The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN,. LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1866.

tended with violence and disturbance. It was a principle
of the constitution that this country was notto be governed
by force. To have appealed to force, therefore, and not to
have met the people on the ground of right, was that which
had really led to the events they now deplored; and he
trusted the Government would take an early opportunity
to issue a proper notification explaining the state of the
question, and not persist in the disastrous course of endea-
vouring to keep order by an exhibition of police on the one
hand and of soldiers on the other. In conclusion, he asked
the Home Secretary to produce the notification issued by
Sir R. Mayne, and to state what steps had been taken to
disabuse the minds of the people of the erroneous impres-
sion that they had a right to hold political meetings in
Hyde-park, and to preserve the peace of the metropolis.
Mr. WALPOLE—In the trying circumstances in which
the metropolis is placed at this moment, I think I should
not be exercising a wise discretion in following the hon.
gentleman who has just sat down in some of the remarks
he has made. At the commencement of his speech he
drew a contrast between different classes of society, and he
tried to make out, and to represent to the house, and through
the house to the country, that there was a different ad-
ministration of the law to those whom he calls the higher
and richer classes, and those whom he calls the poor.
Nothing of that kind was present in any notice issued with
my sanction, and nothing of that kind, I am equally sure,
was ever present, or ever will be present, to my mind.
(Hear, hear.) I believe that all classes of society should
be:treated alike in this matter which is now before us. It
was because that notice was founded on the principle of
securing to all classes the full benefit for which the parks
are appropriated that it was issued. (Cheers.) The hon,
gentleman has found fault with the .notice as a notice con-
taining a false proposition, and he has followed that up by
remarks which seemed to be responded to by partial cheers
of gentlemen opposite, as if there was any false suggestion
contained in this notice, as if the matter of right to which
the hon. gentlenian has referred is not perfectly well known
to this house and to the country by proceedings which
have heretofore taken place, and which it was convenient
for the hon. gentleman to forget. (Ministerial cheers.)
In the year 1855 there was a great stir made in this metro-
polis about a bill brought in by a noble lord now a peer in
the upper house, but then a member of the House of Com-
mons, with reference to Sunday trading. At that time
great meetings were held in the park, great meetings
were actually held and great disturbances took place,
and the Government of the day—not the Government
of my friends sitting near me, but a Government con-
sisting of gentlemen on the other side of the house—in
consequence of those proceedings appointed a commis-
sion to inquire into those proceedings, into the conduct
of the police, and into the rights that were claimed. I
will refer only briefly to a part of the report of the com-
missioners who inquired into that subject to show that the
matter is not so entirely new as the hon. member would
represent it to be, and that the present Government have
not commenced a course totally unknown to the house,
totally unknown to him, and totally unknown to
the country. The commission consisted of Sir James
Stuart Wortley, Mr. Baynes Armstrong, and Mr. Gilbert
Henderson, who went into the fullest investiga-
tion of the subject, and I find this paragraph in their re-
port : —"After the proceeding in Hyde-park on Sunday,
the 24th of June, it was fit and proper that measures
should be taken to secure to all classes the undisturbed ex-
ercise of their rights, the right to ride or drive in the
park. The arrangements for this purpose seemed to have
devolved on the first commission according to the distri-
bution of the duties sanctioned by the Secretary of State
for the Home Department. With the prospect of the re-
currence on the list of July of the tumults of the 24th of
June it was right to issue some warning to the public, and
to apprise the unwary that such proceedings were illegal
and would be checked by the police. Police notices were
advertised, and also printed and placarded, which had in
view those objects, and also, as we understand, the pre-
vention of a public meeting in the park at which it was
anticipated the Sunday Trading Bill would be discussed,
and the assembled multitude addressed by the speakers in
the usual form. An attempt to hold such a meeting had
been foiled by the police on the 24th of June. It sows to
us that meetings of this nature might properly be inter-
dicted 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 purposes for which it
is thrown open and used by the public. Whether the hold-
ing of such meeting was contemplated or not it is difficult
to say, but it was understood by many not as interdicting
the meeting in a limited sense, but as prohibiting all as-
semblages for such purpose in Hyde-park on the Ist of
July." Now that is the report of the royal commission
to inquire into a proceeding similar to that which oc-
curred last night. In the following year another ques-
tion was raised, whether bands of music and preachings
were to be allowed in Regent's-park, and ono or
two other matters. On that occasion an opinion of the law
officers of the Crown was taken, which I hold in my hands.
