On 8 October 2007, over four thousand people marched from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square despite the fact that the protest was, technically, illegal. It had been banned on the basis of 1839 legislation which stipulated that MPs should not be obstructed from entering Parliament. Organizers declared that they would defy the ban, and when thousands assembled the police decided, after all, to allow the demonstration. It would appear that the delicate balance between the right to protest and the ordered regulation of public space had been diplomatically achieved. However, when the police attempted to restrict the march and give precedence to traffic, the marchers retaliated by blocking the road through a mass “sit-down,” thus causing severe disruption. To many, this direct action and the march itself represented a reassertion of ancient and inalienable rights to free speech and freedom of assembly in the public spaces of the city. But, as Lisa Keller proposes in this fascinating new study, such negotiations and confrontations regarding public freedom and civic order appear to have more recent and contested origins.

Within a comparative framework, Keller investigates how in the period from 1850 to 1900 authorities in both London and New York sought to achieve and maintain public order while also accommodating demands for freedom and liberty. Free speech and assembly were seen, in both cities, as essential mechanisms of public expression and greater participation in society was viewed as integral to democracy. However, the commercial and economic success of the cities was perceived to be reliant upon safe and orderly public spaces, and mass assemblies or demonstrations were increasingly viewed as potential catalysts for violent or destructive disorder. Keller argues that although both cities ultimately eroded freedom in favour of order, London was more tolerant of free speech and assembly and proved better able to preserve freedom and liberty than New York.

This hypothesis is tested through detailed and illuminating examinations of some major flashpoints in both cities and the subsequent reactions to them. These include the Chartist disturbances and Bloody Sunday riots in London and the Draft Riots and Tompkins Square “blood or bread” riot in New York. Through these case studies, Keller demonstrates how the demarcation and appropriation of public spaces such as parks and squares and the accountability of the actions of both police and the public were key elements in effectively balancing liberty and authority in London. Conversely, New York's leaders swiftly implemented strict regulations on behaviour in the city's already limited public spaces and gave priority to commerce and traffic. Furthermore, public assembly or protest in London was largely considered to be legitimate until it caused or incited actual disorder, at which point the authorities should intervene, whereas in New York assemblies were disallowed outright on the basis that they might lead to disorder; a subtle but important difference.

Keller's contextual chapters, outlining the nineteenth-century idea of democracy and the development of cities, are comprehensive and serve their purpose. That said, there is little attempt to trace or highlight possible origins of the British belief in free speech as a “birthright” and, surprisingly, no mention of either the Levellers or the Tolpuddle Martyrs. The short examination of armouries in New York seems disembodied or slightly superfluous and on the whole the New York study comes across as marginally less convincing or coherent than that for London. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of these two densely populated and complex cities serves ideally to highlight their respective successes and failings. Throughout her study, Keller compares the historical evidence to twenty-first-century events and compellingly demonstrates how nineteenth-century antecedents have contributed to modern-day perspectives and positions. This brings a refreshing sense of relevance and significance which is so often lacking from historical studies. The book closes by asking, “if we wish to express an opinion in public, should that voice be tempered to conform to community restrictions?” (240). No doubt those who marched on 8 October 2007 and who continue to assemble and protest on the streets of both cities would offer a resounding “no!”