We told the public on Tuesday that the battle for Wardown House was half-won, and that members of the Council were 'climbing down'. Half- won is well begun, but the battle is not yet over, said the Beds & Herts Saturday Telegraph of February 15, 1919.
Certain member of the Council had no idea public feeling was so strong, but, recognising that the wish of the populace is overwhelmingly for retention of Wardown House as a pleasure report and a place of rest and refreshment, they are prepared and anxious to carry out the wishes of the public and will not persist in a policy so antagonistic to the general good of the community.
BUT THERE ARE OTHERS! Signs are not wanting that some members of the Council resent being brought to book. A straw will show which way the wind blows. ALDERMAN OAKLEY HAS SHOWN HIS HAND. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. And out warning to the ratepayers opf Luton is still, “WATCH WARDOWN!”
If Alderman Oakley and any of his colleagues think the agitation against the acquisition of Wardown Mansion is a nine-days wonder and is likely to blow over, he and they are sadly mistaken.
We said in out first article that the public won't have it, and we are more than ever convinced of that. We said last week that if the Council persist they are riding for a fall, and of that we are equally certain.
On Monday morning we were asked from more than one quarter if we advised a town meeting. People were ready and anxious indeed to get on with it at once. We had only to say 'the' word and hundreds of signatures would have been forthcoming.
Our reply was that we thought it was not at present necessary, that out information was the Council were reviewing the situation, that we thought the battle was half-won, and we did not want to do anything to unduly embarrass the Council ot to make it harder for them to acknowledge that public opinion is against them. Our desire was, and still is, to make it as easy as possible for them to reconsider their action and themselves suggest the alternative which we still think should not be difficult to find.
There are signs, however, that our attitude is not only not appreciated by certain members of the Council, but is resented by them.
Alderman Oakley has shown his hand. We should prefer to think he was joking at the dinner to the special constables, at which he was presiding on Wednesday evening. There were many jovial moments, but there were also serious ones, and Alderman Oakley certainly created the impression of being in a very serious mood when he declared:
“WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH WARDOWN. DON'T MAKE ANY MISTAKE ABOUT THAT.”
We should be very sorry to see Alderman Oakley range himself in opposition to the wishes of the people. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but as a public representative, if he still moves about among the ratepayers, he must know there is an outcry against the Wardown proposal [for use of the mansion as a maternity home etc].
Does he propose to pursue a lonely furrow, or will he bow to the wishes of the ratepayers and preserve for the thousands of visitors to that popular resort, the House, which even the Council had not made the best use of in the park, but is nevertheless a much appreciated addition to the park and its pleasant gardens?
It has recently been said that Alderman Oakley will not see re-election next November, but we have also heard this denied. In any case, we should be sorry to find him spoiling an excellent public career by a decided stand against the overwhelming voice of his townspeople. He may respond that he is on he Council to exercise his own judgment. True, but he is there by the will of the people, and the people will expect him to carry out their behests. He should be the last to be so undemocratic as to endeavour to flout the wishes of the public.
We have reason to believe that a number of the councillors look at the question very differently from when it was first broached; they recognise that the centre of a public park and gardens is not the place for a lying-in hospital, and there is a great concensus of opinion that Wardown House should be preserved not for the use of a section but the use and enjoyment of all classes of the people. And who will dare say that the cricketers, the bowlers, the tennis players and the thousands of fathers, mothers and children who delight in a visit to the park do not represent all classes?
The members of the Parks Committee, we are told, never really favoured this proposal to take away the Mansion. Their explanation is that it was all cut and dried before they were consulted, thatv they found themselves practically committee to it because the Maternity Committee were keen on it and pressed that it was the only place.
Now we say most decidedly that the proposal for a maternity home for Luton is not os such urgency that it cannot be deferred, even for 12 months, as Alderman Arnold suggested, to find a suitable alternative to cribbing public property for a more or less private purpose.
The Maternity Committee have admitted, by the very fact that they have been to view one or two alternatives, that some other place is possible. But even if the two properties considered had fallen through we should still say they have not exhausted possibilities, and urge them to try, try again.
Let there be no resentment that we have ventured to interpose in this matter; let there be no obstinacy. OBSTINACY IS A STUBBORD ADHERENCE OR ENTREATY TO PURPOSE, OPINION, OR COURSE OF ACTION ARISING FROM CONCEIT OR THE DESIRE TO HAVE ONE'S OWN WAY AND GENERALLY SOMEWHAT UNREASONABLE.
Again, to be 'obstinate' is to be UNYIELDING TO ARGUMENT OR ENTREATY AND RESOLUTELY BENT ON HAVING ONE'S OWN WAY, WITH LITTLE REGARD TO THE WISHES OR VIEWS OF OTHERS.
The Council meets on Tuesday, and we hope they will at once take the opportunity of allaying the public mind on this question. The ratepayers of Luton are intensely moved on the subject, and we appeal to the Council to consider the wishes of the people and 'Keep hands off Wardown'.