Lords Sitting of 9 May 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* (93).
Second Reading—Policies of Insurance* (82).

GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG.

  QUESTION.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, as considerable anxiety prevailed with reference to the result of the Conference now sitting in London, and after the statement which he understood had been made in "another place," perhaps the noble Lord opposite might think it proper to say something on the subject.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The Conference only met to-day at half past three o'clock, and I have not since that time heard any report of what has taken place; but I am given to understand that no difficulty was started but what had been immediately overcome, and I have every reason to believe, although no signatures have been attached to any document, that, practically, the peace of Europe is secured.

MEETING IN HYDE PARK.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL COWPERrose to call the Attention of the House to the proceedings of the Government with respect to the recent Meeting in Hyde Park, and to move for Copies of the Notice issued by the Secretary of State warning the Public against attending the Meeting, and also of the Instructions given to the Police on the subject. The noble Earl, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that in bringing forward this subject, he did not move a Vote of Censure on the Government; for he believed it to be the general opinion of all parties that this was not a time when it would be desirable that the present Government should be driven from office, though it might seem strange that men of great ability chose to fill the place of Ministers by sufferance, and to bring forward measures and change them according as popular opinion might blow. He thought that he could not do better than give a plain history of what had taken place in relation to the meeting in Hyde Park. About July last—whether after or before

  215
  the unfortunate riots in Hyde Park he did I not know—the Government took the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown on the question whether if in future any similar meetings were contemplated to be held in Hyde Park the Government would have the power to prevent them. He believed that the opinion of the Law Officers was that the Government had no power to remove any persons from the Park unless previous notice was served on them; and that, in case of notice being served, the smallest degree of violence must be used in removing individuals, and that, if they returned, they must be removed in the same manner again. It was stated that only the common law of trespass would apply to the case; and he also understood that the military could not be employed unless actual tumult or riot took place; and that, in fact, nothing short of insurrection could justify the employment of the military. Practically speaking, there appeared to be no legal authority to prevent, with or without notice, meetings in Hyde Park. All this was known to the Government, though the public were supposed to be entirely ignorant of it. The Government had recently determined to bring in a Bill for further powers to enable them to stop these meetings. Now, considering that the Government were in office last July, it seemed to him surprising that if they intended to introduce a measure they did not do so earlier in the Session, instead of waiting to the present time. He would not give an opinion upon this measure, whether or not it would be calculated to meet the object in view. Nothing of any consequence took place until the 1st of the present month, when that unfortunate notice was issued—a copy of which he should move for, but which was well known to every Member of the House—which stated the meeting would be illegal, and which admonished the people not to attend. This seemed to him a very strong measure on the part of the Home Secretary; and it was very strange that if it were not intended to follow it up by other measures, that it should have been issued at all. It was said that it was only a notice upon which to ground proceedings in trespass; but he imagined that any attorney's clerk could have served a proper notice on each of the parties interested, without publishing it to the world. It looked very much as if the Government intended to say to the members of the Reform League that they had provoked the contest; that they
  216
  should abide by the consequences; so that they might be induced to abandon their resolution of holding the meeting. But what was the result? There were other persons apparently who were as well capable of ascertaining what was the law as the Members of the Government; and the leaders of the Reform League at once declared that the Government had invited them to a contest, and they used very strong language, in which they expressed their determination not to retreat from the position they had taken up. Their Lordships all knew how rife the rumours of war were during the remainder of the week. Troops were, it was said, ordered to come up from Aldershot, special constables were sworn in, and in the midst of these proceedings a very interesting discussion took place in the other House of Parliament. Having looked over the report of that discussion he was bound to admit that the Government had not committed themselves to such an extent as at first appeared to be the case, though the language held by their representatives contributed to strengthen the impression that they would not allow the meeting to be held. One Member of the Cabinet said, "he trusted Parliament would assist him in maintaining the rights of the Crown;" and he added that "the Parks would never be allowed to be made the arena of political agitation." Again, he stated that "when the people were being handed out of the Park that might be resisted, and a riot might take place;" thus implying that it was the intention of the Government to have the people removed. Another Member of the Cabinet, having stated that there were good reasons for not giving publicity to the precise intentions of the Government as to the mode of dealing with the meeting, added that they had every reason to believe that the measures which they had already adopted would prove effectual to prevent disturbance. The reticence thus observed as to the course they meant to pursue reminded him of the secresy of a General on the eve of battle naturally anxious that his plans should not be known lest they should be defeated by the enemy. Be that as it might, everything that occurred during the discussion on the subject in the other House on Friday night confirmed the impression which already prevailed—and which stood in need of no such confirmation — that a great contest was impending. It was not, indeed, until late on the afternoon of Sunday that it

  217
  became known that all the preparations which had been made by the Government—the bringing up of troops from Aldershot and Windsor, the concentration of the police in the vicinity of the Park, and the swearing in of special constables, were not in the least intended to prevent the meeting, but merely to overawe the pickpockets and roughs who might assemble on the occasion. Now, he must say that no greater blow could, in his opinion, have been struck against all respect for law and authority than was inflicted by the conduct of the Government as displayed throughout these proceedings. Parliament and the country were now much occupied with the subject of Reform, and it was very generally thought that the privilege of exercising the franchise should be more widely extended, but nobody — not even the most ardent Reformer — would, he was sure, maintain that it was desirable the Executive should be rendered weaker; or, above all, that it should be rendered weaker by being brought into contempt. Before he sat down he should like to say a word or two with respect to the behaviour of the people who assembled in the Park on Monday evening. In doing so he would not enter into the question whether Reform meetings and processions contributed anything to the advancement of the Reform question or tended to retard its progress; but, whatever might be the view taken as to the course pursued by the Reform League in promoting such demonstrations, with respect to the admirable conduct of the people who attended that of Monday there could be no doubt. He would not detain their Lordships any longer—he would only in conclusion move—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of the Notice issued by the Secretary of State warning the Public against attending the recent Meeting in Hyde Park, and also of the Instructions given to the Police on the Subject.—(The Earl Cowper.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Although the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Cowper) has moved for certain papers, it is not, I presume, his object to press for their production. The first of the documents to which his Motion refers has already been made public, and it is contrary to all precedent, and may lead to great inconvenience in the future, to lay upon the table the instructions which has been given to the police. I apprehend, then, that the noble Earl's Motion was simply meant to afford him on opportunity of ex-
  218
  pressing, so far as he was acquainted with the circumstance of the case, his opinion as to the course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in reference to the late meeting in Hyde Park. So far from complaining of the noble Earl for availing himself of this opportunity, I am inclined to offer him my thanks for having furnished the occasion for entering into a full discussion of the subject in your Lordships' House, where I am sure you will come to its consideration calmly, temperately, and impartially. I desire nothing more than openly to lay before your Lordships all the circumstances under which the Government have acted in the matter, and to invite the expression of your opinion as to the course which they adopted. But before I say a word with regard to the conduct of the Government I must take the earliest opportunity of vindicating a right hon. Friend of mine who has been subjected to the most unjust misrepresentations—I allude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. I regret to be obliged to state that the labours which he has had to sustain in his office — increased as they have unfortunately been by the absence of the efficient permanent Under Secretary of the Department, Mr. Waddington, owing to serious and protracted indisposition — combined with the mental anxiety which he has had to undergo during the last few weeks, have so considerably impaired his health, acting as they did on a mind more than ordinarily sensitive, as to have compelled him to represent to me that it was a matter of absolute necessity that he should continue no longer to discharge the duties of his office. He has consequently, in spite of my most earnest remonstrances, placed in my hands the resignation of that office, and I have been obliged most reluctantly to submit it to the consideration of Her Majesty. In doing so I feel that the Cabinet is losing the services of a very efficient member; and, above all, I feel that we are parting with a man than whom I never had the good fortune of meeting one more amiable, more honourable, or more thoroughly conscientious. But I am bound to say that the case before us is not one in which the blame of whatever has been done should be visited on Mr. Walpole. The question is not one of a merely departmental character; it affects the Government as a whole. There is not a single Member of the Cabinet—and, least of all, can I pretend to be that Member—who is not as

