§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to put a question to the First Commissioner of Works relative to the intended alterations ill the Green Park. In ordinary cases he should have postponed his question until 1187 the Estimates came before the House, but were he to do so in the present instance he would then probably find that the mischief which he was anxious to avoid had been effected. They had already a specimen of the so-called "improvements" of the Board of Works in the iron bridge across the ornamental water in St. James's Park. It would be remembered that two years ago his right hon. Friend who then presided over that Department (Sir B. Hall) proposed to make a carriage-road across that park. That proposition was rejected; but in the Committee, by the casting vote of the right hon. Baronet himself, it was agreed to form an iron bridge across the lake. That scheme met with considerable resistance, and it was only by a small majority that it received the sanction of that House, a result which was mainly owing to the influence of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, (Viscount Palmerston) who warmly supported the proposition by a speech made in his usual taking manner. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed his opinion that the projected improvement would convert one ornamental lake into two ugly ponds. On the other hand, the noble Lord opposite contended that the bridge would be a great improvement, observing that everybody knew that the line described by a flexible body suspended between two fixed points was very much admired, as the catenarian curve or line of beauty; and from that proposition the noble Lord proceeded to deduce the corollary that a suspension-bridge in St. James's Park must be an exceedingly handsome structure, and one which must give delight to every man of taste. He (Lord Elcho) was aware that the noble Lord, having already spoken upon the question of adjournment, could not again address the House, but it would be very desirable to know whether, having seen the result of his speech, the noble Lord was satisfied with the catenarian curve as exemplified in the bridge in St. James's Park, for no one else appeared to think that that catenarian curve was anything like the line of beauty. His (Lord Elcho's) own opinion was, that his right hon. Friend the late Chief Commissioner of Works (Sir B. Hall) might enjoy the satisfaction of having originated what was, without exception, the ugliest bridge ever made. He knew of nothing at all equal to it in ugliness, except, perhaps, the suspension-bridge which the 1188 Austrians had thrown across the Grand Canal at Venice, and which the natives of that city were careful to impress upon all beholders as the work of an Englishman. In the case of the bridge in St. James's Park he thought the name of the architect should be inscribed upon it, together with a statement that it was erected during the ædileship of his right hon. Friend. The history of that bridge showed how careful they should be not to allow any alteration to be commenced in the Parks without knowing what was really going to be done. The main argument in support of the construction of that bridge was the convenience it would afford to the public, and no doubt it was convenient, for it was strong enough to bear all the traffic of London; but he submitted that convenience was not the only thing to be considered. Now, with respect to the alterations which appeared to be contemplated in the Green Park, the inhabitants of that neighbourhood were surprised one morning to find two large circles marked out, one where the water formerly was, and the other nearer to Buckingham Palace. What those circles were intended for he could not tell. As the former decision of the House had been so much governed by a consideration of convenience, it had been thought that possibly those circles were intended to mark the sites of some buildings to be erected for the convenience of the public. Such an idea, however, was too monstrous to be entertained for a moment. The general belief was that it was intended to plant two shrubberies or clumps of trees on the spots which wore marked out, but he thought there could not be a greater mistake than to plant shrubberies in London. As a general rule they were complete failures, and it was the absence of shrubs which caused Berkeley Square to be so much more admired than other squares. If any objection could be taken to the administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) it was his too great fondness for shrubberies. He thought these shrubberies in London ought to be carefully avoided; but if there was one place more than another where they ought to be avoided, it was the spot where it seemed to be intended to plant them, in the Green Park. The open space there was already sufficiently contracted. It formed a green slope of grass, intersected by numerous roads; and if, in addition to these, a portion of the ground was to be taken up with shrubbery, the 1189 park would be materially injured. He hoped, therefore, there was no authority for the statement that these shrubberies were to be planted there. They would interfere very much with the view from the houses there, and, what ought to be to them a matter of no small importance, they would interfere with the view from Buckingham Palace also. Before he sat down he must say that, though he had criticized what his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) had done with reference to the Bridge in St. James's Park, he was bound to say that in his opinion—and he believed it was the opinion of most Members of the House and of the public—his right hon. Friend had conducted the Department of which he was lately the head with great zeal and advantage to the community, and to the improvement, generally speaking, of the metropolis. He never rode along Rotten Row or drove round the park without hearing thanks expressed to his right hon. Friend for the improvements he had made and the liberal and enlarged views with which he had conducted the affairs of his department. With such an example before him, he hoped his noble Friend who was now at the head of that department would not inaugurate the commencement of his administration by giving his sanction to any alterations which would materially impair the appearance of the Green Park; and he had now to ask what were his intentions in the matter—whether any alterations wore proposed, and what the nature of those alterations was?