be laid before the House, a Return of all Civil | ing under Sir Henry Hart during the war, Appointments held by Flag Officers of Her Ma- and he could state to the House that this jesty's Fleet, distinguishing those Officers that are gallant officer felt hurt at the rule laid in the Active or Retired List." down by the Admiralty. He could not

on that gallant officer the necessity of resigning his appointment or becoming a superannuated rear-admiral. There was not a more gallant officer in the service than Sir Watkyn Owen Pell; but he could not understand how he had been allowed to receive his flag and retain his civil appointment, when the gallant officer Sir Henry Hart had not been permitted to do so. The same rule ought to have been applied to both cases.

ADMIRAL BERKELEY said, the difference in the two cases was, that Sir Henry Hart had taken the retirement, knowing he could not rise beyond the rank of rearadmiral, and Sir Watkyn Owen Pell had not accepted it.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

EJECTMENTS IN BERKSHIRE.

SIR F. BARING must oppose the Mo-understand why the Admiralty had imposed tion. He was not aware that any rule existed which debarred admirals in the service from holding civil appointments. The rule no more existed in the naval than it did in the military service. He therefore had no cause to defend such appointments. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to be under the impression that officers were obliged to accept the retirement or to give up their civil appointments. These cases had occurred before he took office; but from all he had heard of Sir Henry Hart's, it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton was under a wrong impression. He believed the acceptance of the retirement was not compulsory on any officer. They accepted it, and it was regarded as a boon. As to the case of Admiral Hornby, he was informed that on his becoming an admiral it was intimated to him that it was inconsistent with that office to hold a captain's appointment. He had never heard any complaint from Sir Francis Beaufort. The place he held was generally held by captains, and he (Sir F. Baring) regarded any arrangement by which this gallant officer's services could be secured to the country as most beneficial. With regard to the office of admiral of the fleet, the hon. and gallant Member was under some mistake. This was an office which was not conferred out of the usual line of seniority. The vice-admiral and the rear-admiral were not appointed according to seniority, but the distinction was conferred by the Crown on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury, on the ground of distinguished merits. The admiral of the fleet drew no salary as vice-admiral, and did not think he was called upon to resign that appointment, for though he highly valued the office of admiral of the fleet, having obtained it by seniority, he still more highly valued the office of vice-admiral, having obtained it as a reward and recognition of his own merit. He need hardly assure the House that, although Sir Edward Codrington had no claim to the office on the score of seniority, he felt sure that should a vacancy occur he would receive the reward to which his high merit, during a long career in the service of his country, entitled him.

SIR J. DUKE had the honour of serv

MR. HENLEY wished before the House went into Committee of Supply, to call the attention of the House to that part of the report of G. A'Becket, Esq., that relates to Reading, in Berkshire, contained in the reports to the Poor Law Board on laws of settlement and removal of the poor, presented to both Houses of Parliament, by command of Her Majesty, in the year 1850.. It appeared that some time since evidence had been given by Mr. Chadwick, before a Committee, to the effect that the poor had been driven into Reading in consequence of a number of houses having been pulled down in the surrounding agricultural parishes. That was doubted. However, in 1848 the late President of the Poor Law Board directed inquiries to be made by a gentleman named A'Becket. That gentleman, in his report, distinctly referred to the evidence of Mr. Chadwick, and in the last paragraph of his report he stated that he had no hesitation in saying that the practice of pulling down cottages for the purpose of driving out the agricultural labourers had existed in several parishes. That allegation had created some surprise in the neighbourhood where the occurrences were alleged to have taken place; and Mr. A'Becket added that they had been driven into Reading either because they had been guilty of poaching, or had

been accused of it. Correspondence had ported that his original impressions retaken place upon the subject, and he and mained unaltered. He had handed the his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire hon. Gentleman opposite the letter so rehad received numerous communications. ceived from Mr. A'Becket. Further corThere now appeared to be two courses respondence ensued, and he begged to say which might be taken on the subject. One that every letter and every document in was to appoint a Select Committee; and his possession forming a portion of that the other, the more simple and readier correspondence should be most cheerfully course, would be, that on some occasion he produced. should move as an unopposed return, that that correspondence be printed and laid. before the House. He begged to ask whether there would be any objection to that course?

