§ [Progress 15th February.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Definition of "park-keeper").
§ MR. RYLANDS moved, in line 21, after "appointed," insert "by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings." The hon. Member observed that the clause proposed to change the authority under which the Parks were placed at present. His own feeling, as well as that of many hon. Members, was that the Parks ought to be left alone. He thought the people who frequented the Parks were well-behaved people, who enjoyed the green grass and the fresh air, even although some of them might not be well-dressed or well-washed. A regulation had been made, and posted up at the entrance, that no person who was badly-dressed should be admitted to the Parks; but that regulation was inoperative, as no doubt that which prohibited hired conveyances from entering the Parks would be. If they were to create a new authority, it was necessary to see that it was responsible to that House. He objected to conferring powers upon a park-keeper appointed by a Ranger. He did not quite concur with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. V. Harcourt) in his condemnation of the Government for introducing this Bill; but he should have preferred it had it been brought in by the other side of the House.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."—(Mr. Rylands.)
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, when he understood the position of the question. There were four Parks out of a much larger number which had always been under a 917 Ranger, that office being reserved by the Act of Parliament which vested the Parks in the Board of Works. But the Ranger was simply an officer under the Crown, for whom the Government was responsible, and, if he misconducted himself, it would be as easy to advise his removal as to recommend the removal of a stipendiary magistrate. The effect of the Amendment would be to abolish the office; but if any hon. Member thought the office unnecessary he should raise the question in a direct shape. He had found no difference of conduct between the keepers appointed by the Board of Works in Kensington Gardens and those appointed by the Ranger in Hyde Park, and he believed it was best to have keepers who made the care of the Parks their sole duty.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEY, while admitting that the Parks in the immediate vicinity of London should be under the charge of police, remarked that at Kew and Richmond the duty might be intrusted to meritorious old soldiers, which would be a great boon to the Army.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 58: Majority 26.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that the 3rd clause defined the persons who were to exercise the enormous and unprecedented powers conferred by this Bill. Those park-keepers were to have the power of enforcing the penalties in Clause 4. They might arrest without warrant any person committing any of the offences defined in the Schedule, and they were in addition to have all the powers belonging to a police-constable of the metropolis. Their powers were, therefore, of an indefinite and undefined character. The First Commissioner of Works said the other day, that all the powers given under this Bill were ordinarily given in the case of Parks under the control of municipal bodies. Upon that statement he joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He equally denied the assertion that at common law municipal corporations possessed the powers conferred by this Bill. Under the Municipal Corporations Act no power was given to enforce by-laws by summary and arbitrary arrest, and the power 918 given was specially defined to be arrest by summons and warrant in the usual constitutional manner. The First Commissioner of Works had said that the powers in this Bill were similiar to those given to railway companies; but that was equally incorrect. Railway companies had power to make by-laws, and they could not enforce their by-laws without summons and warrant. There were powers given them to arrest without warrant; but that was confined to offences defined in the Act, which made all the difference in the world. The First Commissioner said also the other night that this Bill was only the limited application of a principle which had been applied to every other part of the country except the Royal Parks. He could not attempt to disprove that statement by a general negative in reference to local Acts of Parliament; but he had examined the Act relative to the Halifax Park and others in the Library, and in no single case did he find a power of arrest given to enforce the by-laws of the Park. In the case of Southwark Park, which was under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, no such powers were given. He did not undertake to say that Acts of which he knew nothing had not slipped through; but the great leading examples relied on by the Government to support the Bill proved the exact opposite of what had been asserted from the Treasury Bench. And he had a right to complain that in measures of this kind deeply affecting the liberty of the subject and the Constitution of the country, they never saw the Law Officers of the Crown on the Government benches; they were so occupied with private affairs that they had no time to devote to the business of the Crown. If they could have given five minutes' attention to this Bill, it would never have been produced in its present state; and if they had given five minutes' reflection, they would never have stated the law from the Treasury Bench as it had been stated the other night. The House had also heard, a few evenings ago, that the power in this Bill was in accordance with the Metropolitan Police Act. It was not so. The result of all this was, that his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) and himself had prepared a number of Amendments with the view of bringing the Bill into accordance 919 with the usual law of the country. The House of Commons was, by this Bill, called upon to make a new precedent in the law of this country, and this country was very much governed by precedent. If they established precedents of that kind it might lead further than precedents generally did. Arrest without warrant was a very serious thing, and in old times it was a power much more sparingly exercised than at present. Well, it might be said—"What, after all, does arrest without warrant for indefinite offences signify?" It signified very much. It was contrary to the Constitution and laws of this country that arrest without warrant for indefinite offences should be made, with one or two exceptions. Arrest without warrant for indefinite offences meant much the same as if a man were to draw a blank cheque and let anyone fill it up as he liked. He wanted to know whether the House of Commons was going to draw a blank cheque against the liberties of the subject in this country, and to allow a Ranger or Minister of Works, or somebody else, to fill it up with any figure he pleased? That was the scheme of this Bill. He was aware that all these things were treated with contempt by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which in them was perfectly natural, and was becoming natural on the Treasury Bench. A friend had said to