CLASS I. (Hansard, 28 March 1889)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000 in respect of the expenditure on Richmond Park. In round numbers the amount expended on this park is, I think, £4,600 per annum. Well, looking at the cost of police and the probable cost of mending the roads—which cannot be very much, considering the small amount of traffic—there must be something like £3,000 spent on the trees and grass in the park. We on this side of the House, as a rule, are not able to have great parks of our own; but I appeal to the landed interest on the other side. I ask whether, if an hon. Member had a park of 2,000 or 3,000 acres, the roads being maintained, he would think of expending £3,000 a year on it? Yet that is what is done in the case of Richmond Park. How the money is spent or squandered I have no clear idea. There are some calves in the park—some with horns and some without—and we are told that they cost a great deal of money, but I doubt whether, in private deer parks, owners dream of spending as much as £3,000 a year because of these animals. I think that this Vote is excessive, and that in moving this reduction I am altogether within the mark. I am certain that Richmond Park could be well maintained for £2,000 a year.

§ MR. S. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
I should like to ask to ask why it is that we have the charge for park-keepers and gatekeepers lumped together, instead of being given separately, in the Estimates, and also I should like to ask for an explanation of the increase under this head?

§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,) Dublin University
It would not be reasonable for me to go through all the items of expenditure in connection with the maintenance of this park; but I can assure the hon. Member for Northampton that the Government have been doing what they can, especially in recent years, to reduce the expenditure for Richmond Park, as well as for the other parks. It is, however, impossible that we can have such a handsome park as that at Richmond maintained as cheaply as an ordinary private park. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Poplar, I may explain that the increased expense this year for park-keepers and gatekeepers is due to the fact that we have had to make some provision for the superannuation of constables who, under the new arrangement as to St. James's and the Green Parks, will no longer be in our service. There will, however, be an ultimate saving of expense when the arrangement is completed, and police duty will be performed by the keepers in conjunction with their ordinary work.

§ MR. S. BUXTON
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I desire to know why this item for keepers is put down in a lump sum?

§ *MR. PLUNKET
I am afraid I can give no further explanation.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given a reasonable answer to my criticism. The right hon. Gentleman says we cannot expect to keep up a public park as cheaply as a private park. I do not ask him to keep up Richmond Park as cheaply, but what I say is that the owner of a private park would make some profit out of his property by grazing, and, granting that we do not attempt to make a profit in that way, surely £2,000 is enough to be out of pocket. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give me some explanation of the matter, for the public outside take 1075 a strong view of these matters, and may suspect that the part of this money goes into the pocket of somebody or other. I see we have a bailiff of the Royal Parks who has to look after all the Royal Parks for £700 a-year; we have a Banger, a Superintendent at a salary of £346, and an Assistant Superintendent at £150 per annum. There is, besides this, a large sum paid to gamekeepers—though I do not find them in the Estimates. I protested against the payment for gamekeepers over and over again, and at last the item disappeared, but the individuals did not—they remained. They do very much the same thing, but they are not called "gamekeepers." This shows how necessary it is to look into these matters. I should like to ask how many persons "make a good thing" out of Richmond Park? There are a considerable number of houses there granted by Her Majesty, and there are gardens round those houses. I should like to know if the gardeners who attend to these gardens are paid out of this Vote?