  219
  fully and entirely responsible for all that has been done as the particular Minister who presided over the Home Office. It has been charged against my right hon. Friend that he exhibited great vacillation, great weakness, and great change of purpose in dealing with this subject. But, my Lords, there has been no vacillation and no change of purpose. The course which we have pursued from the first has been one and the same as that which was determined upon by the Cabinet after the most anxious and careful consideration, and which was founded upon the best opinions we could obtain—those of the present as well as of former Law Officers of the Crown. The noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Cowper) has spoken as if it was in 1866 that the right of the Crown to prevent meetings in the Parks was first called in question. That, however, is far from being the case. It is hardly necessary for me to remind your Lordships of the systematic disturbances which took place in Hyde Park on many successive Sundays in 1855, and to which the Government of that day did not think it was their duty, or that they had a right to put a stop until an absolute riot took place, although much alarm was caused to peaceable persons frequenting the Park. In the case of those disturbances a Commission was appointed to inquire whether the police had not, to a certain extent, exceeded their duty; and the Report of that Commission did not, I believe, completely exonerate some members of the force from the charge. That being so, in 1856 the Government of the day submitted the question of the right of the Crown to prevent meetings in the Parks to their Law Officers, one of whom, I am happy to say, is a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House at the present moment. The Law Officers to whom this reference was made were the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench (Sir Alexander Cockburn), the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Westbury) then Sir Richard Bethell, and Mr. Willes. Now, I look upon it as most important that there should be no mistake about this matter, and I therefore trust your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing uselessly on your time if I read the Questions which were put to those eminent lawyers and the Opinions which they gave in reply, because it was on those Opinions, and not on anything subsequent to them, that we based the course which we took in July 1866. In 1856, then, a
  220
  case was submitted on behalf of the Board of Works to the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion on the following points in relation to the metropolitan Parks:—
  "First, Is there any authority to close the gates of the enclosures and exclude the public altogether during the day? Second, The gates of the enclosures being open, is there any authority to prevent the ingress of persons to the enclosures, those persons conducting themselves properly and orderly in their attempt to obtain ingress? Third, Supposing persons to have entered, and to preach, or play upon musical instruments, or to sing, does any authority exist to turn persons so preaching, or playing, or singing, out of the Parks, supposing they do not obstruct a thoroughfare or cause a disturbance? and, if so, you are particularly requested to state what is the nature of the authority, and how is it derived."
  Now, how did the Law Officers of the Crown answer that reference from the Government?
  Opinion,—First, We think that there is a right in point of law to close the gates and exclude the public from the Parks. Second, We think that, the gates being open, there is a right on the part of the Crown to exclude persons attempting to gain admission; but we do not think this right should be exercised against particular individuals, unless in case of previous misconduct. Third, If persons who have entered commence to preach or play, they cannot be turned out without proper notice to them that the permission or licence of the Crown to the public to enjoy the Park is conditional only, and does not apply to persons who so conduct themselves; and the best way of giving such notice is by posting it up at the entrances of the Parks. The authority to close and exclude the public from the Parks is that which every landowner has to prevent the public from trespassing on his lands; for we are of opinion that the public have not acquired any legal right to use the Parks by reason of the continued user under the licence and by favour of the Crown."
  Now my Lords, that was the opinion distinctly laid down for the guidance of the Government in 1856; and on that opinion Her Majesty's present Government acted when the attempt was made to enter the Park in July, 1866. According to that opinion we had a right to exclude the public altogether; but we ought not to interfere with persons who had obtained entrance into the Park, without previous notice, unless they were misconducting themselves—and even in that respect the power of the Crown did not extend beyond the ordinary right of a private proprietor to remove trespassers from his ground. The noble Earl (Earl Cowper) appears to assume that up to 1866 the law of the case was unknown. The law of the case was distinctly laid down in 1856; and with the knowledge that that was the sole remedy

  221
  available, to the year 1856 down to 1866 the Government did not think fit to take a single step for asserting further the authority of the Crown over the Parks. Well, in 1866 we acted upon the opinion of the Law Officers of our predecessors — and everybody who knows them knows that there could not be any higher authorities than the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Westbury) and the present Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. We took the only course which, according to their opinion, we could have taken — namely, that of excluding the people by shutting the gates of the Park and announcing that they should not be admitted. My Lords, you all know the unfortunate results of that proceeding; and certainly, whatever may be the right of the Crown, I should not be disposed, under such circumstances as then occurred, to repeat an experiment which had such disastrous consequences—which led to such serious collision between the police and the people—which kept up so much angry and ill-feeling—and for a considerable period afterwards rendered the Parks the constant resort of the most lawless, abandoned, and profligate characters. But then it is asked, "When did you take the opinion of your own Law Officers?" My Lords, we took it immediately after the failure of the step which we had adopted upon the advice given to our predecessors; we laid a copy of the Opinion which I have just read to your Lordships before the then Law Officers of the Crown, my noble and learned Friend who was then Attorney General (Lord Cairns) and the Solicitor General Sir William Bovill, the present Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, with a request that they would favour Mr. Secretary Walpole with their opinion on this question—
  "Whether, supposing a number of persons who have already entered Hyde Park to form themselves into a meeting for the discussion of political subjects, there is any legal authority to disperse such meeting by force, even though a general notice may have been given that meetings of that description will not be allowed?"
  Their answer was as follows:—
  "Opinion.—First. We are of opinion that every person entering and remaining in the Park must in law be taken to do so by the licence of the Crown or of those acting in the management of the Park; that it is competent at any time to revoke this licence, or to annex to it a condition that those who avail themselves of it must not form, engage in, or attend meetings of a political character in the Park, and that on this condition being broken the licence is at an end,
  222
  and the person breaking it becomes a trespasser, and may, if he refuse to leave the Park on notice or warning, be removed. It would, of course, be necessary to bring home to the knowledge of the person to be removed that a condition such as above supposed has been annexed to the general licence to enter the Park; this might be done to a great extent by public notices in and about the Park; though it is possible to suppose that, notwithstanding publication of notices, however extensive, individual cases might occur when, from inability to read or otherwise, actual knowledge of the condition would not be imputed, and in such cases it would be necessary to show an express warning to leave. But we are bound to state that, though the legal right of removal is such as we have described, we do not consider that in the case of any large assembly the right could practically be exercised with safety, or that such an assembly could be 'dispersed by force' in the sense in which that term is ordinarily understood. The right of removal is a right to remove each separate individual as a trespasser, by putting him out of the Park, using just so much force (and no more) as is necessary for that purpose. It is a separate right against each individual. The assembly (assuming it to be orderly) are not united in doing an illegal act, and there is no right to disperse them, or coerce them as a body of rioters or disorderly persons. It appears to us that it would not be practicable to remove each individual, or any considerable number of persons, and to prevent them returning; and it is also highly probable that the effort to remove any particular person or persons with the degree of force that would be justifiable would or might soon become confused by a resistance from bystanders, which would introduce into the operation elements of great difficulty and embarrassment. On the whole, we should answer the question proposed to us by saying that, in our opinion, there is not for any practical purpose a legal authority to disperse by force a meeting of the kind supposed, consisting of a large number of persons, and that whether notice has or has not been given beforehand."
  The date of that Opinion is the 28th of July, 1866, a few days subsequent to the meeting that had taken place, and the opinion was asked in consequence of the failure of that remedy which had been suggested by the Law Officers of our predecessors for the protection—I will not say of the right of the Crown—but rather of the whole people in the neighbourhood of London, for whose recreation and harmless and innocent amusement the Parks are kept in that beautiful order in which it is most important that they should continue to be maintained. Well, the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) has said, "After giving this notice, and knowing that practically you had no authority to enforce it, why did you not proceed forthwith to bring in a measure for strengthening the authority of the Crown?"
  EARL COWPERwas understood to say, that he had asked, if they intended to in-

