HC Deb 08 March 1872 vol 209 cc1727-42

(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Baxter.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd February.]

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6 (Penalty on assaults on park-keeper), agreed to.

Clause 7 (Powers, duties, and privileges of park-keeper).

MR. RYLANDS

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) had suggested that the Parks should be put under the police. He believed that Hyde Park was, to a great extent, under the control of the metropolitan police; but that in the case of Regent's Park, the metropolitan police had no jurisdiction, or, at all events, were not employed there. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner would give the House some information as to the circumstances under which the police were employed in some Parks, and park-keepers were employed in other Parks. He also wished to know by whom the deputy ranger, the superintendent under the ranger, and the five superintendents were appointed, and what were their duties?

MR. AYRTON

said, there was no doubt a great distinction in the mode in which these various Parks were managed. There was only a ranger for Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and Richmond Park; and there were no rangers in the other Parks. Wherever there was a ranger, that ranger appointed those park-keepers who kept the gates. The interior of Hyde Park had for some time been under the supervision of the police, who there performed the duties of park-keepers; and in the other Parks the police were not employed to the same extent, the persons employed being under the control of the Board of Works. At Richmond Park, where there were deer, an establishment in connection with the deer was maintained. There was no ranger at Regent's Park, which was entirely under the administration of the Office of Works also. Under the provisions of the Bill the park-keepers would be liable to penalties, and assume the character of public officers fully as much as the police.

MR. HERMON

asked, whether these park-keepers were to be under the control of the Commissioners of Police as well as of the Commissioner of Works?

MR. AYRTON

said, they would not be under the control of the Commissioners of Police in the same sense in which police constables were under their control in regard to the duties they performed in the Parks; but they would be subject to the police regulations as far as they imposed upon the park-keepers particular duties, and penalties for their non-performance. To that extent they would be liable to prosecution like police officers for misconduct. They would, of course, be under the direction of the Commissioner of Works as regarded the Parks,

MR. HERMON

thought the words of the clause were ambiguous. They would, lead to a great deal of trouble, unless a clearer definition of what they intended was given, for they did not clearly define what were to be the respective functions of the Commissioner of Works and of the Commissioners of Police in regard to these Parks. Anybody would understand from the clause that the park-keepers were to be under the Commissioners of Police.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

agreed with the hon. Member, and was quite satisfied that the section should remain unaltered, as it would carry out the proposal he had made for placing the Parks under the control of the police. The effect of the legal interpretation of the section would be to place the park-keepers under the direction of the police, and that was all he desired.

Clause agreed, to.

Clauses 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Summary proceedings for offences).

MR. AYRTON moved, as a technical Amendment, in page 3, line 15, insert "in Scotland," in order to bring the Parks in Scotland within the provisions of the Bill.

SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN

said, that he had given Notice in another part of the Bill of an Amendment which would exclude from its operation the Parks of Holyrood and Linlithgow. His reason for moving that Amendment was not because he desired to see any difference made between the laws of Scotland and England, but the present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be rendered unnecessary should his subsequent one be carried. It would be convenient at once to state why he proposed to except the Parks of Linlithgow and Holyrood from the operation of the Bill. He thought that he was perfectly right in stating that what was called the Peel or Park of Linlithgow consisted only of a very few acres—eight or nine at the most—and therefore it would be almost as sensible to legislate for a village green as it was for that; but the Park of Holyrood, commonly known as the Queen's Park, stood in a very different position. It embraced a circuit of some five miles, and contained a large area of plain and mountain land, diversified with rocks, loch, and hill scenery as wild and as beautiful as any place of equal area in the county of Sutherland, so that it was in no way whatever to be ranked under the title of "Royal Parks and Gardens." Certainly there was not a single flower bed in the whole Park, or anything that could be injured by the kind of usage against which the public Parks were ordinarily protected. One provision was, that no one should destroy any grass plot or get on any of the flower beds, or pick any of the flowers, and no person should discharge any firearms, or make any bonfire, or throw or set fire to any fireworks in a Royal Park. Now, in Holyrood Park there happened to be the principal rifle range used by the neighbouring people of Edinburgh, and on all occasions of public rejoicing, Holyrood Park was the place, above all others, where fireworks were displayed. He stated that to show that the provisions of the Bill were wholly inapplicable to the case of Holyrood. In that Park, too, from time immemorial there had been held public meetings, at which crowds sometimes assembled which could hardly be surpassed in numbers even by those who assembled in the Metropolitan Parks in times of public excitement; and he thought that he was quite justified in saying that on no occasion had there been found any difficulty in maintaining order, or in the preservation of the public peace. He believed that the ordinary guardians of the Park appointed by the right hon. Gentleman were amply sufficient. He could not believe that it could really be intended to do away with the right of the people of Edinburgh to assemble in public open-air meetings, and if such meetings were to be permitted, there could be no place in which, owing to the peculiar conformation of the land, they could be more conveniently held than in Holyrood Park. It would be a very great misfortune to the people of Edinburgh if that Park were to be brought within the provisions of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. The people of Scotland did not ask for any special exemptions for Holyrood Park, or wish to obtain any exceptional legislation in their favour, but they certainly did wish it to be known that the ordinary rules of a Park would be wholly misapplied in such a case as this.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, he was glad to hear the explanation of his hon. Friend, because a great many hon. Members were not really aware of what description Holyrood Park really was, and he was sure that when they were told that it included the whole of the mountain known as Arthur's Seat, they would agree with him that it was totally unlike the others, and ought not to be included in the Bill.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that he had no objection whatever to the insertion of the words now proposed, provided it were accompanied by the Amendment he had placed on the Paper—namely— That no rule shall be made which shall have the effect of preventing public meetings being held in Holyrood Park as freely as they had been from time immemorial. When the proper time came for its consideration, he thought he should be able to show the right hon. Gentleman conclusively that that privilege ought not to be interfered with.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

