§ MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having regard to defects in the Act of 1857 respecting Finsbury Park, he will bring in a Bill to declare the trusts for which it was passed, and otherwise to amend the same?
§ MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, that it was a very peculiar ease. By an Act passed in the year 1857 the Metropolitan Board of Works were empowered to purchase 250 acres of land, for the purpose of a park in Finsbury, and they were at the same time authorized to sell for building purposes twenty acres, which might not be necessary for the park, in order to recoup themselves part of the expense of constructing the park. The Board had to deposit plans in the office of the First Commissioner of Works, and he presumed that by so doing they were bound not to deviate from those plans without his sanction. The Board availed themselves of the powers conferred by the Act, but only purchased 115 acres, and they at present wished to deduct from that quantity twenty acres for building purposes, that being the amount they were authorized to deduct from 250 acres. It appeared that they were desirous of taking the twenty acres principally from land adjoining the Seven Sisters' Road, and the inhabitants of the north of London considered that building on that land would materially interfere with the proper enjoyment of the park. He had received a Memorial signed by nearly 14,000 persons, including ministers of all denominations, and the leading inhabitants of Finsbury, protesting against that proceeding of the Metropolitan Board of Works. His power, as Chief Commissioner of Works, over the Board had, however, been rescinded by an Act passed in the year 1858, so that he had, at present, no control over them. Under those circumstances he had addressed himself privately to his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), who always look a large and liberal view of these matters, and at a meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works his hon. Friend moved that the land in question should not be taken from the park; but he was defeated by a majority upon a division to rescind the Resolution which had already been come to on the subject, and 741 the Board were now proceeding to exercise their alleged right. He (Mr. Layard) understood that right was a doubtful one. but he had no power to interfere. He was afraid that those persons who were interested in the park must have recourse to legal proceedings if they wished to test the right claimed by the Board. His sympathy was with the Memorialists, and he would be prepared to afford them any assistance in his power.
§ VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether it is true that the Metropolitan Board of Works have refused to rescind their resolution to sell twenty acres of the laud purchased by them for the purpose of Finsbury Park?
§ MR. TITE, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that the Metropolitan Board of Works had refused to rescind their resolution to sell twenty acres of the land they had purchased for the Fins-bury Park. It was originally intended that there should be a large park on the north side of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were authorized to carry out that scheme, the Government undertaking to grant them £50,000 towards the expenses of the 250 acres they were to purchase. The House, however, subsequently decided that the Government should not interfere in the matter, and consequently the whole of the outlay had to be met out of the rates, and not out of the coal duties nor any public fund. The Board, thereupon, determined to buy only 120 acres, which they did, at a total expense of £90,000. That money was raised to a great extent from the poorer classes in the metropolis, and he was quite sure the House would agree with him that it would be desirable the Board should, if possible, recoup themselves, to a certain extent, out of the land that had been purchased, for a portion of their expenditure. Ten acres out of the twenty set apart for building purposes were at the bottom of the land near the railway, and to that portion of the scheme no exception had been taken. The other ten acres ran along a fine road recently laid down towards the Seven Sisters' Road, and he had always opposed the proposal to apply that land to building purposes. But when he had recently brought the question before the Board again he had been defeated by a majority of 25 votes 742 to 16. It appeared that the only power the Board had was a power to sell, and not to lease, and before they could make an offer of sale the park must be finished, and it must also be shown that the land was not essential to the park. That question, he apprehended, might be raised by a writ of mandamus. It further appeared that the former owner of the land had a right of pre-emption at the price of the day; but whether he would take it or not remained to be seen. If he did not, then it seemed the Board would have the power to sell in the open market; but, he found they could not demise the land for building purposes. Under those circumstances he thought that his hon. Friend and the House might feel assured that there was very little likelihood the sale of that portion of the land would take place; but that was the only assurance he could give upon the subject.