HC Deb 27 March 1873 vol 215 cc260-88
MR. J. LOWTHER,

in rising to call the attention of the House to the various Rules and Regulations which had been from time to time issued under the provisions of the Parks Regulations Act, 1872; and to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that rules be drawn up for the more effectual protection of Her Majesty's subjects while availing themselves of the privilege accorded them of using the Royal Parks for purposes of recreation by prohibiting the delivery of public addresses in such Parks, said, that the subject with which his Notice dealt was one that had occupied a prominent place in the public mind, but had never been fairly discussed. In the early part of the Session there was an irregular discussion introduced somewhat unexpectedly by the Home Secretary upon a limited branch of this subject; but it very soon degenerated into a personal contest, though it was a contest of no ordinary magnitude, and by no means deficient in interest. It was, in fact, a contest of giants. There was the First Commissioner of Works, no mean antagonist for any man, not even for the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), who somehow or other did not now "come up to time," though perhaps at a more fashionable hour he would be there. In introducing the subject, which had been again forced upon the public attention by the events of Sunday week, he did not mean to make it the subject of any Vote of Censure upon the Administration, and still less of an attack upon any individual Minister. As regarded the Minister whose Department was specially charged with the preservation of the privileges accorded to the public in the Royal Parks, he believed that their opinions were not widely apart upon the subject. They were now in a better position than they were formerly for discussing the subject. Formerly there were conflicting opinions upon the state of the law, but now the law had been clearly defined by the highest tribunal in the Realm, and it was no longer competent for anybody to talk of the rights of the people to the Parks, or any of those platitudes that they had previously heard both inside and outside the House. They knew now how far the public authorities might go, and how far licence might go with impunity. Under the provisions of the Act the authorities were empowered to issue special Rules; and saying this brought him to the first set of Rules of the 11th July, 1872. He would not refer to those Rules which dealt with sheep, pigs, cattle, soap, fish, and such things, because he believed that there was no reason on earth for introducing a Bill in order to make regulations upon such subjects. When the Bill was first introduced it did not deal with the monster nuisance, the holding of meetings in the Parks, but the Select Committee intro- duced that matter into it. The Rules of the 11th July he looked in vain for among his Parliamentary Papers, and he believed that there were only two hon. Members who got them—the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) and the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) who were favoured with "presentation copies." After he had tried in vain to get a copy himself, he remembered that there was "another place," and having gone there he had occasion to join in the popular cry, which was becoming more popular still, of "Thank God, we have a House of Lords." He found that in that House a similar practice as to withholding copies had not prevailed. Although those Rules had been amended and removed from the Table of the House of Lords and were to be considered as withdrawn, he should like to read them, because they were actually issued by those responsible for the government of the Parks. Rule 1 stated that no public address might be delivered except within 20 yards of the boundary stone, marked "Place for Public Addresses;" secondly, that no public address should be delivered on a Sunday—a most salutary regulation and one which would commend itself most heartily, not only to hon. Members, but to the great mass of the community. The next Rule stated that no public address of an unlawful character should be delivered—which was a truism he should have hardly thought it necessary to put the country to the expense of printing. But the most remarkable Rule was that no public address might be delivered unless a written notice to deliver the same, signed with the names and addresses of two householders residing in the metropolis, had been left at the First Commissioner's Office at least two clear days before the intended delivery. Such notice must state the name of the speaker, the subject of the intended address, and the day and hour when it was intended to be delivered. And after such notice had been received no other notice for the purpose of delivering any other address on the same day would be valid. What, he asked, could have been the object for issuing such a regulation as that? Was it done for the mere purpose of vexatiously annoying persons who intended to take part in public demostrations in the Park, or for the practical object of guarding against serious danger to order and tranquillity and public convenience. It must be patent to those who knew anything of public meetings, that the authors of these Regulations—he presumed the First Commissioner of Works and those who assisted him in the construction of the Rules—must have had at the time a vivid recollection of the discreditable scene that occurred in the Park when the demonstration was made against Lord Robert Grosvenor's Beer Bill, and the Garibaldi meeting when numbers were taken to the hospitals. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman wished to guard against the repetition of such scenes, and therefore he proposed this Regulation in order that rival meetings for the discussion of controversial topics should not be held at the same time and place; but if the reasons existed on the 11th of July they were equally as cogent now, if they did not exist in a greater degree. The next edition of the Rules appeared on the 26th July, which stated that the Parks might be enjoyed and used in the same manner so far as consistent with statutory regulations as was enjoyed before the passing of the Act. That was not much; but he now came to the edition of the 1st of October, 1872. The first Rule enlarged the area from 20 to 40 yards, and the wonderful notice stone was converted into a board—for the purpose, probably, of economy. Then there was a repetition of the old truism as to the prohibition of unlawful addresses, without any definition of what was unlawful; and next followed a Rule as to the giving of two clear days' notice to the First Commissioner, signed by two householders, the same as he had read, with this exception, that it did not require the subject of addresses or the names of the speakers to be stated. He purposely avoided going into the circumstances attending the withdrawal of those sets of Rules and the motives for the framing of fresh ones. The dates spoke for themselves. Until the 10th of February last the last named Rules remained in force, and on that day the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, to the intense astonishment of the House—and he thought of the right hon. Gentleman himself when the further revised Rules were placed in his hands—proposed a fourth edition of the Park Regulations. That addition practically placed the entire Park at the disposal of those who formed those demonstrations. Certain bounds were placed within which the addresses must be delivered, and in this Regulation a very useful edifice, the powder-magazine, played an important and significant part. But what were those bounds? Why, the entire Park was practically handed over to the roughs who collected together upon these occasions, with the solitary exception of one spot—which, by the way, was the portion of the Park in the centre of which the great bulk of the community would be most anxious to see the promoters of these troublesome assemblages immersed—namely, the Serpentine. However, as he had seen signs of works going on in the neighbourhood, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner contemplated erecting a platform there to enable the speakers the better to address their admirers. He confessed that for his part he had not the slightest objection to public meetings. He had taken part at many meetings at which resolutions, which he had moved or supported, denouncing the Executive Government pretty freely had been adopted, and he hoped to live to do so again more than once, and the right which he claimed for himself in that respect he did not grudge to his fellow-men. But while he did not wish to prevent those persons at proper times and places airing their eloquence so long as they kept within the bounds of law and public decency, he desired to see others protected in the enjoyment of their privileges. What was the nature of those gatherings, of what elements were they composed, and who were the persons interested in the demonstrations being kept within reasonable limits? His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) was very fond of talking of carriage company and of the fashionable classes as if the upper ten thousand were specially interested in the limiting of the demonstrations. They were not. It was well known to hon. Members that on Sundays—the day usually selected for the meetings—the Park was not the haunt of what were called the upper classes. It was notorious that at any rate by the Gentile portion—he did not mean the genteel, though the term might be applicable—of the fashionable world the Park was not frequented to any extent upon Sundays; he might say that it was used almost exclusively on that day by the artizan, who had worked during the other days of the week, and by his wife and children. He hoped, therefore, they would not have a repetition of the fallacy that it was the selfishness of the upper classes, who wished to keep the Park to themselves. But what was the nature of these gatherings? Were they in reality what were known as public meetings? They had been told that their forefathers had contended for the right of public meeting. But what resemblance was there between the meetings in question and those for which their