then proposed, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:— (Rules to be laid before Parliament.) Any rule made in pursuance of the First Schedule to this Act shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, or if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the then next ensuing Session of Parliament; and if any such rules shall be disapproved of by either House of Parliament within one month after the same shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules, or such parts thereof as shall be disapproved of, shall not be enforced.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he understood that these rules were to come into force at once on being made, and only to be subject to the disapproval of Parliament.

MR. AYRTON

said, the rules were to be made on the responsibility of the Minister, and it would be for Parliament afterwards to express its disapproval if it thought proper.

MR. RYLANDS

, in that case, supposed that any rule made by the First Commissioner, but not adopted by Parliament, would not be put in force.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, as he understood the matter, it was this—suppose in August, when Parliament was not sitting, it became necessary to make some rules for the Parks, they would immediately come into force. But they would not be before Parliament until February, and then in March Parliament might disapprove them, or any part of them. But up to the time of disapproval by Parliament, they would be in operation.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct, all the time between August and February people might be arrested and imprisoned without warrant or any Parliamentary sanction. Thus, during at least one-half of the year penal legislation would be carried out without any sanction of Parliament.

MR. COLLINS

thought that the adoption of such a proposition would be sanctioning rather a dangerous doctrine. If the clause were passed as it stood, it might be drawn into a precedent for the future, and it would allow rules to be made and acted upon without the sanction of Parliament until some months, perhaps, after they had been so acted upon. The principle adopted in the Revised Code, and in other legislative measures, such as the schemes proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, should be adopted here, and none of these rules should be enforced until they had been a certain number of days before Parliament.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he did not see what the Revised Code had to do with the Bill. It seemed to him that the clause proposed by the Government would satisfy the conditions which had been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the approval of Parliament contemplated by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) were given to the rules it would be in fact an approval given twice over.

MR. LOCKE

said, he did not understand the argument of the noble Lord that it would be an approval given twice over. The Government were empowered to make new rules, and unless Parliament first approved the rules the Park Ranger or his advisers would really be legislating without the authority of Parliament, and for six months in the year there would be no check upon these officials. He thought that some rule should be laid down here such as had been cited by the hon. Member for Boston, and he did not see why the same principle as that adopted in the Revised Code should not be adopted here.

MR. MONK

said, that when the proper time came he should move that the clause be amended by the addition of the words— And such rules shall not come into operation until they have been laid before both Houses of Parliament for the space of one month. It would be monstrous that new rules should come into operation in August, without the opportunity of obtaining Parliamentary sanction to them until the following February.

MR. J. LOWTHER

pointed out that there was an essential difference between the regulation of the Parks and the operation of the Revised Code. For example, some exceptional proceedings might occur which might suddenly render necessary some special rules respecting the Parks. If Parliament were not then sitting it would be absurd to call it together for such a purpose. He therefore regarded the proposal of the Government as reasonable.

