The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-27 00:00:00

HYDE-PARK AND THE EXPOSITION.

Lord BROUte HAM said he rose to discharge one of
the most important duties that had ever devolved on him
since he had had the honour of a seat in that House—a
duty he felt the greater difficulty in discharging in con-
sequence of considerable indisposition which he was
labouring under since he took his seat in the House at
ten o'clock that morning. It was within the knowledge
of their Lordships that he had, from an early period
this session, stood forward as the antagonist of those
who (from praiseworthy motives undoubtedly) had un-
dertaken the structure in Hyde-park for the proposed
exhibition of 1851. That circumstance, however, sank
into entire insignificance compared to the question that
unhappily, but incidentally, had grown out of it. He
was now to call their Lordships' attention to the in-
auspicious course-which had been taken in the matter
of the Hyde-park exhibition—a course that had ben
taken under the responsibility of the first law officer
of the Crown. It was now his painful duty to describe
in detail the history of this transaction, as it
involved one of the most important questions to which
he had ever occasion to solicit the attention of their
Lordships. It would be of course for their Lordships to
judge, when they heard the statement of facts he was
about to submit, and the comments he had to offer as to
their bearing upon the law and the constitution—it
would be, ha said, for their Lordships to judge whether
he had given any exaggerated description of the import-
ance of this question. He held in his hand the peti-
tion of some of the most respectable of our fellow-citi
zees residing in the neighbourhood of Hyde-park. It
was his intention to deal exclusively midi the
question of public right. These petitioners repre-
sented the facts of the case as he las now about to
sta'e them. They have prepared an information to be
placed on the file of the Court of Chancery, for the
purpose of staying by injunction any further structure
being erected, or any further alterations being
effected in Hyde-park for this exhibition, inas-
much as they were advised that Hyde-park
was the property of the public—that it was with-
drawn by strict right from the power of the servants of
the Crown, or of any department of the service of the
Crown, without the authority of the Legislature inter-
posing by special Act of Parliament. They stated their
case to three of the most able and learned counsel that
at present adorned the bar of that country. These three
counsel had maturely considered the case, and had given
their opinions upon it. Sir F. Kelly, a man of the
highest talent and legal knowledge; Mr. Rolt, also of
many years' standing in the Court of Chancery; and
Mr. Cairns, were consulted, and their opinion was, upon
a deliberate view of the law and the statutes—and they
gave that opinion without hesitation—that the structures
about to be raised in Hyde-park were illegal; and they
recommended an immediate injunction to stay the pro-
ceeding. As it was not an infraction of the rights of
the individual, it could only be by a bill or in-
formation in the name of the Attorney-General. All
such informations in which the Attorney-General aas
the party who proceeded, the substantial party,
the real party, was the relator. The Attorney-
General was only the formal, but an absolutely ne-
cessary party, and the relator was the real substan-
tial party who proceeded. He alone gave the instruc-
tions to counsel, the Attorney-General had nothing
whatever to do with it; the relators alone had the con-
duct, carriage, and control of the cause. The Attorney-
General was only there as representative and on behalf
of the public, whose interests were affected. He did not
deny that the Attorney-Generel might become, from the
formal, the real and substantial party in the cause. The
matter could only have followed out of the assent of the
the Attorney-General. Ile was applied to and re-
fused his concurrence—the business behoved to stop
there. No means was suppliel by the constitution to
compel him. Sic vole was enough—that was the law,
that was the constitution. The order cf the Sovereign
could not compel him; there was nothing but an Act of
Parliament to do that. It was thought advisable that
the relators should lay the opinions of counsel before
the Attorney-General, and he, after taking time, again
reiterated his refusal, but stated the reasons for that refusal.
He had already said that these gentlemen had given their
opinions without any doubt or hesitation, and that there
was a clear case fora court of law. He was told by those
three competent lawyers, not only as the facts of the case
were disclosed to them, but on the law as it was explained to
them, that the encroachments contemplated were con-
trary to the law; the Attorney-General said—and if
information himself
ad —t
any man could suppose that he (Lord Brougham) lightly
considered his vested authority, or that he had the
slightest prejudice against him, he showed the greatest
ignorance of all that was passing in his mind, for he had
always entertained the highest respect and attachment
General said he had in that matter a dutya of judicial
nature
rtuhris
e to
orepveerrtued rnir.elait,invee
and se tehde
nAt questiontorney -
the discretion of the authorities ha •the control over
ving _
and management of the parks. The Noble and Learned
Lord then went on to quote the opinion of the Attorney-
General at length as it has already appeared in
The Sun, in which he declined to interfere, a
vote of the House of Commons having already disposed
of the question. Where any case. of oppression was
likely to be undertaken for some
it was clear that the case was sinister motive—where
flimsy and empty, and
that there was no reasonable or
bringing it into court, the right porfobable cause for
the Attorney-
General to refuse to allow the 1 reator to go was un-
doubted. So in like manner where a
ma
and the verdict of the jury wasfnolwloasedby a
convicted
judgment, the aggrieved patty could not sue writ
of error without the permission of
theAoutrne a
- Ge-
neral. lie knew a case, that of O'Connell atotodoytbers
who were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and
the parties then brought a writ of error. The judgment
in that case was reversed, and the parties set free; and
if there was any right in the Government or in the At-
torney-General to have withheld his fiat for the prose-
cution of the writ of error, that was a case in which
they would most certainly have interposed. It was clear
that if there was any right in the Attorney-General to
do so he would have done it in that case. It was
equally clear that it was an act ex debilo justitice, and not
as gratia, and that the fiat could not in that or in any
similar case be refused. The Noble and Learned Lord
then referred to the proceedings in the House of Com-
mons on the subject of the erection of the proposed
building in Hyde-park, showing that the division took
place, not upon the erection of the building, but upon
the question of the matter being referred to a Select
Committee; and yet he observed it was upon that the
Attorney-General took upon himself to refuse his
assent to that information. But suppose there was
a decision of the House of Commons on the
subject—was that a decision as to the legality of the
proposed erection? Did that justify the Attor-
ney-General in refusing his assent ? Certainly not.
But as the Attorney-General had referred to the pro-
ceedings in the House of Commons, be begged to call
the attention of their Lordships to what was said on
thet occasion by Lord John Russell. He had said they
had nothing to do with the question of law—that was
not the question before them. The only question was
whether they should offer advice to the Crown restrict-
ing the erection of this public building in Hyde-park,
supposing the Crown had the right to select Hyde-
park. Lord John Russell did not decide the question
of law, and he (Lord Brougham]) defied any stronger or
plainer words to be used to show that the question of
law was not referred to in that House at all. Now, then
above all, the House of Commons was the lowest and the
last place to decide questions at issue between the Crown
and the public, between the Attorney-General and the
public, or between one party and another. Why, even
their Lordships, although of far greater weight and im-
portanee, unless when sitting in their judicial capacity,
could not, and dared not, touch questions of
law between the public and the Crown, or
between one party and another. The present
was a very grave question, and if the Attorney-
General was without better reasons than these,
because it displeased some persons under whom he
held office to impede, to obstruct, and to frustrate the
due administration of justice, he must say that such rea-
sons could not for a moment prevail with ther Lordships
or with the country. If the Attorney-General was
merely to
. say that he would not allow this information
to be tried, sad thus frustrate the putaig from all the