forefathers had contended? None whatever. They were far more like those specimens of rowdyism which were so great a curse and discredit to the other side of the Atlantic. They were mere displays of physical force in in order to tyrannize rather than for calm discussion and argument. Those who had witnessed them would bear him out when he said that discussion was the furthest thing from their ideas; the speeches could rarely be heard except by a few, and the elements of which the gatherings were composed had no connection truly with the working man. They had only to glance at the names of those who took part in them to find that the élite of the working classes were absent. So far from their attending them they found in the chair some dismissed Revising Barrister, or some embryo County Court Judge, or perhaps for a little change they would find an ex-colonel, and on some occasions the ex-treasurer of a mess fund. Sometimes they were persons who might pass for workmen, but who no more represented that class than gingerbread without ginger—working men who never worked, glass-blowers who never blew a bottle, or cobblers who never mended a shoe, yet who pretended to represent the working men on these occasions in the eyes of the British public. Perhaps it was some person who was engaged in a ribald travesty of a Court of Justice, and who had been rewarded for his act of wanton violence in breaking into the Home Office by a grateful reception from a distinguished leader of a great political party. With these exceptions he could find no one who could bonâ fide claim to be a working man taking part in these gatherings. At these meetings they also found that what were called mock litanies were very much in vogue. He would not insult the sense of the House by reading the details of these performances, but many persons were drawn to them from the spot where the stalest sedition was being spouted from the so-called chair; and these songs and tracts, which, with strange and perverse ingenuity, contrived to be at once disloyal, blasphemous, and obscene, found nevertheless a ready sale. He wished the House to reflect upon the contempt for authority engendered by these scenes. They found a person, he was going to say rewarded, who was connected with the discreditable scenes of 1866, when the Park railings were pulled down. That individual was, however, it was only fair to add, speedily brought into a Court of Justice by the present Government; but to the astonishment of the public, he was placed not in the dock, but on the bench. He did not say this with a view of casting a stone at the learned gentleman, but as a reflection upon those who had placed him in that position. As to the learned gentleman himself, he never mentioned his name without feeling the deepest gratitude to him, because it was to him they were indebted for the greatest metropolitan improvement of modern times—the widening of Park Lane and for the new palings. There were circumstances attending the last demonstration in Hyde Park on Sunday week which he specially desired to bring under the notice of the House. That was not a hole-and-corner affair got up in one of the "pot-houses" referred to by the Chief Commissioner, without notice and by obscure persons, but was resolved upon at a densely crowded meeting of delegates somewhere at Bow, at which it was agreed that "in the interests of order and decorum," notice of the intended procession should be sent to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, as Chief Ranger of Hyde Park, and to the Chief Commissioner of Works. The drift of their communication was a request that the gardeners and Park keepers should be directed to prevent boys from climbing the trees, and injuring the plants and shrubs, because "in a large concourse of persons (they added) there would always be unruly persons whose acts brought discredit"—not upon the public but—"upon the meeting." This statement on the part of the promoters of the demonstrations was a confession that they had the effect of collecting a crowd of persons whose mischievous tendencies they too shrewdly suspected. The account wound up with the remarkable resolution—"That the procession should not be broken on its route, except by a funeral or a fire engine." Never in the course of his life had he heard of anything approaching such a point of audacity as this, that the persons promoting these meetings in Hyde Park arrogated to themselves the right of stopping the traffic of the metropolis for at least 25 minutes—the time which it took the procession to pass a given point, according to his own observation. They not only undertook to stop the traffic, but the police were charged with carrying their imperial behests into effect. Did the authorities meet such notices by telling these persons that they would endeavour to protect them as long as they conformed to the law of the country? Far from it. He went to the rendezvous in Trafalgar Square, whence the procession started. He saw them again in another part of the route, and lastly in the Park, and he felt bound to say in the whole of St. James's Street the most minute observation on his own part, and on that of friends who were with him, failed to detect a single guardian of the peace, and for 25 minutes one of the main arteries of the metropolis was handed over to the tender mercies of a body of roughs. There were the usual bands and banners and emblems, more or less seditious, in the procession; but the House would hardly believe him when he said that at different stages of the route persons stepped forward to turn away the cabs and private carriages, and prevent them from breaking the line of the procession. He watched one person in a cab with a portmanteau upon it who was kept waiting for 15 minutes, while his train was probably gliding away from the station. He was informed on reliable authority that a noble Lord who occupied a high position in the Councils of the Sovereign, and who at that very moment was designed by public rumour for a position still higher, was stopped by this procession. His noble Friend the Member for Marlborough (Lord Ernest Bruce) was, he had heard, also stopped. One of the Park Rules said that there must be no unauthorized playing of any music in the Parks. If an organ-grinder had attempted to play the "Old Hundredth" he would soon have been taken to prison. There were bands however—one playing the "Marseillaise" and another the "Wearing of the Green"—under the protection of the guardians of public order. The Park was a perfect fair. There were people selling oranges, buns, cocoa-nuts, and other nuts, with the usual cry of "Crack 'em and try 'em before you buy 'em." At one time he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, finding his engagements too numerous to enable him to visit his constituents, was reduced to the extremity of reviving the old Conservative institution of Greenwich fair, and had invited them into the Park. The Park Regulations said that "no person should sell or let any commodity." Now, if the Chief Commissioner had been there—[Mr. AYRTON: I was there]. If so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman see that his Rules were enforced? Perhaps he was of opinion that it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman on his right (the Home Secretary) to enforce these Rules. He should like to hear from the Home Secretary whether he had communicated to the Chief Commissioner of Police that the Rules of the Park were to be duly and efficiently carried out. The police were fully justified in not carrying out the ordinary Rules of the Park, because the feelings of common humanity would have been outraged at the spectacle of two full-grown constables dragging an orange girl to gaol, while the most flagrant violation, not only of the Rules of the Park, but of common decency and decorum, was elsewhere permitted. The litany men were present, but perhaps thinking some respect was due to the season of Lent, they did not appear in canonicals. A journal called The Republican was on sale, directed against "Kings, Queens, Princes, Priests, and Policemen," and the scene he then witnessed led him to think now of less-favoured regions—say Sloane Square. We lived in a Happy Land, in which any amount of blasphemy, sedition, and obscenity was not only pardoned, but promoted and encouraged by the authorities—["No, no!"]—because it was carried on under the eyes of the police without their moving a finger to stop it—provided no sentence was interpolated which would provoke a smile at the expense of any Minister of the Crown. He believed the Rules, especially those issued by the Government on July 11, were framed to meet a danger known to exist—namely, that rival meetings might be got up on the same day, that sentiments inimical to those expressed by the promoters might be denunciated by others, and that a row might ensue. But had those dangers ceased to exist? Was there no danger of an Orange demonstration, which might, perhaps, end very much as did certain gatherings at Reading and Windsor, where certain fundamental and organic changes in the constitution of this country were openly handled? No, those dangers had not ceased. The English people, though law-abiding to a degree, were not disposed to brook these insults against institutions under which the country had so long prospered; and, in the absence of other protectors of decency, they had not abandoned their right of appeal to a Judge whose mandamus could override even that of a County Court Judge—he meant Judge Lynch. He had no wish to advocate a resort to the arbitrament of this personage, but the danger was not one to be lost sight of. In many parts of the country People's Parks had been given by philanthropic gentlemen like the late Sir Francis Crossley, and his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bolckow), and rules had been framed under the direction of those benefactors, and with the full consent of the people for whose interest they were prepared, specially prohibiting all political and other meetings there. He was only asking the House to frame in the case of the Royal Parks the same regulations as had been adopted in almost every provincial Park under public control. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE,