§ *MR. PLUNKET
was understood to deny the justice of the personal imputations suggested in the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton, and to say that it would take two or three days to give the hon. Member the information he asked for.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I must take exception to the air of innocence assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. He says it would take three days to give the hon. Member for Northampton the information he asks for. Well, I contend that, even if it took three weeks to give it, the right hon. Gentleman's duty is to offer that information. I desire to know—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can find time to answer this—who are the Rangers and Deputy Rangers we see put down in this Vote? Is the Ranger a Royal personage—is he a pluralist—and what work does he do for his pay? I am told that the Ranger of Green Park is a Royal personage, but I have never seen him looking after the gatekeepers and turncocks there. If I do not get any information on this point I shall move to report Progress.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
The Ranger—as the hon. Member himself must know—is His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I did not know anything of the sort.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
The Ranger has a considerable authority over the parks, and I have often derived advantage from his advice and co-operation.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the useful piece of information he has given. I may remark that I am not in the habit of putting questions to waste the time of the Committee—I put questions to elicit information, as I have a right to do. How on earth am I to know the various offices of these Royal Dukes and hangers-on? With regard to the Ranger of these parks, I must say it seems to me that the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces ought to have enough to do in connection with his military duties without having to occupy his time with these pettifogging duties in connection with the parks.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith)
I wish to call attention to the question of Constitution Hill—a subject which was discussed the other day in connection with another matter. I take this the earliest opportunity of again raising the subject. I observe that a number of Members base their opposition to Constitution Hill being closed except to privileged persons on the ground that they are not included in the list, but I am disposed to think that if the Members of this House were admitted to the privilege, the chances of the public claim to use the road being fairly considered would be in no degree augmented. I think this drive should be open on the ground of public convenience. Constitution Hill forms a direct line between important districts of the Metropolis—for example, from this House to Hyde Park Corner. In the same way as the drive across the Horse Guards Parade, now opened to the public, is a great public convenience, so would the benefit of opening Constitution Hill be felt. Now we have to take a detour by St. James's and Piccadilly, or go round by that huge enclosure, Buckingham Palace Gardens. One point raised in this discussion is the privacy of Buckingham Palace Gardens. I do not know that 1077 there is anyone in Buckingham Palace for whom privacy is required. Of course, any time Her Majesty is at the Palace it would be perfectly simple to have the road closed. But even now the whole front of the Palace is used for vehicular traffic, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that the privacy of the Palace is already secured as far as it may be by the enclosure of Buckingham Palace Gardens. I think another reason for supporting the opening of the Hill is that the list is an absurd relic of privilege which ought to be abolished. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

§ *MR. HERBERT GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)
I rise with the utmost pleasure to support the proposition of my hon. Friend. It seems to me so reasonable and moderate that it ought to command the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket). But if for some official reason the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give it his independent consideration, I think it might well claim the support of Members opposite. Members of Parliament had formerly the exclusive privilege of driving in cabs to the House of Commons through Storey's Gate. That privilege is now taken away from them, and shared by the general public. And in regard to Richmond Park, it was stated in a previous debate that formerly the Ranger would only allow carriages to pass round the Park. No one on this side holds, and I do not believe hon. Members opposite would hold, that only carriages should be permitted in these places. But on Constitution Hill not only are carriages the only vehicles allowed, but absolutely not everybody's carriage—only the carriages of a small minority of ladies and gentlemen who have that especial privilege, which is called the entrée. What we ask Her Majesty's Government to do is to open the roadway, and to relieve the congested districts on either side of the Park. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it has often been suggested that a road should be made from the North of London down to the Thames in order to relieve the 1078 crowded traffic of Bond Street and St. James's Street. All who live in that part of London know how inconvenient it is at times. All we ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to open a roadway which is paid for and maintained by the taxpayer, and not reserve it to the use of a small minority of ladies and gentlemen who, I believe, pay their taxes, although I am not certain whether they do so in all cases. I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this subject on the grounds that the roadway is maintained by the taxpayer, that to open it would be to relieve a congested district, and that it would abolish an absurd system of privilege which is now completely out of date.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
This subject has already been discussed once this Session, and I think there will be no desire to discuss it at any length. I will make a suggestion which might remedy the inconvenience complained of. It would be, no doubt, an enormous convenience to the public to have a short cut from Hyde Park Corner to Buckingham Gate. It would be a great relief to the traffic. But I have always felt in regard to Constitution Hill that it is a narrow roadway with trees on either side. If the road were opened to the public, it would be necessary to cut down the trees on one side, and for my part I would have very great hesitation in doing that. It is one of the most beautiful walks in London, and it would be a very serious detriment to the Park if we were to cut down the trees. I have often thought that a new road might be made from the bottom of Hamilton Place to Buckingham Gate. There is already a broad walk there which lies for the first half of the distance in a kind of dell, and is well adapted for abroad road. If that were done, it would avoid the necessity of cutting down the trees on Constitution Hill. The difficulty would be solved, and a new road would be opened for traffic, while Constitution Hill could be reserved solely to the use of Her Majesty, and the existing privilege extended to a certain number of people would thus be abolished. I throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It is one which has often occurred to me, and one which, had I been longer in the 1079 position which he now occupies, I had thought of submitting to the House. At any rate, I think it is a better mode of dealing with the case than that of cutting down the trees on Constitution Hill.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
Any suggestion coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who has previously filled the office I now have the honour to hold, will, of course, be received by me with the greatest possible consideration; but, as this suggestion comes now before me for the first time, I cannot at present express any opinion upon it. Constitution Hill has always been regarded as Her Majesty's private drive in connection with Buckingham Palace. I admit that there is a certain amount of inconvenience in this arrangement to a certain portion of the people; but Constitution Hill is open for all the purposes of foot passengers, and it is only those who drive in carriages or cabs who will be favoured if the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were adopted. The suggestion, however, is one that does not affect the public generally; and it is not probable that those from whom it really emanates would be glad to see omnibuses admitted as well as cabs.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Hear, hear!