  223
  troduce such a measure, why they did not introduce it at once?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl asks, if we intended to strengthen the authority of the Crown, why did we not do it at once. Let me remind him of the circumstances of the case. The legal opinion was given very shortly before the close of the Session, or on the 28th of July, when there was still considerable excitement on the subject, and also at a time when the leaders of the Reform League, or the party who forced an entrance into the Park, had announced their intention to try the question by an action at law, and when the Government had assured them that it would afford them every facility for that purpose. Well, my Lords, when that question was boldly met by the leaders of the League, or by the Reform party—I do not like to say the names of those connected with that matter of entering the Park — but when there was a distinct notice on the part of the leaders of that movement that they intended to appeal to the tribunals of the land for a decision on the legal right, and the Crown had said that every facility should be afforded them for so trying their right if they believed they had one, I think your Lordships will see that that was not the time for us to assume that we had the right, and prepare to vindicate and strengthen the right of the Crown by introducing a measure at the close of the Session which could not have been passed that year, and which could only have embittered the whole controversy. It was, however, said, "Why did you not bring in a measure immediately at the commencement of the present Session?" Well, what had taken place in the course of the autumn? Large demonstrations—exhibitions, I do not say of physical force, but of numbers—were prepared and carried out for the purpose of influencing the mind of Parliament. The first of these, attended by I believe some 25,000 persons, took place in the month of November. And what was the course pursued by those by whom it was directed? Did they insist upon the right of going to the Park? No, my Lords; they distinctly stated that they had no right to go there, and they asked for the permission of the Government to go to the Park, distinctly avowing that they did not claim it as a matter of right but as a favour. Subsequently the Government offered them Primrose Hill. They afterwards got the use of a place of meeting from a private nobleman, not a
  224
  strong Reformer; they availed themselves of that place in preference; and whatever was the result of that meeting, it was not interfered with by the Government. But just before Parliament met there was another meeting. Did they go to Hyde Park; No, there was no such suggestion. They proposed to pass through the streets in procession to the great hall at Islington Market, where their leaders delivered their harangues to them. All these processions were productive of great public inconvenience, and interfered very much with the ordinary traffic and business of the metropolis. But your Lordships will remember that neither at these processions nor at these meetings was there anything to warrant the interference of the Government. And I must also say with regard to these proceedings that the inhabitants of London were singularly apathetic; because on the second occasion, when they might have apprehended some risk of danger and injury, they did not respond in the slightest degree to the offer made them to swear in special constables for the protection of the public peace. Up to a considerable period after the opening of the Session of Parliament we had no reason to believe but that the question of the right of the Crown was undisputed, as I think it was indisputable. We had every reason to believe that the leaders of the movement would pursue that course which we told them we would facilitate—namely, to try their alleged right by an action at law. And it was not until a time very closely approaching the day of the late meeting in the Park that we knew there was an absolute decision on their part to hold that meeting even in defiance of the Government. Public opinion was strongly manifested within a few days, and in the course of a few hours more than 16,000 signatures were attached to petitions praying us to take steps to prevent processions from passing through the streets and otherwise to protect property. That course, however, we were unable to take, because the law did not enable us to interfere with any peaceable and orderly procession through the streets; but if there were apprehensions of violence, either from those who took part in the procession or from the mixed rabble who would be sure to accompany them, then it would be necessary to swear in special constables for the purpose of protecting themselves and the property in the neighbourhood. When it became apparent that there was a very

  225
  strong disposition on the part of the leaders of that movement to hold their meeting whatever might happen, Her Majesty's Government had then to consider very carefully the course which it was expedient to pursue. And then it was that, by the advice of the Cabinet, and after consulting the Law Officers, it was determined that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should issue the notice to which so much reference is made. The noble Earl did not quote the words of that notice, but I beg that he will bear in mind what they were—
  "Whereas the use of the Park for the purpose of holding such meeting is not permitted, and interferes with the object for which Her Majesty has been pleased to open the Park for the general enjoyment of her people, now, all persons are hereby warned and admonished to abstain from attending, aiding, or taking part in any such meeting, or from entering the Park with a view to attend, aid, or take part in such meeting."
  The noble Earl interpolated the words "warned not to attend the meeting at their peril," and he inferred from it that what was intended was to put a stop to that meeting by force, however peaceable it might be. But the object of that notice was very obvious. It was to warn all parties, and especially the leaders, that they would subject themselves to legal consequences, and would be committing an illegal act as trespassers, if they persisted in holding that meeting. My Lords, in order that there might be no question about it, it was thought right to serve that notice on some of the principal persons expected to take part in the proceedings; and consequently notices were personally served on sixteen of the most leading and most prominent of the body, warning them personally and individually, that they would make themselves liable to be proceeded againt as trespassers if they should, in spite of the warning, persist in holding the meeting. It was intended, and it is in tended, to take legal steps for vindicating and establishing for the public the rights of the Crown. We intend to take sue steps as the Law Officers of the Crow may advise against one or more of these individuals, in order that there may be no question or cavil raised as to the right of the Crown, and the fact of this being trespass. Then arose a very difficult question—how to deal with the case in the event of the meeting nevertheless being held; and I certainly did not think it necessary or expedient, on the Friday even-
  226
  ing when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) was questioned as to what course was to be pursued, that he should publicly and openly declare to all parties who were concerned that the Government had no power to do anything except to proceed for trespass. I did not think it expedient to say to these persons, "You may hold your meeting in defiance of the Government with perfect impunity." I preferred that the course of the Government should be left to their discretion, instead of giving public notice that although the holding of the meeting was prohibited it was not our intention to take any steps whatever. But the instructions given to the police for which the noble Earl has moved, but which he does not wish me to produce, were in substance that the police were to take every precaution in their power against any violation of the public peace; but that so long as the meeting was conducted in an orderly and peaceable manner they were to do nothing to risk a collision with the people. We knew then the nature of the powers which we possessed; and when the meeting took place the question was this—Shall we proceed with a small number of police—one, two, or three policemen to each of the leaders of that meeting—shall they place their hands on their shoulders and desire them individually and generally to leave the Park? Now, my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) foresaw in the opinion he gave the danger that would arise from this course of proceeding. Even if the individuals present had not been disposed to resist the legal authority of the police, it would be impossible to say that the multitude who would be around them might not attempt to rescue their leaders. In that case a collision would have been imminent. The police would have been brought into collision with a body of from 5,000 to 10,000 or 20,000 persons, and then it would have been necessary to call in the military force, and there was an ample power at hand to meet any riot that might arise. It was not necessary to use that force, in consequence in the first place of the forbearance of the Government, and in the next place in consequence of that to which I wish to do the fullest credit and justice—the orderly, peaceable, and admirable behaviour of that vast crowd. But had we any right to calculate on that orderly behaviour after what happened the year before? Should we not have abandoned our most sacred duties if we had not had an ample force at hand—although it

  227
  was kept studiously out of sight, with a view to avoid any strife or ill-feeling, but at the same time ready to suppress any such disgraceful scenes as those of last year? Happily, the services of that force were not required. I will say, my Lords, over and over again, that I consider as nothing the temporary violation of what I believe to be the undisputed right of the Crown—a subject more especially to be dealt with by a measure placing it on a more satisfactory footing—I say I consider that as nothing in comparison with the risk which might have occurred if in the exercise of that power we had brought on a collision between an infuriated mob and a large force of the military and police. My Lords, I have now given you the best details in my power as to the course and the motives on which the Government have proceeded. I have now given you the authority on which we have acted—the difficulties in which we found ourselves placed—the certainty that the Crown possessed rights, but the uncertainty, on the other hand, and the extreme difficulty of enforcing those rights. It is not for the purpose of establishing those rights that we bring in a Bill, but to establish the means of giving effect to them. In the meantime I think that none of the noble Lords on the opposite side will contend that when the first notice was given, a short time before the day fixed for the actual meeting, it was advisable to say "The Government do not possess sufficient power, but we will bring in a Bill to put down this special meeting which has been advertised to take place." In my opinion, the course pursued by the Government has not been vacillating, has not been uncertain. It has been decided upon from the beginning, after anxious consideration, and after the best advice we could take; and after the forbearing course they have pursued, even if they have subjected themselves to some slight humiliation in the public mind, as having sanctioned or allowed a violation of the law, I shall rest satisfied in my own conscience that the course pursued has been the most conducive to the real interests of the country, to the preservation of order, and to the full and due consideration alike of the rights of the Crown and the rights of the people.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I enter upon this discussion; but my noble Friend (Earl Cowper) having brought the question forward, and the noble Earl having defended
  228
  the course of the Government, I must say that I entirely agree with my noble Friend, and do not agree with the noble Earl that he has made out his case as to the wisdom of the course that has been pursued. I think that the results have been most unfortunate. The course taken last year by the Government led to a great deal of outrage, and the course pursued this year has exposed the authority of the law and the dignity of the Crown to a degree of contempt that I hardly ever remember before. With regard to what the noble Earl has said of Mr. Walpole, I entirely agree in the opinion that a more conscientious, a more amiable, and a more honourable man never entered the public service. I cannot, however, say that I regret he should leave the Home Department; for I think that of all the Departments of the public service the office for which he is least fitted is that of Home Secretary. Now, with regard to the course the Government have pursued, the noble Earl is quite right in saying that if any faults have been committed they are not the faults of Mr. Walpole, but they are the faults of the Cabinet of the noble Earl. The noble Earl has pursued a most unusual course, and one which may be productive of injury at a future time. He has produced the very words and terms of the Opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown; in the first place, the Opinion of the Law Officers of a former Government; and, in the next place, the Opinion of the Law Officers of his own Government. It has been the rule for Law Officers of the Crown, whatever Government might be in power, to object to their Opinions being produced, and I remember Lord Lyndhurst stating this objection in the strongest terms. But in what manner do these Opinions bear out the noble Earl? Let us recollect that the business of the Law Officers of the Crown, when they are asked their opinion, is to inform the Government what in their judgment is the law on the subject. The Law Officers of the present Government have gone rather further than that, in stating what is practicable; but the whole question of discretion rests with the Government—with the Cabinet—and not with the Law Officers of the Crown. The noble Earl states that in 1856 the then Law Officers of the Crown gave an opinion that there were certain powers which existed, and that it was lawful to exclude persons from the Parks, but that from 1856 to 1866 that opinion was never acted upon. Now,

