REGENT'S PARK. (Hansard, 20 April 1841)

§ Mr. Ewart
rose to move an address to the Crown for opening the Regent's Park to the public. The hon. Member said the object he had in view was to increase the sources of rational amusements which were now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the metropolis. At present the Park was open from Portland-place almost in a direct line to the Zoological Gardens; but if hon. Members had extended their vision beyond the walks, they could not have failed to have observed that there was about twice as large a portion from which the public were excluded. His object was to throw open that further portion. It had been stated as an objection that certain clauses in the leases of the villas would exclude the public from 959 that portion of the park. He had consulted the best authorities, namely the lessees under those leases, and they had informed him that there was no such reserving clause. It had next been stated, that if there was no special clause, there was an understanding with the lessees. He protested against the House being bound by anything which did not appear in the lease. Therefore he believed that there was no legal claim that was valid against his motion—on the other hand immense public benefit would attend the accomplishment of the object of his motion. The population around the park had of late, and was, greatly increasing, and the boon he sought would be to them of immense value, and would be attended with no detriment to any one individual. He understood that the Government had very wisely made an arrangement which would retain Primrose Hill—that classical spot to all the citizens of London—for the use of the public—that was an additional argument in favour of his motion for the portion of the park he wished to have thrown open was the direct road to that spot to all coming from the City. He would ask why the public should be shut out from the Regent's Park any more than from Hyde Park? However, he did not think it was necessary for him to say more in favour of his motion, the onus probandi lay upon the Government to show why the park should not be opened. He would therefore conclude by moving, That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to take into her consideration the advantage which would accrue to the public, from throwing open to the public the remainder of the Regent's Park.

Mr. E. J. Stanley
said, in reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he could assure the House that there was no one at all times more anxious to do everything for the public accommodation than the noble Lord at the head of this department. It must be well known to the hon. Member that a large portion of the park was leased to different persons, portions of it to the Toxopholite and other societies, and with respect to other portions, they had been let off to persons who had expended considerable sums of money on them, and who had entered into engagements with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, by which they were guaranteed against the intrusion of the 960 public, and similar inconveniences. There was one portion of the park, however, which he agreed with his hon. Friend might be extended to the public. It was that tract of ground which extended from the gravel walk, which had been lately made, towards Macclesfield-bridge. But at the same time he thought it impossible, without a large body of police, and a great deal more expense than it was desirable to incur, to give the public access to those parts in the neighbourhood of the water and the villas he had already mentioned. His noble Friend would do all he could to give access to the public, and he therefore trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion.

§ Mr. Hume
thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) could not have understood the motion, because the part which he stated as about to be opened had been open a considerable time. The part the public were anxious for was that immediately east of Cornwall-terrace. He understood that the large space from the Marquis of Hertford's house to the Zoological Gardens was not leased at present, and therefore there was no reason why it should not be open to the public. He wished to know whether any measure had been taken for affording similar accommodation to the public at the northeast and east of the City of London Unless the opportunity were now taken would be altogether lost, and the population would become so dense that, without such accommodation, it would be most unhealthy to live in the neighbourhood.

§ Lord Teignmouth
said, that out of 286 acres in the park, 200 might be opened to the public, and certainly he had not heard any good reason why they should not be so applied. The only argument that he had heard against opening the whole was that the indulgence might be abused, but he thought that it would not be difficult or expensive to prevent such abuse.

§ Sir B. Hall
said, that he had seconded the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, but he should, nevertheless, request of him not to take the sense of the House upon the subject, as he had received a guarantee from the Government that almost the whole of the park should be opened for the use and gratification of the public.

§ Sir R. Inglis
so seldom agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that he was happy to express his entire concurrence 961 in the observations which he had made with reference to the formation of a park in the eastern extremity of London. He was not one who attached any importance to parks as forming moral character; but he did feel that they were sources of rational enjoyment, and means of promoting the public health. He trusted that if any other Member of her Majesty's Government should address the House on this subject, he would be able to state what were the views they entertained, and how they proposed to carry out the recommendations of the committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject.

§ Sir De Lacy Evans
thought it was high time the park should be opened to the public, to whom his hon. Friend had rendered a useful service by bringing the subject under the notice of the House.

Mr. E. J. Stanley
thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone went too far, and he was not empowered to state that the whole of the Regent's Park, from the water to the Zoological Gardens, would be thrown open to the public. It was the intention of his noble Friend to throw open a portion of the grass-land between Lord Hertford's villa and the Zoological Gardens; but objections were entertained to opening the park as far as the water at present.

§ Mr. Wakley
was much obliged to the hon. Member for Wigan for bringing forward the motion, but he thought they were treating the question more lightly than it deserved. The right hon. Baronet who had just sat down had pointed out the importance of forming a park in the eastern part of the town, but he had forgotten to say a word on the question before the House. He had not said a word about a park of which the people were the owners, and from which they were shut out. He thought they ought to give the people a place to which they were entitled before they devised means of creating other parks. It was a serious ground of complaint that the people had been for some time excluded from the greater portion of the Regent's-park. The noble Lord opposite had stated that that park had been originally Marylebone fields, and that it had been enclosed in order to fit it for the reception of the people, but since these villas had been erected, certain favoured individuals had obtained leases, and were not to be disturbed. It was clear, from the tone in which the hon. 962 Under-Secretary of the Treasury had spoken, that some obstacles still existed to making the Regent's-park what Hyde park at present was, where the public could enjoy themselves over every part o it. He hoped that the conversation would not be allowed to drop without any result but that the enormous evil would be redressed. It was quite monstrous that the fastidious feelings of a few persons who rented dwellings round the part should be consulted so far as to exclude the real owners of the property.

§ Mr. Ewart
said, that before he tool that step with which he intended to conclude, he wished to obtain from the Government some more explicit statement as to what their views and intentions were He could not feel that he had satisfactorily performed his duty without obtaining a clear understanding on the subject. There were 200 acres of the park from which the public were now excluded; the object of his motion was to have that space thrown open, and unless there were some clear understanding upon that point he should certainly feel it his duty to take the sense of the House.

Mr. E. J. Stanley
said, he could not state fully and precisely at that moment what might be the views of the head of the department to which the matter belonged, but he really thought the best course would be to leave the subject for the present in the hands of his noble Friend, and if the measures which he took did not prove satisfactory, it would of course be open to the hon. Member for Wigan to bring forward any motion upon the subject which he thought proper at any future time.