For that opinion three questions were put. The first was
"Is there any authority to close the gates of the enclosure
and to exclude the public altogether during the day ?" The
answer is, " We thinli: that there is a right in point of law
to close the gates, and to exclude the public from the park."
The second question is, "The gates of the enclosure being
open, is there any authority to prevent those persons who
aro present, and conducting themselves properly, in their
attempt to obtain ingress ?" The answer was, " We think
that the gates being opened there is a right on the part of
the Crown to exclude persons attempting to obtain admis-
sion, but we do not think that right should be exercised
against particular individuals unless in case of previous mis-'
conduct." I beg to call the attention of the hon. gentleman
to the third question and the third answer :—" Supposing
persons to have entered to preach or play upon musical
instruments, or to sing ; does any authority exist to have
persons so singing or playing or preaching put out of the
park, suppose they do not obstruct the thoroughfare or
cause a disturbance? and if so, you are particularly re-
quested to state what is the nature of the authority and
how it is derived." The answer is, "If persons have
entered to preach or to play, they could not be turned out
without proper notice. The permission of the Crown to
the public to enjoy the parks 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
entrance to the park. The authority to close
and to exclude the public from, the park is that which
every landowner has to prevent trespassing on his land,
and we are of opinion that the public has not acquired any
legal right to use the park by reason of the continual user,
and by favour of the Crown." The law officers, who wrote
that opinion were Sir Alexander Cockburn, the present
Chief Justice; Sir Richard Bethel], now Lord Westbury;
and Mr. Wills, an able lawyer. I have now answered the
question with a view of dealing with the matter as a matter
of right. As a matter of right I conceive that it is perfectly
clear that the opinion given by those law officersis the true
opinion, on which any person holding the situation I have
the honour to hold is required to act. As to the mode in
which he should act, as to the discretion which he should
exercise, I frankly and fairly admit any advice must be
given subject to the responsibility of the Minister to Par-
liament. But I do beg the hon. gentleman to understand
that instead of issuing this notice on the ground which he
supposes, we issued it solely on the ground to which I have
adverted, namely, the parks, being parks appropriated by
the Crown for the benefit of all classes of her Majesty's
subjects, ought not to be interfered with, and so all my
predecessors have held—ought not to be interfered with by
any meetings which are likely to be the occasion of political
excitement or religious agitation, and thereby to interfere
with the recreation of the people. (Ministerial cheers.)
Now, for myself, I can truly say that if any meeting is to
be held for political demonstration, or for religious agita-
tion, that is so entirely opposed to the purpose for which
the parks are open to the public, that until corrected by
this house and by Parliament, I must take leave to think
that we are bound to exclude such meetings from the
park. (No.) I hear some hon. gentleman say " No." If
that be his idea, I hope he will bring the matter distinctly
before the house, and lot the house discuss it temperately
and calmly. I have given my reasons why I
think the line ought to be drawn between meet-
ings of that description and the free admission
to the parks of all classes of her Majesty's subjects.
