§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board of Works have systematically refused, since the 18th January 1883, to allow any public meetings to be held on any of the open spaces which they are required to protect and allowed to regulate?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGI beg to state, Sir, that the Board has not systematically refused, since the 18th of January, 1883, to allow any public meetings to be held on the open spaces; but, having regard to the powers given to the Board to prevent acts or things tending to interference with the use of the open spaces by the public for the purposes of exercise and recreation, the Board has not seen fit to grant permission to persons desiring to hold public meetings for the purpose of discussing religious and other topics upon Sundays. I may add that the magistrate at the Lambeth Police Court, on the 7th instant, in convicting two persons charged with the infringement of the bye-laws, stated his opinion that meetings such as I have mentioned would interfere with the use of the open spaces for the purposes of exercise and recreation.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONAre people allowed to discuss religious questions on week-days?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGIf the hon. Baronet will give Notice of the Question, I shall be glad to answer it.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSIs it not a fact that the Board have refused to give its assent to the holding of any public meeting of any kind whatever—religious, secular, or otherwise — on Sundays or any other day?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL - HOGGEvery application that is received is considered on its merits.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSHave they not been systematically refused? I understand they have.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGI most distinctly state that they have not been systematically refused.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Hill, of 81, Barlow Street, Old Kent Road, was summoned at the instance of the Metropolitan Board of Works before the Lamboth Police Court for speaking on the occasion of a public meeting at Peckham Rye on 1st April; that the hearing of the summons was adjourned to 7th June, when Mr. Hill was fined twenty shillings and three guineas costs, with the alternative of fourteen days imprisonment, though four witnesses, whose testimony was not impeached, deposed that he had not spoken; whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have extended their powers in prohibiting meetings on public places, when the Law under which they exercise their powers allows them to regulate such meetings only; whether it has not been the custom for various meetings to be held for many years past, especially by advocates of temperance, on Peckham Rye, without objection, and even with the sanction of the vestry; and, whether, considering that working people cannot assemble to discuss grievances, or assist reforms in other than open spaces near London, owing to the expense involved in hiring rooms, he can check the action of the Board of Works?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, so far as the Home Office has anything to do with this matter, which is confirming and sanctioning the orders and regulations made, I have expressed my opinion to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that the power to regulate public meetings in these open spaces ought not to be extended to an absolute prohibition of such meetings. I have expressed my opinion that in sanctioning the orders and regulations made, I did not contemplate that public meetings should be prohibited altogether. On the contrary, I think it would be very inexpedient to prevent meetings being held. They are allowed 215 to be held in Hyde Park, and I cannot see why they should not be allowed in other open spaces.