§ MR. FIRTHasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is true that the Board has made bye-laws prohibiting the holding of public meetings on Peckham Rye Common, notwithstanding the fact that such meetings were held there, with the consent of the owners, before the Common was transferred to the Board; and, in whose interest, and for what object, are such prohibitory regulations made?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGSir, I have to inform the hon. Member that 892 it is quite true that the Metropolitan Board of Works, following the precedent set with regard to other open spaces under their control, have framed a bye-law which received the necessary sanction, prohibiting public meetings on Peckham Rye, except with the previous consent of the Board. The meetings formerly held almost invariably took place on Sundays; and, in many instances, two or three different lecturers were speaking at the same time on different subjects, by which means great disturbance was caused, and the bye-law was framed solely in the interests of the public, who desire orderly proceedings on the Common.
§ MR. FIRTHasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board have issued, or are about to issue, regulations which have the effect of prohibiting cricket, foot-ball, and all athletic sports upon Blackheath, Peckham Rye Common, and other open spaces in London; and, in whose interest and for what object are such new and prohibiting regulations made?
SIR JAMES M'GAEEL-HOGGSir, the Metropolitan Board of Works has not issued, nor are they about to issue, regulations which will have the effect of prohibiting cricket, football, and all athletic sports upon Blacklieath, Peckham Rye, and other open spaces in London. Such regulations as the Board have made with regard to games on open spaces are merely such as are necessary in the interests of the general public.