§ *MR. PLUNKET
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to see tramcars there?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Hear, hear!

§ *MR. PLUNKET
Well, I confess that I am unable to take that view. The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote spoke of our closing Constitution Hill.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
I think I used the words "partial closing."

§ *MR. PLUNKET
The word I objected to was "closing." Instead of closing or partially closing the Royal Parks, we have done all we can to render them more accessible to the public; and I will only now repeat that I will consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
The right hon. Gentleman says I am in favour of omnibuses and cabs going up Constitution Hill, and so I am, while, personally, I should not have the slightest objection to tram-cars. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that omnibuses and cabs are not excluded from the Green Park and the Mall, while they are only excluded from a 1080 portion of Hyde Park on the ground that so many private carriages go there to make a sort of spectacular show for we poor foot-passengers who go to look at them. I cannot see why the cab which starts from Marlborough House and goes along the Mall, and might go through Buckingham Gate, passing right under the windows of the Palace, should not be allowed to turn up Constitution Hill. The right hon. Gentleman says Constitution Hill ought not to be opened because it has never been closed.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
No.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Well, that is how it appeared to me; and I say there is no reason why it should not be opened, and I have never, although I have often heard the matter discussed in this House, heard a single good reason urged against that proposal. Here, in the centre of London, is a large space, having on one side a park and on the other a large garden, between which runs a road which is precisely the road required for the use of the public. I am convinced that if hon. Gentlemen vote for this proposal in sufficient numbers, Her Majesty will most readily grant the boon to Her subjects. I do not think, however, that Her Majesty's Ministers have been quite candid on the subject; on the contrary, I think they have misstated the strong feeling which exists on the part of the people upon the subject; and I think we ought to convey that feeling in the vote we are about to give on this question. I may say that I think the counter-proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) is a most astounding one. He says, "Let us leave this road sacred to Royalty, and have a new one." This road is maintained at the public cost, and he wishes it to be left only for the use of Members on the Royal Family. But there are the Privy Councillors also, and are they to excluded? And what about those Elysian Fields that are now considered sacred to nursemaids and children? Why should the road be kept for the exclusive use of the Queen? I am sure Her Majesty is not in the least anxious to have a road sacred to her. The reason why the public are not permitted to drive along Constitution Hill is not on account of any objection on the part of Her Majesty, but because a few persons like the swagger of being able to drive 1081 along it while the public are obliged to walk. That is the reason why Constitution Hill is to be kept shut from general vehicular traffic. You, Mr. Courtney, will remember very well what happened in the Reign of George III. You will remember that an Irish gentleman asked Mr. Pitt for the privilege of driving along Constitution Hill, but Mr. Pitt said—"I cannot give you that; but as you have been a faithful servant of the public and voted for everything I wanted, I will make you an Irish Peer." That is the sort of privilege this exclusiveness has been considered. The road is not to be kept open for the benefit of the public, but in favour of a few privileged Brahmins who want to drive along it, to the exclusion of everybody else. I do hope we shall, by the vote that will be given on this question, show that there are a considerable number of Members of this House who think it can do no harm to allow the public the use of a road which is maintained at considerable public expense.

MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Cumberland, Whitehaven)
Although I do not remember the time of George III., I do remember the discussion about throwing open the road between Marlborough House and Storey's Gate, and that I took some part in bringing about the result. That proposal was grounded upon the fact that it could not interfere with the privileges of the Royal Family. In the same way I do not see that the user of Constitution Hill would by any means interfere with the privileges of the Royal Family; and therefore, as I understand the reduction of the Vote is moved in order to obtain the sense of the Committee on that proposal, I shall think it my duty to follow the hon. Member into the Lobby. Well, Sir, I also at that time proposed that a roadway should be made across St. James's Park Ornamental Water. The proposal did not find favour at the time either with the authorities or with the House of Commons. But I rise to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the user to a moderate extent of Constitution Hill can by no means interfere with the enjoyment of it by Royalty; and therefore I shall feel it my duty to follow the hon. Member into the Lobby. With regard to the suggestion to open a road from Hamilton 1082 Place across the Green Park, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has already made such a wilderness of that part of London, and his attempts to make Hyde Park Corner an ornamental part of the Metropolis are such a conspicuous failure, not only by the removal of the Arch, sinking it down into a place where it was never intended to stand, but turning it sideways to the main road, where it is an object of ridicule, and also by placing in the open space an absurd statue, that I look with great suspicion on any proposal coming from the same quarter.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
Shall I be in order in drawing attention on this Vote to inclosures in Greenwich Park?

*THE CHAIRMAN
Not until the Question before the Committee is disposed of.

§ *MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid)
I shall support this Motion, not only for reasons more or less the same as those of my right hon. Friend, but also because I have a further and ulterior object in view—namely, the opening up of the Mall to Trafalgar Square and so relieving the present congestion of traffic from the West by Piccadilly. There is really no difficulty in opening Constitution Hill. The road is a good width already, and if the footpath on the left side going downwards from the Archway were thrown into the road, it would be about as wide as the Strand is in some places. This would entail the loss of not more than 4 or 5 trees. The further end of the Mall is now of no use to anybody, but if cut through Spring Gardens into Trafalgar Square, the great open Boulevard connecting Kensington and Knightsbridge with the Strand and the Embankment would be one of the finest in Europe, not to speak of the relief to traffic in Piccadilly and the convenience of Members of Parliament living in Kensington and Knightsbridge.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
My alternative proposal was made under the idea that if Constitution Hill were opened up, it would be necessary to widen it, and in order to do so a number of trees would have to be cut down, which would be a great misfortune. It was only in that view that I made the suggestion, and if it should turn out that I am mistaken, I will gladly advocate the opening o Constitution Hill.

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)
It seems to me to be unfair to the country constituencies that they should be called upon to pay a large sum for the Parks and Pleasure Grounds of London. Here, in this Estimate, is a sum of £2,305 for Richmond Park, of £2,232 for Greenwich Park, of £10,060 for Regent's Park, of £33,828 for St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks, £2,883 for Bushey Park, and £937 for Hampton Court Park. I especially omit all mention of Kew Gardens, because from that place other parts of the country may be supposed to derive some benefit, seeing that Kew is an experimental station. But with regard to the other parks, it must be remembered that London is the richest place in the world, and I maintain that Londoners ought to pay for their own parks, because, although they are called Royal parks, they are really nothing else than pleasure grounds for the benefit of the people of London, and; therefore, they should be maintained solely by Londoners. London can well afford to do that; if it wants money it is only needful to put a tax on ground landlords, and you will get plenty. The Vote altogether is £90,000, and I protest that this is a great deal too large a sum for people in distant parts of the country to be called upon to pay for the benefit of rich Londoners. I therefore move the reduction of the Vote by £52,244.

