Albert Bachert/Backert

THE ARREST ON TOWER-HILL.

Albert Backert, whose name has been frequently mentioned in connection with the unemployed and other matters, again attended at the Thames Police-court, today, and said on Saturday a man was charged with obstructing Chief-Inspector Vedy, and causing a "supposed disturbance" on Tower-hill. He was not going to question whether this man was drunk or not. - Mr. Mead (interrupting): Do you want anything with regard to the case that was decided here on Saturday? That was heard before another magistrate. - Backert: You will do as well. - Mr. Mead: I am much obliged for the complimentary way in which you speak, but I am not going to interfere. - Backert: I am not going to criticise the action or judgment of the magistrate. - Mr. Mead: That is very good of you. What is it you want? - Backert: I am acting on behalf of the wife of the man. She has one child, and has no food in the house. I want you to send an officer to give her something from the poor-box. I notice that last week Mr. Dickinson received several large sums from the City Companies. - Mr. Mead: I will see what can be done.

Source: The Echo, Monday December 19, 1892, Page 3

NOISY MEETING AT THE GREAT ASSEMBLY HALL.

Under the presidency of Mr. F.N. Charrington, a public meeting was held last Wednesday evening at the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End, for the purpose of protesting against the sale of Intoxicants in the Palace, and the opening of the same on Sunday. The meeting was well attended, there being between two and three thousand persons present. The chairman was supported on the platform by Mr. George H. Barber Beaumont, Rev. M.T. Myers, Rev. Thomas Richardson, Mr. T. Wickham, Mr. E.H. Kerwin, Mrs. Urmston, Mr. J.B. Wookey and others. The proceedings were of a very noisy character, the interruption at times being so great as to prevent speakers being heard.
The chairman who was received with cheers and hisses, in opening the proceedings referred to the meeting at the Mansion House held recently, and they remarked they intended at once to return good for evil, and proposed to give the fullest opportunity during the evening for the expression of opinion. (Cheers.) Whatever the rules of the Mansion House might be, they in the Assembly Hall, always allowed free speech at public meetings, but anyone wishing to speak or move an amendment must come on the platform as it was impossible to be heard from anywhere else. They had met to consider the conduct of the People's Palace - (cheers and hisses) - it was expected there would be some differences of opinion, but the fullest opportunity would be given to those gentlemen who were hissing to move an amendment and state their reasons. Speaking as to the resolutions proposed to be passed, he said his own objection to the introduction of intoxicating drinks in the Palace, was that the combination of a concert hall and winter garden would produce results as was see in the case of the Cremorne Gardens, (hear, hear), Highbury Barn, or even now in the Royal Aquarium, Westminster. He felt very strongly the second resolution as to the opening of the Palace on the Lord's day. It was the thin edge of the wedge, and very soon the same state of things would exist here as on the Continent - men working seven days a week for six days' pay. (Cheers.) As a personal explanation as to the treatment he received at the Mansion House, he could only thank the late Lord Mayor; for the matter had now been brought prominently before the public. The subject had been kept altogether in the dark - (hear, hear) - and the speakers only object was to draw attention to it. All the London papers had given good accounts of it together in many of the provincial journals. In concluding he remarked that the mover of the first resolution would be Mr. Beaumont, the grandson of Mr. Beaumont, the testator in the trust, who would prove that the founder of the scheme was utterly opposed to the sale of intoxicating drink. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. E.H. Kerwin then stated that many letters had been received expressing sympathy with them. One thanked Mr. Charrington for his "noble protest against the confidence trick of the promoters of the People's Palace." (Laughter.) Rev. W. Evans Hurndall wrote, expressing regret at his inability to attend and said "you so alarmed the Lord Mayor that he readily permitted Mr. Myers to deliver a speech for attempting which you were committed to the tender mercies of the constable. (Laughter.)
Mr. G.H. Barber Beaumont who was greeted with prolonged cheers, moved the following resolution. "That this meeting of Inhabitants of East London, realizing the terrible harm already caused by strong drink in their midst, protest against the sale of intoxicating liquors in the proposed People's Palace." He said he could not do better than read some extracts from his grandfather's Will; "Whereas I am about to found a philosophical institution in Beaumont Square, in the Hamlet of Mile End, &c. for the purpose of affording persons in the neighbourhood the means of meeting together for mental and moral improvement, and for amusement in their intervals of business free from the baneful excitement of intoxicating liquors." (Cheers.)
There was another clause in the same will which, after directing the trustees to construe the document in a liberal spirit, said: "To minister to them according to the wants of the times, of lawful and entertaining knowledge, and putting within their reach the means of harmless recreation, and above all, the means of studying the great principles of the wisdom of God as shown in the works of the universe." (Cheers.) The will went on by saying that as times advanced certain alterations in the scheme might be necessary, but "the main objects are never to be departed from on any account whatever." In a work written by the testator to working men was the following extract: "Temperance is evidently the best fortune that can alight upon them, for it is now fully established men greatly improve and are able to bear extremes of cold and heat by adhering to water and simple dilutions for their beverage, rejecting spirits, strong drink, and all intoxicating liquors." (Cheers.) Having read other similar extracts, the speaker said that it was plain his grandfather never intended that a penny of his money should be spent on a palace or institution where it was proposed to sell intoxicating liquors. The trustees could not have taken much trouble to look over his grandfather's will, or they would have seen what he had read to them. The speaker stated that during thirty years he had travelled in many parts of the world, and always had seen that drink had the effect of bringing out the worst part of men's nature. (Loud cheers.)
