The nominal head or Keeper of the Park is called the Ranger, and the first Keeper was made in the reign of Henry VIII. His name was George Roper, and besides lodging, fire, etc., venison, cattle grazing, etc., his salary was sixpence a day; and he kept this position until his death in 1553, when he was succeeded by Francis Nevell, whose salary was reduced to fourpence a day.

In 1574 a coadjutor was appointed to relieve him of some of his arduous duties, and he was a first cousin to Queen Elizabeth, being a son of Anne Boleyn’s younger sister Mary. He was Henry Carey, first Lord Hunsdon. This shows that the office of Keeper was one of honour, for Hunsdon certainly could not have cared for the 4d. a day attached to the office, as he was not only well-to-do, and lord of several manors, but a Knight of the Garter, Privy Councillor, Captain of the Gentlemen Pensioners, Governor of Berwick, Chamberlain of the Queen’s Household, etc., etc. At Nevell’s death Lord Hunsdon became sole Keeper, and his fee was then 8d. per day. At his death, in 1596, his fourth son, Sir Edward Carey, knight, succeeded him in sole occupancy of the post. In 1607 he was followed by Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, the son of Queen Elizabeth’s Lord Burghley; but, for some reason or other, a coadjutor was appointed in 1610, Sir Walter Cope, who built the greater part of Holland House, Kensington. But he only kept it for a couple of years, and on the Earl of Salisbury’s death, in 1612, and his consequent accession to the undivided keepership, he surrendered it for life to his son-in-law, Sir Henry Rich, who was created Earl of Holland in 1624, and beheaded in 1649. In 1630, he had asked, as a favour, that the succession might be given to the Earl of Newport (afterwards the Earl of Warwick), and at his death he asked for its reversion to Sir John Smith.

At the Commonwealth, it was proposed that Lord Howard of Escricke should be the Keeper, but the Earl of Warwick pleaded the Earl of Holland’s grant so effectually, that he obtained the appointment; not, however, to enjoy it long, for, when the Parliament sold Hyde Park, the office of Keeper was, necessarily, abolished. At the restoration, Charles II. made his younger brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester, Keeper of the Park, but he dying four months afterwards, the place was given (Sept., 1660), to James Hamilton, Esq. He got from it something more substantial than any of his predecessors, for he was granted the triangular piece of land where the fort had been built, at the south-eastern portion of the Park, by Hyde Park Corner, and now known as Hamilton Place. He also had a concession of 55 acres, whereon to grow apples in the Park. Of this he had a lease for 49 years, on condition that he surrounded it with a brick wall eight feet high, and gave the King half the produce of the orchard, in apples or in cider, at his Majesty’s option. Hamilton was killed at sea, in an engagement with the Dutch, in 1673, and the office of Keeper was vacant till 1684, when it was filled up by the appointment of Wm. Harbord, Esq., M.P. for Launceston.

The title of “Keeper” now disappears, and in its stead the officer is styled, as now, Ranger of St. James’s, Green and Hyde Parks, and in 1694 the Earl of Bath was made Ranger. In 1700, Edward Villiers, first Earl of Jersey, was appointed to the post, but he only held it three years, relinquishing it in 1703 to Henry Portman, Esq., who succeeded to the enormous property of his cousin Sir William Portman. This gentleman must have resigned the Rangership before his death, for, in 1714, it was given to Walter Chetwynd, Esq., who had been Queen Anne’s Master of the Buckhounds. He kept it until the accession of George II., when this noble piece of patronage was bestowed upon the Earl of Essex, who having resigned it in 1739, his place was taken by Viscount Weymouth, afterwards Marquis of Bath, who held it until his death in 1751.

