The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

OPINION.

let. We think that there is a right in pint of law to
close the gates and exclude the public from the parks. 2d.
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 wo do not think this right should be exer-
cised against particular individuals unless in case of pre-
vious misconduct. 3d. If persons who have entered com-
mence to preach or play they cannot be turned out with-
out proper notice to them that the permission or license
of the Crown to the public to enjoy the parks is condi-
tional 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 entrance 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 any continued user under the license and by
favour of the Crown.

A. E. COCKBURN.
RICHD. BBTHELL.
W. A. WILDE&

Temple, Nov. 18, 1856.
In July, 1866, a copy of that opinion was forwarded to the
then law officers, Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir William Bovill,
with a request that they would favour Mr. Secretary Wal-
pole with their opinion with reference to the third ques-
tion and answer, and inform him " Whether, supposing a
number of persons who'have already entered Hyde-park to
form themselves into a meeting for the discussion of poli-
tical 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." The opinion obtained was as follows :-
1. We are of opinion that every person entering anndtree-
maining in the park must in law be taken to do somayaghe_
license of the Crown, or of those acting in the.ine to
re_
ment of the park ; that it is competent at any their
whoyoke
availthis
themselveslicense,
eng•k, and that
tend meetings of a political character in the. p.iitr
at
end,
and
the this condition being broken the license isiandmay,
if
df
ortoofaintumexustionoitt af
()rw, condition
gtehiant
et hr oast!
iceo,r.y Nt‘orabrrniinagg' home rteo-
the person breaking it becomes a trespasser,
nhieo
vreefre
Ittowleenalvde,
nt the ec
course,
the nn oe
et e e
ea
the knowledge ot
k This might be done to a
rah license to enter the p.
:Ites in and about the park, though
the person to bo removed tha thegtiroenatseuxcthenast
baybopvneblsiunpnpnotsiced.has been annexed to gene-
tion of notices, however extensive, 1
from inability to rea, or otherwise,.
actual
occur where,
it is possible to suppose that notithinsdtairuiddiungti tehnesepsumbliigchai
a ofs waenhya
lvaerge described,
assembly
theo
such cases would
3 it of theeonnedintieoeteteloruyltdnisinotolbveainmepxuptereds,eaNnvadrnin_
kuowledg
ing to leave. But we are bowl," to state that though the
rightlut:gi: considerl right
could obfet fieelitne °ricvni'sdet exercised iseNss, safety,ratchshe or that such an a s s e n i -
tuheeceretsiasryni:rritghhatt
to
1::::::.:Letaa
inadruivildloutalu.
united
dbe
.aeseun'isi4:
bly could be "dispersed by force" in the sense in Which
that term is originally understood. The right of retnoN • 1
hyr)ioters or disorderly persona
is a right to remove each separate individua I as a trespasser-4
by putting him out of the pail; using lust so mueift,
e number of persons.
colt:islii(gle;rtatbnla
it i
Ioa(s( :realnacSia(iolui)irpeen:Lerig'tcoaieaneriligs'rtiai:tgeoieritit tsaaaoastnsghaiabaaseitbn oisotLdrydeezl would not be practicable
s highly probable
that particular person or per-
would bo justifiable, would I:9come confused b
tee
hanacdth
iteihnepd
eli,
evirviedertututt lttohoorri
nee
sons with the degree:ll:l:tit:eft°. tt:,t3Y
which would introdticeainrtoesitshte-
geuhtts of great difficulty and embarrassment.
ewpoeuraldtkourelemmi
answer the
us by saying, that, in our opiniou,
auce from bystanders,
hpeuNrvilatioslee'aNlveegaSlhaotuitldhority to disperse by force
question proposed to
there is not for auy prac-
Otienst;
a meet-
ing ol the kind supposed, consisting
persons, and that Whether
beforehand. , notLe has or has not been given
11. M. Cautxs.
W. BOTILL.
Earl RUSSELL—What is the date of that opinion ?
Thu Earl of DEII/3X--lt•' -n: - dates "
July 28, 1866. and 04

meeting was, I believe, held on the 23d. The opinion was
sought, not to ascertain the right of the Crown, but !should
rather say the right of the people of London to enjoy quiet
and peaceful recreation in the parkv, which are kept in such
beautiful order for the purpose. (Hear, hear.) The noble
earl then inquired why, after wo had obtained that opinion,
we did not forthwith -proceed to strengthen the power of
the Crown.