I believe that distinction to be sound, and as I said before,
until prevented by parliament, I shall certainly feel it my
duty to act upon it. In acting upon it let not the hon. gen-
tleman suppose that I do it in the tone or in the spirit which
he has so unjustly imputed to me. (Cheers.) Let hilt not
suppose—l hope it is not in my character, and I am sure it
is not in my disposition—that anything like coercive au-
thority should be exercised over any one,unless to enforce
obedience to the law. But then the hon. gentleman goes
on to say that public opinion and moral influence is that to
which the government ought to bow. Most cordially do I
agree to that. No other test do I wish to be judged than
an appeal to the right-minded public opinion of the coun-
try, to that moral influence which I trust will always exer-
bent l call
a in for
if
Cll3O its due weight over every person who is an inhabitant
ci wouldei ee never
to
the w bat f this country. As to force I repudiate it entirely. Force
l purposeislikely
ob
et oviolated,acquire
o
athney w
a
if the public peace is likely to be broken it is a very grave
responsibility, let me tell the bon. gentleman, for any
person occupying the position I have now the honour to
hold, if he has not the moral courage to exorcise it and put
it in force. (Cheers.) Having said that lot me assure the
house that if any words of mine uttered in the most conci-
liatory spirit would allay the alarm which has prevailed in
the public mind for the past 48 hours, I would utter them
from this place or anywhere. I have no desire that any
public meeting should bo checked, held at the proper place
and at the proper time for discussing any subject what-
ever, political subjects, of course, among others. All I say
is, that for the reasons I have stated I think, and shall
continue to think until I am contradicted, that the royal
parks are not the place for such discussions. Now, the
hon. gentleman the member for Nottingham, and also the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, put questions in re-
gard to the exact course which I thought it my duty to
take with reference to the meetings announced to be held
in Hyde-park. The notice which I issued, or rather the
notice which was issued by my authority, does not contain,
I believe, a single word that any peace-loving subject of
the Crown can really take objection to. It states that the
parks are open for the recreation of the public, and there-

fore that meetings of a description like that which was in-
tended to be held will not be permitted. That notice was
communicated the moment it was in print by a letter to
the gentleman who was supposed to be the leader and pro-
moter of the League. It was hoped that after that notice
was sent to him that those who had advised the meeting
would be cautious before persevering in their object, and
would desist. They chose to think otherwise. I do not
hold myself to blame for anything which happened in con-
sequence of that determination—(cheers)—but I do think
I have seen letters written—(loud ministerial cheers)—by
others which involve the writers in a very grave responsi-
bility. (More cheering.) And now, sir, as to the instruc-
tions I gave. The instructions I gave were these, that
notices having been issued, that temperately and forbear-
ingly if the meeting did take place, the police were to warn
those who held the meeting against doing anything con-
trary to the notice which had been issued. They were in-
structed unquestionably, if they did anything contrary to
that notice, to stop the meeting, but not to have recourse
to force until obliged. They were also instructed in case
of necessity, but in case of necessity only, to call the mili-
tary to their aid. I have seen it stated in the papers that
the military was called out before any serious rioting took
place. That is not true. The military were not called
out, as I firmly believe, a moment too soon I also gave in-
structions that the park should be closed at five o'clock,
thinking that was the best way of preventing riot ; and I
have the best proof of that from what has happened, for
those who went as the heads of the meeting to address the
people in Hyde-park were those who went to the Marble
Arch and demanded admittance, to try the right, as they
called it, but who went away from the park, and who did
not take any part in the proceedings, as I am happy
to believe, subsequently took place. Other persons were
under tho impression that if they were not to be admitted
they ought to go quietly home, and they marched back in-
stead of trying to break into the park. But when you bring
huge masses of men together—and those who broke into
the park were those against whom such notices as this are
more particularly addressed—l need not say that when
thousands and thousands of persons chose to break the
law, it is ,neither in the power of force nor of moral in-
fluence to prevent them. Well, that was the state of
things up to yesterday evening. I ought to say, in justice
to the military force that was called out, from all quarters
I have heard that they exercised the greatest forbearance
—(hear)—and that they did nothing whatever in the way
of severity or coercion ; and I ought .to say in justice to
the police, that I do not believe, from all I can hear, that
they took any measures of undue severity,but they did take
strong measures, which they wore bound to take when the
railings of the park were being pulled down. I ought to
say also,and I think it fair to say,that those who were col-
lected together—l do not mean to apply this remark to all