He was succeeded by Thomas, first Earl of Pomfret, who died in 1753, and the vacant Rangership was conferred on the Earl of Ashburnham, who resigned it in 1762. The position was then accepted by the Earl of Orford, who kept it till 1778, when he was succeeded by General Charles Fitzroy, afterwards Lord Southampton. He resigned it in 1783, and then it was taken by the Earl of Sandwich, better known by his nickname of Jemmy Twitcher; but he only retained it one year, and it was then resumed by the Earl of Orford, until his death in 1791. Next to him came Lord William Wyndham Grenville, who resigned in 1793, and was followed by the Earl of Euston, afterwards Duke of Grafton. He kept in office till 1807, and after him came Viscount Sydney, who kept it till his death in 1831. Then the office came into the hands of royalty, in the person of the Duke of Sussex, who was Ranger till his death in 1843, when it was taken by his brother, the Duke of Cambridge. At his death in 1850, the Rangership was conferred on the Duke of Wellington, and on his death on the Duke of Cambridge, the present Duke, who still holds the office, which is entirely honorary: but he has under him a Superintendent Ranger, with a salary of 191l., and a Superintendent of Works, at 260l. per annum.

It was during Col. Hamilton’s keepership that Hyde Park was enclosed with a brick wall, high enough to keep in the deer with which the Park had been restocked; and this wall lasted till 1726, when a new wall was built six feet six inches high on the inside, and eight feet on the outside, a wall which one might well think could not be negotiated by any horse. Yet a horse belonging to a Mr. Bingham did twice clear it, in 1792; once in a standing leap, and once in a flying leap. This wall continued till 1828, when it was replaced by the iron railings which were demolished by the mob in 1866, they in their turn giving place to those which now surround the Park.

What are the duties of a Ranger I have no idea, except that we see his name attached at the bottom of the rules and regulations of the Park; but seeing that the position is honorary, and that he has a deputy, they cannot be very onerous. One thing is certain, he seems to have no power to put down acts of violence, which have occurred, and still are occurring in Hyde Park, nor does the personal safety of those who use the Park for purposes of recreation seem to be one of his functions.

Larwood says that robberies in Hyde Park were so common in the reign of William III. that the King ordered the Guards to patrol the Park till eleven o’clock at night, and “In addition to this a guard house was built in the Park in 1699, ‘for securing the road against footpads, who,’ according to the London Post, Dec. 16, 1699, ‘continue to be very troublesome.’” This assertion may be correct, but there is no mention of it in the newspaper named, nor in any other contemporaneous journal; nor can I find any account of a highway robbery in the Park in Feb., 1749. The Penny London Post, 12-15 May, 1749, says, “On Wednesday Night (May 10) Mr. Hoskins, a Pale Ale Brewer in Tyburn Road, was robbed by three footpads near the Serpentine River, in Hyde Park, of a purse of silver, to the amount of eighteen pounds, which he had a little before received at a Publick house at Kensington.”

But a famous person, no less than Horace Walpole, was robbed in the Park, on Nov. 8, 1749, of which he gives the following account, in his Short Notes. “One night, in the beginning of November, 1749, as I was returning from Holland House by moonlight, about ten at night, I was attacked by two highwaymen (McLean and Plunket) in Hyde Park, and the pistol of one of them (the accomplished McLean) going off accidentally, grazed the skin under my eye, left some marks of shot on my face, and stunned me. The ball went through the top of the chariot, and, if I had sat an inch nearer to the left side, must have gone through my head.” The General Advertiser of Nov. 15, 1749, says: “We hear that the Hon. Horace Walpole Esq^re, who was lately robb’d in Hyde Park, has received a letter, intimating that if he would send his Footman, to a House in Tyburn Road, with 30 Guineas he should have his Watch restor’d, and also that of his Coachman, provided the Footman behaved as directed in the said letter.”

In No. 103 of The World (Dec. 19, 1754) this robbery is commented on. “An acquaintance of mine was robbed a few years ago, and very near shot through the head by the going off of the pistol of the accomplished Mr. McLean; yet the whole affair was conducted with the greatest good breeding on both sides. The robber, who had only taken a purse this way because he had that morning been disappointed of marrying a great fortune, no sooner returned to his lodgings than he sent the gentleman two letters of excuses, which, with less wit than the epistles of Voiture, had ten times more natural and easy politeness in the turn of their expression. In the postscript he appointed a meeting at Tyburn, at twelve at night, where the gentleman might purchase again any trifles he had lost; and my friend has been blamed for not accepting the rendezvous, as it seemed liable to be construed by ill-natured people into a doubt of the honour of a man who had given him all the satisfaction in his power, for having, unluckily, been near shooting him through the head.”

