METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—HAMILTON GARDENS.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 1 June 1871)

§ MR. C. B. DENISON
, in rising to call the attention of the House to the alienation of Crown Lands in the case of Hamilton Gardens, and other instances, and to move a Resolution, said, that £100,000 was this year asked for to maintain public parks in the Metropolis and its neighbourhood, and he took advantage of the occasion to comment upon a subject which he had long desired to bring before the House. He was aware that private feelings and private prejudices would naturally be enlisted against the Motion. He begged to assure hon. Members that he would not use a single argument which should leave them ground for complaint. He alluded to the continued inclosure and appropriation to private uses of that portion of Hyde Park which went by the name of Hamilton Gardens. Owing to the operations of the Metropolitan Board of Works a new thoroughfare was being opened between Piccadilly and Park Lane, which had necessitated the excision of a portion of those same Gardens, and he would wish to say that he did not take up the subject in any rash or party spirit, for in each of the recent Sessions of Parliament since 1868 he had called attention to the work in hand. It had been argued that these Gardens were hardly of sufficient importance to make it desirable that Parliament should interfere in order to bring about a change. He took a different view of the subject. These Gardens were first inclosed in 1826, in order to do away with what in those days was a considerable nuisance to the neighbouring proprietors, and, as he believed, to carry out the private behests of some of the adjoining householders. He had not a single word to say against the original inclosure, because the police regulations were then very inefficient, and a nuisance was caused by the resort of persons to that corner of the Park; but he contended that those Gardens were now of inestimable value to the public. A whole city, or rather an aggregation 1376 of cities, had grown up since 1826 to the north, the west, and the south of Hyde Park; and although the area of Hamilton Gardens—namely, close upon three acres—bore but a small proportion to the whole acreage of the Park, still it was sufficiently important to demand public attention. If attention were not now called to it those in the enjoyment of the Gardens might fairly urge that they had by the negligence of the public authorities, or by the will and consent of the Crown, acquired a vested interest in those Gardens. He thought he was able to show that there was no real solid ground for refusing to throw open the Gardens, which was not founded on private feeling and private prejudices. The Gardens at the present moment were appropriated to two classes of people. First, there were the neighbouring proprietors of the houses in Piccadilly and Hamilton Gardens, and possibly in Park Lane; and secondly, there was a select body of subscribers who, on the payment of £3 annually, had the privilege of entry. He did not know what the number of subscribers might be nor what sum of money might be obtained from that source, nor did he know the authority who exercised the discretion of admission or refusal. The duty of refusal was one that must be very invidious for any official to exercise. He did not know whether the First Commissioner of Works was ever called upon to exercise that discretion, or whether he delegated the power to his secretary; but whoever it might be, he had at times a very disagreeable duty to perform, because though the admission was sufficiently high to prevent ordinary people from seeking admission, there must be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, who would readily pay that, or even larger sums, for the privilege of entering the Gardens. It was well known that from the point of Hyde Park, where the private gardens of Apsley House ended up to Stanhope Gate, a distance of 300 yards, there was nothing but a dusty walk, bounded by an unsightly iron railing, instead of what was found a little further on—a very agreeable and much-appreciated fringe of flower gardens and grass plots, interspersed with seats, all the way from Stanhope Gate to the Marble Arch. If these gardens did not exist there would be a continuation of these quiet seats, with a pretty and 1377 agreeable prospect around. He had heard it said that it would be a pity, in an æsthetie point of view, to do away with these Gardens, for that if so the spot would fall into disorder, and become what it was in former days, a nuisance. He was wholly unable to acquiesce in such reasoning. The whole edge of the Park, wherever a flower was planted, showed very well that there was nothing to fear from the public at large. The public appreciated the Park as much as a gentleman who had a private garden. It had also been argued that for family and private reasons it would be a pity to do away with the Gardens, as it would deprive children and quiet people of a retreat, and drive them to a more frequented portion of the Park. But he would very respectfully ask those who took up this line of argument—were there not thousands and tens of thousands of families in that Metropolis who had no such portion of garden ground for their junior members? The inhabitants of Piccadilly, Carlton Terrace, or Grosvenor Place, had they any private portion of a park railled off for their exclusive benefit? Had even Mr. Speaker, who worthily inhabited that Palace of the Nation, any private ground of which he could boast that he held for his peculiar benefit? Not a bit of it. The inhabitants of the locality in question had the good fortune of having a slip of private ground of their own, and he did not interfere with that. He aimed at the piece of ground between this Garden and the Park, which he held belonged to the public as much as any other portion of the Park. There was one other argument, which he approached with much delicacy, the argument of high prerogative. Some hon. Members contended that the public Parks were the private property of the Sovereign of the day, and that the Sovereign had the unlimited power and discretion to do as he or she would with every acre of ground within these Parks. He would not raise that question on this occasion; but he thought he might say this—that whether the power constitutionally existed or not, the Minister of the day would be very short-sighted indeed who advised the Sovereign to exercise the Royal prerogative in opposition to the undoubted good of the public in such a matter. It would depend very much, indeed, on the answer that he 1378 might get to his question from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, or other hon. Members, whether it would be necessary for him to use any further arguments. He thought that no one could contend on public grounds that the appropriation of a portion of the Park to private uses ought to continue. What was good for a portion must be good for the whole. A portion of the Gardens had been taken away to form a new thoroughfare, which they hoped to see open in a few weeks. If there was any ground for compensation on account of interference with vested interests, the question would have arisen when that ground was first appropriated, The Gardens themselves were of inestimable value in a public point of view, and no consideration for the interests of individuals ought to be allowed to intervene between the rights of the public by the removal of the inclosure. He would reserve anything further till after he had heard the reply which the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else might give. There were few men in the House who had spoken so boldly in the interests of the public as the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works; and he trusted that his reply that day would partake of the character of his ancient addresses. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he hoped that the very few observations he desired to address to the House upon this subject would satisfy the hon. Member that there was no very pressing necessity for his pursuing this subject further. He was not aware that there had been any expression of opinion on the part of the inhabitants of the Metropolis to the 1379 effect that great inconvenience or annoyance resulted from the state of things which the hon. Member wished to disturb. The existing state of things existed many years ago, before the office of First Commissioner was established, and therefore before Hyde Park was placed under his qualified administration. This small inclosure was made on the ground of the public convenience, because it had been found that this angle of the Park was a place of resort for undesirable persons; and the then Sovereign, who took a more active part in such matters than was usually taken by the present Sovereign, after a careful consideration of the subject in conjunction with the head of the Department of Woods and Forests, came to the conclusion that he ought to sanction the inclosure of this portion of the Park. Having been thus inclosed, it was laid out as an ornamental garden; and in order that it might be turned to some account every gentleman residing in the neighbourhood was allowed to resort to them on paying a certain sum of money annually for a key, the money so collected being devoted to paying the expense of keeping up the inclosure. This went on for nearly half a century, the wives and families of the occupants walked there, and it did not seem to have been the slightest annoyance to any human being, or in the slightest degree inconvenient to anyone who resorted to the Park. No difficulty had occurred to him with regard to these Gardens since he had held his present office. There was no difficulty in anyone obtaining a key, and no complaint had ever been brought under his notice. The present Gardens formed an elegant screen between the Park and the houses. His hon. Friend supposed that if the Gardens were open the people would sit on benches there; but there were benches close by on which the people might now sit and look at the foliage in the inclosure. If the railings were removed, however, it would be quite impossible to preserve the present thick foliage and high vegetation of the inclosure:—it would have to be treated as the rest of the Park along Park Lane was—namely, all the shrubs would have to be taken up, and it would have to be laid down with flowers, so that the police at night might, as they went along, see from one side to the other. It had been suggested that every portion of Hyde Park 1380 should be open to the whole public. But such was not the case near Regent's Park, and there was therefore no novelty in the arrangement now complained of. Unless the House thought that the arrangement was inconvenient to the nation, and that destroying it would promote the public advantage, he thought there was no necessity for making the change suggested by the hon. Member.