  229
  I should have thought that that circumstance, instead of being an argument in favour of the noble Earl, was an argument against him; for it seems to me that although these were the legal powers—and no doubt they were rightly stated by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) and his Colleagues—you ought not to attempt to exercise those powers unless in a case in which obedience would willingly and readily be rendered. When, for instance, there is a review, and it is inconvenient that carriages should go into the Park, the large numbers of people who flock to witness the spectacle are quite content that the gates should be shut, except at certain hours and under certain regulations. But when there was a question of great numbers wishing to enter the Park and hold a meeting there, it was obvious that, if the Park were closed against them, there was great probability of resistance, and of force being used. I think, therefore, that it was most unwise, most inexpedient, to attempt to shut the people out of the Park in July, 1866. We all know the deplorable consequences which followed, and I cannot wonder that the noble Earl, having in his mind the knowledge of those consequences, now says that he was not prepared to repeat that experiment. But that is, to say the least, no proof of the wisdom of the course which had been previously pursued. The matter ended on that occasion in Mr. Beales saying, on the part of the Reform League, that he maintained there was a perfectly legal right to hold a meeting in the Park, and in Mr. Walpole saying, on the other hand, that there was no such right, and that he was disposed to give every facility for the trial of the question. Mr. Beales subsequently declared that he could not find any convenient way of trying the matter in a Court of Law, but he never retracted his opinion on the subject; I say, then, that if it was held by the Government that the right of the public to meet in Hyde Park should be denied, the beginning of the Session was obviously the time when they ought to have introduced a Bill with that object. If that had been done, and if Parliament had approved the Bill, everybody would have known that such a law had been enacted, and that any step which might be taken for holding a meeting in the Park would be quite illegal, and would entail certain consequences. But it appears to me that the Government committed a much greater fault than that when
  230
  they, not having introduced any Bill, and Mr. Beales and his friends having announced that they intended to hold a meeting in the Park, the Government decided on the Friday evening—the noble Earl personally assumes the responsibility of that opinion—that they would not inform the public what course they really intended to take. I do not think the way to treat the people of this country is to be mysterious. You ought to tell them what is the law, and what course you intend to pursue. The more frank you are, the more sincerity you show towards the people of this country, the better for the Government. On that Friday evening—when they had ascertained from the very clear opinion of those who were the Law Officers of the Crown on the formation of the present Cabinet that it would be merely a trespass, that all they could do was to tell the people they were committing a trespass, that if any attempt was to be made to remove them it must not be an attempt to remove whole bodies, but only to remove individuals, and that that would be so inconvenient, and would probably be attended with so much risk of a collision, that it was, in fact, impracticable — why not have said that, such being the state of the law, it was not the intention of the Government to interfere with the proposed meeting? That was the position in which they stood, and why not have stated it? Instead, however, of so doing, they held out, by the notice given by the Secretary of State, a kind of mysterious threat, on which they never intended to act, and which everybody construed as they pleased. There were many persons with whom I conversed at the time on the subject, and some said one thing and some another. Some supposed that persons would be dragged out of the Park and taken to the police-office to answer for their offence; others imagined that the whole crowd would be desired to move on and move out, and anticipated what consequences might accrue from their probable resistance. Now, I contend that it is not wise to expose the authority of Her Majesty's Secretary of State to these constructions when all the time you mean not to interfere, and intend to allow the people to hold the meeting. I entirely agree in the opinion that, such being the state of the law, it was discreet not to interfere with the meeting; but the consequence of holding out mysterious threats and not acting upon them is that the authority of the law and the authority

  231
  of the Crown have been exposed to disrespect, and that those who might have been permitted to go into the Park with the consent of the authorities and hold their meeting quietly, having persisted after being thus threatened, have appeared to gain a great public triumph. The Government might have preserved their dignity; they might have fairly stated how the law stood, and have allowed the meeting to be held; but by the course they adopted they have exposed their own dignity and the authority of the Crown to disrespect, and have given occasion for great jubilation on the part of those who declared that they were determined, whatever the nature of the law, to assert what they deemed their constitutional right. Now, I see no good—on the contrary, I see very great disadvantage—in affording that sort of triumph to great crowds of people, for the precedent may be attended with unpleasant results on some other occasion. With regard to the future, I do hope that, having committed two such capital mistakes—the great mistake last year of trying to keep the people out, and the mistake this year which has led to a great diminution of the respect for authority—the Government will now leave Hyde Park alone. They may be prepared to deal with the great question of Reform, but the question of Hyde Park is one rather beyond them; it is one with which they cannot deal with any advantage. With regard to holding meetings in Hyde Park, a great deal of fear and alarm has been expressed in this luxurious and timid capital as to the effect of such meetings. At Birmingham, at Glasgow, and elsewhere they all submit to the inconvenience of these crowds, but the people of London are exceedingly alarmed by them; and no doubt, under the effect of that alarm, if a Bill had been brought in early in the Session there would have been very little opposition to it, and we should, at all events, have been aware how the law stood. But what has happened from that meeting having been held? Why, we have now come to see how very harmless a thing it may be. If there is no opposition on the part of the Crown, if there is no resistance on the part of the police and military, thousands of people may collect in Hyde Park; they may hold their meeting, and after an hour or two's speeches, probably not of a very exciting kind, they all go quietly home. It is supposed—and I am sorry to see Mr. Beales supposes—that it would
  232
  be well to have a political meeting every week in Hyde Park. I believe, however—though the noble Earl, perhaps, may not concur in that opinion—that this is a question that may be left to the good sense and discretion of the people themselves. When there is now and then a great crisis, people might wish to have such meetings as that held on Monday; but that men who have been at their work all day, who are fatigued with the number of hours they have spent in toil, and naturally wish to get to their homes, would be very anxious to go every week and hear some very indifferent speakers in Hyde Park is a thing I cannot believe. The first week there might be some crowd, the second there would probably be much less, and on the third meeting, perhaps fifty people. I think, therefore, the Government should have the good sense and discretion not to take any further step, and not to proceed with the Bill which they have introduced, but leave it to the people themselves to take the part which is discreet, and which, in their opinion, their own interest require. I believe you had much better trust to that discretion and good conduct which a civilized people in this metropolis will naturally manifest than to any measure which may be carried through Parliament.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Perhaps the noble Earl would inform us whether he is desirous that the right which by law is exercised by the Crown of prohibiting religious and political meetings in the Parks should be done away with, and that a declaration should be made on the part of the Government that such meetings may be held in the Parks without let or hindrance, except in case of riot; or is he of opinion that the rights of the Crown should be exercised and the privileges of the people of the metropolis in general maintained and protected?
  EARL RUSSELL: I do not mean to say that there should be a complete abolition of all restraint; but what I say is that you may fairly rely upon the discretion of the people. You cannot rely upon the discretion of everybody that goes there, perhaps, to preach, and it may be necessary to interfere with such a person; but what I say is, that this is a matter which may be fairly left to the discretion of the people. I say, too, it may fairly be left to the discretion of the Government, if it were not that the Government have shown themselves exceedingly indiscreet. If there