MR. STAPLETON

reminded the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government distinctly undertook that these rules should not come into effect till they had come before Parliament, and hon. Members had acted on that understanding.

MR. GREGORY

said, that in the Schedule there was a definition of the rules of the Park, which were only to be made in order to prevent the wilful annoyance of persons frequenting the Park. All penalties were provided for by the Act; the rules would impose no penalties, and it was reasonable, therefore, that the rules should come into immediate operation.

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause was proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Rylands), acting, as he understood, upon the legal advice of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. V. Harcourt). He therefore thought he should do right in accepting their proposal exactly as they made it; but they now appeared to be quarrelling with their own clause, which was copied from existing Acts. It was plain that rules might be required temporarily and for an emergency, and it might also be found necessary to modify existing rules; but rules could neither be made nor modified to meet an emergency if it so happened that at the time Parliament was not in Session. The Committee, however, might deal with this matter as they thought fit; he had no strong feeling one way or the other; but his opinion was that the public would be best served by placing responsibility upon the Minister, and not by shifting it to the House of Commons.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

pointed out that Parliament might rise in August, that in September rules might be made rendering meetings in the Parks an offence for which persons might be liable to fine and imprisonment. These rules might not receive the sanction of Parliament for some seven or eight months after, and the result would be that a man might be imprisoned under their operation without the sanction of Parliament for them having been obtained.

MR. BOWRING

thought that that difficulty might be avoided by the rules being laid before Parliament in May or June.

MR. HENLEY

thought that all rules which went the length of affecting people to the extent of fine and imprisonment ought to have the sanction of two persons. If the rules in question were made by the First Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, greater security would, in his opinion be afforded to the public than if they were submitted to Parliament.

Clause read a second time.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "and," in line 4, to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "no such rule shall be in force until the same has been so laid before both Houses of Parliament for one month, nor at all if disapproved of by either House of Parliament."—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

took exception to the words just used. That was the first instance in which rules for regulating public places had been directed to be laid before Parliament, although there were various corporations and other bodies in the kingdom which had the power to make such rules. When day by day the question arose how the House was to find time for the business before it, it would be, in his opinion, most unwise that it should encumber itself with the discussion of matters which would afford so many opportunities to any hon. Member to increase the difficulties in the way of the progress of that business. The rules might be moved for, but if an obstacle were thrown in the way of their coming into operation, great inconvenience would be caused to the public. He hoped that the House would have the courage to dismiss this subject from their consideration, and leave it to the Government, unless some great occasion should arise calling for the interference of Parliament.

MR. WHITWELL

thought it was right that the words of these rules should be subject to the opinion of Parliament, because in many instances the words would be of most essential consequence in reference to the offences themselves.

MR. LIDDELL

argued in favour of allowing responsibility in the matter to rest on the Executive Government. He hoped the Committee would refuse to accept the Amendment.

MR. AGAR-ELLIS

thought the clause unnecessary, for it only declared that which they all knew was the case already—namely, that the First Commissioner of Works should be responsible to Parliament.

MR. GREGORY

said, the proposed Amendment was both absurd and inconsistent with the scope of the Bill.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

argued that in requiring that the rules should not take effect until they were laid before Parliament, the House would only be following the usual course of proceeding. What had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford showed the spirit in which he would put the Bill into force if he had the power, and, therefore, the House should not put such power in the hands of a First Commissioner of Works, when it did not know from which side that functionary might hereafter be appointed.

MR. A. EGERTON

could not see why those regulations should not receive the imprimatur of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as well as the assent of the First Commissioner of Works.

MR. BRUCE

pointed out that any unlawful meeting in the Parks could be put a stop to, whether rules were made or not. With regard to the by-laws of corporations, they did not, as a rule, give power of arrest without warrant, though they gave the power of establishing fines; but it seemed doubtful whe- ther any practical advantage would be gained by altering the clause.

MR. COLLINS

contended that the clause ought to be made efficient or be struck out altogether. If they could trust the Government to make treaties, they surely might trust them to make regulations for the Parks.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, the reason for this exceptional proceeding was because this legislation was exceptional. According to the views of the Home Secretary the people might be left for six or seven months of the year without protection. If the people were to have this protection whilst Parliament was sitting, they were entitled to have it the whole year.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

was of opinion that no arrest under this Bill ought to be sanctioned without a warrant authorized by responsible authorities.