him—"Oh, you are quite out of fashion; you believe in the liberties of the subject." Well, belief in the liberties of the subject was a good old fashion; he was not ashamed of it; and he would venture to suggest to hon. Members opposite that it was not their interest to put these things out of fashion. If they chose to set the example of departing from the spirit of the law and Constitution of this country to serve a temporary purpose, they would find plenty of people to follow that example in a way they might not like at all. We had heard a great deal said about arbitrary power, Royal Warrants, and so on. Well there was plenty more where that came from, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite chose to override the spirit of the Constitution and the laws of the country they would be the people to suffer most by it. How would Gentlemen opposite like, for example, a Commissioner with indefinite powers to go down and regulate their estates, and when they began to talk about the rights of property, the 920 liberties of the subject, and Magna Charta, he would say—"Oh, that's all nonsense. I am a Commissioner sent down by Parliament, with indefinite power to make regulations." Now, it was not the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite to take this line of conduct, for, in his opinion, there was nothing in the world so arbitrary as a Democracy if allowed to go unchecked by the spirit of the Constitution. He was wrong, perhaps, in saying that there was nothing in the world so arbitrary as a Democracy. There was one thing which was more arbitrary still, and that was an Aristocracy acting in concert and coalition with a Liberal Administration. [Laughter.] Therefore, when an appeal was made to great principles which today protected the poor and which tomorrow the rich might require for their own defence, he would advise hon. Gentlemen not to laugh at it. It was said—
Cervantes laughed Spain's chivalry away;and it was not a good thing for Spain when that happened; so the day might come when Gentlemen who laughed now might prize those principles which today appeared so absurd. He had ventured to say that this legislation was new, unprecedented, and, to borrow a phrase from the Treasury Bench, "heroic legislation." What was the reason this "heroic legislation" was attempted? It was from fear of "the roughs." Now, he wanted to know what was "a rough?" He often wondered, when he heard the expression, whether he was "a rough." His hon. Friends the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther), who were the real authors of the Bill, and who used the Treasury Bench in this matter, declared that he was a rough. Well, then, if they would excuse him, he was acting here in hi own defence, pro domâ suâ. Now, how would they define "a rough?" Did they mean a man who habitually broke the law or was disposed to break it? He supposed that was what was generally intended by the word. But hon. Gentlemen were not generally so severe in their legislation against people who habitually broke the law. There was an instance of their dealing with people of that class last Session, when they voted £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of the public money to compensate them. So that when hon. Members had to do with 921 roughs of their own class they did not arrest them without warrant, but compensated them out of the money of the people. Now, looking the other day into the organs of public information, he found the object of the Bill described in a journal which he always read with the greatest reverence, one with which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge was not altogether unacquainted. That journal stated that the object of the Bill was to get rid of "that loathsome and disorderly crew who may any afternoon be seen disporting themselves like Yahoos in St. James's Park." Now, many Members were in the habit of coming down to the House through St. James's Park, and must have seen those who were thus described in a journal said to be "written by gentlemen for gentlemen." He had himself seen those "Yahoos" in St. James's Park in the sultry months of July, not so well dressed as his hon. Friends, but lying asleep on the grass, and he was glad to see them there—the only time when, living, perhaps, as they did among the slums of Westminster, they were able to get a breath of fresh air. Now, if this Bill was intended to turn out these "loathsome and disorderly Yahoos" from St. James's Park, and to prevent them from getting a breath of fresh air, that was one of the reasons why he opposed it. He could not help feeling that this Bill was part of that whole campaign indicated in the early part of the afternoon, which was intended, among other things, to resist giving a corner of the Thames Embankment to the people. In the case of Epping Forest, in the case of the New Forest, on questions on enclosure—in short, wherever there was a chance of the people of this country getting a little fresh air, a little further space, there, sometimes with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, sometimes without it, he and a few of his Friends had to fight a perpetual battle against a Liberal Administration. Now, he for one declined leaving questions of this kind to the Ranger, and he should like to say why. He happened to sit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Thames Embankment Committee, and there was some evidence given before it which showed how functionaries of that description regarded their duties in this matter. A witness was called by the Government 922 to prove that no spaces of the kind to be found on the Embankment should be allowed for a public garden, because it would be so injurious either to private houses connected with it, or even to public offices. He would read a sentence or two from the evidence of Mr. Cates, of the Office of Woods and Forests. That gentleman said—A garden of that kind may possibly become a playground, and it is not a very pleasant thing to have a playground and children playing under your windows.That showed the spirit in which those Acts were administered by officials of that description, and it was into the hands of such men the making of those regulations would be put. Again, when the witness was asked—"Can it be used as a playground, do you think? "The answer was—" I have no doubt that the ingenuity of children may be able to do that." These were the gentlemen who, in return for their official salaries, tried to defeat the ingenuity of children who wished for a playground. He would vote against placing the open spaces of this country in the hands of persons of that description. Three courses had been proposed upon this subject. One was to let it alone—the wise advice of a former Leader of a Liberal party, who did not get into so many scrapes as the present Leader did. The second course was that which he had suggested—namely, that the Parks should be placed under the control of the police of the district. Do not let it be said that he and those who acted with him were the enemies of order. His proposal was a sufficient answer to any such charge; but there would then be a security that the regulation of the Parks would be in the hands not of servants appointed by the Ranger, but by a responsible authority under regular discipline. The statement that the powers under the Bill were in conformity with the Police Act was unfounded; those arbitrary powers of summary arrest, though they might perhaps have slipped into some local Bill, did not exist elsewhere. A third course was to take the scheme of the Bill, and, if possible, extract from it its virus and venom. The disadvantage of such a course was, that it constituted a separate authority from the metropolitan police which seemed undesirable. He, therefore, moved the omission of the 3rd 923 clause with a view to insert a clause placing the control of the Parks under the police.