HC Deb 06 March 1862 vol 165 cc1128-34
MR. COWPER

said, he had to lay on the table an Estimate of £2,000 for a Temporary Road in Hyde Park. He took that course in conformity with what he understood to be the wish of the House as expressed on a former occasion, when he had proposed to make a permanent road. The suggestion of a permanent road was not favourably received by the House, and he now proposed to take the means of providing a temporary road, which would serve for the additional traffic while the Exhibition was open. He did not propose to make any great change in the park, neither to construct a new road nor to make a new bridge. His plan simply was, that carriages should be allowed to make use of portions of the park now reserved for riders on horseback. The line of road he proposed would enter Hyde Park from Bayswater at Victoria Gate. It would be identical with the existing carriage drive until it approached the bridge over the Serpentine. The carriages would then go over that portion of the bridge now exclusively confined to riders. They would then proceed to the south of the bridge until they reached Rotten Row. Here they would take less than half the present road, and then, passing to the west, would leave the park by Queen's Gate. They would then proceed to the Exhibition by Prince Albert Road. The road would be thirty-five feet wide, except over the bridge, where thirty feet would be sufficient. The bridge was fifty-two feet wide, and the space left for foot passengers would not expose them to any serious inconvenience. The sum of £2,000 might at first appear rather large; but the cost of making a road was from 3s. to 3s. 3d, a square yard, so that £2,000 was only a moderate estimate. The whole distance at present used by horses, and which would be traversed by carriages, was more than half a mile—namely, 1,100 yards, at the width of thirty-five feet. Less than £2,000 could not be allowed for labour, metalling, and for railings and fences necessary to separate the carriages from horse and foot passengers. When the road ceased to be employed, the material might be taken up and a portion of its value repaid, either by sale or other use of the material. He proposed that the road should be open to all carriages conveying passengers to the Exhibition. Hackney cabs and omnibuses would be allowed the free use of the road; but it would not be open to carts and waggons conveying goods. Any conveyances carrying human beings to the Exhibition would have the right to use the road. He might have taken a shorter course for the new road, but it would have cut up the park more. And if it had been carried straight across; he grass, to the south of the Serpentine Bridge, the omnibuses, cabs, and carriages which would use that road would come into conflict with those which might be proceeding from the eastward. But by the road he proposed all the carriages coming from the north would be taken out of the way of those coming from the east. He did not propose to interfere with any of the existing roads, to alter any boundaries, or to encroach materially on the grass; but only to alter a portion of Rotten Row, so as to enable carriages to go where riders now went. The riders would have thirty-five feet to themselves, and would also have the opportunity of closer neighbourhood to the carriages.

(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of providing a Temporary Road across Hyde Park.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, of all the plans that had been submitted to them in relation to the proposed communication between Bayswater and Kensington, the one just proposed appeared to him to be the most absurd. He could not see how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accommodate both riders and carriages over the narrow bridge at the Serpentine. It was clear by his scheme that riders would be cut off from all means of communication in that part of the park. It would take, too, from Rotten Row a large portion of the space now given to riders. He (Mr. Cochrane) would suggest a much more easy and convenient plan There was already a road going right through Kensington Gardens, which was used by riders at the last Exhibition, and no inconvenience arose there from. Why not throw open that road to carriages? They had only to stop the Rotten Row road when the gates opened. This arrangement could be carried out for less than £300.

LORD FERMOY

said, he begged leave, as the feather weight which had assisted to break the back of the camel on a late occasion, to be allowed to say a few words in favour of the scheme which had been submitted to them by the Chief Commissioner of Works. It was the right line—at all events, it was a line running in the right direction, He would, however, suggest an improvement in the direction of the bridge—that the whole of the bridge should be thrown open to the traffic, and that a small pontoon bridge should be thrown over the river for all foot passengers. He thought that £2,000 was a small sum to effect so great a convenience.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, the road which the right hon. Gentleman had indicated was the one which he (Sir Morton Peto) suggested to him the other night. He thought it the very best that could be made. He did not, however, concur with his noble Friend in his suggestion as to the construction of the pontoon bridge. He would suggest that Colonel Fowke, who had signally succeeded in the Exhibition Building—[Cries of Oh, oh!]—he spoke of its construction not of its architectural merit—could easily construct a footpath outside the bridge of thirteen or fourteen feet of timber at a trifling cost. If the right hon. Gentleman would add £500 more to his Vote, it would be sufficient to meet all contingencies. The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether he intended to alter the road by the Powder Magazine. A road could be easily made at the back of it by a little alteration. A fence should, of course, be erected between that part of Rotten Row to be used by riders and the part that was to be dedicated to vehicles.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Cochrane) that the plan was the worst that could be proposed, nor could he agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was the best that could be suggested. The worst plan he (Sir John Pakington) thought was the one that the right hon. Gentleman had so wisely abandoned—namely, that extraordinary plan for which he proposed to take a Vote of £30,000. It struck him very strongly that the most direct and convenient course to take was that which his hon. Friend (Mr. Cochrane) had adverted to—that of allowing the public carriages to make use of the north walk. It could be done at the least expense, and would be by far the most convenient for all purposes. He should be glad to hear what objection the right hon. Gentleman could have to it.

