“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.”