§ MR. BORLASEasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Daily Telegraph" of yesterday, that—
By order of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the names of several speakers at a meeting held yesterday in Southwark Park, were taken down with a view to a prosecution;and, whether it was not a meeting of ratepayers who would, by the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, be cut 295 off from that part of the Park which they are rated to support?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL - HOGGSir, the meeting referred to by the hon. Member took place without permission, and in direct contravention of the Board's bye-laws; and the persons concerned were informed beforehand that, in the event of a meeting being held, the names and addresses of the speakers would be taken by the Board's officers, which was accordingly done, as stated in The Daily Telegraph. As to the other Question, I was not there, and do not know whether those present were ratepayers or not.
§ MR. BORLASEgave Notice that he should take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before Parliament.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether application had not been made by the persons concerned for permission to hold the meeting; and whether that application had not been refused?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in reply, said, that a certain man, who wished to hold meetings perpetually in the Park on Sundays, and upon every possible subject, did apply; and he and his friends were informed that it was contrary to the bye-laws to hold such meetings, and that if they persisted in breaking the bye-laws they must take the consequences. The bye-laws had been approved by the Secretary of State, and the Board had its duties to perform.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked on what ground permission to hold the meetings had been refused?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that the permission had been refused because the Board were of opinion that the Park was set apart for the purposes of general recreation, and not for the purpose of holding noisy meetings.