[BILL 17.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 15 February 1872)

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
remarked that earlier in the evening the right hon. Member having charge of this Bill (Mr. Ayrton) had, with his usual courtesy, declined to do other than proceed with it, no matter at what hour it came on. The right hon. Gentleman 518 had met his request with that courtesy which made the general management of business so easy, and the personal attachment of the party to its Leaders so devoted; but in this the right hon. Gentleman had merely imitated, at a humble distance, the example set him by his betters. ["Oh!"] Well, all he could say was that those who had the misfortune to sit below the gangway never got a courteous answer from him. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, hon. Gentlemen might have their own opinion of courtesy—he was only expressing his own personal opinion on the subject. But this was not a personal matter; and it could not be denied that the present Bill, as a matter of fact, involved a very serious public question. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had described the Bill as a piece of Algerine legislation; and he (Mr. V. Harcourt) thought that to proceed with a piece of Algerine legislation at that time of night was not a wise or a prudent thing on the part of any Government, and, above all, on the part of a Liberal Government. Hon. Gentlemen had not had time to put Amendments on the Paper for altering the Bill, and the Amendments which had been put down by the Government did not alter the features of the measure in any material respect. Excessively large powers were given to the Ranger of the Parks to frame a code and to arrest people without warrant, and he supposed that that was a principle to which a Liberal Government adhered. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) would no doubt say—"But the Ranger of the Parks must have the consent of the Board of Works to the code, and I will see that everything is all right." But had it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the present Administration might not be immortal, and that, though not probable, it was within the range of possibility that before the end of the present century they might cease to be the Executive? Supposing that unhappy contingency should occur—possibly the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) might hold the right hon. Gentleman's present office—and, in concert with the Ranger of the Parks, might have to make these provisions for restraining the liberty of the subject. The Ranger was to make the code which would enable people to 519 be arrested and imprisoned without warrant, and the Ranger's servants, appointed by him, were the persons who were to carry the code into execution. Would it not be a shorter and simpler method to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in London at once, and treat the parties as though they were in a proclaimed district in Ireland? The people were now called "those roughs;" not very long ago they were spoken of as "flesh and blood," but that was when we were out of office. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, in office.] Ah, well, we were just going out of office then. But now the "flesh and blood" were "roughs," and they were to be taken into custody without warrant, and all because we were so afraid of the roughs. That, he must say, seemed to him something like political ingratitude. Whence had arisen this terror of the "roughs," for whom this Algerine piece of legislation was needed? He had been going into the Parks for years, and he had never seen those roughs of which the Governmet was so much afraid. He could only come to the conclusion that this Bill was the result of a great compact for political life assurance. Lord Derby had recently said in Lancashire that the Liberals were in office, but that it was the Conservatives who were in power, and the noble Lord made this offer—that if the Liberal Government would consent to carry out a Conservative policy, they should not be disturbed in the situation they occupied—an offer that was most generous, handsome, and complimentary. That was the history, and only history, of such a Bill as this. They were asked to go into Committee upon the Bill; and, of course, they would go into Committee. That was a foregone conclusion. What could they do if Gentlemen opposite took the matter up and supported the Treasury Bench? There was not an Amendment proposed on this Bill, though it contained provisions that no Tory Government in the world would ever have dared to propose to a Liberal Opposition? but a Liberal Administration, supported by a Conservative Opposition, had brought forward a measure which violated every principle of the liberty of the subject for which the Liberal party had for hundreds of years contended. Well, it was true the Liberals were in office; but the Conservatives were in power, and this Bill proved 520 it. The Liberal party would cease to be a majority of that House; he did not know whether they had not ceased to be a majority in the country. That remained to be seen. The Bill had been forced into Committee before any Gentleman had had time to put down any Amendments upon it, and he could only come to the conclusion that a combination existed to prevent discussion of its provisions. If the Government were determined to insist upon that course, and force the Bill through, they must leave the judgment to the country.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he did not know what reply to make to the charge of disrespect with which the hon. and learned Gentleman imagined he had been treated, as the answer he had given to the Question which had been put to him was, that be would proceed with the Bill if it suited the convenience of the House. He wished to know how his hon. and Learned Friend had been treated with disrespect in such an answer as that. He could only be treated with disrespect in the event of any attempt being made to set up his wish in opposition to the general convenience of the House. [Mr. VERNON HARCOURT said, he had not said he had been treated with disrespect.] He (Mr. Ayrton) might not have caught the exact word; but he had expressed the substance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remark. He could not conceive a more civil and conciliatory answer than he had given to the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor could he discover one new observation which he had made to his speech of the other evening, except that he had called this an Algerine Bill. He was not aware what the principles of Legislation were which would make it an Algerine Bill; but looking at it as an English Bill and a Bill of the House of Commons, it was in accordance with the legislation carried on in this House from time immemorial. Every Session for years past there had been Bills introduced in the same form, and it had never been discovered that they had been pregnant with terrible consequences to the British Constitution. The Metropolitan Police Act contained provisions under which powers were given to make rules for regulating the traffic in the public streets; and although in theory and abstractedly those rules might be open to criticism, yet in practice they worked very beneficially for the public convenience, 521 and very harmlessly as regarded the liberty of the subject. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that according to the common course of law, a corporate body which had jurisdiction had powers to make bylaws to preserve good order in that place. Then there was the General Parks Act, giving to anybody wishing to set up a public park the power of making bylaws for the purpose of regulating the property under their control. There were similar provisions in Railway Acts, Harbour Acts, and Municipal Acts. All that the Government asked for by this Bill was such a power to regulate the Parks as was ordinarily given to municipal bodies. It was open to the hon. and learned Member to propose Amendments in Committee; but he had refused to avail himself of that power, and had preferred to move the rejection of the Bill. When the Bill was before the Select Committee last year it had received the approval of four of the metropolitan Members, and in its present form it was a mere reprint of the measure which obtained the unanimous approval of that Committee. If any hon. Member objected to any particular clause in the Bill he could move its rejection or its Amendment in Committee.

§ MR. RYLANDS
suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, on the understanding that reasonable time were given to Members to give Notice of the Amendments they intended to propose.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member a fair and proper one. He did not see that the Bill required what might be called a heroic style, as it was of a most prosaic character. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) must feel that it was necessary there should be some power to make regulations for the Parks analogous to those which were given to municipal corporations, to railway companies, and to the police. It would, of course, be the duty of the Government to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member as far as possible, and therefore he would consent to the House going into Committee upon the Bill pro formâ, with a view to time being given for giving Notice of such Amendments as hon. Members might desire to move.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
said, he thought that there were one or two 522 points which the Chief Commissioner of Works might attend to with advantage.