BUSYBODIES ON HAMPSTEAD HEATH
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIRS I have reread Mr. Joad's original article and have searched the Heath for traces of the vandalism complained of. My general conclusions are that Mr. Joad has greatly exagger- ated small things to make a big noise. Hampstead Heath is still a very lovely place, asphalt paths are very hard to find ; the draining of damp ground is in the interest of the public ; very few trees show signs of having been disfigured by pruning or lopping. On a public place like the Heath dangerous trees (and old elms are dangerous) must be attended to. It does not need a gale to bring a big limb of an elm down. Pollarded willows quickly recover. For the moment they may appear unsightly, but what a joy they are to artists of the Rackhant school. It is still possible to take a constitutional on the Heath and to make discreet love beneath the trees. Of the grounds round Kenwood, is it not a fact that these are under a separate trust which does not permit them being open to the public night as well as day.
Mr. Joad tells us that urban man has lost the power of taking the country naturally. " A piece of untouched country puts him out of countenance," etc. Well, Sir, what I have seen of my own country convinces me that man has always been a busybody in the country and to the
provement of it in the majority of cases. Hereward may have enjoyed his hiding place in the fens, and Queen Bess may have thought the roads of Kent as she knew them ideal. But to my way of thinking our country would be a poor place without the hand of man constantly improving it.—
Previous page