§ *MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
I cannot support the Amendment, If Londoners are to have those parks under their own control, no doubt they will be well satisfied to pay for them. But the people of London have scarcely what can be called even a part proprietary right in them; they have only the right to walk in them, just as people coming to London from other parts of the country have. Those parks are, to all intents and purposes, national parks, and not London parks. They are merely London parks because they happen to be situated in the Metropolis.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I am astonished at my hon. Friend talking of these as national parks. On his principle every park in every large city in the three kingdoms is a national park in the same sense. I think the time has come when the expense of maintaining the parks ought to be borne by the people of London, which, through its County Council, has control of its own affairs. You must remember that when any unfortunate provincial comes to London he leaves a great deal with the lodging-house keepers, and thus enables them to pay their rates. The people in the country ought not to be called upon to maintain parks for the benefit of the wealthy people of London. It is all very well to say that the Government make a grant towards the maintenance of the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. But, after all, it is only a miserable Vote, and you are doing your best to take it away from us.

§ *Mr. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
I am sorry to intervene at this stage of the proceedings, and I only do so because I feel it incumbent upon me to move the reduction of the Vote by £500. I make this Motion as a protest against the conduct of the Government in depriving the people of London of the right of meeting in St. James's Park. The people of London are compelled, in common with the rest of their countrymen, to maintain the Park. The Government have absolutely prohibited the people from meeting in Trafalgar Square, and six or eight months ago I pointed out to the First Commissioner of Works and the Home Secretary that there was a capital alternative site, that site being the Horse Guards' Parade. The Home Secretary promised to take the question into his consideration, and after four months' deliberation he announced to the House that the Government had come to the conclusion that the people ought not to be permitted to meet at that place. I think it is one of the very best sites in London for meeting purposes. It is exceedingly quiet, the spot belongs to the people, there are no privileged classes so far as I am aware who have any more right to it than we have, and yet we are shut out from it. Even the 1085 Home Secretary admits that the people ought to have some place of meeting. It is impossible for us to raise £100, £150, or £200 with which to pay for halls in which to meet and express our differences with various Governments, or to ventilate our grievances, real or imaginary, and no matter what Government is in office the people will always have something to say in regard to the doings of the Government. It will be exceedingly dangerous, and, I believe, the Home Secretary practically admitted this view of the matter, to attempt to prevent the people from meeting to ventilate their grievances The Horse Guards Parade is a centre place upon which the people from the east, west, north, and south could converge; a gathering of people there would not interfere with the comfort or convenience of any inhabitants, neither will the traffic of the Metropolis be interfered with. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £500.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
It is a very important subject the hon. Member for Haggerston has raised, and I hope he will take the sense of the Committee on his Motion for the purpose of placing before the citizens of London the necessity of making use of this open space, the Horse Guards Parade, now that the Government have driven us from our accustomed place of meeting. What single substantial objection is there against this use of the Parade? For the greater part of everyday the space is unoccupied. There are military meetings there sometimes, and I have myself taken part in meetings of Volunteers on the Parade. Why draw a distinction and refuse to allow citizens in their everyday dress to meet and discuss public questions, where you allow these same citizens to meet in uniform, and go through a number of military evolutions? I heartily support the proposal, though I do not for a moment waive our claim to meet in Trafalgar Square. There are many places where we are entitled to meet, but I do not wish to go into the 1086 general question. There can be no quibbling objection to this Parade as a place of meeting; it is admirably situated from its position, and for the greater part of the day it is deserted. I really do not understand what objection there can be, unless the Government mean to wage war against the right of free public meeting everywhere.

§ *SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)
As a Metropolitan Member I am not disposed to complain of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division for interposing in the discussion of a question that is really of Metropolitan interest, because I am one of those who consider that Metropolitan interests should be regarded as of Imperial interest, and that because they are Metropolitan, and I think Imperial taxation should bear a fair charge for the cost of such interests. But I do venture to protest, as a Metropolitan Member, and as representing a large, quiet, and orderly portion of the citizens of London, against the hon. Member coming down to the House and endeavouring to open a scene for riot and disorder in the midst of the Metropolis. I am one of the last who would wish, in any way, to curtail any of the facilities that exist for the largest public meetings. I have myself used those facilities largely in the past, and I hope frequently to use them in the future; but I do say that the broad expanse of Hyde Park lends itself admirably to every possible legitimate occasion for public meeting. ["No!"] An hon. Member denies that; but I say it is impossible to conceive of any public meeting so large, or any number of meetings so extensive, that Hyde Park would not offer sufficient space. As to convenience of situation, why, there is but the difference of five minutes' walk between Hyde Park and the Horse Guards Parade; and it is idle to pretend that in point of position one is more convenient than the other. The hon. Member for Haggerston told us that the spot belongs to the people, and therefore he claims it for the use of the people, and that they have the right to meet there. Yes, Sir, it belongs to the people, and for that reason I claim it should be retained for the use of the people and not handed over to a noisy band of agitators. I would deny these the right to come into such places, 1087 and still more would I deny the right of those criminal classes who do—it must be admitted very commonly—follow in the wake of such demonstrations.