in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther), said, the last Sunday demonstration in Hyde Park seemed to have been—he presumed by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman—placed under the special protection of the police; for a Mr. Mooney stated that, on the part of the people who were to take part in it, he had had an interview with Colonel Henderson, who received him most kindly, and promised that the police would protect the procession in its progress through London. He was glad the subject had been brought before the House. The supporters of this Motion were speaking, not against the liberties of the people, but for the liberties of the people; they were speaking against the tyranny of a set of roughs, and against the tyranny of mobs, which was of all tyrannies the worst. He himself saw carriages detained at Hyde Park Corner for 25 minutes while these roughs, accompanied by women of the lowest class, and displaying flags and banners, were allowed to pass by. The working men of London had little to do with such demonstrations; it was the roughs of London who chose to collect together and block the streets of London in this way on a Sunday. He had an important document to read to the House in support of his hon. Friend's description of the people who went with these processions. It referred to the Amnesty Meeting of November, 1872, but he was assured that the handbill announcing the last meeting was exactly similar. The handbill said— To the Working Classes of London—Monster Amnesty Meeting in Hyde Park on Sunday, November 3, 1872.—A grand demonstration, similar to that which took place in October, 1869, will be held in Hyde Park, to demand the unconditional release of the Fenian prisoners, and to protest against their infamous treatment and the Algerine acts now in force in Ireland. Trusted representatives of the Proletarians, of all countries" (this was the International Society) "will take part in the proceedings. The people will meet in their respective districts, and under the direction of local committees proceed in military order four deep towards Trafalgar Square, which will be the central point of rendezvous for the entire procession. The International sections, Republican clubs, trades and other associations, will assemble in places appointed by their officers, from whence they will proceed to Trafalgar Square. Proletarians of all countries—Mr. Gladstone, the Bomba of Ireland, has again refused to release the 42 Irish political prisoners from the gaols of England, in which they are subjected to the most cruel treatment. Assemble in your tens of thousands to demand their release in the name of outraged humanity. English working men, arise from your apathy, and show the world that you sympathize with your Irish brothers, and that they are detained in cruel confinement against your will. Speak out boldly now, and at the next elections kick out the brutal gaolers who misrepresent you in the British House of Commons. That document almost seemed a burlesque. It seemed as if the whole of this procession was intended as a joke. But it was not intended as a joke, and when a procession was summoned by that kind of language, and passed through the streets of London on a Sunday under the protection of the police, he did not hesitate to say that it was a disgrace to the civilization of this City, and, he must add, it was almost a disgrace to the House of Commons and to the Government that such a thing should be permitted. He knew that it was not the working men but the roughs of London who collected on these occasions and blocked the streets, and he regretted that the capital of England should be disgraced by such exhibitions. In conclusion he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true that, at an interview with the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Colonel Henderson really promised that the police should protect this procession.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that rules be drawn up for the more effectual protection of Her Majesty's subjects while availing themselves of the privilege accorded them of using the Royal Parks for purposes of recreation by prohibiting the delivery of public addresses in such parks."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. AUBERON HERBERT,