  233
  were no meetings of any importance held in the Park for ten years between 1856 and 1866 surely the matter might be left to the good feeling of the people and the good sense of the Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: In what other mode, may I ask, would you be prepared to deal with it?
  EARL RUSSELL: In case of continued attempts to hold meetings for religious or political purposes, it would be necessary, I suppose, to have a Bill. If the law were declared the people, no doubt, would obey a Proclamation; but such a Proclamation as was issued the other day is perfectly useless.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this question is so important, and it is so essential that the public should understand perfectly the justification of the Government for the proceedings which were taken, that I take leave for a short time to trespass on your Lordships' attention in order to show that the course adopted by them was one, if not of "wisdom"—the word used by the noble Earl—at all events the most proper and almost the necessary course. My Lords, there are difficulties involved in this subject which none can fairly understand who have not given it the closest and most careful attention. I have heard the most inconsiderate opinions expressed as to our proceedings by persons out of doors, by persons who were evidently ignorant of the powers with which we are intrusted, and who have never reflected upon the necessity of using those powers with the utmost caution and discretion. My Lords, those who are now criticizing us have the advantage of judging after the event, and yet I think we may fairly ask them, when they blame us for the conduct we pursued, what course they think would have been the most desirable—because up to the present I have not heard any intimation of an opinion on that subject.
  EARL RUSSELL: I would recommend the course which was taken in 1848.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl says the course which was taken in 1848; but if he had kindly communicated to us what that course was we should have been better able to judge of it. I have no recollection on the subject; but I am told that there was no proposal at that time to hold a meeting in the Park. However that may be, I pass on to the subject in hand. I am bound to say that the Government acted on this occasion,
  234
  after the best exercise of its judgment, with an anxious desire to use every means in its power to prevent a breach of the public peace, and, at the same time, with as much forbearance as was required to prevent any bad consequences ensuing from their interference; and, my Lords, I may confidently say that I think we succeeded, first of all, in putting the persons who convened the meeting in the wrong, and leaving it open to us to vindicate the law upon the proper grounds. My Lords, the question of the right of the Crown to the Parks and of the privileges of the people had not arisen until, I think, about 1855. It was generally understood that the Parks belonged to the Crown, but there was a vague notion that they were a sort of public property in which the people had independent rights. My Lords, the subject was first brought under public attention in that year, 1855, when, as your Lordships may remember, there were riotous assemblages in Hyde Park, in consequence of a Bill introduced by my noble Friend (Lord Ebury) into the House of Commons upon Sunday trading. A collision took place upon that occasion between the persons assembled and the police which led to a debate in the House of Commons. In that debate Mr. Duncombe, the Member for Finsbury, in the strongest and most positive terms, asserted the right of the people over the Parks. My right hon. Friend Sir George Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, having probably been taken unawares upon this question, and not being prepared to answer it with sufficient precision, rather hastily seemed to admit that such a right existed in the public, for he said—
  "It is the privilege of the inhabitants of London to visit the Parks—the hon. Gentleman says it is their right—and no doubt it is their right—but qualified in this way they have no right to go there to molest other people who have an equal right with themselves."—[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 461.]
  Your Lordships have heard from my noble Friend that the Government of that day thought proper to issue a Commission upon this question. That Commission was directed to three very able lawyers, and they made a Report upon the subject. As far as the abstract right was concerned, the Report was an authoritative exposition of the right of the Crown; but with regard to any practical mode of asserting that right against any in-

  235
  vasion the Report was perfectly silent. The Commissioners said—
  "It seems to us that meetings of this nature might properly be interdicted and suppressed as novel, and not sanctioned by usage or the regulations of Hyde Park. To make Hyde Park an arena for the discussion of popular and exciting topics would be inconsistent with the chief purposes for which it is thrown open to and used by the public."
  My Lords, as I have said, that is an authoritative exposition of the rights of the Crown, but there is no practical suggestion in the Report how to assert those rights. But in the following year the necessity for exactly understanding the power which existed for preventing any intrusion on the right of the Crown arose. As your Lordships have heard, crowds were in the habit of attending on the Sunday listening to bands of music, and complaint having been made on the subject the Government of that day thought it right to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. You have heard from my noble Friend the Opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and it has been stated that it was never allowed to produce such Opinions except with the sanction of the Law Officers themselves. But, my Lords, if I am not very much mistaken, it turned out that, under the Government of which the noble Lord was a Member (the Earl of Aberdeen), the Duke of Newcastle, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, thought it right, in the case of the Tuscarora, to send out to captains of vessels the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXwas understood to say, that what was then sent out was an instruction how to act, founded upon the Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: However that may be, this I know, that my noble Friend was perfectly right in stating that these were the Opinions of the Law Officers. Your Lordships have heard what the opinion of the Law Officers was. They were of opinion that the Crown had a right to close the gates of the Park, and also that the populace who came there could be treated as trespassers, and only as trespassers, after warning given that the licence granted was withdrawn. They also thought that the best mode of giving that warning was to post it at the entrance to the Park. Now, if my noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) will forgive me, I do not think that would be sufficient; because if you proceed against a trespasser where licence has been with-
  236
  drawn, you must show that he had personal notice of the withdrawal of the license. Therefore, unless you can show that the person against whom you proceed had particular notice, or can bring home to him a knowledge of the notice on the Park gates, you would fail against him. However, that is not of very much importance. As my noble Friend stated, and as your Lordships will observe, this Opinion was the first which instructed the Government in the proper mode of proceeding, and it was the Opinion which we acted upon in 1866. And not only did we act upon that Opinion in 1866, but the late Government also acted upon it; and hence has arisen a singular state of things, which up to the present has not been brought under the notice of your Lordships. The present Government came into office on the 6th of July last year. Shortly before that time there had been an announcement made of the intention of certain persons to hold a meeting in Trafalgar Square, at which, I think, Mr. Beales was to be the chairman. My Lords, the opinion which Sir George Grey entertained as to the legality of that meeting will not be an unimportant point for your Lordships' consideration. In the course of a debate which occurred afterwards, Sir George Grey said—
  "I stated that, as far as I was informed, it was a legal meeting; that any meeting at which language was held calculated to provoke a breach of the peace was an illegal meeting; but that a meeting held for the purpose of discussing Parliamentary Reform was not in itself illegal."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 1405.]
  And the Home Secretary directed that a letter should be written to Mr. Beales by Sir Richard Mayne, which letter is dated the 2nd of July, four days before the present Government came into office. Now, that letter was in these terms—
  "The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has to acquaint the president or chairman of the public meeting to be held this evening in Trafalgar Square that the police have instructions not to prevent, or in any way interfere with the holding of the meeting in a peaceable and quiet manner; but, should bodies of persons proceed together about the streets in such a manner as by their numbers, noise, demeanour, or language, is calculated to cause a breach of the peace, or excite terror or alarm in the minds of Her Majesty's subjects, it will become the duty of the police to prevent, and, if necessary, put a stop to such proceedings, and apprehend persons encouraging those engaged in them, and Others who continue to act with them."
  But, my Lords, there is another singular circumstance. That meeting which was afterwards held on the 23rd of July, 1866,

  237
  to which my noble Friend has alluded, had been announced before the late Government went out of office; and Sir George Grey, in some observations he made in the debate to which I have alluded, said—
  "About that time Sir Richard Mayne informed me that it was reported it was intended to hold a meeting in Hyde Park. I told him that, in accordance with the course that had been adopted for some years past by the Government, the meeting in Hyde Park would not be permitted, and that I wished that an intimation to that effect should be made to those who were engaged in organizing the proposed meeting."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 1406.]
  My Lords, I do not know whether any such notification was given; but, at all events, I may assume that if the Government had remained in office, such a notification would be made to the persons who were organizing that meeting. Now, what steps the Government were prepared to take, supposing the notification to have been made and contravened, we are of course unable to say. I take for granted, as their attention had been called to the subject, they had in some way or other determined on their course. However, we had no intimation on the subject. We have not therefore the benefit of their views and opinions on the matter. Well, my Lords, this was the state of things when we entered office on the 6th of July. The announcement had been made prior to our accepting office that the meeting would be held in Hyde Park on the 23rd of July. We had no guide at that time, except the Opinion which had been given in 1856 by the Law Officers of the Crown of that day, and by that Opinion we were told that it was competent to the Crown to close the gates and forbid the entrance of the public, and also that we must warn persons that they would become trespassers if they went into the Park after notice that the licence of the Crown had been withdrawn. We adopted to the very letter the advice so given by the then Law Officers of the Crown. We closed the gates with the consequences which your Lordships will remember, though not without some effect, because it appears that the lenders of that intended meeting, who would have been the principal speakers, came to the gates of the Marble Arch and desired to be admitted, and on refusal went away and took no part in the lawless proceedings that ensued. But unfortunately there were a number of men of a very different stamp, who always will join large bodies of the people, intent on their own objects
  238
  of confusion and plunder; and this increases the responsibility of those who collect meetings of this description in the metropolis. These persons resolved not to return home without their object being accomplished, and, as your Lordships will remember, they broke down the palings and afterwards committed considerable destruction. As meetings of a similar kind were proposed to be held, we thought it necessary upon that occasion to take the Opinion of our own Law Officers. That Opinion was given to us; it is one of great value and importance—an Opinion confirmed in fact by the Opinion given by the Law Officers in 1856, showing that we had no power whatever to treat the persons who came in a body to meetings of the kind in any other light than as trespassers; but, at the same time, saying that it would be almost impossible to carry into effect the mode that would be adopted with regard to ordinary trespassers in private parks. That was the state of things when the meeting for Monday last was announced. We were told that the meeting itself, being for the purpose of discussing Parliamentary Reform, was not an illegal meeting—it had been so stated by the Law Officers in 1856 and by Sir George Grey—and it would be impossible to remove the parties by force. We were also aware that although persons attended meetings of that description, it would not render them more than trespassers, and that the only way to proceed against them on the spot was to warn them—to desire them to leave the Park, and, if they refused, to use just such force as the Law Officers said made it a mode of proceeding entirely out of the question. In the first place, it was necessary either to have a large body of police to enforce submission to the order to leave the Park, which, in such an assemblage of persons necessarily lead to a collision, and probably to fatal consequences; or to instruct two or three policemen to pierce the mass of the people, if they could do so, to arrive at the person addressing the assembly to give him the warning, and proceed against him in the same manner, which, of course, might lead to the same violence. What, then, was the course adopted? And here I must appeal to the candid and fair consideration of your Lordships. What was the course, and the only course, open to us to pursue? We thought that it would be right to adopt the suggestion of the Law Officers of 1856 by giving a

