MEETINGS IN CATHEDRAL SQUARE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11540, 29 March 1898, Page 6

MEETINGS IN CATHEDRAL SQUARE.

DISCUSSION IN THE CITY COUNCIL. At the mesting* of the City Council last night Councillor Gray referred to the I question of holding public meetings m j Cathedral Square. He said that a by-law had been on the books of the Council since 1882, dealing with the congregation of 1 people in the thoroughfares. When the ! by-laws were ‘under revision last year j the by-law was altered so as to in- ! elude Cathedral Square as a public place. It had come to the Council’s notice, and he believed that it would be brought before the Council by a petition, that some of the ; shopkeepers in Morten’s Block found their i business materially interfered with on j Saturday evenings by the crowds which j assembled around the corner on account of i the meetings hold in the square in front of j the building. He could not say of his own j knowledge what took place there on Satur- ■ day nights, but on Sunday nights he had | been there. Some religious denomination j held service then in front of Morten’s j Block, and a crowd assembled. The Opawa i and other coaches started from the same J j place, and he had seen narrow escapes from j ' accidents on account of the crowd, when ; they were starting. The matter had been brought to a climax some time ago, by the ; case of a sick man in the building having j been disturbed by one of the services, but • about that there seemed to have been some ; misunderstanding; The question had} been brought before the . committee, j which thought it would not be wise nor \ desirable 'te : i prohibit , the : ; holding ;.bf } ; meetings in, the square; , it was a| : custom which' had grown up for many ! years, and they did not desire to put a 1 ■ stop to it. ■ All that they wished to do was j | that these meetings might be regulated, j and,the Town Clerk >vas.instructed to put.a ,i ; notification in the paper, but he thought ! i that the Town Clerk had not put it in the ! ; way intended, and the advertisement did . i not convey the idea of the committee,: ’ whose idea was that the Council might ] , allot positions for meetings, so that no in- i convenience would be caused to the public. The by-law did not make the holding of a meeting in the, square or any other public place an offence; it merely provided against the citizens being inconvenienced by such gatherings. There was room in Cathedral ; Square for thousands of people to meet if ■ they would only take the proper places. He had never heard of the Salvation Army. annoyed or obstructed anybody by their meetings there. The fact that j people congregated in the streets was a | matter that was dealt with by the police, j If two or three people gathered on the : pavement they were requested to move on. ' The Council was charged with regulating the traffic in the streets, and seeing that the comfort and convenience of the citizens were not interfered with. If the people holding meetings did not obstruct nor annoy, there was not the slightest likelihood of. their being interfered with. A number of people had made very erroneous statements on the ■ matter: I’he. Mayor, had been accused of ; having .been the author of the by-law, that ■ it, was another move of the drink traffic to ■ crush the prohibitionists. Tie' (Councillor ; Gray), was an abstainer himself, and he ■ must-say how entirely wrong all this was.. vThe Council was not seeking to oppress ■anyone. If what he might call regular ' customers, like the Salvation Army, made an application they would probably get a permit for twelve months, which would prove at other people from trying to occupy ! the same ground at . the same time. The By-law Committee was anxious to have ; this matter arranged to the satisfaction of all concerned; and was not likely to he 1 bustled into making martyrs of any indi- | yidual, however anxious they might be to ' pose’as such. When the Council did move it 1 would move through the police, who had standing instructions to carry out the by- ■ lav/s.' If the police noticed that any meetings in the [square were a hindrance to ! traffic) doubtless they would request people ;■ to njove to one side and clear the thorough- [ fare. Councillor Smith endorsed what Councillor Gray had said with regard to the intention of the Council—not to suppress meetings in the [square, but simply to regulate them so that they should not beJ come inconvenient to the citizens. The | Council, he held, had no power to:prohibit | meetings in ; the, square. Unfortunately, i the advertisement gave an altogether different idea and made it prohibitory— I stated that no person shall hold meetings | in the [square without doing such and such j things. He* would move —“ That the adI vertisement be withdrawn.” I The Mayor explained that it was not | intended that the advertisement should appear again. Councillor Smith said that in that case there was no need for his motion. Councillor Sandstein thought that some ! advertisement should be put in explaining ! the Council’s intention, for it was not j right that persons should be allowed to : hold meetings in such a way as to cause j inconvenience or discomfort to the citizens, j Councillor Payling said that what had 1 been done bad been done solely with the | object of preventing blockage of the traffic. I There was no doubt that around Morten’s corner on Saturday nights there was a thorough block. The Council had no intention of restricting free speech. The Mayor said he would pass over what had been said about himself. He was used to that sort of thing, and these remarks were made by Mr Thomas Taylor, who was one of the most truthful ini dividuals in New Zealand. So far as he (the, Mayor) was concerned, he did not know that the by-law was in existence; it had been made since he was in office before. He did not know that the advertisement had been put. in, and he was not in Christchurch at the time, but his friend Mr Taylor could, . not miss a chance of making a few of his usual truthful accusations. So far as his (the|Mayor’s) own opinion was concerned, he thought that the advertisement was a mistake. There should not he the slightest movement on the part of the Council to prevent orderly meetings in the square. If anything took place in the square interfering with the public convenience or public traffic, it was the duty of the police to deal with it. So long as publicans, prohibitionists or anybody else holding meetings there did not annoy the public they should not be interfered with; a,nd if anything took place which the City .jipouncil regarded as against the interest of the citizens, the attention of the police should he called to it. He saw there were a number of applications to occupy certain places for public meetings. With all due deference to what the Council had done, he thought the Council had no power to authorise anyone to bold a meeting there any more than it had power to prevent them. Supposing the Council authorised anybody to hold a meeting at any particular corner, and a crowd gathered there and an accident occurred, the Council would be morally if not legally responsible. Councillor Smith said he would give notice of motion that the resolution of the Council respecting meetings in the Square should be rescinded. The Mayor said that no resolution had been passed, except one referring the matter to the By-law Committee. After what Councillor Gray had said he thought the matter should be left as it was.