PREACHING IN THE PARKS. City Council Refuse their Sanction.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 82, 27 December 1884, Page 3

PREACHING IN THE PARKS. City Council Refuse their Sanction.

n (From the Auckland " Star," Dec. 19.) , t The subject of preaching in the city parks b was introduced at the meeting of the City f Council by the following application from »f Mr W. F, Utting, which led up to nn ani- '• mated discussion :—" Auckland, December * 16th, ISSt. To tho Mayor and members of « the City Council, Auckland : Gentlemen,-— t A few Sundays ago some brethren who have been in the habit of holding open-air services * commenced one in tho Wostern Park at 3 f p.m. Everything passed off quietly, many a sitting down in groups under the trcos to b listen ; but on the next occasion tho > custodian informed us that he v/as sorry ho had instructions through Mr Wella that it could not be allowed without a permit from tho Mayor or tho Park Committee. We were not aware that such instructions had been given or that a permit was necessary, but if it be, 1 have the honour to apply for one on behalf of mysolf and associates. — lain, etc., W. F. Utting. " P.S. Care of course would be taken to injure nothing, and to avoid any stoppage ofjtho paths. — W.F.U." The Mayor SLid that it had never been contemplated that the Park would bo used for tho purposes of public preaching. If permission were granted to one body, it would have to be given to all others who choso to apply. Tho streets were open to those preachers, but that they should bo allowed to tako up positions in the parks, and gather crowds of from 200 to 300 people around them, Avould be, in his opinion, very undesirable. If tho applicant and his iriends were conceded this privilege, the Council could not refuse it to men who would enunciate doctrines of a directly opposite tendency. There was considerable difl'erenco of opinion as to tho pioprioty and good effect ot street preac'iing. At any rate, ho would move that tho permission asked for should not bo granted. Cr. Caiikatt seconded the motion. Cr. Crowthei; moved as an amendment that the matter should be rof erred to the Legal Committee, lie was not by any means sure that the Council had the power to prevent either streot or park preaching, and he did not AvLsh to too an illegal position taken up. It wab very doubtful indeed whether tho Council had the power to ptop people from preaching in the Park, if a boy passed through it playing a concertina, and followed by half a do/en larrikins, they couldnotstopthcm. Indeed they inameasure encouraged such things by having bands of music to play there on particular occasions. This music was a source of amusement, and if they permitted it, where woro they to draw the line ? If they resolved to draw it at muMC, he was quito prepared to submit. But ho would liko at tho same time to be assured that they had tho power to do what they proposed. So long as no damage was dono or any public annoyance caused, tho preaching could hardly be stopped. It might possibly do good without doing harm also. Cr. C!oLDii:said that iftheCouncilstopped street preaching they might also prohibit temperance demonstrations. He knew that in tho Parks ot other and larger cities it was a regular thing for preaching to be conducted in tho parks, and for meetings of thousands of pcoplo to be held there. Ho failed to sec any leason for pursuing a contrary course here, and, like Cr. Crowther, he doubted the Council's power to do so. Music was allowed there, and perhaps to some of tho people who resorted to the Park for a breath of fresh air music was an annoyance. Preachingmightbeearricd on in an ordinary tone of voice, and if it w ero to be prohibited, woro people to speak in whispers while they were in the Park ? The Council were simply going beyond their powers in trying to pievent people preaching in the Park. Ci. Cooper did not think the Council proposed to stop the preaching ; they simply declined to sanction it. The Mayor's motion meant on more. In the parks at Home large gatherings were regularly held, and while tho authorities did not stop them neither did they countenance them. Yet in tho case under notice the Council were formally asked for a pevmit, and he thought they were perfectly safe in declining to give it. That, however, did not prevent tho people from preaching. [Cr. G oldie : But they have been prevented by the gardener,] That matter was not before them now. The Council should simply refuse to recognise the right of these people to preach in the Park, and then, if they proved a source of trouble, they could be stopped. Cr. AtciUN believed that theCouncilshould not interfere in the matter at all. They wero really tho custodians of a public park which was open to people of all hues and shades of opinion, religious or otherwise. They were at liborty to go there, and so long as they conducted themselves properly they had the right of preaching there if they chose. So long as they did not interfere with others who went there to enjoy themselves, the Council should hold aloof. Cr. Gakratt said that this was all very well, but would these preachers let other people alone ? Street-preaching proceeded upon an aggressive policy, its object being to make converts. If it were allowed in the Western Park, it could not be prevented in the Albert Park either [Cr. Crowther : Hear, hear], for one was no more a preaching ground than the other. That, however, was not the primary object of the Council in laying out parks. Tho public would be loth to resort to them if they were to be encountered there by street preachers. Tho majority of people went thither for a quiet stroll, and when they wanted to hear any preaching there were plenty of churches to accommodate them. Quiet recreation, however, was their object in the Park. [Cr. Aickin : Or to seek redemption.] Ho presumed that all the people who went there wore redeemed already. The Rationalists were quite as orderly as those who opposed them, and had as much right to hold forth in the parks. [Cr. Goldie : Hear, hoar ] At the same time he did not think it wise or desirable to open the door to the deliverance of all sorts of religious opinions in such public places as the Parks. It would become a public nuisance Crs. Montague and Masefield also supported the motion. The Mayor in reply said that he had heard street preachers use language that was not fit for ears polite, and yet they claimed to be quoting the Scripturos. If it were so, it should have been spoken in whispers within four stone walls. The amendment having been seconded pro forma by Cr. Aickin, was then put, when Crs. Devore, Crowther, Aickin, and Goldie voted for it, and tho Mayor, Cra. Holland, Mackechnie, Cooper, Dignan, Montague, Kidd, La Roche, Burns, Morrison, and Masefield against. s Consequently the amendment was lost, and the Mayor's motion carried.

A thousand cases of kerosene which arrived at Brisbane the other day were tested, condemned, and ordered to be destroyed or exported.