  239
  general notice throughout the metropolis, and especially near the Park, in the terms which my noble Friend has read to the House. And with regard to that notice, I have one observation to make. It has been said that notice should have been issued by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and not by the Secretary of State; but the notice given in 1856 was signed by the Chief Commissioner, and then it was said that excited the people; so that if any notice at all was to be given it was very difficult with these conflicting opinions to know exactly by whom the notice should be signed. However, as I have said, it was not sufficient if we should proceed merely to rest on the notice we served or posted on the gates; it was necessary to bring home to the persons against whom we proposed to proceed a knowledge that they would not be permitted to enter Hyde Park for the purpose of holding the meeting, and therefore we directed that notice should be served on the leading parties who were organizing the meeting. I really do not understand what possible objection the noble Earl can have to the persons employed to serve this notice. It was absolutely necessary, your Lordships will recollect, to have proof that these notices were served, and proof that those on whom they were served attended the meeting, and took a prominent part in it. Therefore, I see no objection to the services of the police being employed in this manner, which certainly brought the parties into a position in which they could be proceeded against immediately as trespassers, and enabled us to vindicate the law and the rights and property of the Crown. My noble Friend also adverted to the fact of our having a large body of police and military in reserve in case any riot or violence should ensue, which would turn the meeting, originally lawful, into an unlawful assembly and justify us in dispersing it. Now, those who find fault with us are bound to tell us what course, in their opinion, we ought to have pursued. My Lords, I am addressing many noble Lords who know all the difficulties and responsibilities of a course of action upon emergencies of this description. There are noble Lords present who must have been in consultation in 1856, and certainly were parties to the deliberations of the Government in respect to the proceedings of last year. I may appeal to their candour and frankness, and I may ask them distinctly
  240
  to tell us what, in their judgment, should have been the course the Government ought to have pursued, which at the same time that it placed them in a position to vindicate the law, enabled them to do it without any collision which might have taken place with a large assemblage of persons, and would have led to the most painful and deplorable consequences.
  EARL GREYsaid, it was very desirable that some sufficient explanation should be given by the Ministers on this important subject. But it appeared to him the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (the Lord Chancellor), had alike failed in answering that which was the really important part of the question. He had not understood the noble Earl who commenced the discussion (Earl Cowper) to blame the Government for not having taken summary measures to prevent the meeting, but to say—and in this he (Earl Grey) perfectly agreed with him—that the Government were greatly to blame for having prohibited the meeting in a manner which created the belief that they intended forcibly to prevent its taking place, and afterwards allowing it to take place, so that it was made to appear that a triumph had been achieved over the constituted authorities. The more clearly the Government proved that they had no practical means of preventing the meeting, the more clearly they showed that they had acted without judgment in the matter. The Ministers knew as early as July last that if persons thought fit to hold a public meeting in the Park there were practically no means by which it would be in the power of the Government to prevent that intention being carried into effect, without the risk of very serious collision. Under these circumstances it was a singular course to adopt, when a meeting was announced, that the Secretary of State should issue such a notice as had been referred to. True, it was not a Proclamation in point of law, but it had the Royal arms on the top of the notice; it was printed in the ordinary form of a Proclamation, placed in public places, and was signed by the Secretary of State, though without the addition of the words, "by command of Her Majesty." It had all the formality of an actual Proclamation, and informed Her Majesty's subjects that a meeting for political discussion in the Park would not be permitted, and warned all persons not to attend such meeting. That notice by itself seemed almost to

  241
  imply the intention on the part of the Government to interfere. But the matter did not rest there. The Government took measures to assemble additional troops in London, and to concentrate a large force of police in the immediate neighbourhood of the Park. It had been said that it was necessary to take precautionary measures in case of a riot occurring; but if the meeting was not to be interfered with, and if no opposition was to be offered to the proceedings of those who called the meeting, would any man pretend to say that the ordinary military and police force in London would not have been amply sufficient? But as troops were brought to London the public naturally concluded from this large assembly of force in London that the Government intended to adopt measures which they thought would probably be resisted, and that resistance would provoke a disturbance which would require a considerable force for its suppression. This impression was confirmed by the circumstance of the Under Secretary of State being directed to address a letter to a number of vestry clerks, with a view to the swearing in of special constables, stating that an attempt would be made to hold a meeting in the Park. The issue of that letter certainly implied that the meeting would not be permitted, and the proceedings reported to have taken place in the House of Commons by no means weakened the inference; for though the language held on the part of the Government was undoubtedly ambiguous in some respects, yet it expressed most strongly their determination to prevent the meeting. The noble Earl at the head of the Government challenged those who blamed the course which had been pursued to state what course ought to have been taken. Well, he thought that if, instead of creating the belief that they meant to prevent by force the meeting taking place, the Government had simply announced that in the state of the law they did not think it expedient to take any measures of that kind; that, at the same time, they did not sanction the meeting, and if they had served notices on persons intending to take any part in the meeting, informing them that it was contrary to law, and that they would be held responsible for their conduct; if there had been no mystery on the subject, but if the Government had simply stated that they meant not, on the one hand, to sanction the meeting, nor, on the other, to take any forcible means to suppress it, there would
  242
  then have been no excitement in London, and Government would not have sustained a defeat. But by the course pursued these agitators were made to appear as having ostentatiously defied the Government with impunity and success. It was impossible to exaggerate the evil which might result from the prevalence of a notion to that effect. The whole peace and order of the country, and almost the very existence of society, depended on the general conviction that the power intrusted to the Ministers of the Crown was to be maintained according to law, and that no man and no set of men were strong enough to set the law at defiance with impunity. But the course which had been pursued was calculated to teach the lesson that the authorities of the country might be defied, and the Ministers of the Crown overruled by those who had sufficient audacity and determination to make the attempt. He feared that was a lesson which not only the members of the Reform League, but persons of a much more dangerous character might not be slow in learning. He would now say a single word on what had fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Russell) with respect to the uses which might be made of the Parks, and which he had heard with great regret. He, for one, did not scruple to say that he thought the Parks ought not to be used for purposes of political or religious agitation. He had no wish to interfere with the free and unrestrained assembling of the people in proper places for the object of legitimate discussion; he always held that view; but then the Parks were intended, not for political discussion, but for the recreation of the public at large. His noble Friend, in stating that in other large cities the parks were used for holding political and religious meetings, was, he believed, in error when he said so; for, if he was not misinformed, there was in the case of the parks of our principal towns a proviso by which they were expressly reserved for public recreation. He was told, also, on the best authority, that such was the case with regard to the parks in New York; they were devoted exclusively to the recreation of the people, and public meetings in them were not permitted. The noble Earl opposite had justly observed that if political meetings were allowed in the Parks, it would be difficult to prevent religious discussions there. Now, they all knew how great a nuisance the knots of persons who assembled together in the Parks for those pur-