in rising to move as an Amendment— That this House approves of the Rules lately issued by Her Majesty's Government for the Regulation of the Royal Parks, and is of opinion that no alteration affecting the existing rights of public meeting therein should be made unless previously approved by Parliament, said he believed it was an object of hon. Members who sat below the gangway on both sides of the House to watch over the consistency, the straightforwardness, and the many other virtues of the right hon. Gentlemen who sat above them, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) opposite hoped by his Motion to commit some right hon. Gentlemen who he observed had taken great care not to be there that night to some plain statements which he had submitted. However much he admired the straightforwardness and plainness of speech of his hon. Friend, he could not but feel that the advice he had offered was rash and extreme. It was advice which ought not to be followed, and which was besides impracticable. The object which he (Mr. A. Herbert) had in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice was much humbler than that of his hon. Friend. He only wished to put temptation out of the reach of hon. Gentlemen on whichever side they sat. He did not think this was a matter to which they could look back with satisfaction on either side of the House. But a satisfactory solution of the difficulties had been arrived at. He would not criticize the conduct of the Government in this matter, because they were sinners who had repented. The Government were now acting on sound principles, and he would venture to say to them in the words of the proverb, that "Catch Hold was a good dog, but Keep Hold was a better," and to hope that they would persevere in the path on which they had entered. There were a great many different kinds of recreation, especially in the Parks, with none of which they desired to interfere. And why should the hon. Members opposite desire to interfere? Some people found recreation in walking, some in riding, some in sitting on chairs—for the use of which they paid 2d.—and smoking cigars, some in riding thoroughbred hacks. There was another class who found recreation in being drawn in carriages in an endless circle, and who reminded one of unhappy spirits in a region described by Dante. He did not quarrel with these kinds of recreation, but if it was a recreation to some of the public to meet in a Park on any day to express their opinions on public affairs and criticize what had passed, why should they not have the same freedom of enjoying their recreation as was accorded to the other classes he had mentioned? The real grievance of his hon. Friend was that these meetings slightly delayed the carriages of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen. The only people that seemed to find favour with his hon. Friend were the orange women. He was kind enough to say he did not complain of them. But if a man attempted to sell a penny paper in one of the Parks, in the opinion of his hon. Friend, he ought to be dealt with by the Metropolitan Police. His hon. Friend said he watched for 25 minutes the meeting that was held a few days ago in Hyde Park, and there was not one policeman to be seen. Was not that testimony to the good conduct of the meeting? The truth was that since the Government had allowed these meetings to be held a great change of temper had occurred, and those who convened these meetings took every step in their power to make them thoroughly orderly and respectable. His hon. Friend had talked about crowds in New York. He (Mr. A. Herbert) had seen meetings in the squares of New York comprising many thousands of people, all of whom had conducted themselves in a perfectly peaceable and orderly manner. What was the reason of that? Simply because the Government was wise enough not to attempt to offer the slightest opposition to those meetings. He believed we had learnt one thing, namely, that the greatest safety lay in a perfectly free and open discussion of everything. He knew there were the elements of danger and revolution in this country as in every other country. Through the neglect and unjust character of much of our past legislation some bad temper had been excited among a portion of the people of this country, but he frankly owned that he did not sympathize with that temper. If it were desired to give the dangers that now existed an explosive force which at present they did not possess, it was only necessary to attempt to restrain and restrict the right of open and free discussion. In this country we, doubtless, had to contend with some disadvantages, but we had not to contend against secret societies. Whatever was felt came freely to the surface and was openly expressed, and thus our safety was ensured. Should the time ever arrive, as he believed it might, when we in this country might make grievous mistakes in the way of rash experiments, our only safety would he in our perfect freedom of discussion, which would enable us to recover ourselves and to rectify our mistake without vital injury to the nation. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. RYLANDS,