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that having been at the foot of Nelson's column and heard the speeches sometimes delivered there, he thought his hon. and learned Friend must have intended to give the House some kind of idea of those speeches, addressed as they were to people whose information was not such as to make them aware that they were misled. He would not follow his hon. and learned Friend into questions about Army purchase, but would merely repeat propositions of law, which were quite accurate—first, that where corporate bodies had control over a place common law would give them the right of making byelaws to regulate the use of that place; and, next, that to such bodies had been delegated the power of making regulations which were penal. It was not necessary to go back to Magna Charta. He preferred to quote Acts of Parliament passed when we had grown somewhat wiser. Now, in the very last Session of Parliament two Acts had been passed for the regulation of "Wimbledon and Putney Parks, which adjoined Richmond, and of Wandsworth Common, which was actually in the metropolis. Those Acts contained the same clause empowering any constable or officer of the Conservators (who were in exactly the same position as the Commissioners of Works) to seize and detain any person offending against the Act or against any by-law of the Conservators whose name or address was unknown to them, and convey him before a justice to be dealt with according to law. The Act from which he quoted was a private Act, but the result of a great deal of agitation, and was passed at the instance of the very Gentleman with whom his hon. and learned Friend was co-operating to vindicate the rights of the people in the enjoyment of the Parks. The Committee, of which his hon. and learned Friend was so distinguished a Member, were the promoters of the Bill, and yet when the Government followed in their footsteps the hon. and learned Gentleman came down to accuse them of conspiring against the liberties of the people. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persist in his opposition, but would now allow the Bill to make progress. As a metropolitan Member, his experience 924 was, that to place the Parks under the control of the police would not be at all to the gratification of the people; but would, on the contrary, be most disagreeable to them. It was rather a misfortune that the Parks were not in the hands of an organized system of park-keepers, fitted to perform the special duties required of them, and kept under efficient control. The police were now used to a considerable extent, quite as much as was desirable, and no one could assert that the park-keepers were, in conduct and character, inferior to the police. As a general proposition, it would be wholly impracticable to put the Parks under the regulation of the police, who did not possess the necessary powers in harmony with the cultivation and use of the Parks for a variety of purposes. For the police to undertake the charge of the Parks was quite impracticable, and so far from such a step conducing to the liberty of the subject, it would place the whole matter in the hands of the Commissioner of Police, who was not directly responsible to the House of Commons, and take it out of the hands of a Member of the Government who was responsible to the House of Commons at all times. If, therefore, there was anything bad in the Bill, the Amendment would make it ten times worse.
§ SIR HENRY HOARE, in common with all but one or two of the metropolitan Members, believed the object of the Bill was to put the Parks under the control of an officer who would withdraw the right of public meeting. Now, surely it was not wise in times of danger to sit on the safety-valve, and it was much better that the people of London should have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. If only a small number of people, and those disposed to create a disturbance, assembled on such occasions, that was an indication in its way of what the real feeling of the people at large was. It was rather strange that the metropolitan Members should have to come down to the House at any hour of the night to oppose measures introduced by the very Government which they were elected to support. A short time ago the First Commissioner of Works wanted to cut down the trees in Kensington Gardens, and he now aimed at clearing the Parks of the class of people usually frequenting them. It seemed as if the Government wished to 925 concentrate on him all the odium they incurred, and as if the right hon. Gentleman intended making the Parks a wilderness into which to wander as a scapegoat. He should advise the Government to revert to first principles—to that "flesh-and-blood" doctrine which was their original principle, and he would appeal to the Prime Minister to act handsomely and withdraw the Bill at once. He believed that the success of the measure and an attempt by the keepers to exclude the people from the Parks would provoke a serious emeute.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not know whether the First Commissioner of Works had been at the foot of the Nelson column as a speaker or a listener; but if his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) at all resembled the speeches delivered there they must be poor stuff indeed. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to disdain Magna Charta and to prefer as precedents Acts passed since he had held office. As to the Wimbledon Common Act, it was passed under very peculiar circumstances; and it did not follow because one Act containing objectionable provisions had slipped through the House without comment that that was to be held up as a precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman thought so much of the Act, would he be prepared to adopt another of its provisions, which was that all persons holding property above a certain value should be taxed for the benefit of all the rest? Unless some better precedent could be adduced he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he was surprised at the tone of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare). That hon. Baronet talked as though the Parks belonged to the people of London; but the fact was, that they belonged to the nation at large, who had to pay the cost of keeping them up. If Londoners wished the entire control of them, let them purchase the fee-simple, as other towns which required Parks had to do, unless, indeed, they had munificent benefactors like the late Sir Francis Crossley. As things stood, it displayed some audacity, a quality in which the hon. Baronet was not deficient, for Londoners to assume a tone of dictation as to the management of the Parks.