MR. RYLANDS

said, there was no use in shutting their eyes to the fact that underneath there lied a matter affecting the rights and privileges of the people. It was proposed to withdraw from the people what they thought could not be justly withdrawn from them, and at the same time the Government asked for a carte blanche to make regulations in a secret Cabinet, and to place them before the House in a manner that would give the House no control over them. The Government had forced the subject on themselves, and they ought to fight it out. He was aware that the great object of the Opposition was to put down the right of public meeting in the Parks.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was very sorry that the Government had not seen fit to take the opportunity, while they were dealing with that subject, to put it on a footing which would be satisfactory to all classes. The people of London now had no place where they could meet. And when one reflected what that great metropolis was, and how the old places of meeting, such as Palace Yard and Guildhall had become obsolete for the general purposes of the metropolis, he thought it was a great misfortune that now, in a quiet time, the Government had not appointed proper places where the people could meet, and thus get rid of all those difficulties which were growing on them every year. They could not prevent the people from meeting; if they did not meet in one place they would meet in another, and it was not desirable, perhaps, that their meetings should be stopped. But if it was said they were not to meet in places which did not belong to them, or at which it was very inconvenient for the public that they should meet, at all events proper places should be provided for the purpose. Within the last few years inconvenience, but not bloodshed, had arisen from the present unsatisfactory state of things, but no man could say how long things would remain as they now were.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he much regretted that the hon. Member for Nottingham had attempted to make this a party question, and could assure the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last that all that he said was listened to with the most candid consideration by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not correct in his statement that the Government had failed to look in the face that subject of the holding of public meetings. They had looked it in the face, and so, also, had the Committee of last year. The 8th regulation, although negative in its form, did imply the intention of Parliament that in such of the Parks as were suitable for the purpose—because there were certain of the Parks which were eminently unsuitable for the purpose—regulations should be made by which meetings might lawfully be held. He could not, however, agree that it would be wise to indicate more positively and definitely, certain places in which meetings might be held. There were in the immediate neighbourhood of London great places of public resort; and although nobody wished to stimulate or encourage the habit of holding political meetings, still it was felt that the people would not abuse the privilege of meeting, and would know when it was necessary to have recourse to it. But if they were to specify particular spots for the purpose, it would be too much in the nature of an incitement to the constant holding of these meetings, a course of proceeding which the Government by no means wished to encourage. A general statutory permission, now accorded for the first time, would be by far the best method of dealing with the matter. Turning to the practical question more immediately before them, it was one of limited range. Some hon. Gentleman had spoken as if it were a question of shifting the respon- sibility of those regulations from the Government. If that were a clause proposing that none of the regulations should have the force of law unless they had the approval of Parliament, that would be a most unwise attempt to shift the responsibility from the Government; but no such responsibility was really thrown upon Parliament. All that the clause did was to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. Although the Government really had no objection, he gathered that the general sense of the House was against the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester, and he hoped they might be allowed to pass the clause as it stood.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Committee of last year did not intend to lay down a distinct rule that no meetings should be held in the Parks, but that it should be in the power of the First Commissioner of Works to set apart, if he thought right, any portion of the Parks—for example, Primrose Hill or elsewhere—for the holding of public meetings. It had been assumed by some hon. Gentlemen that meetings held in the Parks in violation of the orders of the authorities were at this moment legal; but he asked whether it was not the opinion of the eminent Law Officers of Lord Palmerston's Government, that it was in the power of the authorities to prohibit those meetings if they chose. Other Law Officers of the Crown having decided that the remedy lay only in an action for trespass, the Committee suggested the less cumbrous remedy of a fine of £5, in lieu of the tedious and useless machinery of a civil action for trespass, and generally proposed a far less severe regulation than existed in the case of many Parks recently presented to the people. He was, therefore, strongly of opinion that nothing could be more unjust than to say that the Government, in the legislation proposed, had invented a new principle. Being a strong advocate of the right of public meeting, having been present at meetings convened to denounce the Executive, and hoping to do so again, he objected to these meetings in the Parks in the spirit in which the Committee condemned them, because they interfered with the enjoyment of the people at large. He could not coincide in an argument made use of by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire and Earl Russell, that public meetings generally ended in fiascos, for as a student at Westminster School, his opportunities of judging of meetings before 1866 were somewhat extensive. He remembered the demonstration in honour of Garibaldi, and the counter-demonstration got up by those who favoured the Pope. The meeting was adjourned from week to week, and resulted in many persons being carried to St. George's Hospital. No one could have been a more impartial witness of what occurred. His sympathies were neither with the fillibuster, nor with the person designated by the Prime Minister as the Sovereign Pontiff. His only anxiety was that every survivor should be executed for the murder of his antagonist. He was present also on the occasion of the protest against Lord Ebury's Band Bill, and although he by no means approved that measure, he did not wish the scenes which occurred upon that occasion repeated. The Committee should disabuse its mind of the idea that this was legislation for a single class; because he thought that no single class should have the right of monopolizing places of public recreation. The reason the Committee did not propose an absolute veto upon meetings was, because they did not wish to prevent a colonel of Volunteers addressing his men, or forbid a speech at a public ceremonial.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