in seconding the Amendment, said, he felt bound to defend the action of the Government, who, however they might have erred originally in the matter, had at length fully repented of their error, and had done their best to rectify it. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) had referred to the clauses which authorized the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to frame Rules for the government of the Parks, but he had not stated how it was that that clause came to be inserted in the Bill. The hon. Member who doubtless possessed great ability ["Hear, hear!"], great ability for mischief, had himself proposed the insertion of that clause in the Bill, when it was under the consideration of the Select Committee some two years ago, and he succeeded in carrying his proposal, by a majority of 1, in the absence of two hon. Members who supported the views of the Government on the Committee. But when the Bill came back to that House thus amended, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Works declined the responsibility of the measure. He (Mr. Rylands) had complained on a former occasion that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had for some unknown reason introduced that clause into his Bill in 1872, although he had withdrawn the measure he had brought forward in 1871, because a Motion for inserting a similar clause into it had been carried. Fortunately, however, Her Majesty's Government, after making one or two false moves in connection with this subject, had framed Rules under that clause for the government of the Parks, which were perfectly unobjectionable. The hon. Member for York was dissatisfied, because Her Majesty's Government had shown a disposition to make a concession to public opinion, and in favour of public rights, and acting no doubt consistently with the opinions he entertained on the subject in 1871, now asked the House to agree to an address to Her Majesty praying that she would prevent public addresses being delivered in the Parks, which would effect the same object which he had sought for by his Amendment in the previous Bill. But where were now those right hon. Gentlemen who had in 1871 supported the views of the hon. Member for York? Circumstances had since then greatly changed. That the hon. Member would not obtain universal support on this question from even his own side of the House was evident by the state of the Opposition from benches. The unoccupied condition of those benches was an eloquent expression of opinion on the part of the hon. Member's political leader. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member might dispute the fact as much as he liked, but there could be no doubt that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was his political leader. The reason why those benches were so deserted on this occasion was because the time had arrived when the Conservative leaders felt themselves on the threshold of office. Did the hon. Member for York think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) were he again Home Secretary would support his proposition and attempt to prevent public meetings being held in the Parks? Did he imagine that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy), if again in office, would countenance such a measure as the hon. Gentleman now advocated? He admitted that on the fringe of great public assemblies something improper and objectionable might occur, and he fully endorsed the opinion of the hon. Member that the mock litanies which were performed on such occasions were most disgraceful. That fact, however, furnished no reason why the people should be prohibited from expressing their opinions in the Royal Parks or other public places. By adopting the advice of the hon. Member for York on this subject they would take a course like that of a man who sat upon the safety valve whilst the steam was rising in the boiler, and thus occasioned an explosion which spread death and destruction around. It was true that munificent gentlemen who gave parks to towns in the country usually made it a condition that political meetings should not be held in them; but the Royal Parks occupied a different position altogether, inasmuch as they were not the gifts of any individuals—they were the property of the people. ["No, no!"] He said "Yes." The people had bought them over and over again, and had given for them a great deal more than they were worth. The property belonged to the people, and it had been paid for out of the public taxation. The grants made by Parliament to the Crown in successive reigns amounted to more than the value of the Parks, and though, no doubt, they might produce a large sum if cut up for building purposes, those grants were made in times gone by, when no such sum could have been realized. The hon. Member for York might have refrained from any allusion to a learned gentleman whose name was associated with this question. He would only say that that learned gentleman's conduct in the assertion of a public right was no disqualification for the position to which the Government had appointed him, and which his professional standing entitled him to fill.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House approves of the Rules lately issued by Her Majesty's Government for the Regulation of the Royal Parks, and is of opinion that no alteration affecting the existing rights of public meeting therein should be made unless previously approved by Parliament,"—(Mr. Auberon Herbert,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. STRAIGHT

