New-York tribune., 1872-12-13
ENGLAND.
BRITISH TOPICS.

rbt 70 know TO utter and TO argue freely says JOhh
Nuton who would more have approved ieterlhg ree
.nsech IN the parks than he approved lettering II IN
hrs Americans can hardly have forgotten the strug
A ,bat took place in Parliament last session on this
sbt-a struggle which only the sequel of larger
one that began with the overthrow Of the Park ratings
In 1886 under leadership OF Mr. Beaios From that
tina down TO the Summer OF this year various attempts
were made 70 prevent II that should be impossible TO
limit and control the OF the parks and especially
HYDE Park for public meetings Under a pressure |
which was much stronger than the public wholly unuer
snoed Liberal Government was finally induced 10 |
bring in Parks bill the Ostensibe object OF when was
10 secure the public the enoyments Of the parks ana
to maintain order in them. TIE real object VIII not
say Of the authors, but Of tho promoters oi
that bill was 10 put such restrictions |
about tho right OF holding public meetings In
Uvde Park as to make them difficult and, in the case OF
persons peculiarly unpopular, impossible The act OF
the Government so affects free speech and radi
calism generally may not be easily explicable To those
who look upon Liberals Of all sorts in England as form
ing practically but party They form in fact three
or four parties just distinct from the other as
Liberal from Tory at rate just as widely dVoec
The Liberals who sit behind Mr. Gladstone and pay ODE
dience 10 the Treasury Whip have little IN common.
for instance with the Radicals, who look to Mr.
Odr for leadership and still with the followers Of
Mr. Brsdaugh or with the Fenian chiefs who muster
their clans in Iondon Principle aside, Mr. Gladstone
would be Just glad as Mr.. Disraeh TO silence MT
OaQcr ami Mr. Bradlaugh; and 1t would be, In fact
much moro for his interest silence them, since the
demonstrations OF these unpopular minores do some
harm In lmrty sense to the Liberals, and hence some
good a. The Conservatives SO much may be needf1 TO
explain Why Government Liberal as Mr.. Gadstones
should be found taking step whatever toward mar
rowing the right OF free speech or Of public meetings IN
HYDE Park.
When the Parks bill first brought in, some of the
Liberals below glncway, with Mr. Vernon Harcourt
at their head 1t with strenuous opposition The
conflict continued throughout the sess o l. The bih as
originally introduced proposed leave the framing OF
part Of the for the regulation OF the parks to the
First Commissioner of Works. As some of these rules
were penal the opponents Of the bill protested against
leaving them withng the discretion Of an executive OIL
GER To this, the Home Secretary proposed that
the rules framed should be laid on the table OF the
House for certain time before they came into opera
ton There was an excited debate. Mr.. Gladstone com
itted himself to the adoption Of that proposal in words
as precise emphatic as he is capable OF using But
when the amendment TO make this agreement part OF
the bin was proposed Mr.. Ayrton, the First Commis
soner urged that rules might be required Temporarily
and for an emergency and his hands ought not to be
completely tied. Upon these representations and for
this purpose the Amendments was rejected 80 that the
right to during the Of Parliament was
conceded but subject the express agreement OF the
Government that they should be issued, II at ALL only
temporarily and for an emergency. This in Febru
ary last Mr. Ayrton cOntrved to delay the bill and the
preparation his rules that the rules were not ac-
tuay laid before the House Of Lords till the middle OF
July. They never reached the House Of Commons and
for this reason Mr. HarcOurt having them and
finding that they affected the right OF public meeting
notified to the Government that he should oppose them
In the House. They thereupOn withdrawn and In
3l place Of them substituted, 70 use Mr. Ayrtons
vi words lone short rule, which TO be the only rule at
present viz that public shall continue TO enjoy the
Parks as they had hitherto enjoyed them" This
simply complete surrender the opponents of the BILL
being the point for which they had all along contended
and with this the session ended
Now if made my brief summary OF this singular
controversy at all clear reader Will venture TO
imagine what is to come next Nobody could
lima dne that Mr. Ayron's surrender de
0use and that his pledge to the House that the public
should continue to enjoy the Parks as heretofore
proffered merely begue his opponents and misead
the House. Certainly" wres Mr. HarcOurt, the last
thing that occurred to any Of that it possible
that the rules presented in July and withdrawn TO
cape parliamentary criticism intended to be repro
duced in the recess when that criticism could nOonger
operate Nevertheless that really what has occurred
Mr. AyrtOn issued in October substantially the very
rules he had been compelled to withdraw in July The
men against whom they meant to operate
men, should say with whom Mr. Harcourt has nothing
to do and no sympathy-were in mood to submit to
such a usurpatOn of authority based on a
gnObe. They defed Mr.. AyrtOn TO issue public notices
for meeting Sunday. declined altogether to give the
required notice to the Government and declined to re-
strict their meeting within the limits defined by the
rules. In short il distinct challenge TO the Gov
The Government, with its usual prudence de-
clned 10 accept the challenge, withdrew the police from
vicinity Of the meeting allowed the procession to
enter the Park and the speakers complete their har
angues without interruptions then prosecuted the lead
ers before Police Court and have succeeded in getting
one them fined. The fined has appealed and it is
next certain that the conviction will be quashed by
the Superior Court.
Mr. Robert Bowes. Of the firm OF BOwlesl Brothers &
Co.. and understood TO be the London partner,
brought the Lord Mayor Thursday a charge
of painful character. 1t alleged that he and his
partners had been intrusted by Messrs. D'Agont &
Sons OF Naples with two hundred debentures Of the
LombardOVenetian Railway, worth 1000 for safe
tOdy and that contrary 10 the intent with which they
were deposited without any authority and in viola
ton Of good faith, he had pledged them for the bene
ht Of himself and his firm. 1t twas stated by the
prosecuting solicitor and by the prosecutor in his test
mony that these debentures had been deposited by
MessrS. D'Agont to cover advances; Messrs. DAnont
having with Messr Bowles that the drafts OF
the former should be hOuored by the latter and that
funds should from time TO time be RENTED from Naples
20 London for this purpose But Bowles Brothers
stipulated for security these debentures them
The business went for time in that way
Messrs. D'Agont drew Messrs. Bowles their drafts
were accepted and funds transmitted monthly by
the drawers 70 meet the drafts If Messrs DAgiont
failed provide funds pay their drafts In accord
with their agreement the Messrs BOwles Brothers
would have had the right dispose of many deben
lures might be necessary 70 the deficit; other
the securities in their hands for safekeepiDg
and be returned theclosng OF accounts But
II was stated that Bowles Brothers had was feared
been dragging existence by pedgiDg
their customers securities; that they had by
that means obtained advances from the Union
Bank 70 the amount Of $1,000; and that
among the securities pledged those Of Messrs.