§ MR. MELLYsaid, he should claim the vote of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), on behalf of those living in the country when the Thames Embankment was discussed, with reference to persons being made to pay for property they had taken from the Crown. He agreed that the Parks were the property of the whole nation, and thought that they should be placed under the control of the metropolitan police, because there would be a responsible Minister from whom they could demand explanations, and who would be responsible for the acts of the police.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, before he left office the principle of placing the Parks in the care of the metropolitan police had been practically adopted, and he believed it was recognized up to that very moment. But that was a very different question to that raised by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt). It appeared to him that to adopt such an Amendment would be a hasty and inconsiderate step. The only persons appointed by the Ranger were the gatekeepers. All the other functionaries connected with the Parks were appointed by the First Commissioner of Public Works. The only question before the Committee was the 3rd clause, which defined a park-keeper; and if no better definition could be suggested, they ought to proceed to vote upon it.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the clause affirmed the principle of park keeping, and therefore it was opposed. The last division reached the Government's working majority of 27, and therefore there was no reason to despair. The Government affirmed that they sought no powers except those already conferred on municipal corporations, and he challenged that assertion. The search for precedents had failed, and had produced nothing but one extraordinary farrago of erroneous law. The Bill proposed to give power to arrest without warrant Her Majesty's subjects in a manner which was entirely unprecedented.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that for 32 years the Metropolitan Police had had the power of arresting individuals without a warrant for a great variety of offences, including that of keeping a ferocious dog at large, singing obscene songs, furious driving, destroying trees and shrubs in a public walk, extinguishing a lamp, and fly- 927 ing kites, &c. It was not likely that the operation of the Bill would add new powers to those which had been so long exercised without complaint. But in order to give the security which was demanded he would propose that the rules and regulations to be made for the Parks should be laid on the Table of the House for a certain time before they could come into operation. One set would not do for all the Parks, because cabs circulated freely in Regent's Park and not in Hyde Park.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been made in an extremely hasty manner, and Notice of it ought to have been given. It involved a very serious alteration in the whole scheme, and it ought to be placed on the Notice Paper for several days before they were called upon to discuss it.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department that all these rides and regulations should be laid before Parliament before they became lawchanged the entire character of the Bill, and he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) in thinking it necessary that they should have due time for its consideration. He begged, therefore, to move that the Chairman now report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Locke.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) could hardly be serious in making that Motion. He thought also that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) was a little severe in laying down that no Government engaged in discussing the details of a Bill was ever to make a concession for the sake of procuring harmony and a general agreement, except upon giving several days' Notice. His hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had, however, actually placed on the Notice Paper a proposal which had now been before the House for a considerable time—an Amendment to the effect that the rules to be made under the Bill should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if not disapproved by either House within a month afterwards, they should 928 come into force. The Government had as sincere a respect as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) for the liberty of the subject, and desired to surround it with proper guarantees. There might, however, be cases of particular celebrations in the Parks which might present exceptional circumstances, and which might require regulations of a special and temporary character; and therefore, it might be necessary to introduce into his hon. Friend's (Mr. Ryland's) Amendment some modification in respect to regulations that were strictly exceptional. Thus, the control of Parliament would be maintained over the by-laws which might be made; and he hoped that, now they had such an admirable opportunity of settling the details of the Bill, the Motion for reporting Progress would not be pressed.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYI am astonished at the course suddenly taken by the Government. The question before us is that the 3rd clause stand part of the Bill, and that clause has to do with the duties of park-keeper, and to have such a proposal as that now made brought forward under such circumstances by the Government, is about the most irregular proceeding I ever heard of in my life. Let us either do one thing or the other; but what has this new proposition to do with the 3rd clause of the Bill? The Government ought to have the strength to stand on what they have done. They have introduced a measure the 3rd clause of which defines the duties of the park-keeper, and now, when they find that they do not get support where they looked for it, and get it where they had no right to expect it, they immediately turn round and sell themselves to the enemy. Surely we have a right to complain that they should thus, all of a sudden, on a clause referring to an entirely different subject, take the opportunity of saying that they mean to alter the complexion of their Bill? ["No!"] Yes, I venture to say they alter the whole complexion of their Bill. The Bill was put forward as one intended to be carried out on the responsibility of the Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) at first told us that he was going to take upon himself, and to place on all his successors in his office, the responsibility for the rules and regulations to be made for the Parks, But 929 what do we now find? Why, that the Government are seeking to evade their proper responsibility, and to shift it to the shoulders of this and the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when, he ought years ago to have taken the part that any man would have taken who was interested in the order of the country and not in its disorder, when a Bill on this subject was proposed, instead of attempting to amend the measure, the right hon. Gentleman, who now wants order in the Parks, then set himself against order. Now, however, having brought in his Bill, he turns round and throws the whole thing into confusion, keeping open the discussion and controversy about it for years; for that must be the effect of leaving it to be fought over from time to time in either House of Parliament, where, as long as different parties exist, there must be constant contests upon each of these rules. I say this is a cowardly proceeding—a proceeding unworthy of a Government which takes upon itself to legislate on such a subject. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) has taken his line, and other hon. Members have taken theirs. On a former occasion I took the line that I thought right, and I did not shrink from it either as a Member of the Government or as a Member of the Opposition; but I came here to vote for a Bill for the carrying out of which the Ministry was to be responsible; and now I find that I am asked to vote for a Bill which casts the responsibility on either House of Parliament. This is a new way of dealing with the other House which we have already seen dealt with in so unpleasant a way by those who profess to respect it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) told us, in a proper and consistent manner, that the Minister would be answerable for the rules which the Ranger made. That is a proposition which Parliament may accept, because we should have a responsible Minister to deal with. But now the Secretary of State for the Home Department says—"We will leave this House to deal with any rules that may be framed." I say that such a proposal ought not to be introduced at this period of the discussion, and I say further that it is neither a satisfactory nor an honest way of treating the question.