said, he could not quite agree with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther), because he should be the last to put a stop to fair and free public discussion on public matters; but, at the same time, he contended that there was a middle course between unduly checking free discussion, and an indiscriminate permission to hold gatherings which were a nuisance to the general public. He believed the Prime Minister was out of town on the Sunday which had been referred to. Had he seen the gathering permitted to form a procession, he would have felt that such proceedings ought not to be countenanced. Long processions in the public thoroughfares were not essential to public meetings, but were clearly a nuisance. He could not help recollecting a discussion which took place in 1871 when the subject was the Phœnix Park Riots, and a Motion was brought forward by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), which censured the Government for dispersing a meeting in the Phénix Park, Dublin, respecting the release of the Fenian prisoners, a subject which the Prime Minister then declared to be one on which such a gathering could not be permitted. It was strange, therefore, that a public discussion of the same subject should be allowed in Hyde Park. The Executive Government should have the discretionary power of confining these meetings within reasonable limits, for the licence advocated by the hon. Member for Nottingham. (Mr. A. Herbert) might lead to the public discussion of questionable subjects prejudicial to the morals of nursemaids and the Life Guards accompanying them. Hon. Members who did not reside in London ought to have a little consideration in that matter for those who were compelled to do so, and who were subjected to the great inconvenience and annoyance caused by those processions. The hon. Member for York had referred to the fact that a Cabinet Minister was stopped on his way through the streets by the mob and delayed on a Sunday; but with the extreme gallantry which belonged to him that right hon. Gentleman cut his way through the advancing hosts, and found himself on the other side of Piccadilly. Without wishing any harm to any right hon. Gentleman, he feared that until some catastrophe happened to a Cabinet Minister through these processions in these great thoroughfares, the public would obtain no relief from so serious a nuisance.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the propositions had been brought under the consideration of the House at some length by two hon. Gentlemen who, after the very prolonged discussions on the Royal Parks Bill last Session, both found themselves under the painful necessity of expressing their objection to the passing of that measure when all the rest of the House were satisfied that it ought to become law. How was it that those hon. Gentlemen were so restless? He believed it arose from the fact that they entertained most extreme opinions. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) was extremely Conservative, and yet he objected that under his own provision it was possible for any body of the people to express their opinions in any of the Royal Parks; while the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert) was equally dissatisfied because it might be impossible for some of the people to express their opinions in the developement of Republican principles, which he thought ought to be advanced by peaceful means and not by violence. That was a question which the House by its unanimity last year showed ought to be approached with reason and moderation; and it was rather remarkable that the hon. Gentlemen who had been most eminent in that House in discussing that subject had never had imposed on them by their constituents the duty of watching over the interests of the metropolis. He thought the Members for the Metropolis were always quite competent and sufficiently active to bring forward any grievance under which their constituents laboured; yet, strange to say, the voice of none of those hon. Gentlemen had been raised in complaint against the manner in which the Parks Act had been carried out. The discussions which had arisen appeared to proceed from the excessive spirit of contention by which some hon. Gentlemen were animated in favour of their own peculiar views. He was surprised to find so distinguished a Conservative as the hon. Member for York objecting to the holding of public meetings in London. Did the hon. Member forget that processions and gatherings of the people were among the most ancient and most Conservative institutions in the world, and were universal in England until they were superseded by the modern invention of printing, which enabled people to communicate their ideas by other means; and the practice of holding popular gatherings was falling into disuse, in proportion as printing, writing, and reading increased. Therefore instead of coming there to object, the hon. Member ought rather to have come to complain that an ancient institution was decaying away. Now, representations had been made to him that there were occasions when people in the metropolis desired to meet for discussion at less expense than if they had to hire halls for the purpose; therefore he had undertaken to make such arrangements as would give them as much facility for expressing their opinions to the assemblies which they wished to convene in the Park as they would have enjoyed if they met in a hall. The first set of Park Rules was made in fulfilment of that pledge. It would have been a breach of faith towards the House and towards those who had made those representations if the Rules had not been as precise as they were, in order not only to confer that particular privilege, but to secure its enjoyment without interruption. It turned out, however, that the first set of Rules did not satisfy everybody, and that some people were determined to assert a right to set at defiance any Rules or restrictions which might be laid down. When that line was adopted there was but one course to pursue in regard to it—namely, to assert the rights of the Crown and the authority of Par- liament by prosecuting those who so acted. The prosecution showed that those parties were entirely in the wrong. The Rules had all been framed for the same purpose—namely, to regulate the enjoyment of the Parks so far as to prevent abuse. The last Rules like the first provided that persons going into the Parks to deliver addresses should not destroy the general enjoyment of the Parks. They also provided that the delivery of the addresses should be subordinate to the authorities and to all those rights which were reserved to Her Majesty; and if they were rather less precise than those that went before they still left the question as a whole very much as it stood under the first arrangement, and the matter might now very well have been allowed to rest. He had been asked by the hon. Member who seconded the motion (Mr. B. Cochrane) whether he had sent for the Chief Commissioner of Police, and directed him to allow the meeting held a few days ago to be carried on without interruption. That question arose from a misapprehension of the First Commissioner's duty. The general use of the Park was entirely under the control of the Ranger, and the police were placed in the Park to uphold the Ranger's authority in the discharge of his duty. The First Commissioner of Works had no power to send for the Chief Commissioner of Police or to give him any directions in regard to any meeting held in the Park. He hoped the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) would see that under the circumstances it was inopportune to press his Resolution on the notice of the House. If that motion was inopportune the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert) was one which could not be entertained. It stated that no alteration affecting the "existing rights" of public meeting therein should be made unless previously approved by Parliament. Now there were no "existing rights," and it would be impossible to agree to these words. A misapprehension existed that the Crown had given up its rights. Now the Crown had never surrendered its rights to the public. What the Sovereign did on Her accession to the Throne was to surrender the property of the Crown lands as part of the public revenue, but the Parks, not being kept for the purposes of profit, were not at all surren- dered, and remained in the Sovereign precisely in the same way as Her Palaces. It would, therefore, be quite wrong to pass a Resolution in the terms proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. He hoped, therefore, he would be satisfied with having used it as a text for promulgating his views on the subject, and that he and the hon. Member for York would pair their opinions one against the other.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had listened with some curiosity to the speeches which had been made to see whether any answer would be given to the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lowther), but, not having heard any, he must again call the attention of the House to the main points which he had raised. Though he was prepared to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, he was afraid it would not be carried, for the occupants of the two from benches were both tarred in this matter with the same brush. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) who addressed the House very frequently and with great ability, seemed to be so much engrossed with his own speeches that he had not time to attend to the facts of the case, otherwise he would have a more accurate knowledge of what had actually occurred. At the time when the Rules were framed there were two courses open to the Government, either to throw open the Parks to the lawless individuals who were patronized by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warrington and by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert), or to pass the Parks Bill and to frame regulations in accordance with the measure. The latter was the course which they took, but owing to their vacillation, they had brought the law into the utmost discredit. They had passed he did not know how many sets of Rules within the last three months for the purpose of regulating the meetings in the Parks, but he could not believe it possible that there could have been, notwithstanding, any such systematic violation of the law as had occurred on the 3rd of November. The police were, in the first place, entirely withdrawn from the Parks, and the speakers at the meeting—who, as usual, played but a small part in the proceedings, were stationed beyond the legal distance from the post which had been set up by the Chief Commissioner. A body composed of at least 50 or 60 persons ascended the trees, and he himself saw at least one branch of a tree broken off in the most deliberate manner, which must have measured 25 feet. [An hon. MEMBER: The "Upas tree."] That was not all gone; there was one branch standing yet. There were, besides, persons offering for sale scurrilous verses on Her Majesty, a blasphemous litany, and other articles acceptable to a mob; and why had not such a state of things been put a stop to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department? Did the right hon. Gentleman think such exhibitions as those were proper on a Sunday afternoon? He happened on the evening of the day in question to meet a London stipendiary magistrate of great experience, to whom he had put the question whether, if he were to walk down Rotten Row on any afternoon in the week, and to offer for sale sticks or gingerbread nuts, he would do anything to him if he were brought before him? The answer was that he would be sent to prison for a month. Yet a Liberal Government allowed men to talk sedition and treason in the Park on Sunday afternoon with impunity. But that was not all; the trees having been broken down, the wood was openly stolen and taken out of the Park. He saw a policeman standing at Albert Gate when a person was coming out with an armful of sticks, and when he asked him why he did not interfere, the policeman merely shrugged his shoulders, saying that he had orders not to meddle in the matter. Where, he should like to know, was the justice of permitting treason to be rampant when offences much less heinous were punished by having the names of those who committed them placarded? He did not see the meeting in the Park last Sunday week, but he had heard that what had occurred there was but a repetition of the scene of the 3rd of November, and he should like to ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, who said no act of violence had been committed, what he thought of the destruction of national property and the forcible stopping of hackney carriages? But besides the Park Act there was the Metropolitan Police Act, which rendered it a punishable offence to obstruct the streets, to sell or exhibit indecent or scandalous publications, or to destroy trees. The provisions of that Act had therefore been broken with impunity. Why, he asked, had they not been enforced? The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works said he was not responsible. It was quite true that he did not control the police, nor did the Ranger of the Park, but the Home Secretary was answerable for the offences that had been committed, and to him the public had a right to look to see that the law was enforced and breaches of the law punished. Why was it, he asked, that while the leaders of these demonstrations were allowed to set the law at defiance, lesser offenders, who were not guilty of sedition, were apprehended and punished? He ventured to say that the great majority of the ratepayers were opposed to such demonstrations. The Government had talked a great deal about a policy of equality, but if they meant anything by that, why did they allow Mr. Odger and others to break the law? Ruffianism was tolerated, while respectability was oppressed. The fact was, what in the ruffian was a choleric word, that in the respectable was rank blasphemy. An hon. Member opposite had proposed to stop the delivery of letters on a Sunday, but did he not think that he might effect some good by helping to stop displays of this kind on that day? He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not only be able to offer a satisfactory explanation to the House for their supineness, but also to give some guarantee to the inhabitants of the metropolis that the law—so far as they could secure that end—would be observed in the future.