anything or to sanction anything hostile to | were pursuing. On a future occasion, he the feelings of Her subjects, or which should move the address which he had read could interfere with their rights and enjoy- to the House; and on Monday next, in ments. Hyde Park had been devoted un- moving that a petition on the subject, preinterruptedly to the enjoyment and recrea-sented a few days before by the hon. and tion of the people; and so strongly was learned Member for Abingdon be printed, their right held to be in the reign of Wil- he should again address some observations liam III., that hackney coachmen were to the House. not suffered to remain within the park, because at some previous period they had interfered with, molested, and insulted the respectable class of persons seeking recreation there. Hyde Park was emphatically the park of the people, and it was now proposed to be devoted to purposes which he must hold to be prejudicial to the people in a moral, religious, and social point of view. It was sought to appropriate it to the encouragement of-what? To the encouragement of everything calculated to be prejudicial to the interests of the people. An exhibition of the industry of all nations, forsooth! An exhibition of the trumpery and trash of foreign countries, to the detriment of our own already too much oppressed manufacturers. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as trustees of the public, were bound to protect their rights, and not permit them to be robbed and spoliated. The Attorney General said, "It is my will and pleasure that I should do as I propose," and forthwith he put his will and pleasure into execution. But even supposing the Attorney General to be right in refusing to file the information, was it wise to use the giant's strength he assumed to possess against the public good and against public principle? The public had a voice in such a matter, and were not to be trifled with. He thought it neither politic nor judicious to make the attempt. He believed that those who had been first and foremost in starting this exhibition regretted very much that they had ever taken it in hand. They now declined to retrograde, however, because they feared giving offence to foreigners. The promoters of this project had got into a scrape, and the sooner they got out of it the better. They were flying in the face of the rights of the public merely to gratify the foreigner, who had no right to be here at all. He called upon the Attorney General to give ear to the opinions expressed, and recommendations emanating from such eminent lawyers as Lord Chief Justice Campbell, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, and join in a censure upon the illegal and unconstitutional course the Commissioners of Woods and Forests VOL. CXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that so far as he was personally concerned, he felt indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this question before the House, both because it was highly important that every public functionary should be ready to explain his conduct upon all occasions to the House, and also because upon this particular occasion he was extremely desirous to state to the House the motives which had actuated him in the course he had adopted with respect to the information in question. But before he proceeded to say anything on that subject, he thought it right that he should say that the course adopted in this case had been taken upon his own sole responsibility; that he had not been asked to take that course by anybody; and that he had not been advised by anybody to take it. He had not, indeed, consulted with anybody previous to determining upon taking that course. He might very possibly be wrong in the judgment he had come to. If he had had any doubt upon the subject, he should have thought it his duty to take advice and counsel from those who were capable of giving it; but entertaining no doubt with respect to the course which he felt it his duty to pursue, he thought that the only proper and dignified course for him to take was to act upon his own responsibility. In this case, too, the House would permit him to observe that there could be no doubt at all that the duty of signing the information by the Attorney General was not a mere matter of form. It was a matter in which he had to exercise his discretion-in which he had to read every information in order to enable him to form an opinion whether it was a proper case to be submitted to the consideration of a court of justice. This had been the established and invariable practice, as far as he was aware, of all the Attorney Generals who had preceded him in his office; and he had heard regret over and over again expressed by every Judge who had presided in the courts of equity, that cases had not been fully brought under the attention of the Attorney General, because if that had been the case he would

N

never have sanctioned such proceedings. I thought fit, except so far as it might be He had also known matters referred back restrained by the various Acts of Parliato the Attorney General, with a recom- ment having reference to its property, and mendation from the court to reconsider except in so far that it had no power to them, and to see whether, upon increased alienate from its successors that or any information, he would deem it proper to other hereditary estate. It was part of proceed. And without detaining the House the functions and duties of the Commisupon the subject, he might be allowed to sioners of Woods and Forests to manage say that various matters might technically the land revenues of the Crown, except in arise in which great evil might be occa- so far as that power might have been taken sioned, if an information were permitted away by Act of Parliament. Now, in this to be brought before the attention of courts case it was alleged that the Commissioners of justice without considering how far the of Woods and Forests did not possess any interests of other persons whose benefit authority to erect any such edifice as it was sought to be promoted would be affected was now proposed to build, and the stateby it. He had himself since he had had ment was sufficiently correct if limited to the honour to hold the office he now held, the exercise of that authority as against refused to grant his fiat to a petition under the Crown; if that prerogative of the the 52nd George III., which was exactly Crown were invaded, it would be the duty analogous to the present proceeding, be- of the Attorney General to proceed, not cause he was convinced that the advantage by signing such an information as was now which was sought to be gained by the re- under consideration at the instance of redress of the inconvenience in the particular lators: it would be his duty to file an inforcharity, was not commensurate with the mation ex officio. But that the Crown-the expense which would be incurred in re- Commissioners of Woods and Forests codressing it. There could be no doubt, operating-did possess the power of erectthen, about the discretion which was re- ing buildings in Hyde Park, was a posiquired to be exercised by the Attorney tion of which there could not be the slightGeneral, and the great responsibility which est doubt. That to act upon that opinion attached to him before he gave his sanction had very long been the practice, there to any information whatever. He should could also be no doubt whatever, in proof now proceed briefly to explain the motives of which he might mention the barracks which induced him to refuse his assent to erected in St. James's Park, as well as the information. The information was at various waterworks, for which no Act of the instance of certain relators, who con- Parliament had ever been thought necesceived that the building proposed to be sary, the Royal sign-manual being the erected in Hyde Park would interfere with only authority, as happened also in the the rights of individuals as well as with the case of the cottage built in Windsor Park rights of the public, and they therefore by George IV., then Prince Regent. For sought to obtain an injunction to restrain any building in any of the parks no sancthose who intended to erect such a build- tion of an Act of Parliament was necessary ing from proceeding with that undertaking. if the Crown gave its consent. But he Now, it was essential that the House should then limited himself to speaking of bear in mind the several interests connected the erection of buildings which did not with this matter. The information alleged interfere with the rights of individuals; that there were two interests concerned wherever those rights were affected, the those of the Crown and those of the public; persons concerned had their proper rebut the interests of the public were divisa- dress, but the power of which he spoke was ble into two parts, one portion that of the one which the Crown had always posState, as represented by the Commissioners sessed, and had always exercised. A quesof Woods and Forests, and another portion tion of right, however, arose when indithat which the public had in the enjoyment viduals claimed redress; the Crown, howof the park as a place of recreation. The ever, was not accustomed to use its prerights of the Crown were simple and plain: rogative to the injury of private interests. Hyde Park was a portion of the hereditary As he had already said, the interests of property of the Crown, subject to no re- the public in this matter were divisable strictions but what the statute law im- into two parts-that which the Board of posed. The rights of the Crown were Woods and Forests administered, and that those of a proprietor in fee simple-the which the people at large enjoyed when Crown might do with that estate as it they took recreation in Hyde Park. The