An hon. MEMBER
And of Lord Mayors' Shows.

§ *SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE
Yes, but there is no proposition to open the Horse Guards' Parade to the Civic Procession. The hon. Member for Haggerston told us it was a quiet spot, and so it is, and so it should be, for not only is it situated in close proximity to the Royal Palaces and close to Government offices, it is very near where the Imperial Parliament holds its Sittings; and, therefore, I think there is every reason to retain it in its quietude and not run the risk of disorder and disturbance so near the House.

§ *MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
I did not quite understand whether you put the reduction generally on the Vote. Am I at liberty to raise the question of enclosures in the parks?

THE CHAIRMAN
No, the hon. Member is premature.

§ *MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)
I think it will be felt, especially after the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet and of the hon. Member for North Kensington, that a reply from the Chief Commissioner of Works would tend to shorten discussion. It struck me the hon. Member moved the Amendment in a clear and temperate manner, and unless it can be shown that his proposition is unreasonable I shall support him.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
I quite understood the hon. Member to say it was his intention to take a Division as marking his protest. He admitted, I think, that this matter was fully debated when the whole subject of open air public meetings in the Metropolis was thoroughly discussed earlier in the Session.

§ *MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
The right hon. Gentleman is under some slight misapprehension. I did not say the question I had raised was fairly discussed when the Speech from the Throne was before the House. I said that the question of Royal Parks had been fairly discussed this evening. I may be permitted to say, in reply to the hon. Member for North Kensington, that if he 1088 had to tramp from Limehouse to Hyde Park, as many people have in order to take part in popular demonstrations, he would appreciate the distance of the Parade from Hyde Park. The two places are 20 minutes walk apart, and the walk there and back, 40 minutes, make a sensible difference to a man who has walked from the far East of London. I think we ought to have the support of those who boast themselves Constitutionalists, if they are anxious to maintain the right of free speech in open spaces. Surely it is better to allow the people to come together, to blow off superfluous steam, and ventilate their grievances, than to sit on the safety valve until an explosion takes place.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
We have heard no reason why meetings should not take place on the Parade. One advantage would be, there is no damage to be done. All demonstrations in Hyde Park are, to a certain extent, harmful to the Park. The grass is trampled down and in danger of being destroyed—an open space without turf is drier and not open to the same objection. This place is the more necessary for public meetings, seeing that you have taken away the right the people enjoyed for 40 years to meet in Trafalgar Square. The remarks of the hon. Member for North Kensington would apply equally to meetings in Hyde Park, or anywhere else. But poor people cannot afford to organize a big meeting in a public hall—50 guineas for a night in St. James's Hall is something considerable to them. Indeed, in the Metropolis it is very difficult to get a hall for a popular meeting. Exeter Hall is taken away for other purposes; in fact, we are boycotted all round. It is very difficult to get a large hall for a popular Radical meeting. Proprietors are usually Conservative, and do not like their premises used by people who may raise inconvenient questions that might lose a Member—such as the hon. Member for Kensington, for instance—his seat at the next election. We require public meetings to discuss public matters, no matter whether the Government is Liberal or Conservative; indeed, I think I have assisted in the organization of more demonstrations against Liberal Governments than Conservative Governments. We require 1089 sometimes to keep a Liberal Government straight, and we have to protest sometimes against some Conservative Jingo policy against the national interest. But if you are going to deny us the use of all open grounds, where would you have us hold our meetings? We do not wish to have disorder; we wish to have matters settled quietly. Let the County Council, or some other authority, exercise control over the terms and conditions under which meetings shall be held. Your present policy of objection and doing nothing causes deep irritation.