MR. PEACOCKE

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Honiton in the plan which he suggested, and thought that the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was decidedly the worst that could be devised. If carried out, it would spoil Rotten Row, as well as Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. On those grounds he should certainly be disposed to divide the Committee against the proposition. At all events, he should be inclined to move that the question be adjourned for further consideration.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he approved of the plan of the First Commissioner of Works. He saw no objection to the throwing open to carriages during the Exhibition of a much larger portion of Hyde Park, from the Marble Arch to Apsley House and to the Queen's Gate. [An hon. MEMBER: And to omnibuses?] Yes. Equestrians might ride on the grass as they did formerly. He also approved of the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto) that the whole of the bridge should be given up to carriages, that equestrians might be accommodated by a pontoon bridge, and the foot passengers by a slight bridge of timber. He thought Hamilton Place might be thrown open.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, that representing a constituency at a distance from London, he objected to the Vote, on the broad ground that it was not for a national, but a local purpose. The Exhibition was a praiseworthy object, but it was not one of public importance. It was strictly a private undertaking. When the Art Treasury Exhibition took place, some years ago at Manchester, roads were made, but the public were not asked to contribute to the expense.

MR. LOCKE

remarked, that everybody seemed to assume that the proposed road, or some road from the north side of the park to the south, was necessary. ["No, no!"] He was glad to hear cries of "No," for he never saw the necessity for it himself. The noble Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) no doubt saw the necessity, because be represented the north side of the park, and his constituents wanted a road to get to the Exhibition. But how did Marylebone get to the Exhibition of 1851? The Serpentine was there then; the inhabitants of Marylebone did not ford the river, nor did they swim over it. They went round, and they could do so again. If it was intended that the proposed road should be the commencement of a permanent road, why then they ought to debate the question on its real footing, and not discuss the question of the Exhibition, when the question really was Paddington. There were roads on all sides of the Park. Why not, while the Exhibition was open, permit carriages to use them? And why not admit cabs? Cabs were not looked on in France as they were here. They were admitted in the Champs Elysées side by side with the carriage of the Count de Morny. Why not let them pass through Hyde Park? The proposition to go across the bridge, cut up Rotten Row, and intercept those who wished to go into Kensington Gardens, would, if carried, create a great inconvenience; and till some better reason was shown why an exceptional view should be taken on this occasion, and a different mode of getting to the Exhibition adopted to that used on the former occasion, he should vote against the proposition. He thought there were means enough of getting to the Exhibition. Another thing was, how to get away from it?

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, be should support the Amendment. He was opposed to the formation of a temporary road, because he was convinced that, if once tolerated, it would be converted into a permanent thoroughfare. It was instructive to observe bow, on an occasion when some self-denial and forbearance might hare been expected, every one consulted only his own convenience. The equestrians recommended an encroachment on the carriage drive, while those who rode in carriages were anxious for an invasion of Rotten Row. Again, an hon. Friend of his on the other side, who lived in a fine broad street, in a direct line with the Exhibition, was indignant at the thought of any intrusion on its privacy and repose.

ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, that the Exhibition was a public undertaking, and it was but fitting that the public should defray the expense of making a convenient access to it.

LORD ELCHO

said, he had lived in Belgravia, and had found out the inconvenience of having to go round by Westminster or Hyde Park Corner. He could, therefore, well sympathize with the gentlemen in Tyburnia who objected to making such a circuit to get to the Exhibition. From the great increase which was taking place in that part of London, it would be found necessary, sooner or later, to open communication by a road across Hyde Park. The way to look at the question was not as a temporary matter, but as the best way of establishing permanent communication between those two parts of London. He did not like the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and least of all did he like the proposition that the engineer who had turned out so extraordinary an architect should be allowed to improve the bridge across the Serpentine by the sort of outrigger which had been suggested. He thought the best way would be that suggested by the hon. Member for Honiton. He did not think any inconvenience would be found to arise to the gardens, and certainly not so much to the persons who frequented the gardens, as by the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

said, he thought that under no circumstances should a permanent road be permitted through Kensington Gardens.

MR. PEACOCKE

moved that the Chairman should report progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30, Noes 78: Majority 48.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he thought the proposed road was merely a metropolitan improvement; it was only a temporary improvement, and he thought the expense ought to be borne by the receipts at the door. He begged to move the rejection of the Vote.

MR. COWPER

said, he had not thought it necessary to reply at length to the proposal of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Cochrane), because it was obvious that the road he proposed would be quite unsuited for the traffic of cabs and omnibuses; it would be quite a quagmire. It was also a much longer road than that proposed by himself (Mr. Cowper), and if it had to be metalled, it would cost a great deal more than £2,000. Everybody, he thought, must feel that a carriage road on the level through Kensington Gardens was not a thing to be desired. All he wished to propose was, that carriages should go where horses went now; and it must be remembered that Hyde Park was a Royal park, and no metropolitan funds could he devoted to the construction of a road through it.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he wanted to know how it was proposed that pedestrians should reach Kensington Gardens at all when there was a stream of carriages blocking the way?

MR. COWPER

said, he would remind the hon. Member that there were pathways for foot passengers under the arches of the bridge on either side of the Serpentine, by which Kensington Gardens might be reached without any interference whatever from the carriage traffic.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 28: Majority 50.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.