MR. GLADSTONEOn a former night I ventured to observe that this was not a question that required the heroic style of speaking. I then thought that character applied more or less to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt); but to-night we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman opposite a magnificent specimen of the heroic style. And I must say that if there be any man in this House who can contrive—if our object is to find the man who can contrive to import into the plainest practical matter of business and common sense the acid and venomous spirit of party—it is the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Of that spirit I have never known a more wanton or more extravagant manifestation than he has just given us. The right hon. Gentleman is here as our supporter, and of course, Sir, we are very grateful for the kind support tendered on this occasion. But let us descend a little from these higher flights. In discussing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman protests against the introduction of irrelevant matters; he pins us to the 3rd clause and the duties of the park-keepers, and having done that he brings a charge against me without the slightest foundation, and without attempting to say a word to justify it, about my conduct in respect to a Parks Bill some five or six years ago. That is the way in which he observes his own rule of speaking closely to the precise language of the 3rd clause. I challenge him to bring forward, if he likes, my conduct in regard to that former Parks Bill. I tell him that on that Bill I did all I could—with reference to the feebleness and the bungling of the Government of that day—to make the best that the circumstances permitted of the unfortunate position in which they placed the power and authority of the Legislature and of the Crown at the mercy of the populace of London. That was their exploit, and from their blundering have resulted all the difficulties in which subsequent Governments have been placed in regard to the Parks. Now, what is the charge against me? I have been betrayed for a moment into the heroic style. I found the speech of the right hon. Gentleman so attractive that I could not help making an attempt at a humble imitation of, although, while using my best efforts, I must always re- 931 main far below his lofty flight. The right hon. Gentleman says it is improper to refer to any other portion of the Bill when we are dealing with the 3rd clause. I know that, according to the strict rule of the Committee, it is desirable, as far as possible, to discuss the matter of the clause, and nothing but the matters of the clause; but it was pointed out very justly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford that in the 3rd clause, which treats of the duties of park-keepers, we were really dealing with the basis of the Bill. Now, why do we define the duties of the park-keepers in this clause except it be with reference to the ulterior purpose of assigning to them certain functions and powers? The right hon. Gentleman, in the midst of all his fume and fire which he has poured forth, and of which he has a stock so abundant that he can dispense it on any occasion without notice and in any quantity, has preferred one intelligible charge in the vague declamation with which he has flooded us; and his intelligible charge is that we are shirking responsibility. Those are plain words. How, then, are we shirking responsibility? Is it by providing that, instead of framing regulations hereafter, and leaving it to the House or any hon. Member to call over the coals my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, we are willing to accede to the proposal that my right hon. Friend's regulations shall be laid upon the Table and shall not become law until they have been laid upon the Table for a certain time? Is not my right hon. Friend to be responsible for the regulations he may lay upon the Table? The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be so blinded by a determination to convert into a polemical discussion that which ought to have been one of the most prosaic discussions in which we were ever engaged, that he entirely forgets we are not proposing to alter the initiative. We propose that the regulations shall be made by the proper officers of the Government, and that after being made they shall be laid upon the Table, so as to give a more convenient opportunity to Parliament of doing that which is the proper function of Parliament—namely, of challenging the acts of the Government and of intercepting them, if it thinks fit, before they have taken full effect. I hope and entreat if that we 932 are to maintain our reputation as an Assembly which meets for the purposes of business, we may on an occasion when the subject under discussion is strictly a matter of business, be allowed to return to this humble 3rd clause.
§ MR. DISRAELIThere may have been a great deal of heroic talking, but what we should like to see would be a little more heroic acting. We should like to see the Government stick to their colours. They do not even surrender at discretion. For a greater want of discretion than to give up the whole point which they have now been contesting for two nights, I never before witnessed. The defence made by the right hon. Gentleman is singular. We do charge the Government with shirking the responsibility they had engaged to incur. The right hon. Gentleman says—"What foundation have you for this charge? True it is that we are no longer prepared under the conditions of the Act of Parliament to propose and adopt regulations for the Parks; but we will devise regulations and place them on the Table, and thus give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them." But how are the Parks to be regulated in the interval? Judging from the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and the exposition of the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us, there must be an interval of anarchy. ["Oh, oh!"] If I have misunderstood the matter, that is only an additional proof that when so considerable a change is suddenly brought forward in a Ministerial measure we ought to have an opportunity of understanding more intelligibly the proposition. That the proposition is contrary to their original one nobody can for a moment doubt. As to the attack which has been made upon my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) with reference to what occurred six years ago, no doubt a great deal has occurred in those six years, and one ought to have notice in order to collect one's memory as to the circumstances. I think, however, I can remember this—that under the difficult circumstances in which my right hon. Friend was placed with reference to legislating in regard to the Parks, the course he took on the occasion was a direct course, which he professed without circumlocution and supported with spirit. I remember that a right hon. Gentle 933 man opposite, who had occupied the post of Secretary of State in a Government which also dealt with this matter, did feel it consistent with his honour as a Member of Parliament, as a former Minister, and as a gentleman, to come forward and give a manly and straightforward support to the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, who had been a Member of the same Cabinet, sat night after night in sullen silence, and never spoke with reference to the proceedings that took place in the Park, except, I believe, when he addressed a tumultuous multitude from the balcony of his own private residence.