—but I believe that the great mass were orderly and good-
tempered. But it is extremely painful that the precautions
which we took did not prevent that great disturbance
which occurred yesterday evening. It acted in some mea-
sure as a preventive, but it did not prevent the pulling
down of the railing and the breaking into the park, and I
doubt if that could have been prevented by any such mea-
sures that could have been taken by way of precaution. It
has been doubted whether locking the gates was the best
thing to do. I hope the house will not judge after the
event, but will see on the other side of the question, that
if tens of thousands of men had been allowed to go into
the park it would not have been possible to have pre-
vented the meeting. (Hear, hear.) It would not have
been possible to take measures that would have se-
cured the preservation of the peace - (cries of "Oh!' )
—that is my opinion—without great risk, without
great excitement consequent upon them, and upon
the whole, therefore, I am still inclined to think that the
measure taken of locking the gates was really the best
measure. (Cries of " No.") I hear some gentlemen differ
from that. I have expressed my opinion, and in expressing
that opinion I eau only say that it has been tried before in
other cases, and I think I have heard it said in this house
that it was perhaps the best precautionary measure that
could have been taken. At all events, whether it was best
or not, no one can doubt that those who began the distur-
bance were not the police. The disturbance commenced
with men who came there for a different purpose than that
of open discussion. (Hear, hear.) The responsibility of that
rests with others, and not with me. I am bound to say that
I have to add that some disturbance has occurred in the
park this afternoon.. The measures we have taken are as
moderate, I believe, as the circumstances of the case will
admit of. I hope I may appeal to the right-minded people
of this metropolis, I hope I may appeal to all those who
really wish to have free discussion, and at the same time
that the peace of the metropolis should be preserved, that
they will not give a grudging support to the Government
in whose hands that peace is intrusted. (Cheers.) I have
nothing more to add than that I thank the house fur the
kind manner in which they have listened to me, and having
made these observations I hope the house will be satisfied
that there is really no ground of complaint against the Go-
vernment for adopting that course which it was its impe-
rative duty to adopt.
Mr. OLIPHANT was of opinion that the measures of the
Government had not been judiciously taken, and did not
see how the executive could take any credit to themselves
for what they had done, or escape the imputation of serious
blame. At present the police were tho laughing-stock of
London. lie had witnessed the whole affair, and he felt
tho greatest sympathy and compassion for both police and
people. For there they stood, face to face, with a sort
of unlimited order to attack each other on no pretext or
excuse whatever. After the railings were pulled down, it
was evident that to attempt to prevent the meeting was
useless, and that the police ought then to have been
withdrawn. The effects of the whole proceeding had
been seriously to impair the authority of the executive, to
bring the police into contempt, and to make the military
ridiculous. At the same time ho thought there was a
moral to be drawn from this little episode. He looked on
it as providentially sent to warn them that if they locked
the gates of Reform against the people they might have
them pulling down the paling of the constitution. (Cheers.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to call attention to a letter
which had been written by a member of that house, and
which he considered had tended both to excite the people
and to incite them to a breach of the peace. (Cheers, and
cries of "No, no.") He referred to the letter of the hon.
member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), which he ' had
written after the declaration made by the right hon. gen-
tlemen the present and late Secretaries of State for the
Home Department, and when the hon. member therefore
knew perfectly well the force of the language he had used.
(Hear, hear.) It might be said that he (Mr. Cochrane)
ought not attack an absent man. (Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) The hon. member was not only absent from that
house, but he was absent from London altogether. The
language of the letter was net more remarkable than the
care and caution which the writer showed for his own
personal safety. (Cheers.) It reminded him of lines
written of another great agitator—

With the cold caution of his patriot spleen,
Which seeks for treason, but which seeks a screen:
And keeps this maxim ever in its view—
" What's basely done should be done safely too."
(Laughter and cheers.) He (Mr. Cochrane) must protest
against that letter. (Cheers.) He regretted very much
that when he put a question to the late Secretary for the
Home Department some two or three weeks ago, as to the
legality of the meeting in Trafalgar-square, the right hon.
gentleman said it would be legal, unless it were held
for the purpose of petitioning Parliament. That
answer he thought at the time was calculated to mislead
the people, and he considered that it would have been more
to the credit of the right hon. gentleman if he had ex-
pressed some strong opinion against the legality of those
meetings, instead of leaving to his successor the whole
odium of putting a stop to them. (Cheers.)