§ MR. FIRTH (Dundee)
The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works makes no reply; let me put the question to him in a direct form. On what ground do the Government claim the right, or assert the wisdom, of excluding the people of London from the Horse Guards Parade? The observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite, my former opponent (Sir R. Lethbridge) about riot and agitators and the criminal classes are in the usual line, and will not, I think, be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
The hon. Gentleman asks by what authority Her Majesty's Government prevent Her Majesty's subjects from holding meeting on the Horse Guards Parade—

§ MR. FIRTH
No; the right hon. Gentleman mistakes me entirely. I did not say by what authority. I know they have authority. I ask, why? What is the reason for the exclusion?

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
At any rate, I may say, having taken part years ago in passing the Parks Regulation Act through the House, that there was a very strong feeling in the House of Commons at that time that the assemblage of a large number of people in the public parks, and especially near the Houses of Parliament, was much to be deprecated. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that there is an old Act on the Statute Book which prevents the assembling of any meeting within a certain limit of where Parliament is holding its sitting.

An hon. MEMBER
That is not on the Statute Book.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
If the hon. Member will refer to the Statutes at Large he will find that he has no 1090 warrant for his interruption. Whether | it is orderly or not, I leave the Committee to decide.

§ MR. FIRTH
I made no interruption.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I referred to the hon. Member for Camborne.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I did not say there was no such Statute in existence.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
It shows the inconvenience of the interpolation of remarks while another Member is addressing the Committee. As a matter of fact the Parks Regulation Act was specially framed with a view to allowing the Government of the day, by the issuing of a Proclamation or the affixing of notices, to prevent a meeting in the Royal Parks. The passage through the streets of a large number of people having in view the object of attending a meeting is, I venture to say, a cause of great public inconvenience. For my part, I regret that Hyde Park should have been set apart for such purposes. St. James's Park has never been so used, and the Green Park has always been kept free from such proceedings. I hope the Government will not, under any conditions, think of inflicting such a nuisance as this upon the Metropolis. The hon. Member for Haggerston asks why those who come from the East End of London should be called upon to trudge a long distance past the Mall and Trafalgar Square to go to Hyde Park. Well, I say, as I said 20 years ago, it would be much better for the people of that district to hold their meetings at the East End; or, as was pointed out at the time I refer to, that Primrose Hill is a much more convenient site for such meetings, and more accessible from the residences of the majority of persons who attend them. But I think it is extremely wrong to induce those who live in the East End to proceed through crowded thoroughfares to hold a meeting in the West End which had much setter be held in their immediate neighbourhood.

§ *MR. BRADLAUGH
I may venture to challenge the law of the right hon. Gentleman. I presume it is material to the discussion before the Committee, or you, Sir, would not have allowed it. I think he is mistaken as to the Statute, 1091 which does not forbid any meeting but only meetings for certain purposes.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
Will the hon. Member allow me to say I am perfectly well aware of the terms of the Statute? The Statute forbids the holding of any meeting for the purpose of addressing any petition, notice, or remonstrance to Parliament within the City and Liberties of Westminster while Parliament is sitting, but it does not preclude a meeting being held under the very nose of Parliament for the purpose of passing a resolution.

§ *MR. BRADLAUGH
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say any meeting whatever, and I have many reasons for knowing that is incorrect.

§ MR. DILLWYN (Swansea, Town)
The objection urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite would apply to Hyde Park as well as anywhere else. Where, I would ask, are the poor people to go? Primrose Hill is suggested, but I remember one occasion when people were told Trafalgar Square was the place instead of Hyde Park. Surely the Horse Guards Parade is a most convenient place for meetings. The people of London are being driven from pillar to post in search of a place in which to hold meetings without danger of interruption.

§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)
I did not intend to vote on this question, but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) it seems to me the duty of every Liberal to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will deny the people of London the right to meet in any part of the Metropolis save Primrose Hill or the East End. I should have thought that the Horse Guards Parade was a very good place to meet in.