MR. GLADSTONEI am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's imagination should have led him astray; but, as Mr. Sheridan has remarked, there have been former occasions when a Gentleman has drawn on his memory for his jokes and on his imagination for his facts. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into that error. In regard to the one intelligible sentence in his remarks, I can only say that there is not a single shred, syllable, or shadow of truth in it. ["Order!"] I mean to say there is no foundation of fact in it whatever. The right hon. Gentleman says that after the lapse of six years it is necessary to rub up one's recollection by reference to what really occurred, and I strongly recommend him to practice the doctrine he has preached, and to improve his memory of those things before he ventures to make such extraordinary statements.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would not draw on his imagination, but state a notorious fact. When his right hon. Friend sitting near him (Mr. S. Walpole), then Secretary of State for the Home Department, issued a notice forbidding a meeting in the Park, a Motion was made in that House by a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman opposite'(Mr. Gladstone), the then Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Neate), to the effect that the country was indebted to his right hon. Friend for having issued the notice. But the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion walked up to Mr. Neate and asked him to withdraw his Notice, and the hon. Gentleman did withdraw it.
MR. GLADSTONEI did not think that the imagination which prevails on the front bench had extended so far as the third. It is impossible to answer 934 charges of this kind which are extemporized from time to time, without dates or particulars. I can only say that I have no recollection whatever of any accuracy or any foundation of fact for the statement just made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped he might be permitted amid this wrath of chiefs to say a few words of calm mediation between such great allies. The grand alliance seemed to have been broken up; and a state of things had arisen which reminded him of the picture which represented bandits quarrelling over their plunder, and by means of which the rightful owners came by their own. He hoped that by the quarrel that had now taken place the country would come by its own. Now that a certain state of things had arisen, in all probability the people of London would again have the right of enjoying the Parks as they used formerly to do, without these restrictions. He should never feel ashamed at being called "heroic;" but nothing that he could say could bear that interpretation, in comparison with what had been said on both sides of the House. When the First Commissioner of Works charged him with addressing the House in a style fit for the base of the Nelson Column, what did he think of what he had just heard? The Members below the gangway could not rise to anything like that level; but after they had been in office 25 years they might hope to reach to something like it. He would now suggest that hon. Members should confine themselves to the transaction of the business before them, which at present was the 3rd clause. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), who rushed somewhat suddenly into the fray, had not, he believed, heard what was said on the subject. They wanted to divide upon the 3rd clause in order to assert the principle that the management of the Parks should be in the hands of the Metropolitan Police, and not in the hands of the Ranger. If his proposal to give to the police the regulation of the Parks were agreed to, the difficulty would be removed, the grand quarrel which had dissolved the temporary alliance between the two parties would cease, and they might once more kiss and be friends.
MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he well remembered the occasion when the present Prime Minister, then sitting on the front Opposition bench, preserved a significant silence during the debate on the meeting in the Parks, and while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was speaking, took up his hat, walked out of the House, and did not return.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was great inconvenience in recalling suddenly what occurred so long ago, because you could not always recall it with precision. The charge against him was a charge of silence on a particular occasion. He, perhaps, ran some risk in meeting the charge from memory—a memory which was overloaded, and which, as time passed, did not improve; but he thought that he was able to supply a rational explanation of the charge. If he remembered rightly, the intentions of the Government of that day was to prohibit the meeting in the Park. He knew perfectly well, and wished them to have the benefit of the admission, that in their intention to prohibit that meeting as an illegal meeting they were supported by Gentlemen of high authority sitting on his side. But he himself never regarded that meeting as illegal; he was not prepared to concur in proceedings against it as illegal; he believed that they did end in the breakdown, and the rather discouraging breakdown, in which they did end; and under these circum-stances he thought he did not pursue an indiscreet course when, not being able to support the Government of the day in the measures they proposed, no doubt with the best intentions, for the preservation of order, he left the House.
§ MR. J. LOWTHER, as a Member of the Committee of last year upon this Bill, did not regard the Home Secretary's Amendment as so important that the Committee need report Progress. He thought the spirit of the measure would not be destroyed even if the Amendment were adopted. The Committee could not do better than devote themselves to the consideration of the clauses, in the course of which, no doubt, the warmth of feeling which had arisen would calm down. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear!]
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 225: Majority 188.
936COLONEL GILPINasked permission to make an explanation. He did not wish to make a statement that was not perfectly accurate, and in order to confirm what he had said he now called the attention of the Committee to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, made on the 3rd of May, 1867, when the following Resolution was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr Neate):—
That Her Majesty's Government in refusing the use of Hyde Park for the purpose of holding a Political Meeting, have asserted the legal right of the Crown, and deserve the support of this House in so doing.The right hon. Gentleman opposite said on that occasion that on questions of this kind but one sentiment could prevail on both sides of the House with regard to the propriety of preserving public order; and conformably to that sentiment he made an appeal to his hon. Fiend (Mr. Neate) not to ask the House to go to a vote, which would, no doubt, be misconceived and misunderstood.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. He frankly owned, however, that when the hon. and gallant Member stated that he had spoken to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), and made a suggestion to him, he did so in a private manner. There was not a word now read which he did not own and avow.
§ MR VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he wished the Committee to understand that they were now about to divide on the 3rd clause, and he wished to negative it because it proposed to place the Parks under park-keepers appointed by the Rangers, instead of placing them under the Metropolitan Police.
§ Question put, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 66: Majority 140.
§ Clause 4 (Penalty on violating regulations in schedule).
