Class justice in 1920

The bus conductor and anarchist Sydney Albert Hanson had just delivered a fiery speech in Hammersmith Grove in April 1920 and started walking home with his wife and child. Hammersmith Grove had long been a site for anarchist meetings. James Tochatti had his shop around the corner and had influenced many local workers towards anarchist-communism. As George Cores tells us: “Mrs Barker, Percy Meacham. ...Ralph Barr, Beer and others carried on meetings in the Grove for many years.” As Hanson was proceeding along the road he was suddenly stabbed in the back of the neck by a 66-year old man wielding an ice-pick. This was Frank Robert Lark, who was subsequently arrested.
At the subsequent trial of Lark, a wood machinist, the proceedings turned into more of a trial for Hanson than for Lark. As the anarchist paper Freedom noted, “as soon as the trial commenced” the prosecuting counsel “was really acting as counsel for the defence; and instead of Lark being tried for attempted murder, Hanson was tried for his Anarchist opinions.”

Lark said that he had worked in munitions factories and had observed that the mysterious strikes which happened there were the result of Bolshevism, in the name of trade unionism. He said that the class of meeting held by Hanson and the language he used inciting men to revolution called for strong measures of repression. He appealed to the jury to find him not guilty, and that in doing so the jury would not be saying that anyone could go and attack any man who preached revolution, but they would say that he had done what the government ought to have done long ago.

Hanson was interrogated by prosecuting counsel and his own political views were questioned. He stated that he was an Anarchist-Communist and revolutionist, but was opposed to bloodshed. Justice Lawrence showed extreme bias in his comments on the case wondering why an anarchist like Hanson had called out “police, police”. An indignant Hanson rose from the back of the court and cried out that he had not done that. Justice Lawrence then went on to say “These people are pestilential knaves, who do as much injury to the community as he possibly can”, going on to deliver remarks full of arrogance and class prejudice with “This man has muddled his brain by reading books he does not appreciate or understand” and that if anarchists “ really engineered a revolution they would get much worse than ice-picks”. Lark was sentenced for malicious wounding, but only received a month’s imprisonment in the Second Division”. As Freedom noted “Anarchists are outlaws!”

On another occasion Hanson was speaking in Hyde Park and said “To hell with the Union Jack, the Union Jack is the Flag of Tyranny”. For this remark he was arrested and subsequently fined 40 shillings under the Metropolitan Police Act for “insulting words or behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace”. The two verdicts speak for themselves.

As Freedom was to remark about the Hammersmith stabbing in its July 1920 issue: "Hanson did not prosecute ; the police prosecuted, as they were bound to do by law. But as soon as the trial commenced it was seen that their counsel was really acting as counsel for the defence; and instead of Lark being tried for attempted murder, Hanson was tried for his Anarchist opinions. In opening the case, the counsel for the prosecution said that if the prisoner had punched Hanson's head instead of stabbing him, most people would have approved of it, and he (counsel) would certainly not have appeared to prosecute. The prisoner made a lot of foolish statements about mysterious strikes and Bolshevik gold, and told deliberate lies as to what was said at the Hammersmith meeting. Comrades were present as witnesses to contradict these statements, but the police counsel would not call them. In fact, the dice were loaded against Hanson from the start to the finish. Lark, who gloried in his attack on our comrade, asked the jury to say that he had only done what the Government ought to have done long ago. In summing up, the judge said that men who preached Anarchism and Communism were "pestilent individuals," and if they really engaged in engineering revolution they would get very much worse than ice-picks in their necks. He said that when Hanson, an Anarchist, was struck, he called out for the police. Our comrade denied this, and was thrown out of court by the police, leaving the judge to finish his summing up in prisoner's favour. The jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawful wounding and recommended him to mercy. Surely they should have given him an 0.B.E. The judge, much against his will, sentenced prisoner to one month's imprisonment in the second division. Lark thanked the judge and jury for their kindness to him, and must feel encouraged in his efforts to suppress Anarchist ideas. The case is only one more instance of the class bias of courts of Malatesta's trial at the same court a few years ago showed to what abominable lengths judges and police will go to inflict injustice on an Anarchist ; and his appeal before Justice Darling was a perfect farce. Hanson's experience should be a warning to all revolutionary propagandists to be prepared for similar attacks in future. If they are outside the capitalist law, then they must remember the first law of Nature—self-preservation".

Nick Heath

Sources: Evening Telegraph, Angus 22nd April 1920
Western Times, 23rd April 1920
Cressy, David. Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious, and
Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England
Wright, Patrick. From stage to cold war.