MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 24 March 1871)

§ VISCOUNT ROYSTON

called the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory state of communication between St. James's and Westminster, and to move a Resolution. In the first place, he desired to remind them of the Question which a few weeks ago he had asked of the First Commissioner of Works with reference to a communication between St. James's and Westminster by the east-end of St. James's Park. The First Commissioner of Works said that unless it was absolutely necessary to enable hon. Members to come to the House he could not entertain the question; but he (Viscount Royston) had thought that the Government would have had the generosity to concede the right of way by the east-end of St. James's Park. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) brought the subject forward when Mr. Layard was First Commissioner; and the question was then not only deprecated by the First Commissioner, but also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who had pre- 607 viously held that office, and who said the road would lead to nowhere, and that he considered the proposition a monstrous one. He (Viscount Royston) did not agree that the road would lead to nowhere, for it would form a communication between two important spots in the West of the metropolis. The strongest reason, however, that was urged against granting the request was that it would cost £25,000. Last year the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) called attention to the subject, and was promised by the present First Commissioner that his proposal of a roadway round the east-end of the park out by Storey's Gate should be considered; a promise which was renewed later in the Session in a more definite manner, when the First Commissioner said that, although he could not promise to make a permanent thoroughfare through St. James's Park, yet, as King Street was about to be closed, the proposal to make a temporary road round the east-end of the park was a fair subject for consideration. This was in May last year; but from that time to the present nearly 12 months had passed, and the plan had not been carried out. Later last year the hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Cadogan) asked the right hon. Member whether he intended to carry out the statement that he had made to the House; and the reply was that he intended to construct a temporary road. This was in July; but later in the Session the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Haviland-Burke) brought the subject again forward, when the answer of the First Commissioner was that it was too late in the Session to do any good, as it would be too late to get an Answer from Her Majesty to an Address. He knew what inconvenience it was in Mayfair to have to go round to Westminster either by Whitehall or by Grosvenor Place. The proposal he made would involve little more than the unlocking of a gate, while it would not in any way interfere with the rights of private persons. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be out of place to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to direct that the road by the east-end of St. James's Park might be opened for carriage traffic from Marlborough House Gate to Storey's Gate.

§ MR. AYRTON

trusted the House would agree with him in thinking that it was not desirable to trench upon the present privacy of the Parks without ample necessity. Every new road necessarily deprived the Parks of some of the privacy and quietness which was their main attraction to those who wished to escape from the crowded and noisy streets, and therefore it was right to approach this subject with hesitation and caution. He could only judge of the necessity of any such invasion from the expression of opinion of hon. Members representing the public feeling in the matter. When, in the first instance, it was proposed to run a road through the ornamental portion of St. James's Park, and so admit a great London traffic, he deprecated the suggestion as being inconsistent with the reasonable enjoyment of the Park on the part of the public; but, at the same time, he had thought it his duty to point out that though the Government could not recognize any urgent necessity for converting St. James's Park into a public thoroughfare, the question might have to be considered owing to the changes which were being made in one of the thoroughfares by which hon. Members were in the habit of coming down to the House. On that occasion he had suggested the possibility of making a temporary arrangement as long as the inconvenience lasted, and he had pointed out that the arrangement might depend upon two contingencies—the blocking up of King Street on the one hand, and the opening of the Thames Embankment on the other. Up to the end of last Session, however, nothing had occurred to cause any serious obstruction in the traffic, and they were, therefore, unable to form any practical opinion on the subject before the breaking up of Parliament. During the Recess he had probably had greater experience of the state 609 of the thoroughfares than any other hon. Member, and he had failed to perceive that any such difficulties had arisen in the way of obstruction to traffic as should necessitate a change. There was, therefore, no present necessity for making a road through the Park. When the Session met and the noble Lord (Viscount Royston) asked him a Question on the subject, he had stated to the noble Lord that he had received no communication upon the subject. But now that King Street was shut up he believed that the contingency he had referred to last Session had arrived, and as far as he could gather from the expression of the opinion of hon. Members the opening of such a road would be a convenience. He, therefore, proposed to make the road, and might state that Her Majesty had already given her sanction contingently on its being required. But he was anxious that it should be understood that he proposed to carry out this arrangement on the conditions he had mentioned last year. He ventured to suggest that the noble Lord should rely upon this statement, and refrain from pressing his Motion for an Address, because some of its terms were ambiguous and might be misunderstood as referring to general traffic. The road would only be open to special traffic for the convenience of hon. Members.