§ MR. RYLANDS moved, in line 25, to leave out "five pounds," and insert "forty shillings." One of the offences for which a £5 penalty was to be imposed was that of driving or riding furiously, so as to endanger the safety of people; but the same offence, if committed in the streets, where furiously driving and riding were more likely to 937 endanger persons, was at present only liable to a penalty of 40s.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the words "five pounds," in order to insert the words "forty shillings,"—(Mr. Rylands,)—instead thereof.
MR. BRUCEsaid, in every Act passed for maintaining good order in Parks the penalty imposed for this offence was £5 or under, at the discretion of the magistrates, and if it were deemed a heavy penalty the riders and drivers in the Royal Parks were the very persons who could afford to pay it.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that the Bill of 1867, which was the Bill of a Conservative Government, imposed a penalty of 40s. That Bill was opposed by the Liberal party, and by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, in order, perhaps, that he might afterwards introduce a Bill with a heavier penalty. One of the offences which were to be punished by arrest without warrant in the case of common people had, in respect to another person, been rewarded with a County Court Judgeship and a salary of £1,500 a-year. It was not correct to say that on the introduction of the Bill of 1867 the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government was silent, for he expressed his views very clearly. Speaking of meetings in Hyde Park the right hon. Gentleman said—
It is undesirable to forbid these things. In these meetings there is a certain desire of demonstration which I believe to be perfectly innocent and entirely devoid of any ulterior intention of the use of force.…. I am apprehensive of a measure the effect of which will be to limit the power of holding open-air meetings.… If the people wish to make a demonstration they may hold meetings in the streets, in Trafalgar Square, and in the open spaces within the metropolis, other than the Parks, which will be more inconvenient to the public than the holding of such meetings in the Parks."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 394.]He would read, with reference to this offence liable to a penalty of £5, a passage from the speech of one whose absence they all regretted, and those below the gangway especially regretted, because had he been present they would not be brooding over the broken fortunes of a shattered and disheartened party. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) laughed. They—the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway—did not laugh. They had too much to swal- 938 low. The sentiments of that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright), who was once a Member of the present Government—and if he had still been one this Bill would never have been introduced; and if he had still been in his place in the House the Bill would have met with his severest opposition—were worth attention. The right hon. Gentleman said—But if these great meetings have not been attended with any evil results, is it worth while, or statesmanlike (there were statesmen in those days), or sagacious (there were sagacious men, too, in those days), to introduce such a measure at this moment.…. I believe, moreover, that the Bill will fail in times of excitement. Your 40s, fine, your £10 fine, your police magistrate, all will go down in a period of great excitement among a great population."—[Ibid. 401.]
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that was a higher fine, no doubt, than the present Bill proposed; but as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had once already that evening requested that he might be allowed to finish his sentence without interruption, he would, perhaps, extend the same courtesy even to an hon. Member below the gangway. No doubt the £10 fine was more severe in the Bill of the Conservative Government than the present one; but in all other respects the penalties were lighter. The Conservative Government had been content, in other respects, with a penalty of 40s., and it had not sanctioned arrests without warrant. These were discoveries reserved for a Liberal Administration. But it was an age of progress, and they were a party of progress. The right hon. Member for Birmingham continued—
The effect of your passing this Bill now, when you are sending to the House what may possibly be a more liberally elected Parliament (that now sitting), will be that this Parliament will leave behind it a grievance which, in my opinion, will rather stimulate the minds of 100,000 people in the metropolis, and will make them long rather to go to the Park in order to show their resentment against such a measure. I suppose it will not be possible, even after this Bill has passed, if, unfortunately, it should pass, to prevent 100,000 people going into Hyde Park.…. I do not object to the Parks being kept with great care for the free enjoyment of the people, but I hold that there is no enjoyment, there is no duty, there is no assemblage more becoming a free people to take part in than such meetings. …. I think the House will feel that unless there be a very strong, urgent, and unanswerable necessity, it is not our duty, or our interest, to make more stringent laws with regard 939 to the holding of public meetings ….Trust the people then in the future as you hare in the past. Make no new laws on the matter. Ought we to shut the gates of the Park in order that the nerves of certain genteel classes may not be shaken by the ungenteel presence of the people? I would not bolt the doors of the Park, and say to the millions who are not of the genteel class that they shall not come into the Park because they are apt to disturb the nerves of those who are more genteel."—[Ibid. 401–2.]No doubt these were strong words; but the nerves of the unreformed Parliament were stronger than the nerves of the Parliament of to-day. The House should remember that under this Bill the question as to whether any given public meeting was or was not to be held in the Park would depend, not upon the strict interpretation of the law of the land, but upon the will of two officials—the Commissioner of Works, who might be a Member of this or that party, and the Ranger, who might represent neither side of the House. It was most unjust, whether with respect to public meetings or the various offences included in the schedule, to impose a penalty such as no Government had ever before ventured to impose. The Bill of the late Government did not, except in the case of public meetings, include the power of summary arrest for breach of regulations. He should therefore support the proposal of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) to reduce the penalties to that which every borough magistrate knew to be the maximum fine for moderate offences—namely, 40s.; and he trusted the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) would support this view of the matter also.
