The Gates--That into Kensington Gardens--Improvements in the
Park--Encroachments--The case of Ann Hicks and the other
fruit-sellers--Seats in the Park--New house in ditto.
There are several entrances into Hyde Park--those called Gates being
passable for carriages. These lead into the Bayswater Road, Park Lane,
and Knightsbridge, but there is also one connecting it with Kensington
Gardens, concerning which there are several paragraphs in _The Times_ of
1794-1795:--
“The access to KENSINGTON GARDENS is so inconvenient to the visitors,
that it is to be hoped the politeness of those who have the direction of
it will induce them to give orders for another door to be made for the
convenience of the public--one door for admission, and another for
departure, would prove a great convenience to the visitors. For want of
this regulation the Ladies frequently have their cloaths torn to pieces:
and are much hurt by the crowd passing different ways.” (_March 28,
1794._)
“Two ladies were lucky enough to escape thro’ the gate of Kensington
Gardens, on Sunday last, with only a broken arm each. When a few lives
have been lost, perchance then a door or two more may be made for the
convenience of the families of the survivors.” (_May 8, 1794._)
“We noticed last year the nuisance at the door of Kensington Gardens,
leading from Hyde Park, and was (_sic_) in hopes those who have the care
would attend to it. As the season is approaching when company frequent
it, we again recommend that an additional door should be made, and an
inscription put over it--‘The company to go in at this gate, and return
at the other’--by which means the press will be avoided, and directions
given, that all servants do keep away from the doors, who behave with
great impertinence to their superiors, as the company go in. If the
gardens are to be a public accommodation, surely so trifling an expense
can be no object. A greater number of seats in the gardens is very
desirable.” (_April 24, 1795._)
“The public in general, and the ladies in particular, are much obliged
to the Ranger of Hyde Park, for having taken the hint given in the paper
towards their accommodation, by ordering a new gate to be made, as an
entrance into Kensington Gardens. This convenience was, yesterday, much
noticed, as there is now one gate for the entrance, and another for
leaving the gardens, which were extremely crowded. But so little
regularity was observed in the procession of carriages, on the Park
Road, that there was a general stoppage about four o’clock, for nearly
an hour; in the throng several carriages were overset, and many much
injured. We never witnessed so much confusion on any similar occasion.”
(_May 4, 1795._)
The first gate in the Bayswater Road, starting from Kensington Gardens,
is called the Victoria Gate, and it is opposite Sussex Place--there is
an entrance by the drinking fountain--but there is no other _gate_ till
Cumberland Gate, or the Marble Arch, as it is more generally called.
Turning down Park Lane we have first Grosvenor Gate, and then Stanhope
Gate; whilst on the Knightsbridge side is the principal entrance, or
Hyde Park Corner. Next comes Albert Gate, the roadway of which was
finished and opened to the public on April 6th, 1842. The present gates
were not then erected, nor the noble mansions which stand on either side
of the entrance. Then comes the Prince of Wales’ Gate, and the Alexandra
Gate--both modern entrances in the Park--and are among the many
improvements effected in Queen Victoria’s reign.
At its commencement, the Park was not altogether a place of beauty, or
of “sweetness and light”--gravel used to be dug there, as we see by the
following letter to _The Times_, Oct. 18th, 1838:--“I beg through your
columns to remonstrate with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, on
the extreme negligence of leaving the gravel pit in Hyde Park in its
present dangerous state. Two sides of it are very deep and precipitous,
without any fence whatever to protect the unwary traveller, when
darkness conceals the danger from him. I wonder, Sir, that fatal
accidents do not nightly happen; if neck or limbs escape fracture in the
fall, there is now water enough in the pit to drown anyone stunned by
the accident.”
There is a letter in _The Times_ of April 11, 1839, from Mr. I. C.
Loudon, the eminent authority on gardening--speaking of the improvements
which had taken place in the Park during the past five or six years; how
the pasture had been renovated by manuring, and other means, the
carriage roads had been altered, the footpaths gravelled, and greatest
of all, in his estimation, the number of _single_ trees which had been
planted in different situations; but he anathematises the planting them
in _clumps_, as the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were then doing.