MR. BRUCE

said, he rose with pleasure to answer the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), and, in doing so, would endeavour to keep separate, issues which had by his hon. Friend and others been treated as one. The first was, whether the Parks should be used for public meetings; and the next whether, if so, they should be used in a decent, orderly manner, in accordance with the law. The first point he must decline to argue, assuming—and he thought the House would agree with him—that it had been already settled in the long discussions on the Parks Bill last Session. But, with respect to the second, his hon. Friend had raised a very fair question, and was entitled to an answer. His hon. Friend complained that scenes of disorder had occurred in the Parks which had not been punished, and that, in the case of obstructions in the streets, the Police Acts had not been enforced. With respect to what happened in November last, his hon. Friend had forgotten to inform the House that no fewer than 12 persons had been summoned—[Mr. BENTINCK: For addresses]—before the magistrates for violation of the law. He was not there to defend any such violation of the law, or any address delivered, or act committed contrary to law, and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that if the police had witnessed the destruction of trees, it was their duty to have taken the offender into custody. There had been a breach of the law by the delivery of addresses contrary to the Rules, and with that offence the parties committing it were charged. Subsequently, other meetings were held, and applications were made to the magistrates to issue summonses, but they declined, on the ground that it was not their practice to do so when a case had been granted which raised the question whether the proceedings were or were not legal. In fact, the legality of the Rules was the question to be decided under the case which was submitted for the decision of the Superior Court. With respect to what happened on last Sunday week, he had listened attentively to the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) who had moved the Resolution with so much ability; but he found that the whole of his speech was taken up with what had occurred as to the obstruction of the streets. His hon. Friend had mentioned one act of violence—namely, an assault on the soldier who had been so seriously injured. It was his (Mr. Bruce's) duty to inquire into that case, and he had done so. He sent an inspector of police to visit the poor man, and he assured the inspector that what had happened was entirely by accident—that he was in a great hurry to get away, but had not been pushed, struck, or assaulted. He was bound to say that the reports he had read in all the newspapers confirmed the reports from other sources, and bore testimony to the order and good conduct of the persons attending the meeting. They consisted of a number of Irishmen celebrating by anticipation their national festival, and discharging at the same time what they considered to be a duty of patriotism. He did not agree with them, but he was bound to say he had heard of no instance of violence or of improper conduct on the part of those men, or of injury to the trees of the Park. With respect to the obstruction in the streets, it was impossible that meetings could be held in the Parks without a procession being formed in the streets. When large numbers of persons converged towards the Park some obstruction must necessarily be caused, and a certain amount of latitude should be allowed. Undoubtedly, it was the duty of the police to see that that obstruction was reduced to a minimum, and that free transit was allowed to all persons in pursuing their ordinary business. His hon. Friend would remember that a Question was put to him by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) with respect to the instructions he had given to the Chief Commissioner of Police, and he replied to the effect he had just mentioned. The principal promoter of the meeting called on the Chief Commissioner of Police to make inquiry on the subject, and he had no doubt the Chief Commissioner informed him he had given instructions to take on that occasion, as on all others, all necessary measures for the preservation of order. There would, he thought, be no disagreement on either side of the House as to that part of the question. His hon. Friend opposite the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) had stated cases of offence against the law which he had seen committed. If they were committed in the presence of the police, it was a very gross breach of duty on their part not to have acted strenuously and promptly. He only wished his hon. Friend had communicated with him, and he should at once have endeavoured, not only to punish the offenders, but also those who had allowed the offence to be committed without arresting the guilty persons. It was not his intention to enter into the question of the general policy of the Rules. With respect to that, he was well content to rest his position on the arguments of his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works. He rose simply to answer the challenge of his hon. Friend opposite, and he hoped he had done so satisfactorily.

