ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS BILL. (Hansard, 12 April 1872)

§ MR. RYLANDS
moved the insertion of the following clause:— Nothing in this Act shall authorize the prohibition of the exercise of the right to which any persons may be entitled, of holding public meetings in any of the Parks included in the Second Schedule of this Act.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
desired the Government would state what was intended by the Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who proposed to insert the words "any right whatever," in place of "other easement?" The Amendment of the hon. Member for Warrington was certainly more definite, and the description "any right whatever" might include hunting or forestal rights.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the Government had given an assurance that they did not intend to interfere with public meetings in the Parks, which were held under certain conditions and in certain places. If, therefore, the clause were pressed to a division, the Government would vote against it. This was designed to serve as a Regulation Bill, and it was not proposed by it either to take away existing rights or confer new rights.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he had heard with satisfaction the statement of the Attorney General, to the effect that this was merely intended to be a Regulation Bill, and expressed a hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MR. RYLANDS
accepted the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that the public rights would be reserved, and wished to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. M'LAREN
moved the insertion of a new clause— No rule which may be made under the provisions of this Act shall prevent the holding of public meetings in Holyrood Park.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the Bill would not interfere with existing rights.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
moved the insertion of the words "any right whatever," in place of the words "other easement," and remarked that the latter phrase did not convey the same meaning in Scotland as in England.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not defined the rights to which his Amendment referred. The Government had succumbed, and had surrendered at discretion to the lawless menaces of a seditious mob, meeting at the Hole-in-the-Wall, and therefore he must take the sense of the House upon the Amendment. He hoped that the House would refuse to sanction this abandonment of the principle they had originally announced.

MR. GLADSTONE
repelled the accusations of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Lowther). The Government had never departed from the views it had originally announced. They took what they deemed to be the true Parliamentary meaning of the Bill, and he hoped that whatever Government was to succeed them would take a similar view. It was very desirable that the public should know precisely how the Royal Parks were to be managed; and they had explicitly declared that the right of public meeting in the Parks could not be recognized in the Bill, but that the usage would be respected as it had had hitherto been 1226 respected. Such charges as that of succumbing to a mob should not be made, unless the maker was prepared to sustain them by proof.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
explained, that what he had referred to was, that when the question of reserving the right of public meeting in the Parks was raised, the Government declined to adopt any words that allowed any meetings to be held.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the hon. Member was entirely in error, for what was done was this—he (Mr. Ayrton) expressed his willingness to adopt the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), reserving the rights of the people; but when the words of the clause came to be examined, they were found to be not the words which ought to be used, and he then promised to take the proper opportunity—which was the present opportunity—of revising the words so as to make them suitable and proper.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, his recollection was that after the clause was adopted the hon. Member for Edinburgh pointed out that the word "easement" was not a Scotch law term, and then the First Commissioner of Works promised to introduce some word which should be equivalent to it. But the word "right" could not be taken to be equivalent to the word "easement," for it covered a great deal more.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the 18th rule of the First Schedule provided that no persons should enter the Parks after sunset nor before sunrise. He proposed to add, "except for the purpose of passing along the way kept open for the use of the public."

§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN
(who had an Amendment on the Paper proposing the omission of "Linlithgow Peel or Park and Holyrood Park") said, that after the concessions which had been made by the Government, he should abstain from troubling the House on the 1227 question. He merely wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, that owing to the particular character of Scotch Parks, which were certainly Royal possessions, and could not be strictly called parks or gardens, the regulations in this Bill might, and probably would, act oppressively on the people of Scotland, more so than they would on the people using the Parks of the metropolis. Almost every enjoyment which the people of the neighbourhood had had in those Parks would be prohibited until the rules and regulations were made. Those rules did not, as far as he knew, yet exist; and, therefore, he should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that he would make such regulations as would allow the people of Edinburgh and Linlithgow to enjoy the Parks in those places as they had hitherto done.

§ MR. AYRTON
undertook to do what the hon. Baronet desired.