TO the east of Princes Street, on the flank of Calton Hill, lie
graceful private pleasure gardens laid out by the great William
Playfair. They are one of Edinburgh's hidden delights, concealed in the
horseshoe formed by Regent, Royal, and Carlton Terraces.
They belong to the terraces' householders who have the responsibility
of keeping them up. Their proceedings are governed by a private Act of
Parliament. For a short time in the seventies, as one of the
stanceholders, I served on the gardens committee, and came to think that
here, in microcosm, could be found some of the great issues of politics,
society, and commerce.
My memories of those days were revived this week by the publication of
a book by an old neighbour, Ann Mitchell*. With painstaking scholarship
and manifest affection, she has set out a history of this delightful
area and of the sometimes eccentric people who lived there.
In our own modest way we grappled with the problem to which the
ebullient Ken Clarke is now addressing himself -- how to overcome
resistance to higher taxation and pay for public services. The Cabinet,
we are told, has decided to cut the services rather than raise the
taxes.
Our little local difficulty was how to give the gardener a living wage
and pay for the equipment he had to have if he was to cope with the work
of three. For many decades the garden sub had been restricted to #10.
The private Act of 1970 made increases possible subject to the agreement
of two-thirds of the stanceholders, and for a time this was very hard to
get.
There was a real danger that the gardens would degenerate because of
neglect. The annual meetings at which the dues were set became heated
and even angry. Those of us from Regent Terrace found the Royal Terrace
mob particularly intransigent.
By a mixture of soft soap and the ruthless use of proxies, more
skilful chairmanship helped. Peter Fraser (now Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)
here showed his political promise: the grippy old dames of Royal Terrace
yielded before his charm.
Income rose but there was never quite enough. Some of the residents
offered their voluntary labour; their incompetence often made its value
nugatory. One day Ann's husband, the distinguished civil servant Angus,
led a working party to repair the tennis court fence.
Its other members were a prominent jurist and myself. We dug and
laboured all day and finally gave up in the face of what might most
kindly be called insuperable technical problems.
The scorn of the #25-a-week gardener when he surveyed our efforts next
day was infinite. He remedied matters in a couple of hours and I came to
the conclusion that the idea of voluntary labour, even if it were
competent, breached the principle that a labourer is worthy of his hire.
Even the strategem of throwing open the gardens once a year to the
public and holding a fete, dog show, and jumble sale caused controversy.
Some of the residents found this vulgar affair inconsistent with their
sense of social obligation and boycotted it.
That was all very well but not everyone was as ready to pay their
dues. I ran the garden stall and was enormously proud of the #60 it
raised in a day. The potato merchant who parked his lorry in the mews
gave me a bag of tatties, and I priced them keenly. The shrewd Edinburgh
wifies snapped them up. (Ann told me yesterday that the garden party has
since reverted to a mainly social format.)
From time to time vandals would disturb the Arcadian idyll, and there
was much discussion in the committee on how to deal with them. The
maximalist school favoured extreme measures stopping just short of
machine-gun nests on the perimeter walls and advocated the posting of
draconian minatory notices.
Others argued for a low profile, a position I supported. The more
elaborate our defences, the more threatening our posture, the more
alluring and thrilling would the gardens be for the local apaches who
climbed the wall to overturn the sundial or damage the tennis court.
I told the committee the cautionary tale of the newspaper editor who
ran a campaign against vandalism.
Stop this outrage, a headline would say, and below would be given some
particularly offensive example. The local vandals enjoyed the publicity.
Their activities increased and they took to phoning the paper to suggest
that it send out a photographer to snap their latest efforts. The
campaign stopped abruptly.
By the time I did my stint on the committee the chairman was a retired
military type. He was a delightful man but had served abroad and, I
fancy, had convinced himself he was the governor of some insecure
territory where the natives were habitually restless.
After its deliberations were over, he would lead the committee out on
patrol. ''Let's go out and see if everything's tickety-boo up-country,''
he would say, picking up his swagger stick and leading us forth to look
for interlopers from the hostile tribes.
At other times in the gardens I learned an interesting social truth
which I pass on to anyone who is lonely and in need of company. Buy a
dog. It is a curious fact that dog-owners, while walking their dogs,
talk to each other without the formality of introduction, as if
ownership itself is sufficient testimonial.
The French consul of the day, I recall, had a poodle of exceptional
intelligence who appeared to follow our long political discussions with
acute understanding.
Ann Mitchell's book is of mainly local interest and will give
enjoyment to all who know the area. It reflects painstaking research but
is written with a pleasing simplicity. I hope that her publisher
encourages her to attempt a more discursive history of old Edinburgh: I
am sure it would do well.
*The People of Calton Hill, by Ann Mitchell. James Thin: The Mercat
Press. #8.95.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article