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.