Rev. M.T. Myers seconded, and said that they on the platform had been called the enemies of the working classes - (cries of "No!, No!) - he had been labouring for them for thirty years. (Cheers.) What had the brewers and distillers been doing for them? (A voice: "Ruining us!") They have been living on that which they received from the proceeds of their trade, and he asked them if they in East London had not enough to do as Sunday school teachers and ministers without building a palace to be open on Sunday, and to sell intoxicating liquors? (Hear, hear, "Yes!" and cheers.) Who are the saviours of East London today? (A voice: "Ourselves.") He maintained it was the Christians. (Cheers.) If the Christian people of England failed to subscribe, the other party could never build the Palace. (Cheers, and cries of "No!")
They were trying as teachers and ministers to elevate the people, and if they opened the Palace on Sunday and sold drink in it, it would degrade. (No, no! cheers, and interruption.)
Mrs. Urmston, who was well received, supported by pointing out the many evils that attended the use of intoxicating liquors.
The Chairman then announced that any amendment could be moved, whereupon,
Mr. A.E. Bachert endeavoured amidst great noise and uproar to move an amendment to the effect that the non-sale of intoxicants on the premises would be detrimental and injurious to the benefit of the working classes. He proceeded to argue upon the question of Sunday opening, maintaining that he was in order when corrected by the Chairman. However, the audience would not allow him to speak, but upon the Chairman asking them to give both sides fair play, the speaker continued by saying that it was marvellously strange that a gentleman like Mr. Charrington, who for years had filled his pockets with gold - (groans, hisses, cries of "No" and "Order!") - who had reaped a good harvest - (a voice, "Turn him out.") - and turned against - (great interruption and disorder). The speaker was ultimately obliged to give up any further attempt at expressing his opinion.
Mr. Albert Potto Ekins seconded the resolution, and asked why the gentleman on the platform did not make a tremendous attack on the publicans, who did all the mischief, and close the beastly butchers' shops in the Cambridge-road on a Sunday morning. (A voice, "You have a try at it.) Mr. Charrington had done a noble work in East London - (hear, hear, and cheers) - but the speaker did not think he was doing it now by opposing this Palace scheme. (Groans and hisses.) Remember Noah! he got drunk after preaching 500 years. (Interruption.)
The amendment and resolution were then read to the meeting by the Chairman, and upon the former being put, it was announced from the platform that only 24 voted in favour, which result was received with cries of "No." Upon the contrary being put, it was clear there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the resolution, which was subsequently carried.
Rev. Thomas Richardson then moved: "That valuing as we do the one day's rest in seven, and knowing the evils of the Continental Sunday, we protest against the opening of the proposed People's Palace on the Lord's Day. He called the attention of the audience to the fact of the technical schools for the training of the boys and girls being the great thing that was necessary, and asked if they wanted their children to learn trades on Sunday. (No, no.) The Drapers' Company had given all the 20,000 pounds for the technical schools, according to a scheme which he had himself prepared and submitted to them. The trustees had held their first meetings in the Mission Hall, and the Rector of Whitechapel had lent them his hall, and did they think these rooms would have been lent if it had been known the Palace was to be opened on Sunday? They did not want any drink, and did not desire any Sabbath-breaking. (Cheers.) A canvas of the population would show what the people wanted. They had done it before in the case of the Museum opening, and the working men to a man were against the Sunday opening. (No, no.) Let the people speak, and let the majority take the day, and do not allow the matter to be decided in a hole and corner meeting in any part of London. (Cheers.)
Mr. Thomas Wickham, who was loudly cheered, seconded the resolution, and said the English Sabbath had exercised a most salutary and restraining influence upon men. It would never have been given by man to man, and before they did away with it, they should look calmly and carefully at the matter. (A voice: "How about your hands?") He could answer for that, for they were endeavouring to pass a Bill to shorten the hours of labour - (cheers) - and to render Sunday trading illegal, so it was not likely they would advocate the opening of the Palace on Sunday. (Cheers.)
Mr. J.B. Wookey, who was received with cries of, "Bravo! Wookey," seconded, and said, with all due deference to the mover of the resolution, he would not hew to a majority if he considered that majority to be wrong. (Cheers.) By opening the Palace, they would compel some poor man to work. (A voice: "Your chapel-keepers work.") He maintained that chapel-keepers did not work on the Lord's day, but that they worshipped. (Cheers).
Mr. Charles Ambrose then rose to move an amendment, and after the groans which greeted him were subsided, he remarked that they could not conduct themselves properly. This caused great disorder. The Chairman having interfered and restored quiet, the speaker moved an resolution to the effect that the library, reading-room, and art gallery should be opened on some part of Sunday, and contended that those people who did not want to go to church should not be forced into the public-house by reason of their having no other place in which to enjoy themselves. (Cheers.)
Mr. Barraclough, a Jew, seconded the amendment amid great confusion and noise.
The amendment and resolution were then put to the meeting, and upon the former being put, some few hands were held up, the number being declared from the platform as nearly as possible the same as that for the first amendment. (Laughter.) The amendment was indisputably lost, and the resolution protesting against the Sunday opening was afterwards carried.
The proceedings then closed with a vote of thanks to the Chairman, and the meeting separated.

Source: East London Press, November 13, 1886, Page 6

Mrs. Maud Bachert in the following news item was the second wife of Albert Bachert's father, John.

MAUD MARION FRALLEY (now MRS. BACHERT) would like to hear of the relatives of her father, Samuel Fralley, of Wilton, Wilts, who died in Barbadoes in June, 1885.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, Sunday September 20, 1891, Page 14

ALBERT BACHERT COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

At the Thames police court today Albert Bachert, at one time chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and latterly connected with the unemployed meetings on Tower Hill, was committed for trial, charged with obtaining articles of food by means of fraud.

Source: Burton Chronicle, Thursday 23 February, 1893