Earl COWPER explained—What he meant to have asked
was, why was not such a proceeding taken if it were in-
tended to adopt it ?
The Earl of DERBY—Let me remind the noble earl of
the circumstances of the case. This opinion was given only
a few days before the end of the session, at a period when
there was still considerable excitement prevailing, when
the leaders of the Reform League had announced their in-
tention to try the right for which they contended by action
at law, and when the Government bad told them they would
be afforded every facility for so doing. That was therefore
not a time—looking forward as we were to the adoption of
those proceedings—for vindicating or strengthening the
powers of the Grown by introducing ameasure which could
not have been passed that session. (Hear, hear.) But lam
asked why was not the measure introduced early this ses-
sion. Well, what had occurred ? Large demonstrations—
exhibitions I will not say of physical force, but exhibi-
tions of numbets—had taken place, for the purpose
of influencing the mind of the Legislature. The first
of these, attended by about 25,000 people, took place in
November. But they did not claim the right to meet in
the park, on the contrary it was admitted that they had no
right to do so. They asked the permission of the Gevern-
ment to hold their meeting in the park, not as a right, but
as a favour. The Government assented to the meeting
being held on Primrose-hill, and eventually it was held in
the grounds of a private nobleman, who was not a very
strong Reformer. (A laugh.) There was a subsequent
meeting, and did the promoters of it say they would hold
it in Hyde-park ? No, they determined to have a proces-
sion through the streets, which took place, and the leaders
delivered their harangues in the Agricultural Hall. Those
processions were extremely inconvenient. They interfered
with the traffic and business of the metropolis ; but we
were advised that neither in the processions nor in the
meetings was there anything to warrant our interference,
and I must say that the inhabitants of London were singu-
larly apathetic on the occasion, for when some danger and
risk was apprehended they did not,respond in the slightest
degree, nor was there any offer on their part of special
constables for the protection of property. We had no
reason to believe that the right of (the 'Crown would be
disputed by an attempt to hold a meeting in the park; wo
had every reason to believe that the leaders of the move-
ment would proceed to have the right they claimed tried
by action at law, and it was not until a period very closely
approaching the time of holding the late meeting that we
found there was an absolute determination on their part
to hold the meeting in Hyde-park in defiance of the Go-
vernment. Upon receiving that intimation ve were not
without hope that the intention might, after all, be aban-
dotted. In a few hours we received petitions signed by
more than 16,000 persons, praying that we would take
steps to prevent the processions passing through the streets,
and otherwise to protect property in the city of London-
That course we were unable to take, because, as I ex-
plained to some of the memorialists, the law did not enable
us to interfere with any peaceable and orderly pro-
cession ; but if there was any apprehension of violence
either from those who formed the procession, or from that
mixed rabble which would be very likely to accompany it,
we should be happy to avail ourselves of the services of
the peaceable inhabitants sworn in as special constables to
protect their own property and the peace of the town.
When it became apparent that there was a very strong dis-
position on the part of the leaders of this movement to hold
this meeting, whatever might happen, we had to consider
very carefully what course we should 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
should issue the notice to which so much reference has
been made, warning all persons—not exactly in the lan-
guage used by the noble earl—" that the use of the park
for the purpose of holding such a meeting is not in confor-
mity 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 ab-
stain from attending, aiding, or taking part in any such
meeting, or entering the park with the view of aiding or
taking part in such meeting." The noble earl said some-
thing about their being warned not to attend the meeting
at their peril, and inferred from that notice that it was in-
tended, whatever happened, to stop the meeting by force.
The object of the notice, however, is very obvious. It
was to warn the parties attending, more especially the
leaders, that they would subject themselves to legal con-
sequences, and that they would be committing an illegal act,
a trespass, if after they received that notice they persevered
in holding the meeting. In order that there might be no
question about it, that. notice was served upon sixteen of
the principal persons who were expected to take part in
the proceedings ; and they were thus personally warned
that they rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against
as trespassers if they proceeded to hold the meeting. It
vas intended, and it is intended, to take legal steps
for vindicating and establishing before the public the
rights of the Crown. (Hear.) It is intended to adopt
such proceedings as the law officers may recommend
against one or more of those individuals, in order that no
question and no cavil may arise as to the right of the
Crown, and as to theirhaving committed a trespass. (Hear.)
Then arose the very difficult question as to how we should
act in case the meeting was held, and I certainly did riot
think it necessary or expedient that, on the Friday even-
ing when my right hon. friend was questioned in another
place as to what course the Government would adopt, he
should then publicly and openly declare to all parties who
might be concerned that the Government bad no power to
do anything except of ter notice to proceed against them as
trespassers. I did not think it expedient to say to those
gentlemen, " You may hold the meeting with perfect im-
punity," and thereby give them encouragement to hold it.
I preferred, and the Cabinet preferred, to leave the question
to the Government as a matter of discretion to be dealt
with according to the circumstances which might arise,
and not to give public notice that whatever might happen,
it was not our intention to take any step whatever. But
the notices which were given to to the police, for which
the noble earl has moved, but which he does not wish me
to produce, were in substance that they should take every
precaution in their power against any violation of the pub-
lic peace, but as long as the meeting was conducted in a
peaceable and orderly manner, they should not do anything
which should risk a collision with the people. (Hear.) We
knew the extent of the power that we had, and when the
meeting took place the question was, "Shall we send two
or three policemen to each of the ten leaders of this meet-
ing, and let a policeman place his hand upon the
shoulder of each of them, and desire them individually
and severally to leave the park ?" My noble and learned
friend when ho gave his opinion foresaw the danger
which would arise in the event of any attempt to arrest
individuals. It was probable that if such a course had
been pursued a rescue would have been attempted, the
police, brought into collision with 10,000 or 20,000 people,
would very likely have been overpowered, and it would
have been necessary to call upon the military force, of
which there was enough at hand to put down any riot, but
eehich, thank God, it was not necessary to call out in con-
sequence in the first place of the forbearance of the Go-
vernment, and in the next of that to which 1 am anxious
to do the fullest credit and justice, the orderly, peaceable,
and admirable behaviour of the vast crowd in the park.
tut had we any right to calculate upon that orderly be-
haviour? With the recollection of the year before should
we not have been abandoning the most sacred duty we had
to perform if we had not had at hand an ample force of
police and military; kept standing out of sight with a
'view to avoid any excitement, bat at the same time ready
to prevent any such disgraceful scenes as characterised the
meeting of last year? Happily it was not required; but
over and over again 1 say that I consider as nothing the
temporary violation of the undisputed rights of the Crown
in comparison with the risk which might have been in-
curred if in the exercise of that which was strictly within
the limits of our power, we had brought about a collision
between an infuriated mob and a large force of military and
police. (Hear.) I have given your lordships, to the best of
my power, the details of the course which we pursued, and
the motives upon which the Government have acted ; the
certainty on the one hand of the rights of the Crown, and
the certainty on the other of the extreme difficulty of en-
forcing these rights. It is not for the'purpose of establishing
those rights that we have introduced a bill into the other
home, but only to provide effectual means of enforcing them.
'think no noble earl will contend that it would have been
advisable for us, as soon as the notice of this meeting was
issued, a short time before the period at which it was to be
held, to have said that we did not possess sufficient power,
and would therefore bring in a bill to remedy that defect,
and to put down this special meeting. In my opinion, the
course pursued by the Government has not been vacillat-
ing—has not been uncertain. It was decided upon from
the beginning, after anxious consideration, and after taking
the best opinions that we could get. Although the course
which they have pursued may have subjected them to some
slight humiliation in the public eye, as apparently having
sanctioned or allowed a violation of the law, I rest entirely
sati,lied in my own conscience that that course was the
one most conducive to the real interests of the country, to
the pre,ervation of order, and to a full, and due considera-
tion alike of the rights of the Crown and those of the
people. (Cheers.)
Earl RUSSELL maintained that the conduct of Ministers
had
exposed the dignity of the Crown to unparalleled con-
tempt. Of Mr. Walpole's abilities he entertained a very high
opinion, but, under all the circumstances, and notwith-
standing the course adopted with respect to the late meet-
ing, he was glad that the rig ht h
signed. What the Gove ent oughtoann t
o gentleman
ha
have
aevdeo
done
informede had
w a
sret
o-
have dealt frankly with the people, dto
them what was the real state of the law. In his opinion
the meeting in the parks might safely be left to the discre-
tion of the people themselves, and he hoped the Govern-
ment would not proceed with their bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR contended that as the law
stood uo other course was open to the GovernmontJhan
that which they had taken ; and Earl GREY censured the
Executive as having acted throughout the whole affair

