legislative purpose of s.8(1) had been fulfilled. The statutory objective in s. 8(1) was therefore achieved when the Garden was laid out and vested in the Commissioners to maintain. This had happened, he submitted, by the latest in 1914 as is apparent from an Ordnance Survey map of 1914. In this context he submitted that no further provision was necessary for the future regulation of the Garden, which could be left to the good sense of the Commissioners using their powers under bylaws and regulations. 101. Mr Mould relied on an Ordnance Survey Map of 1914 which added cogency to his submission that the statutory objective had been fulfilled by the laying out of the Garden. However, the Ordnance Survey map in question post-dates the Act by 14 years. In my judgment, Mr Mould’s submissions fall to be tested by their implication that as soon as the improvement works were completed, the protective provision in section 8(1) fell away, with the result that the new garden land could be used for another purpose or built upon again. Viewed from the perspective of 120 years later, this may seem unobjectionable. However, in my judgment, the context demonstrates that it would not have been considered acceptable to those involved in the negotiations of the Act that, say, four – six months after Millbank had been widened and the Garden laid out as extended, the new garden land could be used for some other purpose or built upon. The provision of a garden was of central importance to the negotiation of the Act and its passage into law. A scheme for rebuilding the Millbank area, proposed by the private syndicate in 1898, had been rejected by the Commons, partly because the plan involved building on the riverside rather than extending the existing open space. Mr Mould submitted that the future of the garden could be left to the good sense of the Commissioners. However, the context reveals that it was not just the Commissioners who had an interest in the use of the land as a garden. Westminster Vestry had donated £100,000 to the scheme conditional on the provision of a garden. Moreover, in 1879, the Rt Hon W.H. Smith MP donated £1000 towards laying it out for public use. A further £1400 was voted for by Parliament. W.H. Smith MP asked the then Office of Works to record in a minute that the sum had been accepted to level, turf and gravel the ground “in order that it may be thrown open to the public and become available as a recreation ground”. The minute requested has not been traced, but later correspondence around negotiations for the 1900 Act, refers to the Government being “pledged to an agreement with the late Rt Hon WH Smith for the Gardens to be maintained as a public recreation ground.” In my judgment, the historical context is clear and supports Mr Drabble’s interpretation of the wording of section 8 as providing an enduring obligation to keep the land for use as a public garden. 102. Both Mr Drabble and Mr Mould made submissions on the following extract from the Report of the Council’s Improvements Committee dated 13 March 1900: “We feel therefore that we are fully justified in asking the Parliamentary Committee to advise the Council to insert the necessary clauses in the bill making definite provision for the land between the new Millbank-street and the river being kept as a garden for the use of the public for ever.” (emphasis added) 37