  243
  poses were. If meetings, at which fierce passions and controversies were excited, were permitted to be held in the Parks, there would soon be an end to the use of them as places of recreation. He felt therefore persuaded that the Government were perfectly right in determining to maintain the authority of the Crown, and he trusted they would persevere in that determination. Unfortunately, however, he could not disguise from himself that the powers necessary for the purpose would now be applied for under circumstances, comparatively speaking, of great disadvantage. He hoped, at the same time, that if such powers were really required they would be granted by Parliament. He felt bound to dissent from his noble Friend, who seemed to think that the question was one which might be left altogether to the discretion of the people. He had not the slightest doubt that the public generally would act with great discretion in the matter; but if there were no authority to interfere with the conduct of individuals, there would, he was afraid, be found to be persons who would abuse the licence placed in their hands.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, your Lordships have the very great advantage in dealing with this question of having before you, on the one hand, the course which the Government have pursued as well as the motives, in pursuing it, by which they were actuated; and, on the other hand, the various suggestions made by noble Lords opposite, with which we can compare that which has been actually done. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) suggested for your Lordships' consideration two modes of proceeding, which he seemed to think better than that adopted by the Government; but I own I was unable to appreciate the consistency of those two courses. If I rightly understood the noble Earl, he deplored the great injury which, in his opinion, the majesty of the law has sustained owing to the course taken by the Government, and in order to maintain and vindicate the majesty of the law the course which he would advise would be to abandon the law and the rights of the Crown altogether; and whereas the law says the proprietary right to the Parks is in the Crown, the noble Earl would have the Executive say they will not maintain that right, but will leave it to the discretion of the people at large to say whether religious and political meetings should or should not be held in the Parks. I would take the
  244
  liberty to ask the noble Earl this question. He would leave the discretion to the people; but suppose the discretion of the people were to take different channels, how would he act? Suppose 10,000, or 20,000, or 30,000 persons were to say that, in the exercise of their discretion, they would hold meetings every week in the Parks, and that the views of all the rest of the inhabitants of London should take the direction of thinking that the holding of public meetings there was eminently undesirable—I should like to know who is to settle the point of discretion between the contending parties. The noble Earl, however, put forward an alternative suggestion. Interposing in the discussion, he said, "The course I would have adopted is that which was pursued in 1848." But what, let me ask, was that course, and what the circumstances of that year? They were these. A seditions, and therefore an illegal, meeting was about to be held; the ordinary informations were lodged and the ordinary proofs adduced to show that the safety and peace of the metropolis were likely to be endangered. That being so, the noble Earl and the Executive of the country, of which he was the head, took steps to prevent the meeting altogether. Now, I would ask, which I of the courses shadowed out by the noble Earl does he think the present Government ought to have adopted in reference to the recent meeting. Should the whole affair have been left to the discretion of the people, or should they have repeated the course taken in 1848, and prevented the meeting altogether?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am sure the noble and learned Lord does not wish to lead the House into any mistake in this matter. In 1848, there was no interference with the meeting. All that Mr. Fergus O'Connor was then prohibited from doing was the coming down in procession to the Houses of Parliament.
  LORD CAIRNS: If that be so, the observation of the noble Earl to which I was just referring was without meaning. If the question in 1848 simply was, whether Mr. Fergus O'Connor should cross Westminster Bridge in order to reach the vicinity of the House of Commons, what did the noble Earl intend to convey when he said that the course which he should like to see pursued in the present instance was that which had been adopted in 1848? But, speaking from memory, I am much mistaken if it was not intimated to Mr.

  245
  Fergus O'Connor, there being great apprehension at the time of the congregation together of large numbers of persons under his leadership, that no meeting of that sort would be allowed. Be that as it may, I feel quite confident that the recommendations of the noble Earl to which I have referred, will not meet your Lordships' approbation, and I am glad to perceive that from no other noble Lord opposite have we had any expression of approval of the suggestion that the Parks should be left to the discretion of the people. The noble Earl who last spoke (Earl Grey) reduced the question to a very narrow issue. He said that, with one exception, the conduct of the Government was not, in his opinion, open to animadversion; and I rejoice to think that there appears to be perfect harmony as to one extremely important element in the case—that in the present state of the law there is not sufficient authority in the Crown, though its right may be undisputed, practically to prevent the Parks from being occupied by large public assemblies. The question really to be discussed to-night, then, is not so much one of substance as one of form. In substance your Lordships agree that being in possession of no further authority than the law as it stands gives, the Government acted wisely in not making any attempt to interrupt the progress of the meeting; and I own that I, for one, am of opinion that they acted wisely also in not introducing a Bill with reference to this subject until lately. Your Lordships will, I have no doubt, recollect how this question of meetings in the Parks "broke off"—if I may use the phrase—in July. A meeting was to be held at the end of that mouth, with respect to which great alarm was expressed. Ultimately the heads and originators of the meeting announced that it was not their intention to hold it; while, if I am not much mistaken, they informed the Secretary for the Home Department that they maintained their legal right to do so, and would take steps to have the question tried in a Court of Law, if the Government gave them the opportunity of doing so; and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself ready to afford them every facility in his power. They did not then hold their meeting; and having taken no step to vindicate the legal right which they claimed, I think it would have been extremely unwise on the part of any Government to do anything but to cherish the hope and belief, which, I suppose, the Go-
  246
  vernment did entertain, that nothing more would be done to assert the alleged right to hold such meetings in the Park. But it is said that when another attempt to hold a meeting in the Park was announced, then was the proper time to introduce a Bill into Parliament on this subject. That is a point on which different opinions may very well be entertained. I should not at all have regretted if at that time the attention of Parliament had been invited to the matter. Still, there is a great deal to be said upon both sides of that question. Up to the last moment there was some hope that those who had announced the meeting would not persevere in the intention to hold it—I believe they were appealed to not to hold it by persons sympathizing with them in their political views—and if the Government, under those circumstances, had introduced a Bill, while it was uncertain whether the meeting would actually take place or not, it would have been said, and said with considerable justice, "Why, by asking Parliament to arm you with further powers, you have challenged those who have announced this meeting to establish the right which they claim." There remains, then, my Lords, that which the noble Earl who spoke last (Earl Grey) dwelt most upon—namely, the question of the Proclamation by notice. I read that notice, as I have no doubt many of your Lordships did, not in a very convenient way, while passing the public places where it was affixed; but I must confess that I did not at all put the interpretation upon it which I am told persons out of doors have done. With a feeling which was, perhaps, not wholly an unnatural one, people said, "Why, this is one of the ordinary Proclamations issued against seditious and illegal meetings, warning the public that they would not be allowed to be held." Anybody using common care, I should have thought, could hardly have come to such a conclusion. Perhaps I look upon it with too technical eyes; but it appears to me that the notice was exactly such a one as you would issue, not when you claimed the right to prevent and put down a meeting by force, but when you simply wished to warn those entering the Park to hold a meeting that the holding the meeting was not authorized or allowed, and that, therefore, they would be doing in Royal grounds that which was not permitted by those who had authority to grant a licence to enter those grounds. My Lords, it is very easy to look back

  247
  upon the matter and find words in the notice which might possibly be open to some misinterpretation. I must say I think it was incumbent on the Government to enter a protest against the meeting in the Park, because, if no such protest had been entered, it would have been said, "Why, here was a meeting publicly announced to take place in the Park; the Government knew it was about to be held, and it was for them to say that they would close the Park or not permit it to be held. They took no step; and therefore it is to be assumed that they had no objection to it." My Lords, I hope one result will arise from these occurrences. I trust, in whatever form it may be done, that Parliament will think it right to consider for the future what is to be the law and how it is to be practically applied in reference to the use and occupation of the Parks, My Lords, I think I do not exaggerate when I say that the Parks, kept up in their present beautiful state, are one of the ornaments, if not the greatest ornament, of London. The expenditure of public money incurred upon them is very large. On the other hand, the people of the metropolis know that they and their families are now allowed as free a permission to walk in and enjoy those Parks as the most exalted member of your Lordships' House. I believe, speaking of the large majority of the public, that that is a privilege which is highly valued by them, and any curtailment of which they would keenly feel and deeply regret. Your Lordships will not suppose that I would say one word against the advantage or the expediency of free discussion in public meetings, or that I conceive that those who attend meetings, such as that lately held in the Park, would themselves be chargeable with any breach of the peace, or any injury to property; but it is a necessary incident of the case that if you have large assemblages of 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000 men, even were they admitted to be the most respectable and best-conducted men in the country, there will inevitably attend those meetings other bodies of men of a different character, and thus you will have elements connected with those assemblages which may seriously injure the Parks and neutralize the effects of the large expenditure incurred in beautifying them. But a still greater evil is this—it is utterly impossible to have large meetings in the Parks, consistently with the free enjoyment of those places by the
  248
  whole public. You must choose between two things. If you adopt and approve the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite, that the Parks are to be the resort for public and political meetings to be held at the discretion of those who convene them, if so minded, once a week, it is impossible that they can continue to be places of amusement, recreation, and enjoyment for the public at large. I therefore trust, whatever the other results of this discussion may be, that it will lead Parliament to consider—I do not say how or when—what regulations should be made and what power should be given, in order to secure to the public at large its present rights—rights, no doubt, conceded, but still rights of the utmost value—to the free enjoyment of the Parks.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEYthought that the Government had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing their prohibition, and that they might find consolation against the criticisms on the course they had pursued in the fact that no serious riot or disturbance had taken place at the meeting. While he agreed that such rights as existed in the public should not be allowed to fall through, he still hoped that the Bill which had been laid on the table of the other House might be proceeded with, and that the law to which it referred would be distinctly defined, so that any Government, be it what it might, should for the future know clearly what its powers and its remedies were in that matter. Such bodies as they had been speaking of, with their leaders and chairmen, did not hold their meetings without great and long consideration. They were in possession of the law as it stood, and they calculated to the last point how far it would be safe for them to proceed; and he believed that in this country, where law and order was so much respected, if the law were made clear on this point, it would not be broken. It was only in the cause of order and good government that he thought such additional powers as were now proposed to be taken for the Crown should be given. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had said that very great apathy existed on the part of the general public of London in respect to the inconvenience caused by the second Reform demonstration. If any apathy was then displayed, it was entirely done away with on the third occasion; and if no overt step was taken by those who saw the inconvenience and even the danger of such