It was not only in Hyde Park, but all over London, that these highway robberies took place, but, naturally, they were more prevalent at the West End, because the inhabitants were richer. People were convoyed home from the suburbs, such as Hampstead and Kensington, and The Penny London Post (Jan. 26-29, 1750) says: “So many Robberies have been committed lately in the New Buildings at the Court end of the Town, that the Servants go armed with Blunderbusses and Pistols, with both Coaches and Chairs on Nights.”

Generally, people seem to have taken their robbery very calmly, and made no attempt to capture the thief, but one met with his deserts at Hyde Park Corner, as we see in Read’s Weekly Journal of June 29, 1751: “Last Friday 7-night, as Mr. Hornsby and his Lady, and Mr. Harding, were returning from Ranelagh Gardens, in a Coach, they were stopped between the Lock and St. George’s Hospitals, Hyde Park Corner, by a single Highwayman, well mounted, who presented a Pistol, and demanded their Money: and while Mr. Harding was amusing him with a few Shillings, Mr. Hornsby clapt a Pistol to his breast and fired, which frighten’d the Highwayman’s Horse, and gave the Coachman an Opportunity of driving off. ’Tis apprehended the Highwayman is either killed or dangerously wounded, the Pistol touching his Breast when Mr. Hornsby fired. The next Morning, the Highwayman’s Pistol was found by the Watch, loaded with a Brace of Slugs.”

Singularly ungallant, too, were some of the footpads, as we may read in The London Chronicle, July 28-30, 1774: “Sunday evening, two Ladies walking in Kensington Gardens were met by two Gentlemen, who entered into Conversation with them; and, after walking together for some time in the Gardens, the Gentlemen begged permission to accompany them home, to which the Ladies consented. When they came near Grosvenor Gate, the pretended Gentlemen pulled out their pistols and demanded their money, which amounted to near two guineas, and their gold watches, with which they made off.”

But this is sufficient of old outrages: let us see whether we have amended our ways, taking only a few instances in the present reign. The following is the statement of a young woman, aged 26, as recorded in The Times of Dec. 11, 1840:—

“She had been that afternoon to Hammersmith to see a lady respecting a situation; and on returning, at Kensington, was induced by the bright moonlight to proceed through the Park, as the nearest way to town. She, however, by mistake took the footpath to Kensington Gardens—instead of that at the side of the carriage road, which closely abuts on the high road; and had not proceeded far when she passed a tall, stout man, of respectable appearance, who followed her; and, on approaching the one-arched bridge, accosted her, and wanted to enter into conversation, which she avoided by walking fast. About the centre of the bridge, he suddenly caught hold of her, pushed her against the balustrades of the bridge, which at that spot consists of ornamental iron railings about 3 feet high, and forcibly attempted to take liberties with her, which she strongly resisted; and, being a powerful woman, struggled desperately with him, calling out ‘Murder’ at the utmost pitch of her voice; when the villain suddenly stooped down, and catching hold of her legs, threw her, with great violence, over the bridge into the water, and instantly effected his escape. From her appearance, when brought to the Receiving House, it was evident that she had fallen head first into the water, as her head and shoulders were thickly incrusted with the mud at the bottom of the stream.” I fail to trace that this ruffian was ever caught.

The Times, Oct. 13, 1842:—

“Hyde Park After Dark.