Board (that of the Woods and Forests) by | but it was one in which the public at large which the land revenues of the Crown were had a direct interest. This might appear managed, had been created by Act of Par- a technical distinction, but, in the present liament for the purpose of managing that case, it was by no means merely technical, property in a manner the most beneficial for the information claimed a right on beto the Crown. That Board received all half of the public; but the public could the rents and fines accruing to the Crown, possess no right independently of an Act and by a species of compact, the civil list of Parliament, and there was no statute being provided for out of the Consolidated which gave to the public a right to take Fund, the issues and profits of the Crown pleasure and recreation in Hyde Park, or lands were, by the Commissioners of in any one of the parks. Assuming for a Woods and Forests, paid over to that moment that any one supposed the rights fund, and the Commissioners, representing of recreation and pleasure to be in persons the public, had an interest in the matter residing within a certain distance of Hyde now under consideration; but he wished Park, in the inhabitants of London, Westto consider the other interest that the pub-minster, Southwark, and the villages adlie had in this matter. First, he alluded joining them, the right would not be in the to the interest which they had when taking community at large, but in certain classes pleasure and recreation in the park; and of persons; and they would not be entitled here he would venture to say, that as to to proceed by way of information; the prothe legal point, the relators had no ground per mode for them would be, that a few of on which to base their resistance. The the inhabitants of London and Westminpublic, so far as recreation was concerned, ster should file a bill on their own behalf, were in the same situation with regard to and on that of the other inhabitants of Hyde Park as that in which they stood those districts; and no refusal of the Atwith regard to all others of the Royal torney General could prevent their doing parks they were admitted by the grace, so. Nothing more easy than for such and at the pleasure, of the Crown. It was parties to do so; but, as the Crown would an enjoyment with which the Crown was be in possession, it might possibly be nenever likely to interfere; but that was not cessary to prefer a petition of right. The now the question. What he meant to af- Attorney General, however, would be withfirm was, that, speaking as to the legal out any power in the matter, inasmuch as point, there was no right in the public to the right could not under such circumthe enjoyment of those parks. There stances as he had supposed be claimed by might, perhaps, be a right of way from the whole community. But in the present one place to another, but that was a differ- case there had been no allegation of any ent question. The free access to the right possessed by any particular class. parks-the enjoyment of them as a place He thought that that was the proposition of recreation was a matter which de- to be considered, and he thought that the pended solely upon the grace and favour Attorney General had a right, on the part of the Crown, and no man could say that of the Crown, to stop the course of the the public possessed any legal right to in-proceedings when the relators came forsist upon the gates of any park being kept ward on behalf of the public; and he had open, say till any particular hour of the declined to sanction the information after day, or to insist that any particular class giving to the subject the best attention in of vehicle should not be excluded from his power. It appeared to him that the the parks. He spoke now of the pub-relators sought not the advantage of the lic possessing no common-law right to take pleasure or recreation in those parks. If there were particular customs in a matter of this sort, they could be enforced, not for the benefit of the public, but for that of some individuals, or set of individuals, who did not constitute the whole community, but a certain class or classes. Thus, the inhabitants of a certain district might possess by custom the right to play at cricket on the village green. That right might be very good as regarded the inhabitants of the district;

-

public, but their own advantage; and, under such circumstances, if the Attorney General had acceded to their wishes, he would have betrayed the interests of the Crown, and deserved the severe censure of the House of Commons. On the part of the relators, it was alleged that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were trustees for the public, and that they could be made accountable in the courts of justice for the manner in which they administered the trusts confided to them. This he conceived not to be the