  249
  large demonstrations, it was because they felt that it was the duty of the Government to protect them. He thought the Government should also have the power to prevent demonstrations by large bodies of men, who assemble not for the purpose of influencing the judgment but of striking terror. The whole of the respectability of the metropolis declared that these large demonstrations had become an inconvenience, and it might be a peril so great that they had become intolerable. It was true that with some few exceptions they had passed over without any great damage; but when such large bodies were brought together, a momentary quarrel with a single policeman might lead to a very serious disturbance. He believed that whatever Government might be in power, they would gain by the passing of some moderate measure which would settle this subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it would be in some respects better not to go into the discussion of a Bill not yet before their Lordships. On the other hand, he thought that however indiscreet the Reform League might have been, that only strengthened the case introduced by his noble Friend (Earl Cowper) as to the conduct of the Government in dealing with that body. The question had been so much exhausted in the discussion that if it had not been for the appeal made to the Members of the late Government to state the exact course which they would have taken if they had been in power he should not have risen to address their Lordships. He would fully admit that there was nothing more difficult to arrive at than that degree of firmness and conciliation which was necessary to bring these matters to ft successful issue. But what they maintained was, that the conduct of the Government had not been conciliatory to the masses, while it had been utterly deficient in firmness, in maintaining the authority and dignity of the Crown. It would be idle for him, as an individual Member of the late Government, to lay down the exact course which that Government would have taken; but he had not the slightest doubt that it would have been clear, plain, and straightforward—explicit with regard to the House of Commons, and without mystery as regarded the people of this country. What he wanted to know was why the Government, being fully aware five or six weeks ago of the intention of the Reform League to hold their meeting, and being advised that they had not sufficient power to stop it, did not
  250
  bring in their Bill at the moment? Of what use was it to bring it in only five or six days before the Monday on which the meeting was to be held, when it was impossible to pass it in time, and when it could only add to the alarm and uncertainty that already existed in the public mind? The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) said that it required his technical eye to perceive that the Proclamation did not bear the interpretation which the public attached to it; but he would ask whether in a matter where so much depended on the feeling of the lower classes, and when especially it was requisite that any notification should be perfectly clear in order to prevent the people from committing themselves, was it fair that it should be written in such technical language that it required a Chancery Judge to perceive that it did not carry all the sense that the public attached to it? He appealed to noble Lords on both sides of the House to say whether the impression produced by the language held by the Government and the Proclamation they had issued was not an impression that the Government were going to interfere with the Hyde Park meeting. That course was, he thought, a great mistake, and it had produced a danger which had been luckily averted. What was perfectly certain was that by allowing the meeting to go on, and by using this vague mystery and alarm the Government gave a greater flavour and prestige to the meeting than if they had admitted that they did not possess the ready means of dealing with the subject. One other remark which he wished to make, and which had been already touched upon, was in regard to the letter of the noble Earl calling out and inviting special constables to enrol themselves.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: That letter as to enrolling special constables was not written until after the Government had received frequent and special entreaties to take some steps for the protection of persons and property.
  EARL GRANVILLE: But the action of the Government first produced alarm among these persons, and then they applied to the Government to take extraordinary measures. Such a course had this great disadvantage. He knew nothing more powerful in this country, as was shown in 1848, than this power of calling out special constables to aid the regularly organized police. But if the Government called out special constables when there was no need for them there was a danger of their

  251
  crying out "Wolf" once too often, and thus diminishing the readiness with which these classes had hitherto responded to the call of the Government. He had sometimes heard it said in that House, with regard to foreign Powers, that you should never menace them unless you were prepared to carry out that menace. He believed that this remark had been applied unfairly towards individual Ministers, but the rule was a golden one. If it were true with respect to foreign nations, it was still more true that a Government should not threaten any portion of their own countrymen unless they were strong in the power to carry out those threats, and strong in the justice of the course of action they adopted.
  THE EARL OF CARDIGANquite agreed in the opinion expressed that these public meetings were a great public nuisance. He went to the Park as a spectator, and listened to one or two of the principal speakers—he believed Mr. Beales — and he never saw a more orderly and quiet collection of people; and after the speaking was over the people moved quietly out of the gates. He thought it unfortunate that an event which had gone off so quietly should have been the subject of so much apprehension.
  LORD ROMILLYwished to call the attention of the Government to a point which apparently had not been submitted to their Law Officers. In July, 1850, when he was Attorney General, several persons who were desirous of putting an end to the Exhibition in Hyde Park had prepared an information and intended to apply to the Court of Chancery for an injunction against the construction of the building proposed, on the ground that it would interfere with the public right of enjoyment of that portion of the Park on which the building was about to be erected. His signature, as Attorney General, was essential to the filing of the information, and had that signature been given the building must have been suspended during the time allowed by the Court for answering the affidavits on both sides—a time probably amounting to six or seven weeks before the motion could have been heard and finally disposed of. The result would have been that, even if the application had been refused, the building would have been delayed to such an extent as to render it impossible that the Exhibition should have been opened on the day fixed for that purpose in 1851. He thought it his duty,
  252
  therefore, before giving his signature, to look into the question for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed building would interfere with any public rights, and having come to the conclusion that it would not, and also that by allowing the question to be tried he should be enabling the applicants to seriously delay the opening of the Exhibition, even although they had no legal right to interfere, he refused to give his signature. That decision was made the subject of observations by Lord Brougham in this, and by Colonel Sibthorp in the other House. Now, in the course of his investigation, he found that there was strong evidence for the conclusion that there were footpaths, or rights of way, of immemorial usage across various parts of the Park, which no lapse of time or user of closing the gates would override, and which only an Act of Parliament could set aside. The same was the case with other Royal Parks — with Richmond, for instance, which was closed for seventy or eighty years, and in which three footpaths were afterwards established by an action at law. No user of closing the gates could render it legal to prevent people who had the right from using a footpath either in the daytime or at night, and he hoped this point would receive the consideration of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDthought that if any blame attached to the Government in this matter it was what had been stated by no less than five noble Lords opposite—namely, that the Government did not clearly state previously to the meeting what their wishes and intentions were. It was clearly proved in the debate that the Government acted eventually in the right and proper manner, and perhaps prevented a conflict in not interfering with its being held. He did not believe there was a Member of their Lordships' or of the other House, or scarcely any Englishmen, who would wish to deprive the people of the right of meeting and of public discussion; but, on the other hand, no one calling himself an Englishman desired to exercise that right in an illegal and unconstitutional manner. It was desirable that the people should know what the law was on the subject; and he felt confident that the artizans themselves, when they knew what the law was, would come to the assistance of the Government, and preserve the Parks for the use and recreation of the people.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that from the discussion that had taken place, he had no

  253
  reason to regret having brought the subject forward. He wished it to be fully understood that be deprecated a contest taking place in Hyde Park — he could not imagine any greater calamity—but that he thought the Government should not have allowed the people to believe up to the day of meeting that there would be a contest, when they knew very well that they could not legally enter into anything of the kind. He would now ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.