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, when the late change of Government took place, it was a matter of some surprise that the number of official legacies left by the late Ministry to their successors were so few; but he was bound to say that, in so far as the department over which he had the honour to preside was concerned, that remark did not apply. In that department the activity and energy of the right hon. Baronet opposite had left various matters for consideration, and among others that to which his noble Friend had referred. His attention having been drawn to the subject, he directed that certain stakes should be put up, in order that the public might more accurately see what would be the effect of the shrubberies if planted in these localities. He took an early opportunity to satisfy himself upon the subject, and he had no hesitation in stating that the result of his examination was that he had come to the same conclusion that his noble 1190 Friend had arrived fit. He had therefore no intention of asking the sanction of Parliament for the plantation of any such shrubberies. It was unnecessary for him to make any further comment on the amusing speech of his noble Friend, except to say that he concurred in the views he had expressed on the subject of the bridge in St. James's Park. With reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox), he had to inform him that in the business of his department he had very little to do with the Metropolitan Board of Works. On seeing, however, that the hon. Gentleman had given notice of this question, he communicated with the Chairman of the Board on the subject, and had received the following reply: —
1, Greek Street, Soho, April 15.Sir,—I am desired by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works to inform you, in reply to the inquiry in your letter of the 14th inst., that the Hoard have not yet taken any active steps for putting in force the provisions of the Finsbury Park Act. The Board have hitherto proceeded upon the principle of not subjecting themselves to the obligations attending the commencement of measures of public improvement until they have made definite arrangements with respect to the necessary funds. They are now engaged in negotiating a loan to be applied to the formation of two important lines of thoroughfare for which a portion of the funds had already been provided by Parliament, and which, therefore, take precedence of the measure referred to; and as soon as that negotiation is concluded, probably the Board will proceed to take the subject of the Finsbury Park Act into consideration.I am, Sir, your obedient servant,E. H. WOOLRYCH, Clerk to the Board.Brinsley Marley, Esq., Office of Works, &c.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that he was anxious, after what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) to say a few words on this subject, especially as he had made a mistake with reference to what had occurred in the case of St. James's Park. The House was aware that a strong desire existed on the part of the public to have a medium of communication between the two sides of the ornamental water in the park, and that a Committee of that House was appointed to consider the subject. Various plans were laid before that Committee, one of which was to have a carriage ride across the park, but this proposal was rejected. The idea of a carriage ride having been rejected, the next question was whether or not a foot bridge should be carried across the water. That proposal was submitted to the Committee, and, as his noble Friend had said, it was carried by his casting vote as Chairman. It was supposed by some members of the Committee that the bridge 1191 was not wanted; but, in order to show how fallacious that impression was, he might state that the numbers who passed over the bridge soon after its completion on a short winter's day, when the weather was exceedingly cold, had been counted, and they were found to amount to 37,300 persons. That fact sufficiently showed the necessity that existed for a bridge in that locality. With regard to the kind of bridge which had been erected, he begged to say that he was not in favour of a suspension bridge in the first instance. The House rejected the proposal which he made with reference to a bridge, because it was not a suspension bridge, and directed that the bridge to be made should be of that nature. After that vote he sent for one of the most eminent professional men in England, the late Mr. Rendall, and got from him the plan of a bridge of as light a description as was consistent with safety. The bridge which had been erected was, of course, not such a structure as gentlemen would put up in their own parks, but they must consider the traffic which this bridge had to bear. Supposing they had put up a light bridge, which could not have borne the traffic that went over it—amounting, as he had shown, to 37,000 persons in one day— and which would not have been strong enough for the great weight that came upon it, would they not have been justly blameable for having made fin insufficient structure? The bridge was found to suit the purpose for which it was intended, and was the design, as he had said, of that eminent engineer, the late Mr. Rendall. With respect to the shrubberies which he had formed—one from the Marble Arch to Victoria Gate; another, a narrow strip, beginning at Park Lane—both had been generally considered to be great improvements.
MR. ELLICEsaid, that having taken an interest in this subject in former times, he wished to say one or two words. He remembered when it was intended to plant a long line of shrubbery from the site of the old reservoir down to the Mall to prevent children playing before the great houses on the east side of the Green Park, and he had to get up almost an insurrection in the adjoining parishes before it was put a stop to. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) that every shrub, almost every tree planted in the Parks, so as to destroy one blade of grass, was a great nuisance; and though he was ready to pay his tribute to the great merit of 1192 the administration of his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall), he must say that there had been too much disposition to indulge in the taste of landscape gardening in the Parks. Nothing could be worse than the shrubbery planted in the Green Park, near Piccadilly last year, for they would intercept the view across the park; and he would say of trees and shrubs generally, in such positions, that so far from being desirable they only gathered the dust and smoke of the metropolis, and created damp, when what was wanted was pure fresh air. He wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) whether it would not be of advantage to remove the clump of laurels now planted in the centre of the park. The reason given for placing them there was that it was desirable to screen the houses from the view of the distinguished guests at the Palace: but there was not the slightest pretence for that assertion, which was only given to shelter the gentlemen, who indulged in these fancies, from the observations of the public.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he could corroborate the statements which had been made with respect to the effect of shrubberies in London, for the portion of Park Lane to the north of Stanhope Gate was dry when that to the south was wet, in consequence of the shrubbery being planted there. Nothing was of so much importance in the metropolis as plenty of fresh air and sun. The small plantation to which he alluded answered no purpose, except that of obstructing the air.