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)
The right hon. Gentleman opposite evidently has no knowledge of London outside Club land. He does not know how far Primrose Hill is from the East End of London—probably he thinks they are in the same neighbourhood. Why, Primrose Hill is half way to Hampstead, and it is nothing short of an insult to the people of London to ask them to go there to hold their open air meetings.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite does 1092 him credit as a legislator and an ex-Minister. I understood him to quote from the Parks Regulation Act.

*MR. J. LOWTHER
Oh, no.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
The right hon. Gentleman said the Government had the right to issue a Proclamation forbidding meetings in the Parks under the Parks Regulation Act of 1872.

*MR. J. LOWTHER
No; to pass rules.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
That is a very different thing. Passing rules is not issuing a proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman has represented the Act in an utterly erroneous light. He has represented that meetings are forbidden in the Green Park and St. James's Park, whilst they are allowed in Hyde Park; but that is not the fact. The Act does not contain any provisions prohibiting public meetings any more than it contains provisions authorizing them. The three Parks mentioned are on entirely the same footing, authority being given to lay down rules, which you can see posted up in the Parks.

§ *MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
On behalf of my Friends sitting round me, I wish to say that whilst we are not disappointed at the attitude the Government have taken up, we are grieved that we have been treated with such scant courtesy. I stated when I moved the reduction of the Vote that I had no wish to obstruct the proceedings, my wish being to obtain from the Government a statement of their reason for refusing to the people the right of meeting on the Horse Guards' Parade. We have asked one Member of the Government after another for a reason, but none has been given.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
I would venture to point out that it will be utterly impossible to get through the Estimates if so much time is spent on these small Votes. I understood the hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote as a protest against the public being prevented from holding meetings on the Horse Guards' Parade, and not with the view of calling upon me to give any further account of the action of the Government in the matter. In the course of the debate upon the Address, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained why it would be inconvenient, in the public interest, that large public meetings should be 1093 held on the Horse Guards' Parade or in St. James's Park, in the immediate neighbourhood of the public offices and the Houses of Parliament.

§ *MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
Last year on the Vote for Richmond Park and Greenwich Park I drew attention to the large amount of space from the enjoyment of which the public are excluded. In Greenwich Park the public are excluded from the 15 acres which surround the Ranger's Lodge, occupied by Lord Wolseley. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works says that this land costs the public nothing, but I maintain that even if the poor of London lose nothing but the enjoyment of it, that is too much, and ought not to be permitted.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
The 15 or 16 acres of Greenwich Park that have been added to the grounds of the Ranger's Lodge have never been open to the public. Inillustration of my anxiety to secure to the public the enjoyment of the Parks, I may mention that, in the case of Regent's Park, the expiring lease of the Toxophilite Society will not be renewed. I think the hon. Member will do me the justice to admit that since I have had the honour of holding my present office I have done all I could to make the Royal Parks more available to the public and to increase their value to the people.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
Has this inclosure in Greenwich Park been recently added to the Ranger's Lodge? I think we have a right to know that.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
It was added in 1815.

§ MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the trees in Kensington Gardens, near the Round Pond. Many trees have been cut down during recent years, and the condition under which others grow has been altered by levelling. Many of them now grow in a bed that is not natural to them, their roots being too thickly covered with soil. The health and even the lives of many of the trees—particularly the elms—have been imperilled in this way. Has the right hon. Gentleman any report as to the operations which have been carried 1094 out, and does he intend to replace the trees that have had to be removed?

§ *MR. PLUNKET
I have consulted the best authorities on the subject, and have had numerous reports sent to me from time to time. For one reason or another I believe it is impossible to save the old trees; but I have very good reports of the young trees, which are being planted on a better system; and the Committee may rest assured that I shall not fail to take any steps likely to prevent the gardens being denuded of trees where it is desirable to have them.

§ Sir G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)
For years I have been hammering away at this matter, and have never been able to get any satisfaction. I do not believe it is old age that is killing the trees. Old trees, middle-aged trees, and young trees are all dying in certain parts of the Park, showing that there must be something wrong with the soil.