§ CAPTAIN DAWSON-DAMERsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If it is true that the continued state of Leicester Square arises from a disputed ownership; and, if so, whether some steps could not be taken to ascertain who is liable for the present condition of that Square?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that some years ago an Act was passed by which local authorities in the metropolis were entitled to take possession of any vacant space of which there did not appear to be an owner, and under that Act an attempt was made to get possession of Leicester Square; but then an owner appeared and claimed it as his property, and he sufficiently established his right to prevent any action being taken in the matter. Being private property, of course the owner might do whatever he pleased with it, however disreputable it might be in the eyes of those who passed by it. He knew of no mode by which the place might be made more sightly, except by putting in force some law for dispossessing the owner and appropriating it to some public purpose. There was a general Act to enable local authorities to take property for the purpose of widening or altering a street on certain conditions; but he was not aware of any Act enabling any local authority to deal with any square or place enclosed or partially enclosed, however badly. It would be necessary, he believed, to introduce a private Act for the purpose, by which in the ordinary way the owner would be compelled to sell the property for a public purpose. An Act of that kind, however, did not come under his Department, but should be introduced and promoted by local authorities.