Mr. LAYARD condemned the measure of the Govern-
ment as injudicious and foolish, and added that if the
Home Secretary had shown trust in the working men they
would not now have had to lament the riot and disturbance
which had occurred. For these results he held the right
hon. gentleman and his colleagues entirely and exclusively
responsible.
Major JERVIS administered a sharp rebuke to Mr.
Layard for the use of language which was calculated to
stimulate instead of assuaging exacerbated popular feeling.
He protested against the notion as absurd that, because the
paling had been thrown down, the police were bound to
retire.

Sir G. GREY confirmed the views of the Home Secre-
tary with regard to the illegality of holding political or
religious meetings in the parks, and regretted that the
leaders of the Reform League had not in this instance, as
on a preceding occasion, held their meeting in Trafalgar-
square. _ _ _

Mr. COWPER added his denial to that of Mr. Walpole
that exclusive advantages in the parks had been granted
to any class of the community. He suggested that in
future such gatherings had bettor take place on Primrose-
hill.

Mr. J. S. MILL said that this was no ordinary occasion,
and it seemed to him that noble lords and honourable
gentlemen opposite were by no means aware of its great
importance, or of the very serious consequences which
might arise from the step which they had taken. lie
did not intend to enter into the question as to the right
of the people to meet in Hyde-park. The Government had
the opinion of good lawyers that they had a right to ex-
clude the people, but lawyers were not unanimous upon
the point, and he could produce well argued opinions,
based both on legal and constitutional grounds, asserting
that the people had a right to meet in the park. He did
not, however, desire to lay any stress upon that circum-
stance. He maintained that if the people had not that
right, they ought to have it. (Hear.) And further, that
if, for reasons which were unintelligible to him, it was ne-
cessary for the maintenance of some nominal right, that
permission should be asked before such meetings were held,
that permission ought at once to have been granted.
(Hear, hear.) Ten thousand times more ought it to have
been 'granted when the people believed, erroneously
though it might be, that they had the right to assemble in
the park, because the fact that their minds were excited
upon another subject was the very circumstance that
ought to have warned right hon. gentlemen that they
might reasonably fear the consequences which had fol-
lowed, and which he believed that they deplored as much
as any one. He believed that the public ought to have the
use of the parks for this purpose, because what other place

was there that was half so convenient ? [Several Hon.
Members—Primrose-hil]—or where there would be so
little interference with traffic ? Was there less interrup-
tion of traffic in Trafalgai-square than in Hyde-park—or
did a meeting of this sort held once in two or three years
cause one-thousandth part of the interference with the
other uses of the park that was occasioned by a volunteer
review ? It was obvious that if such reasons as this were
to exclude the public from meeting in places which must
be considered to belong to them, there were no others for
their exclusion from which much stronger ones might not
be urged. Perhaps, indeed, that was what hon. gentlemen
opposite wished. (Hear, hear.) Ho fully accepted the
assurance of the Home Seeretary that he did not wish it.