Probably this generation, who have benefited by the Commissioners’
planting, will not endorse Mr. Loudon’s opinion, but then letters to
_The Times_ are not always temperate, _vide_ the following--in that
paper of Feb. 13, 1844:--
“Sir, permit me, through your columns, to call the attention of the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests to a serious nuisance in Hyde Park,
which, if continued and increased, will be a permanent injury to the
Park and its neighbourhood. A large excavation has been made in the
south-western side of the Park, for the purpose of procuring gravel; and
this excavation, extending over more than an acre of ground, and 15 or
20 feet deep, is being filled up with the refuse from a nightman’s or
dustman’s yard. The stench which proceeds from the spot, whilst the work
is in progress, is of a most pestiferous description; but this is not
the worst of the mischief. The real damage is in altering the character
of the superficial strata; so that, hereafter, the moisture which
heretofore drained off through the gravel, will be retained near the
surface, and generate miasma.”
Then came the grievance of so called “encroachment”--and a gentleman
asks in _The Times_ of March 21, 1845: “Why have several hundred yards
of Hyde Park been enclosed during the last weeks--not by a low wooden
rail, but a high iron fence? This encroachment is making in the space
between Albert Gate and the Piccadilly Gate; and, by it, the public
must be for ever excluded. Is it to be planted, or converted into a
garden for the benefit of the twin giants,[59] untenanted as yet, after
the precedent set some years ago of taking a considerable plot of ground
between Stanhope Street Gate and the Piccadilly one, for the exclusive
advantage of a very few houses in Hamilton Place and Park Lane?”
And the same gentleman in another letter (March 27, 1845) says: “The
expense, also, of maintaining these enclosures is very heavy, for not
less than £500 a year is spent on the small plot between Stanhope Gate
and Piccadilly. This outlay seems enormous, but the authority on which
it rests is unquestionable, and it furnishes, on the score of economy, a
strong argument for its restoration to the Park, from which it was taken
about twenty years ago. This concession would be a gracious act on the
part of the Crown, save much charge, and be highly estimated by the
people. So little was the public health and pleasure considered
formerly, that a plan was proposed by the Woods and Forests, when
presided over by Mr. Huskisson, for building a line of houses from the
reservoir, near Grosvenor Gate, towards Piccadilly, and the aggression
was only quelled by Lord Sudeley, and another member of the House of
Commons.”
From the grumbles, it is refreshing to turn to the improvements--and in
April, 1845, upwards of 150 labourers were employed for some time in
levelling the grass, new gravelling the paths, and generally making very
considerable improvements throughout the whole of Hyde Park. On the 8th
August, same year, the erection of the new iron gates at the Albert Gate
entrance was completed, and the stags appeared to public gaze.
In 1851, the Park had to be set in order--for the Great Exhibition, and
some old established privileges had to give way--one of which was the
famous case of Ann Hicks, which came before the House of Commons on July
29, 1851. The following is the report in _Hansard_:--
“Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE wished to ask the noble lord, the First Commissioner
of Woods and Forests, whether Ann Hicks held a house in Hyde Park by the
gift of George II., or by what tenure she occupied the house from which
she had been evicted? and, also, whether the noble lord had permitted
any other house to be erected in the Park?
“Lord SEYMOUR said, that in answer to the first question of the hon.
gentleman, he had to state that Ann Hicks did not hold any house by the
gift of George II. or of any other Royal personage at all. The first
time he (Lord Seymour) ever heard of her claim to a house as the gift of
any Royal personage, was a few weeks ago. In 1843, Ann Hicks, like
several other persons, had a little stall, where she sold apples and
ginger-bread in the Park. Previous to that, she had occupied one of the
old conduits there. She subsequently wrote to the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests, and requested leave to build a place to lock up her
ginger-beer bottles in; and after some correspondence with the
Commissioners, they told her she might have a wooden stand, the same as
some persons had near where the cows are kept in St. James’s Park.