protested against the doctrine which was being put forward, that these meetings were unlawful because the Law Officers of the Crown had said that they were unlawful. Why, the rights of Englishmen had been established by overthrowing the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. What was the history of every right that Englishmen had ever obtained except a struggle against the Law Officers of the Crown? When the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown received the sanction of a Court of Law, then Englishmen would obey it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thought that it was a misfortune that the Bill had not proceeded on the principle already existing in law—namely, of declaring that any public political meeting should not be held within a certain distance of the Houses of Parliament and the Royal residences. He believed that would have been a provision which the people of this country would have willingly obeyed. Under the 8th regulation, the people of the metropolis would be without an opportunity of holding public meetings, except by permission of the executive—and a right which was enjoyed by permission was no right at all.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

, amid cries of "Divide," rose to explain that when he spoke of the First Commissioner of Works, he had not the slightest intention of casting any dishonourable reflection either on one side of the House or the other.

COLONEL JERVIS

would have supported the Bill, if it had been introduced in a straightforward manner; but, although it was evidently designed to suppress meetings in the public Parks, that intention was not boldly avowed. He could not understand why the people should be prohibited from holding political meetings in the Parks, if they were to be allowed to assemble at Trafalgar Square for such a purpose; and he should therefore vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 158 Noes 54: Majority 104.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. AYRTON

then proposed the following new clause:— Copies of Regulations to be observed in pursuance of this Act by persons using a Royal park to which this Act applies shall be put up in such park in such manner as the Commissioners may deem best calculated to give information to the persons using the park.

New clause—(Mr. Ayrton)—brought up, and read the first time.

On Motion, "That the clause be now read a second time."

MR. G. E. BROWNE moved, as an Amendment, in fine 3, after the word "such," to insert the word "conspicuous."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. RYLANDS moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. AYRTON

said, before Progress was reported, he wished to move a new clause, saving the rights of way.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

urged that the clauses in the Bill should proceed in their proper order, remarking that he had a clause on the Paper in reference to this subject, which he should move in the proper place. No Notice had been given of the Government clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Government had the privilege of bringing up its clauses first.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, it was important, in that case, that independent Members should know whether the Government had the privilege of bringing up clauses of which they had given no Notice?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the practice of the House was, that on a Government Bill the Government had the privilege of bringing up what clauses they pleased first.

MR. COLLINS

wished to know, whether it was a practice for Members of the Government to adopt the clause of a private Member, and bring it up as their own?

MR. AYRTON

said, that, having previously stated his intention to introduce the clause, he had not thought it necessary to go through the ceremony of putting it down in his name. He should, therefore, propose the following new clause:— Nothing in this Act shall authorize any interference with any rights of way or other easement to which any person or persons may be by law entitled.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

desired to support the clause. The right hon. Gentleman would not, by this ingenious engineering—of which they had had several examples from the Treasury Bench during the last 24 hours—defeat the object with which the clause was prepared. The question of the rights of way had a material bearing on the Parks of London; for the Master of the Rolls—a higher authority than the Law Officers of the Crown—had declared in the House of Lords that the Government had no power to shut up the Parks against the people of London, because of these rights of way. In the last century, when the Ranger of Richmond Park attempted to shut up the Park, the inhabitants, headed by a clergyman in full canonicals, broke down a portion of the wall and entered through the breach. That was the first step in the assertion of the rights of way, which were afterwards established by proceedings in law.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

asked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford meant that the public had the power of passing through the Parks at night?

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, such was the dictum of the Master of the Bolls. His words were "in the day or in the night."

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.