The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-15 00:00:00

Hyde Park and the Reform League.

Mr. Beales has addressed the following letter to
the editor of the Tinges

Sir,—Permit me to say a few words in reference
to your remarks on Monday as to the claim made
by the Reform League to the use of Hyde-park, if
it be but to thank you for the calm and courteous
tone in which your remarks are expressed, and
which is not a little refreshing after the mere vulgar
and personal abuse and ribaldry, as regards myself
and others, with which the subject has been treated
in other quarters.
You come to the conclusion that I and my friends
were offenders, though our offence was only tres
pass; but how are we shown to be offenders in the
shape of trespass, or in any other shape? You com-
plain of my giving no authority or testimony for
my view of the law ; but does not the same objec-
tion apply to the views put forth by, J at once ad-
mit, the very eminent law officers of two successive
Governments, to whose opinions you refer ? In
neither of those opinions is there a single decided
case or other authority in any text book or other-
wise quoted or referred to in support of the opi-
nions. IVhile, then, they are nothing but a mere
expression of opinion, the first of them, that given
in 1856—and the subsequent opinion is open to the
same objections—draws no distinction whatever be-
tween Crown lands and the private estates of a
Sovereign, or between the parks so far as they are
Crown lands and other Crown lands, takes no no-
tice whatever of the contract entered ,into between
the Crown and Parliament at the commencement
of every reign, ignores for the most part, any dedi-
cation of the parks to public use, and proceeds on
the assumption that the authority to close and ex-
clude the public from the parks is that which every
landowner has to prevent the public from trespas-
sing on his lands. With all deference, I demur to
this analogy between the Crown, or the Government
as representing the Crown in the matter of the
parks, and an ordinary landowner. The numerous
acts of Parliament which have been passed in refe-
rence to the parks are destructive of any such analogy.
The parks" can neither be leased nor sold, nor, as I
contend, be in any other way diverted from the use to
which they have been dedicated, and that, too, for
a valuable consideration.

I am happy to have your own support in ques-
tioning this analogy in the able observations upon
it contained in the Times of the 6th of May. It is
there remarked that if a private proprietor were to
suffer for a series of years the community of a neigh-
bouring town to take the management of his park
and lay out large sums on it upon an express or im-
plied understanding that they should have the enjoy-
ment of it at reasonable hours, he clearly could not
suddenly terminate that right of user, if, indeed, he
could terminate it at all. The writer then refers to
the abolition of the nullum tempus occurrit regi doc-
trine by 9 George 111., c. 16, making 60 years' pos-
session or enjoyment good against the Crown, at
the same time observing that the doctrine itself
never applied to cases of supposed or implied dedi-
cation or grant. To this I may add 2 and 3 Wil-
liam IV., c. 71, making 40 years, or even 20 years'
enjoyment of any way or other easement good
against the Crown. The opinion in question, that
of 1856, also assumes that the Crown has given
only a conditional permission or licence to the pub-
lic to enjoy the park, which it is competent at any
time to the Crown, or those acting in the manage-
ment of the park, to revoke, and upon a similar
assumption the subsequent opinion of the law offi-
cers of last year, who do not appear disposed to go
so far as their predecessors, was entirely based. But
where is the evidence of any such conditional
license or permission ? If there be no such evi-
dence, as I believe to be the fact, what is the ground
upon which such conditional licence or permission
is implied? What is the implication upon the
faith of which a notice could be issued supposing
that notice not to have been in other respects in-
valid, which could have the effect of converting me
into a trespasser upon the very property of which I
had the enjoyment ?
There are many other questions, including those
referred to by Lord Romilly, affecting the matter,
not the least of them being the actual present posi-
tion of the legal estate, upon which I cannot now
enter, and with which I have no claim to encumber
your columns. Considering the expense and delay
attendant upon the litigation of such a matter, it is
hardly fairly to make it a charge against me that I
did not bring the question to an issue by legal pro-
ceedings against the Government, or others, who
excluded us from the park last year. This was a
course more within the means and power of the Go-
vernment ; at all events, it is open to them now, if
they consider their view of the law to be right.
You call upon me and my friends to remember
that all classes of society have claims to considera-
tion. Several days back I publicly stated in writing
that we did not wish to offend even the prejudices
of others, if we could avoid doing so, in insisting on
what we considered an important constitutional
right. lam prepared to do anything in my power
towards an arrangement of the dispute, which shall
be reasonable and fair towards all classes, and espe-
cially which may tend to remove all class rivalry or
animosity.