The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-21 00:00:00

[PRIG' 4D• STAMPED SD•

HAM_P,'S'TEAD-TIEATII,

Sir Thomas M. Wilson has little right to complain
that his twentieth attempt to supersede the will
under which he iholds his estate at and about
Hampstead has been defeated. by the House of
Corn woes. It is possible that ho .may look upon
himself as a highly oppressed person;,but the real
fact is, that by the law of England he merely has
a right to a particular property under certain con-
ditions, and not otherwise. We grant that such a
conclusion is aggravating, but so it is. Many a, ;
eui; walks down Regent-street, or saunters among
the avenues of brick and mortar which represent
the Dadfordproperty in London, and fancies that
the estate is one which would be admirably adapted
to his desires and capacities ; but then ho is not
the landlord •of Regent-street, nor the Duke of.
Bedford. The simple fact is that the property,
belongs to somebody else. Now, it must be espe-
cially annoying to have a partial interest in a valu-
able
property, and to be debarred by some legal
difficulty from the fruition of a far more consider-
able fortune ; the proverb, " Half a loaf is
better than no bread," applies exactly to Sir T. M.
Wilson's case. His immediate predecessor be-
queatljed to him the Hampstead.-heath estate, but
without licence to build upon it. The precise.
value of the bequest has been referred to the deci-
sion of the most competent judges in England, and:
those learned personages have decided that he has
no bUilding powers on a certain portion of his
estate. It is natural enough that a person in this
situation should seek to escape from the limitations
of his position, but law and justice aro clearly
against him. blik T. M. Wilson has no more right
to claim buildilfg-poweq. over Hampstead-heath
than the first begtat ivlid"meetOxim in kis-morpa
ing walk has a right to claim Sir T. M.' Wilson's
actual interest in the property. This being his
strict legal position, our next object should natu-
rally be to inquire if there are any particular cir-
cumstances in the case which should impel us,
on grounds of public policy, to concede to this
gentleman greater powers than. those which the
law allows him. Why should we defeat the condi-
tions, expressed or implied, of the testator's will t
Why should we enable the life tenant to cover
Hampstead-heath with brick and mortar ? If this
were done, a great injury would ibe inflicted upon
the metropolis, which we should do our utmost to
avert. It is now many years since Sir T. M. Wil-
son commenced the series of efforts the last of
_which was defeated on Friday night in the House
of :Commons. The blocking up of Hampstead-
heath has been tried directly—it has been tried by
a side-wind—it has been pressed upon Parliament,
it has been referred to the judges—but, in what-
ever
form it has been brought, either before Par-
liament or the great legal authorities, it has been
invariably defeated. The result of Friday night
last will probably be taken as conclusive, even by
so pertinacious a gladiator in his cause as Sir T.
M. Wilson. Where his action ceases, however, the
action of the public should begin.
During the lifetime of the present tenant the
question is no doubt set at rest, but the hands of
his successors are free. In a few years time, when
Sir T. M. Wilson has passed away, those who
come after us will•most certainly see the pleasant
Heath of Hampstead . covered with Belvedere-cot-
tages and Paradise-rows, unless we take timely
order in the matter. We may make for the public
a reasonably good bargain if we grapple with the
question in time, and it is our object to-day, as it
has been our object throughout, to suggest that
such would be the proper issue of the dispute.
Sir T. M. 'Wilson should be liberally dealt with.
There is no reason why he should bo called upon
to sacrifice his estate for the benefit of the public.
The most zealous agitator against the enclosure of
Hampstead-heath would, no doubt, think he was
doing a very handsome thing if he laid down 101.
or 201: towards the object of securing this place of
recreation for the smoke-dried
.Londoners—why
should Sir T. M. Wilson do more ? The House-
of Commons has done its part by excluding him
from the operation of the Settled Estates Bill, so
that he neither is, nor ever can hope to be, in a
position to drive a hard bargain with the public on
his own. account, and it seems therefore but rea-
sonable that the public should deal with him upon
reasonable terms. What is the real value of
Hampstead-heath ? It would be of great advantage
to the Londoners to make the acquisition of the
estate. It would be of great advantage to the ne-
tuml tenant-to. tlispoae of his interest in it. Surely,
under these conditions we might come to terms
which would be acceptable to either side. There
would be no great difficulty in the course of next
session in obtaining an act which should provide
the requisite funds, if in the interval, some reason-
able scheme of sale could be devised which would
conciliate the interests of all parties concerned,
There never was a case in which fairness was more
compulsory both on purchaser and vendor. If, on.
the one band, we can consign Sir T. M. Wilson to
the solitary pleasures of the dog in the manger, he,
on the other, may rest tranquilly on his oars, with
the perfect conviction that his successor will bo in
a position to exact a very severe retribution for his
defeat.—Times.