§ MR. BARNETT
said, he intended to vote against the Motion should it be pressed to a division. Having had the privilege of a key to the Gardens in question, and having paid £3 3s. a-year towards their support for the last 20 years, he thought that he had a vested interest in this portion of the Park, which should not be ignored unless the interests of the public urgently demanded that it should be set aside. He saw no reason for making any change; but if it should be considered necessary to set the grant aside, it was in the power of the Crown to do so.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, it appeared from the answer of the Chief Commissioner of Works that this ground had been inclosed for the use of persons who paid £3 3s. a-year to enter it, but that that arrangement might at once be terminated if the Crown chose to exercise its right. Then came the simple question whether or not the Government had acted rightly in appropriating to the use of a certain number of individuals a portion of Hyde Park, which had always been regarded as having been inclosed for the benefit of the public at large. He thought the reasons given by his right hon. Friend for that appropriation were no reasons at all. Was the House to understand that wherever a portion of Hyde Park formed a corner, that corner might be immediately inclosed and given over to the use of some private persons instead of the public? His right hon. Friend said there was a nuisance in the piece of ground before it was inclosed; but he did not state what that nuisance was. If the ground had been laid out in a similar manner to that which led up to the Marble Arch no one would have said that it ought to have been inclosed, and handed over to private individuals. If any compensation was due to them let it be given. The amount was a mere matter of calculation. He would vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman if it were pressed to a division.

§ MR. A. GUEST
said, this ground would have to be laid out afresh, if it were again made part of Hyde Park, and that would involve expenditure the amount of which was not known. He did not think it was convenient on the present occasion to enter into that question. He should therefore vote against the Motion of the hon. Member.