HC Deb 22 September 1841 vol 59 cc702-3

On the motion for going into committee on the Royal Gardens Bill,

Mr. Protheroe

said, that his objections to this bill had not been removed by anything he had heard in the way of explanation. He considered it calculated to injure both Kensington Palace and the gardens; because, if it should hereafter turn out, as was very probable, that the Crown should wish to remove the present dilapidated palace, and build another, the occupation of this space of ground let out on leases to private individuals might be found exceedingly inconvenient and prejudicial. There was certainly one advantage connected with the plan which he was ready to give credit for, namely, the opening of a new road from Kensington to Bayswater, but in other respects the measure seemed to be very objectionable.

Sir R. Inglis

quite agreed with the hon. Member that they ought not to deprive any future possessors of the Crown of this piece of ground; and, under the circumstance referred to by the hon. Member, it might be found exceedingly difficult to repurchase it or to find another sufficiently convenient for the erection of a new palace.

The bill went through committee, as did the Frogmore Lodge Bill.

Back to