Shortly afterwards, she wrote to the Commissioners again, saying she was
very much obliged by their reply, but that she should like to build her
stall of brick, instead of wood, as a wooden one was insecure, and
liable to be broken open; but in all those applications she never made
any allusion to any Royal gift, but always rested her claim on her
having fifteen children to support.
“After some time, the Commissioners allowed her to have her stand of
brick instead of wood. Having got that leave, she wrote to the
Commissioners, and said that her stand was not quite large enough, and
she wished to make it larger, as she had so many ginger-beer bottles,
she did not know where to put them. The Commissioners gave way to her,
and said she might make her stand five feet high, but no higher. She
then wrote again in the following year, and said she was very much
obliged for the little hut she had got, and that it was a great
accommodation to her, and that she had not the least wish to make a
residence of it; but, that if the Commissioners would allow her to have
a little fireplace in it, it would be of great use to her to make a cup
of tea. The Commissioners resisted that, and told her they could not
allow her to have a fireplace; that her hut was merely a place allowed
her to put her bottles in, and that she must not use it as a residence.
“She again wrote to the Commissioners, saying that the roof of her shed
wanted repair, that the rain came in, and might she be allowed to repair
it, and keep the rain out? The Board told her she might repair it so as
to keep the rain out, but that she must make no alteration in it.
However, shortly afterwards, the Commissioners found that the hut had a
roof and chimney. When he (Lord Seymour) came into office, in 1850, the
hut had not only got a roof and a chimney, but there was a little garden
to it, with hurdles round. Ann Hicks said the hurdles were put up
because it was so disagreeable to have people looking in at her window.
His attention had been called to the matter from the frequent disputes
between the authorities of the Park and Ann Hicks. The hurdles were
continually advancing and encroaching on the Park. She was told to put
them back; but she made so much noise and abuse about it, that none of
the Park authorities cared to meddle with her. They all gave him very
bad accounts of her. He also asked a gentleman who was connected with
the management of the Park, though not with his (Lord Seymour’s)
department, and he gave him an account, equally unfavourable, of Ann
Hicks. Upon that, he thought it time that some proceedings should be
taken against her, because it was quite unusual to allow any residence
in the Park. The law was decidedly against it; and he was told that, if
they sanction this for a few years, there would be great difficulty in
removing her.
“Before he took any step, however, he wrote to the Duke of Wellington,
as Ranger of the Park; and his Grace, with that consideration which he
gave to the minutest details, wrote him word that he was coming to town,
and would inquire into the whole case. Accordingly, when his Grace came
to town, he wrote to him (Lord Seymour) and said that he ought to apply
for legal advice, and remove Ann Hicks from the Park at once. He then
referred all the correspondence to the solicitors of the office, and
Ann Hicks was served with a notice to remove; but he told her, that if
she would go from the Park and not give them any trouble, he would take
care that some allowance should be made to her. But she would not go;
she said it was her ground, and that nothing could remove her. He then
gave directions that proceedings should be taken to remove her, and she
would not move until those proceedings were actually taken.
“She then wrote again to the Commissioners, and said that she owed a
small debt of £6 or £7 for the repairs of her cottage, but she said
nothing of a Royal gift. He thereupon told her that if she went, she
should have five shillings a week for the next year, and that would
secure her a house in lieu of the one to which she had no legal right.
He also gave her some money at once to pay for the repairs; but a
builder afterwards called upon him, and said that she owed him his debt
for the repairs of the cottage still. In fact, instead of paying the
debt with the money he (Lord Seymour) had given her, she spent it in
getting some placards printed and placing them about the Park, charging
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with hardship and oppression
towards her.
“As to any other cottage being erected in the Park, the only one he was
aware of was the cottage proposed to be built by Prince Albert, as a
model cottage. When it was built, he (Lord Seymour) said it could not be
allowed to remain, and his Royal Highness promised that it should be
taken down next November.”
