VISCOUNT DUNCANhad a question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of an encroachment on the Green Park. Some discussion took place on the 1st of March, on the subject of a wall, which had been built without the knowledge of the noble proprietor, round the garden of Bridgewater House, and the right hon. Gentleman then gave him an assurance that the wall should be removed. The wall, however, had not only not been removed, but an embankment had been raised, and he wished to know whether the embankment in question was within the terms of the lease?
§ MR. LUSHINGTONsaid, that before the Secretary to the Treasury answered that question, he wished to state that his constituents would regard the completion of that structure as a very great hardship and grievance.
§ MR. HAYTERsaid, that immediately after the 1st March a communication took place between the architect of the Woods and Forests and the architect of the Earl of Ellesmere; and the architect of the Woods and Forests had been directed to prepare a report, which had not yet been presented. Not, only, however, had the wall of which complaint had been made not been proceeded with, but a great portion of it had been taken down, and it would undoubtedly be a great detriment to the public, and a great injury to the beauty of the park, if no means could be found by which the stringent provisions of the lease could be in some respects modified. If, however, they could not be modified, it would be the duty of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to have that structure levelled. With regard to the embankment, there was nothing in the covenants of the lease which would prevent its being made.
§ Subject dropped.