“Saturday evening, about half past 8, as a person named Newport was walking along Rotten Row, he was accosted by a man who asked him the time, and said, ‘Let me see your watch.’ Mr. Newport refused to tell him, or pull out his watch, upon which the ruffian instantly seized him by the collar, and said, ‘You are my prisoner, you have been acting improperly’; but on Mr. Newport immediately calling out ‘Murder! Police!’ his assailant let go his hold, and running away, effected his escape.”—“On Sunday night, about five minutes before 10, a young man named Pummell was returning from town along the carriage road leading from Hyde Park Corner to the Kensington Gate, which is close to the high road, when he was stopped by a man, who said to him, ‘Are you going to stand half a pint of beer, old fellow?’ Pummell told him ‘he should not, indeed’; when the fellow said, ‘You had better stand it before you go any further.’ Pummell, however, repeated he would not, and was walking away, when another man, whom he had not before observed, jumped from the ditch under the rails at the side of the path, and said, ‘We are hard up, and on the tramp, so you must give us half a pint of beer, or something, before you go on.’ Pummell, becoming alarmed, raised a walking stick he had in his hand, and called loudly for assistance, upon which, one of the fellows snatched at his stick, but only caught hold of the tassel, which was torn away in the attempt. Pummell then ran off, at his utmost speed, towards the Kensington Gate, from which he was not far distant, and the two fellows ran across the Park, and effected their escape.”

A few years later, things were not much better, as we find in a letter in The Times of Aug. 7th, 1847. “It is now proved beyond a doubt that any blackguard may insult, attack and rob you with perfect impunity, unless you can induce him to wait patiently whilst you scour the park in search of a policeman to take possession of him. Here is a case in point. I was in the park last evening. Some children were amusing themselves with a kite. Two blackguards crossed their path, and at once took possession of their ball of string. I desired them to return it, otherwise I should give them in charge. They very complacently glanced around them, and then began to pour forth, within the hearing of several women and children, a torrent of the most filthy language. A gentleman who came up at the time interfered, and the abuse was at once turned upon him; the intention of the men being, evidently, to create a disturbance, and then profit by it. I at once went in search of a policeman: after walking about a quarter of a mile, I met a park-keeper. His answer to my request was, ‘Oh! I can’t interfere, you’ll find a policeman somewhere.’ I proceeded in my search, and at last found one on the other side of the Serpentine, amongst the bathers: he very readily accompanied me, although leaving his especial duty, and the matter was soon settled.”

Complaints were also made of the inadequacy of the police during the building of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Crowds used to go every Sunday to see how it had progressed, and a dweller in Park Place thus writes to The Times (vide Feb. 18, 1851): “I will content myself by merely stating that scarcely a Sunday now passes that the disturbance does not terminate in a fight. On one occasion, a soldier and a civilian, each striving to go contrary ways through the gate, at length came to blows. On a subsequent Sunday a similar conflict took place between a soldier and a policeman; and yesterday two men were fighting under my sitting-room windows for some considerable time. This latter encounter, especially, was not a mere skirmish; on the contrary, a ring was made, the men were each backed by a second: in fact, there was all the formula of a regular pitched battle.”

Take, again, a short letter in The Times of March 15th, 1855: “Allow me, through your columns, to caution the frequenters of Hyde Park against a gang of ruffians, who are in the habit of accosting ladies and female servants, and, under the pretence of asking the time of day, endeavouring to pick their pockets. Several ladies of my acquaintance, when walking in the Park with their children, have had narrow escapes of being robbed in this manner.”

In The Times of July 1st, 1858, a Resident near Hyde Park writes that “it is perfectly notorious that in all of our parks, but most especially in Hyde Park, it is impolitic, in the highest degree, for young girls to take exercise unattended. I, for one, have been obliged to prohibit my daughter, aged 13 years, from taking her hitherto pleasant morning walks, in company with her little brother, for precisely the same reason as a thousand other parents could assign—namely, because of the hoary-headed ruffians, dressed in the garb of gentlemen, who systematically lay in wait for young girls, with an intent too horrible for mention.”

Here is a sketch of the Park, in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 21, 1866, endorsed by being copied into The Times, May 22nd:—

“The Police of Hyde Park.

