[ 150 ] IAN R. STEWART They came before the common council bearing a petition with several thousand signatures and demanding that the park's dimensions be reduced. Public hearings were held, and on March 13,1854, the Committee on Lands and Places reported a set of recommendations. It proposed to eliminate that portion of the park below Seventy- second Street, as well as a 400-foot strip from each side. A minority of the committee issued a separate report urging instead that only the 400-foot strips be removed while the northern and southern boundaries remain fixed. Opponents to any reduction in the park's area suggested that if a reduction must occur then perhaps the park could extend from Sixth to Eighth or Fifth to Seventh instead of from Fifth to Eighth avenues.47 The ubiquitous Bryant showed his usual staunch opposition to any reduction of the park. Protesting vigorously, he reminded his readers that London had more than 1,500 acres of park land, which could no doubt command high prices as building lots, so why should New York be upset about sparing a mere 700. The people of New York, he said, owe it "to the thousands coming after them, who will before many years make this city the first in the world in point of size, to bequeath them pleasure grounds commensurate with its greatness!'48 On April 3, 1854, the council passed a resolution to petition the state to allow it to reduce the size of the park by nearly one-half, as the committee's majority had recommended. Eighteen fifty-four was an election year, however. Increasingly preoccupied with electioneering activities and hoping to avoid the sort of public controversy this volatile issue had brought forth in the past, the council allowed the rest of the year to slip by without ever formally presenting its petition to the state legislature for action. Late in the year, a state senator, acting independently in response to constituent pressure, had introduced his own bill to reduce the park's area and for "interspersing into the park suitable squares connecting with each other but on which family edifices may be erected!' The legislature refused to consider it, and the only response it received was another strong blast from Bryant.49 47 First Annual Report, 128,116-22; Nevins, The Evening Post, 200. 48 In Nevins, The Evening Post, 200-201. 49 Ibid., 200.