§ VISCOUNT GODERICHSir, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex whether it is his intention to proceed with the Sunday Trading Bill?
§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENORSir, in answer to the question of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I beg to say that I am in rather an awkward predicament. Nobody likes to be mobbed and bullied out of a measure which was introduced with feelings and intentions so dissimilar from those which have been so industriously attributed to me. I hope that the House and the country will recollect that this is not a measure for the better observance of the Sabbath; that it interfered with no 369 man's recreation. [A cry of "Order!"] I am going to conclude with a Motion, and any hon. Member who pleases can answer me. I was saying that this is not a Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath, and that it interferes with no man's recreations or religious convictions, but that it was brought in for the purpose of procuring as large an amount of holiday as possible during one day of the week for the overtaxed thousands of the metropolis. But, considering that this is one of those measures which are peculiarly liable to misrepresentation and ridicule, and that that ridicule and misrepresentation have been most unsparingly exercised with regard to it; considering, also, the late period of the Session, and the formidable opposition I am threatened with, I think it would not be right to keep up the irritation that at the present moment exists for the bare chance of passing this measure during the present Session of Parliament. I, therefore, if the House, which has so cordially supported me in the progress of this measure, will permit me, will move that the Order of the Day which stands for Wednesday next for the further progress of the Sunday Trading Bill be now discharged.
§ MR. OTWAYI beg, Sir, to congratulate the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex upon the course he has so judiciously adopted; but, while I do so, I cannot help expressing my sincere regret that the noble Lord on a former occasion, when he was called upon not to go on with the Bill, did not conform to what appeared to be the general sentiment of the House. ["No, no!"] But, whether that be so or not, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question relative to the proceedings which took place yesterday, and which I believe to be attributable mainly to the vacillation of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government has entirely abdicated its functions as a Government in this House with regard to this Bill. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) has expressed himself in a most flippant manner with regard to it, and the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary having been most vacillating and uncertain, I believe that to that conduct is to he attributed the tumult in Hyde Park yesterday, the loss of life which I believe to have also occurred, and the incarceration of 104 of our fellow-citizens in the gaols of this town. Since the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) 370 has expressed his intention of yielding to the general wishes of the country, and to withdraw a Bill which I believe to be most mischievous and pernicious, I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) whether it is his intention to procure the liberation of the 104 persons now in gaol for having assembled, I believe legally and properly, yesterday in Hyde Park, and also whether he will lay before the House a copy of the instructions given to the police on that occasion?
§ SIR GEORGE GREYSir, I do not know to what the hon. Member refers when he speaks of my vacillation. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman taking any part in the Committee against this Bill. [Mr. OTWAY: I voted against the second reading.] In the Committee, when the discussion took place, I expressed my opinion regarding several of the clauses, and I was prepared to express it again upon the subsequent part of the Bill if the noble Lord had proceeded with it. With regard to this Bill I do not know that I am justly chargeable with vacillation. It has already been stated that this was not a Government Bill, having been introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. With regard to the proceedings in question, I was informed by the Commissioners of Police that several notices had been published in different parts of the metropolis calling upon persons to assemble in large numbers in Hyde Park on Sunday, with the evident intention of creating disturbance and disorder. Now it is the privilege of the people of this metropolis—a privilege which is not enjoyed in an equal degree by the inhabitants of any large city upon the Continent—to have the free enjoyment of the parks in and about London, and I do not know a more gratifying sight than to see the people thus assembled for the purpose of enjoying themselves. But nothing could be a greater dereliction from duty on the part of any person holding the office that I do than to allow a monster meeting, summoned by public advertisement, to take place in one of the public parks on Sunday, thus interfering with the right of enjoyment by all persons in those parks. The police, therefore, under my direction, issued a notice warning persons against assembling for the purpose contemplated, and a body of police; was stationed in different parts of the park. But it was not until the carriage road had been obstructed, and hooting and noise had taken place, which caused 371 several horses and carriages and riding horses to run away, to the risk of life, that an order was given to clear the carriage road. In the course of the afternoon a good many persons were taken into custody, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Otway) asks me whether it is my intention to order their release. I am told that there are not 104 persons in custody charged with disorderly conduct, but seventy-one persons have been reported to me as having been apprehended for assaulting the police and for riotous conduct. The remainder belong to that large class of persons always assembled on occasions of this kind—pickpockets—and I suppose that it is not desired that any prerogative of the Crown should be exercised to release these persons from the consequences of the offences with which they are charged. With regard to other cases, they are by this time brought before the magistrate, and I do not think it necessary with regard to them to interfere with the ordinary administration of public justice.
After a short discussion, in which Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, Mr. WILKINSON, and Mr. W. J. Fox instanced charges against the police, which were afterwards the subject of investigation before a Commission,
§ Order for Committee discharged; Bill withdrawn.