“Urgent remonstrances have recently been made to the Chief Commissioner of Works, from various quarters, and, more especially, by the parochial authorities of St. George’s, Hanover Square, against the misrule and vice which is allowed by the Ranger of Hyde Park to prevail unchecked within its precincts after the Park is closed at night. The gates are then locked, the park-keepers go to their homes, the lodge-keepers go to bed, and the Park is utterly given up to hoards of tramps and roughs of both sexes, who, during the summer months, pass their nights there. Any decent persons caught in crossing the Park at the hour for locking up, have no choice but to remain prisoners until the morning, if they are not sufficiently active to climb the iron railings; for it is a point of professional honour with the lodge-keepers, to resist all attempts at rousing them after they have once turned in. A number of prostitutes, too, of the very lowest grade, ply, unmolested, in the Park, their dismal calling, spreading around them disease, until they are themselves stricken down by it, and perish in the neighbouring workhouses.

“And it is this wretched fact that has, at last, set the authorities of St. George’s Parish in action. It is now required that the incompetent and useless park-keepers, to whose care the Park has hitherto been intrusted, shall be superseded, and that they shall be replaced by the Metropolitan Police, who shall supervise and patrol its area by night, as well as by day; that policemen shall be on duty all night, at all its gates, to let out persons who may have been accidentally shut in; and that two or three of the mounted police shall be stationed in Rotten Row, between the hours of 12 and 2 p.m. and of 5 and 8 p.m., to keep in check the galloping snobs, grooms and horsebreakers of both sexes, by whose reckless brutality the lives and limbs of her Majesty’s lieges are daily endangered. To effect this reform, mere management, not money, is wanted.

“The discreditable condition in which the police of Hyde Park now is, distinctly indicates want of ability or attention on the part of its Ranger; and the costly landscape and flower gardening, so extensively and successfully carried out by Mr. Cowper, as clearly shows that that condition is owing to no lack of funds. It is of far more importance to the inhabitants of the West End of London, that the Park to which they and their families resort should be orderly, cleanly and well watched, than that it should be picturesque and gay with flowers: and, in the case of Hyde Park, there seems to be no reason why its police should not be as effective as its horticulture.”

It would almost seem as if everyone was doing their utmost to spoil the Park, and divert it from its assumed purpose of reasonable recreation; for, at one time, the betting men got hold of it, and made it the scene of their unhealthy calling, vide a letter in The Times of June 1, 1866:—“I have frequently occasion to cross Hyde Park between the hours of 12 and 1, and I have watched with surprise the operations of a numerous betting ring, the members of which hold daily undisturbed possession of a large group of trees in the centre of the Park. It is becoming so popular a resort of servants, that I was not astonished, last week, to hear of a footman, when applying for a situation, stipulating for a mid-day walk in the Park. Yesterday, I saw one of the park-keepers apparently busily engaged in the ring.” And this letter was fully endorsed in another which appeared in next day’s Times.

If betting were allowed, why not other forms of gambling? So we find that on June 25, 1866, at Marlborough Street, Thomas Davids, who is described as being “well-dressed,” was charged with setting up a roulette table in Hyde Park. Inspector Green, of the A Division, said he was in Hyde Park on June 23rd about six o’clock, when he saw the prisoner with a roulette table, and a large number of persons round him. The prisoner was playing, and on seeing him take up some money from the board, he seized him, and charged him with gambling. The prisoner admitted that he was playing at roulette, but he was not aware it was illegal. He found £1 10s. in gold and £1 12s. in silver in his possession. The prisoner’s father was a respectable person. The prisoner, in defence, said that he was in such a novel position that he hardly knew what to say. Mr. Tyrwhitt said everybody must know that gambling in the parks was not permitted. He considered the prisoner’s conduct most mischievous in robbing persons of their money, for it was well known that the chances in favour of the keeper of the gaming-table were 100 per cent. Davids was fined 40s. and costs.