with utter want of judgment. He admitted, however, that
the parks ought not to be perverted from their proper uses
into an arena for political or religions discussion.
Lord CAIRNS could not agree with Earl Russell, that
in order to vindicate the law they should abandon the
rights of the Crown, and leave the whole thing to the
discretion of the people. In the event of a collision, who
was to settle the question ? As to the proclamation issued.
by the Home-office, the Government were bound to make
known their approval or disapproval of the meeting.
The discussion was continued by Lords Dudley, Gran-
ville, Cardigan, and Roinilly, and the Duke of Rutland,
and eventually the motion was withdrawn.
Their lordships then adjourned,

lIOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took took the chair at four o'clock.
THE SALTERS' COMPANY.

Mr. 31AGUIRE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if
his attention had been called to the proceedings of the
Salters' Company of London in connection with the
management of their property in Magherafelt, county
Derry.

Lord NAAS said he had no official information, but he
had been informed that there had been no very great in-
crease of the rents on the Salters' Estate iu Ireland,
neither had there been any violation of tenant right.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

In answer to Mr. Smrrn,

Mr. CORRI said he could not give any definite an-
swer with respect to the re-establishing a girls' school at
Greenwich Hospital.
THE ARMY OF RESERVE.

Col. GILPIN asked the Secretary of State for War
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government
to proceed with the plan for raising an army of reserve
proposed by the right hon. member for Huntingdon on
moving the army estimates this session; and if so, when
it was likely to be proceeded with ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON slid it was the intention of the
Government to proceed with the plan. He would give to-
morrow for taking the necessary vote, and he hoped to
bring it on without delay.
_ _ _