MR. OTWAY

said, that after they had arrived at a satisfactory settlement of this irritating question, it was a matter of regret that it should have again been raised. He rose to enter his protest against the impression which the First Commissioner of Works had endeavoured to convey, that the Parks Bill of last year had been passed with unanimity. On the contrary, he and his hon. Friends near him had protested night after night against the mischievous, irritating, and foolish legislation which the First Commissioner had introduced. He told the right hon. Gentleman that some of the Regulations he proposed were mischievous and absurd; that they must inevitably be defeated; and the right hon. Gentleman, receiving his remarks with the urbanity and courtesy which distinguished him, replied that these were just the Regulations which he thought most necessary. They only allowed the Bill to pass on the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that the use of the Parks by the public was to continue as heretofore; but no sooner did the Bill become law than it was found, as he and others predicted, that these annoying and useless Regulations could not possibly be maintained; and these Regulations, which one would have supposed could only have emanated from King Theodore, of Abyssinia, had now been prudently withdrawn by the Government. He regretted that so irritating a subject should now be revived, and wondered that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lowther) should seek to identify his party with what appeared to be restrictions upon popular rights. He reminded the hon. Member that the most Conservative leader of the Conservative party, the late Lord Derby, was of opinion that some place of public resort in the metropolis should be given to the people for out-door meetings. Working men had not the means of acquiring music-halls or other places in-doors, and even if they had it was desirable, always providing that order was maintained, that they should be able to meet in open spaces. In his opinion Hyde Park was not the best place for holding public meetings; but, at the same time, having witnessed many demonstrations there, he was bound to say he had never seen any inconvenience arising from them. The meetings were held in a part of the Park which was not frequented by fashionable people. It seemed to him most unwise to raise that question again, and, under all the circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Motion to a division.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he would support the Resolution as a protest against the favourite doctrine of the present day, that the noisy portion of the community represented the people. He believed that the mass of English people, strictly so called, were a most eminently order-loving and law-abiding people, and that they entirely objected to the use of the Parks which was now so much in vogue. The Home Secretary said that they had now made certain Rules, and that they might trust to the good sense of the people. The answer to that was that they knew those Rules by their fruits. They saw what those Rules had produced, and they were not satisfied with the result. This was not a question of the fashionable part of the community against the poorer portion. He believed that if the people who availed themselves of the public Parks on Sundays were asked their opinion, they would say that the public demonstrations interfered with the peaceable and orderly enjoyment of the Parks. A letter describing one of these meetings in November had been sent to the newspapers by a Liberal M.P. [An Hon. MEMBER: It was anonymous.] It might be true and yet anonymous; and if it were not true, let the hon. Member who wrote it rise and say so. The writer said that there were the same disgraceful proceedings, the same blasphemous litanies, and the same obscene rubbish that had marked previous meeting. The letter went on to say that the most shocking things were said of the Queen, and further, that litanies of the most blasphemous and obscene character were read and sold. Now, whatever might be the sentiments of hon. Members of this House on matters of religion, he was sure they would one and all, repudiate the travestying, blaspheming, or ridiculing, of any of the sacred doctrines of Christianity. He went one step further, and said that if religion was to be dealt with in the Parks, at all events there ought to be fair play. If anyone unwisely tried to preach upon religious subjects to a miscellaneous audience in the Parks, he would soon be put down by authority; but those persons, who travestied religion, blasphemed its doctrines, mocked its ceremonies, and insulted its professors, were allowed to pursue their calling unchecked. Such a state of things was not only unworthy of a Christian nation, but it was repugnant to common justice, and if the House could not put an end to the inconsistency in the name of common Christianity, let it condemn it in the name of common justice.

MR. TIPPING

said, he wished to point out that the meetings held in the Parks were utterly un-English and were merely an imitation of those French meetings which were always held prior to revolutionary attempts. As their only object was to overawe, alarm, intimidate, and annoy, no legitimate excuse could be set up for them, and to put them down altogether would be no real interference with free speech or the right of public meeting. Whenever a demonstration of this kind occurred in the Park, it must necessarily interfere with the pleasure of those who usually walked there, and although the roughs might not be afraid of the dowagers to whom allusion had been made, the dowagers might very well be excused if they were afraid of the roughs. He felt bound to vote with the hon. Member for York in the interest of liberty and the rights of the masses.

MR. SCOURFIELD

remarked that if the majesty of the law were obscured by the assembling of thousands in the Parks on a Sunday, it was some consolation to know that it would be vindicated the next day probably by a policeman ordering a little boy looking into a fruit shop to "move on."

MR. C. E. LEWIS

said, that he could not vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) because he believed that if it were carried it would only aggravate the evils complained of. He advised therefore that the Motion should be withdrawn.

MR. J. LOWTHER

in reply, said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was connected with a constituency who were exceedingly fond of processions, and his views on the subject might therefore be peculiar. He (Mr. Lowther) must insist on taking the sense of the House upon his Motion.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was not possible for the Government to support the Amendment, on account of the words with which it closed, and they would therefore vote against both the Amendment and the original Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 46: Majority 96.

MR. W. H. SMITH

rose to entreat his hon. Friend the Member for York to withdraw his Motion. A statement had been made to the effect that during the debate which took place last year no hon. Member representing the metropolis had spoken on the Motion before the House. ["No, no!"] He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give an assurance on the part of the Government that the Act of Parliament which had been passed on the subject of the Parks, and the Rules which had the force of law and had obtained the sanction of Government, would be observed so far as the police and the Government were concerned. The responsibility for the observance of the Rules practically rested with the Government, and he desired that that responsibility should be left with them. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had practically given an undertaking that decent and orderly people who desired to use the Park for purposes of recreation would not be disturbed in that use, that the trees would be preserved from destruction, that open robbery and insult would not be permitted in the Park—in other words, that the police would do their duty. Respecting that assurance, and believing that it would be thoroughly respected by the Government, he thought it was desirable that the hon. Member for York should withdraw his Motion.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the position which his hon. Friend occupied in the House and in the metropolis caused him to be listened to with respect, especially by one sitting on the same side of the House, and under the circumstances he felt it was only due to him to listen to his suggestion. The Motion was in the hands of the House, but it was not his wish to press it ["Divide!"].

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"] Does the House wish the Motion to be withdrawn? ["No!"]

Main Question put, and negatived.