be opened to provide counsel’s fees.

Mr. Dillon Lewis had hoped that before this some eminent Liberal barrister would have come to the rescue of the movement in this particular.

SIR CHARLES WARREN’S RESIGNATION

On the motion of Mr. Cuninghame Graham, the committee (which was largely attended) has expressed its rejoicing at the resignation of Sir Charles Warren.

Mr. Cuninghame Graham observed that he did not think the Democracy would sacrifice one iota of its dignity by waiting to see the sort of man the Government put into the post, for, in his view, the Government only desired an opportunity to “climb down.”

THE NEW POLICE COMMISSIONER

Professor Stuart’s advice was adopted; but the committee emphatically expressed its opinion that no military man should be appointed to the post, and its hope that the new Commissioner will discharge the duties of the office “with a due regard to public liberty and the right of public meeting.”