Besides this extremely grateful old lady, there were four other
fruit-sellers evicted, and one of them afterwards memorialized a new
Chief Commissioner as to compensation, or renewal, and some of the
grounds on which the claim is based are somewhat curious: “That your
petitioner, Charles Lacey, has several times assisted the park-keepers
and other officials in the apprehension of various offenders, and also
that he has himself, without the aid of either park-keepers, or other
officials, apprehended and caused to be convicted other offenders, which
must show to the public that he was not there for his interest alone,
but that he protected the visitors from injury and insult; we therefore
placed a firm reliance in the hope that a renewal would be granted for
our ‘stand,’ which was neither unsightly, nor an obstruction; however,
to our great disappointment, our appeal was non-suited.
“The removal of our ‘stand’ has not only deprived us of the means of
obtaining an honest livelihood, but, in fact, has compelled us to pledge
and sell our very clothes to provide a subsistence. Nor is this the
worst; the deprivation of the ‘stand’ occasioned such a shock to the
female petitioner (Lacey’s wife) as to bring upon her a nervous
excitement, under which she suffered intensely for upwards of eight
months, and great doubts were entertained that she would have been
deprived of her reason altogether. In addition to their other
distresses, your petitioners regret, most painfully, to add that their
daughter, eighteen years of age, at the present time lies dangerously
ill of scarlet fever.”
At the end of June, 1852, the drive and promenade on the north side of
the Serpentine were widened and improved; whilst the old wooden railing
was replaced by the iron rail now existing, in August of the same year.
In March, 1854, the principal promenades were relaid with gravel, and
the site of the exhibition of 1851, being entirely covered with grass,
and no trace of the huge building left, was thrown open once more to the
public. In September, 1855, at the close of the season, the Serpentine
underwent a thorough revision, the holes in which many persons had lost
their lives were filled up, and the bed of the pond levelled, whilst the
various sewers which had so long run into it from Notting Hill to
Bayswater were diverted into a different channel in the main road.
We have no evidence when free seats began in Hyde Park; they were
probably in existence when the Park was first thrown open to the public;
but we do know when the movable chairs, for which a charge was and is
made, were introduced--in 1820, when some twenty or thirty were placed
near Stanhope Gate. Sir Benjamin Hall, when Chief Commissioner of Works,
provided free seats in plenty along the north side of Rotten Row; but
when he was succeeded by Lord John Manners, the latter had them all
removed early in 1859, and an abundance of chairs for hire was
substituted in their place. This doubtless tended to make that lounging
place more select, but a popular outcry was raised about it, and a few
of the free seats were grudgingly reinstated. In 1859 the band stand was
erected, since when most excellent music has been discoursed there, for
the delectation of her Majesty’s lieges.
In _The Times_ of July 30, 1864, is a letter complaining of the
disgraceful state of Hyde Park--“where may be seen, every day, hordes
of half dressed, filthy men and women, lying about in parties, and no
doubt concocting midnight robberies. There appear to be police and
park-keepers enough to prevent this, but they state they have no orders
to remove them. The evil is increasing, and it is hardly safe to allow
ladies and children, who are anxious to have their daily walks in Hyde
Park without being disgusted at the proceedings practised there daily.”
That the state of the Park has not improved, especially on Sundays, or
at night, see the correspondence on the subject in _The Times_, Sept.
and Oct., 1895.
From this time to the present, there is little to chronicle of the Park,
except that in 1877 a three-storied villa containing some thirteen rooms
was erected in the Park, as a residence for the head gardener, at the
expense of Mr. Albert Grant, in lieu of a lodge in Kensington Gardens,
which was demolished, by permission, because it interfered with an
uninterrupted view of the Gardens from Kensington House, which Mr. Grant
was then building at a fabulous cost, for his residence, but which was
pulled down before it was ever inhabited. Of course there have been, and
are still, grumbles, but they are about trifles--and, as a rule, the
Park is very well kept, there being a shade of partiality towards the
south side, in preference to the north, as anyone can see who draws an
imaginary line from the middle of Park Lane to the centre of Kensington
Gardens.
[Illustration: decorative bar]