He believed in the perfect sincerity of the right hon. gen-
tleman, but he was not altogether re-assured, because the
right hon. gentleman only said that he had no objection
to meetings at proper times and in proper places; but he
did not inform the house what, in his opinion, were
proper times and places. The newspaper scribes of her
Majesty's Government were already declaring that no
open-air meetings ought to be tolerated in the metro-
polis. Let them try to prevent the holding of
such meetings. In that case they would have to
encounter a resistance of a very different kind, and from
very different persons from any that they had ,yet met.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) Noble lords and right
hon. gentlemen opposite might be congratulated upon
having done a job of work last night the impression of
which it would take wiser men than they, and the lapse of
many years, to efface. It had been and still was the anxious
wish of all those who, while they understood the age, were
likewise lovers of their country, that the necessary changes
in its institutions should be effected with the least possi-
ble, and, if possible, without any, alienation or ill-blood
between the hitherto governing classes and the masses of
the people. Her Majesty's present advisers seemed to be de-
termined that, so far as depended upon them, this hope,
this wish, this anxious desire should be frustrated. (Oh,
oh.) They all knew that there was a kind of people who
could do more mischief in an hour—(cheers from the Mi-
nisterial benches)--than all the wisdom in the world could
repair in a year. Some gentlemen opposite seemed to have
an honourable ambition to inscribe their names upon the
list of such persons. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I take it
for granted that the speech which we have just heard is
one of those which were intended for delivery in Hyde-
park, and it may give us some idea of what will be the
style of rhetoric which will prevail at these periodical meet-
ings. On the part of the gentlemen who sit on this side
of the house I would repudiate, and repudiate with some
indigation, the feelings, motives, views, and policy which
the hon. member for Westminster has, without any foun-
dation whatever, imputed to us. (Cheers.) No opinions
have been expressed on this side of the house which have
not been shared by the highest authorities opposite. Every
one must deplore what has occurred, but whatever those
who are so profoundly sage after the event may say, I be-
lieve that there is no prudent man who would not have
taken the course which we adopted, and which our prede-
cessors have generously stated that they would have purl,
sued. There can, I think be no two opinions, except
among gentlemen who desired to deliver speeches in Hyde-
park, that meetings for political or religious purposes
ought not to be held in that locality. In the case of the
parks which have been established in our great towns
within the last few years, the rule always prevails that no
such meetings shall be held within their bounds. The good
sense of the people of England has brought them to the
same conclusion as has been adopted by the practical men
who are responsible for the management of the parks
the metropolis. I should not have risen had it not been for
the extraordinary and unjustifiable tone of the hon. mem-
ber for Westminster, for which the debate has afforded no
foundation, and which was absolutely inexcusable—(hear,
hear, and no, no)—but as lam upon my legs I cannot help
making a remark upon the view which appeared to be the
foundation of the speech which introduced the discussion.
The whole speech of the hon. member for the Tower Ham-
lets rested upon the assumption that there was in the noti-
fication published by the Government a false suggestion
that this meeting would, if it took place, lead to riot and
disturbance. There was no false suggestion of the kind
in that notification. It was not assumed by those who
drew up that document that riot or disturbance would be
occasioned by those who promoted the meeting or by the
working classes who attended it. Quite the reverse. We
had great confidence— (a laugh)—in the conduct of the in-
dividuals who had undertaken the management of the
meeting, because other person's behaviour had shown that
they would act with perfect propriety. We were equally cer-
tain that the real working classes who would attend the
meeting would not be the authors of riot or disturbance. At
the same time, we said to ourselves, that a meeting of this
kind was likely to lead to riot knd disturbance, and has it not
done so? I live close to the scene of the disturbance, and at
the present moment I am not sure whether I shall get home,
safely to-night, or whether I have a home to go to. There-
fore I have some opportunity of observing what is taking
place. There was a great many people there, very noisy
and turbulent people, but I will bo bound to say that they
do not belong to the working classes. It was, however, the
case that where meetings, however honest and honourable
may be their promoters, and however good citizens may be
those who attend them, are taken advantage of by all the
floating scum of a great city to assemble and conduct
themselves as they did last night. I entirely repudiate
the views imputed to us by the hon. member for West-
minister that we are opposed to public meetings, especially
to those of the working classes. On the contrary, I look
to public meetings held, as my right hon. friend said, at
proper times and in proper places, as one of our great
political safety-valves. I am far from discouraging them.
I would throw no obstacles in their way. But I believe
that unless they are held at proper times and in proper
places they give opportunities for tumult, riot, and dis-
turbance, and what has occurred proves the soundness of
that opinion.
In reply to Mr. OTWAY, Mr. WALPOLE said there was
no foundation whatever for the statement that the Guards
had been ordered to load their rifles.
Affer a few words from Mr. WHALLEY, who com-
plained of the employment of police spies at meetings of
the Reform League, and a characteristic speech from Mr.
HADFIELD, the subject dropped.