HC Deb 25 July 1864 vol 176 c2015

said, he wished to put a Question with reference to the enormous traffic which passes through Park Lane into Piccadilly. As the Metropolitan Board of Works had given in writing to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works their opinion, that the best mode of facilitating that traffic would be the opening of Hamilton Place, and as the houses in that place were Crown property, he would beg to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the matter, and, if so, what course he, as representative of the Crown, intends to take in reference to it; whether he is prepared to assist the Metropolitan Board, they being responsible for compensation to the Crown tenants?


said, he was glad to hear that the Metropolitan Board of Works had recognized the duty intrusted to them of preventing a serious public inconvenience and danger which at present existed, owing to the crowded state of Park Lane. He would willingly offer them every facility in his power to remedy 60 great an inconvenience. The Metropolitan Board of Works seemed to think that opening Hamilton Place would be a better course than widening Park Lane. He apprehended that there was considerable doubt upon that point. The upper portion of Hamilton Place was only twenty-eight feet wide in the carriage-way, which he considered was too small a width to meet the object in view. The land occupied by gardens northward was the property of the Crown, and was let upon lease to the tenants of the houses. Of course the Crown could not be advised to take any steps towards breaking the terms of those leases, which could only be done by an Act of Parliament. If, however, the Metropolitan Board of Works would bring forward a Bill to prolong Hamilton Place, no impediment would be offered on the part of the advisers of the Crown.

Back to