§ MR. AYRTONregretted his hon. and learned Friend was not content with discussing the clause before the Committee, and submitted that it would be better to take the clauses in their order. If the hon. and learned Member did this, he might read all Hansard through if he liked. The present question was that, assuming the propriety of making regulations for the general use and enjoyment of the Parks and the prevention of mischief and destruction of property therein, what regulations should be made? His hon. and learned Friend sought to protect the poor and put them on an equality with the rich; with this object in view be suggested a small penalty; but surely this would not do, because a man with a good coat on his back would not feel a fine of 940 40s., and if a maximum fine of £5 were named in the Act, a fine which was taken from the general clauses of the Metropolitan Police Act, it did not follow that the full penalty would be imposed in the case of offenders whose means were small. He referred the hon. and learned Member to the Act of last Session, passed on the recommendation of his Committee.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was totally unacquainted even with the title of the Bill referred to.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, it was extremely unfortunate; but his hon. and learned. Friend was ostensibly the Chairman of the Committee to secure Open Spaces for the enjoyment of the people, and notwithstanding he had attended public meetings and addressed large audiences, expatiating on the demerits of every one who opposed him, yet when he was looked up to for instruction he denied all knowledge of matters in which he had taken this leading part. He found that last year a series of by-laws, enforceable by penalties of £5, had been passed for regulating a common within the limits of the metropolis by a body of Conservators, persons as horrible even as a Ranger, since they were not directly responsible to the House. In fact, they were, if anything, worse, for a Ranger could be removed on the advice of Her Majesty's Government, whereas he knew of no human power which could remove a whole body of Conservators. Notwithstanding the disclaimer of his hon. and learned Friend, he must repeat that the Bill had been passed under his auspices—he might say, under his patronage. But his hon. Friend, like other great patrons, did not know what was done in his name.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) were very convincing. In point of fact, the penalty was £5, but "not exceeding £5," and he thought they might well trust to the discretion of the magistrates to discriminate between rich and poor.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had again made a statement which he felt bound to point out was wholly incorrect. Section 54 of the public Act which had been referred to, imposed a penalty, not of £5, but of 40s. [Mr. AYRTON rose to make an ob- 941 servation.] His right hon. Friend would have an opportunity of correcting him by-and-by. [Interruptions.] But perhaps the Prime Minister would wish to correct him at once.
MR. GLADSTONErose to Order, and requested his hon. and learned Friend would not make remarks on persons around him. For his own part, he had been entirely and absolutely silent.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that perhaps he had been mistaken as to the quarter from which the interruption proceeded. There was, at all events, one hon. Member who was not "entirely and absolutely silent." The question was, what was the ordinary rule in cases of the kind as to penalties of the sort. The 54th section imposed a penalty of 40s., and that included a case in which the Commissioners of Police were allowed to act, which led back to the wretched precedents of former days.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, his hon. and learned Friend impugned his accuracy, but had himself abstained from reading the further clause, which declared that "for every offence for which no special penalty was imposed a penalty not exceeding £5," might be recovered.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it monstrous that penalties "not exceeding £5" should be imposed on persons walking on any shrubbery or flower-bed, or plucking a flower or leaf. It amounted to persecution.
MR. OTWAYsaid, the First Commissioner of Works appeared to be exceedingly disingenuous in his explanations; and, for his own part, he must apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for not being able to change his opinions as quickly as he had done. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to distinguish between the man with a good coat on his back and the man with a bad one, why did he not confine the penalty of £5 to persons riding furiously, and why did he visit with the heaviest fine persons playing at games or playing music in the Parks? A worse or more mischievously drawn Bill, or part of a Bill, than Schedule 1 he had never seen—unless, indeed, it was Schedule 2. He remembered that in 1867, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was opposing with great earnestness the Parks Bill, brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was always said—"Why do you come to Hyde Paris? Why not go to Prim- 942 rose Hill, or Hampstead Heath, or other open spaces?" By this Bill neither Primrose Hill nor Hampstead Heath would be any longer an open space, and Primrose Hill was brought within the provisions of the schedule. He would not use towards the right hon. Gentleman language which he had used towards the Royal Family—giving them "notice to quit," and saying that they must be out of St. James's Palace within one year, but he would ask how he proposed to deal with any unhappy foreigners with exaggerated notions of the right of public meetings, but without the sum of £5 in their pockets, who might happen to be brought up for violating the provisions of this Act? [Question!"] He could not conceal his regret at finding Gentlemen on the Treasury bench bringing in a Bill far more stringent and far more offensive than had over been brought in by the party opposite.
MR. HENLEYobjected to many parts of this Bill, and he considered £50 as a penalty was not too much for rich people who committed the offences mentioned, and knew at the same time that they were breaking the law. One of the regulations of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was the offence of disturbing anything grazing. Had he inserted the word "wilfully" it would have exempted children running about from being subjected to such a penalty.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was astonished to find Gentlemen unconnected with the metropolis raising objections to a Bill, which, in the Select Committee, metropolitan Members had allowed to make very considerable progress before any division was taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), had no right to assume, as he did, that all the persons punished under this Bill would belong to the working class, or that they would be fined in the full penalty of £5. The hon. Member (Mr. Otway) had stated that he had not changed his opinion so rapidly as certain other hon. Members; but in glancing through the pages of Hansard he found that in 1867 the hon. Member spoke thus in reference to the Parks—
He had already expressed an opinion that Hyde Park was not at all a suitable plane for holding political meetings; and he therefore had no sympathy with those who intended to hold a 943 political meeting in that place."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 1981.]
§ MR. MACFIEsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down, had stated that this Bill was interesting only to metropolitan Members; but he must have forgotten that Holyrood Park was included in the schedule of the Bill. The people in the Northern part of the island were not accustomed to such large fines as £5.
§ Question put, "That the words 'fire pounds' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 59: Majority 124.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.