It is impossible to chronicle all the scandals of the Park, we may think they belong to a past age, and that Board Schools and their enlightening influences, and with the “sweetness and light” they should have brought with them, have for ever banished evil from it, but I will only give two modern instances, and I have done with this portion of its history. First take a letter in The Times of Dec. 26, 1891, in which the writer says: “It is impossible for any respectable woman, after dark, to pass through even from the Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner, without being insulted by men, or groups of low women. For young people who have to come from the other side to work, there is no alternative for them, on their return home at night, but to walk right round; as after dark no respectable girl could pass through, unaccompanied, without molestation.”

And, last of all, because I have not chronicled one out of the hundreds of atrocities committed by soldiers in the Park—assaults, robberies, vile accusations, etc.-I will give a very mild and recent case reported in the Daily Graphic, May 22nd, 1894:—

“Violent Guardsmen.

“At the Marlborough Street Police Court, Augustus Fitzgerald, 24, and Frank Burton, 24, privates in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and using obscene language in Hyde Park, and Fitzgerald was also charged with assaulting Police-Sergeant Cooke, and Burton with assaulting two constables in the execution of their duty. Sergeant Cooke stated that about 12 o’clock on Saturday night, he was on duty near the Marble Arch. A gentleman complained to him that the prisoners had pushed him and his wife, and also used very bad language. Both prisoners then attempted to get at the gentleman, and used very bad language. The sergeant advised them to go quietly to barracks. Fitzgerald tried to get Burton to go, but he would not, and the officers had to take him into custody. Fitzgerald then struck the sergeant on the face, cutting his cheek. A constable then took Burton, and the sergeant, Fitzgerald. The latter then kicked his captor on the knee. The officers blew their whistles, and assistance arrived. While the sergeant was struggling with Fitzgerald, Burton came up and kicked him, making his leg black and blue. Fitzgerald went quietly to the station, but Burton continued to struggle so violently that the ambulance was sent for, and then it took seven constables to get him on it. The prisoners used most disgusting language to the officer who took the charge, and when in the cells, kicked the doors till they loosened the frames. The constable who was on duty with Sergeant Cooke corroborated his statement, and said that Fitzgerald kicked him in the lower part of the abdomen. Both officers are now on the sick list. Fitzgerald said, if he struck the sergeant, it was a pure accident. Burton asserted that the constables shoved them about, and prevented them leaving the park by the nearest gate. An officer present gave Fitzgerald a bad character, and Burton a fairly good one. Mr. Hannay sentenced them to one month’s hard labour each.”

“Exciting Scene in Hyde Park.

“Last night[58] an extraordinary and violent scene (a correspondent writes) took place in Hyde Park. In the evening the park is now frequented by large crowds of people, who listen to speeches, recitations, &c., delivered near the Marble Arch, and considerable hostility has, it appears, been aroused by the action of some soldiers in persistently creating a disturbance among the crowd, with the object of breaking up any meeting that may be held. Last night, while a small knot of people were listening to a reciter, four soldiers, whose movements had hitherto been unobserved, suddenly ran in, and without giving any warning flung themselves with great force on those on the outside of the crowd. A struggle at once ensued, and before many moments had elapsed the soldiers found themselves surrounded by an infuriated crowd of some 300 persons, who pelted them with hands full of pebbles picked up from the ground, and, at the same time, indulged freely in hooting. The soldiers struck out vigorously to right and left with their canes, retiring close together, and for some time managed to keep the crowd at a respectful distance. One of them, however, being struck suddenly in the face with a missile, drew his bayonet, and breaking away from his comrades, furiously charged the crowd. Immediately a general stampede took place, but though the enraged soldier speedily gave up the pursuit, it was some minutes before he sheathed his weapon. No sooner had he done so than the crowd again returned, and forming round the troopers, recommenced booing and hooting, though at a longer distance than before. By this time, however, notification of the occurrence had been conveyed to the police, and they coming up, were able, though not without difficulty, to get the soldiers out of the park without further violence from the mob. No one, fortunately, was seriously injured, but both the soldiers and some civilians had their faces cut.”—Globe, March 26, 1895.