THIRD READING. (Hansard, 8 August 1871)

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he rose to move that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to insert a clause giving power to the Corporation of London to appear before the Disafforesting Commissioners, and take the best means to secure the forest as a recreation ground for the inhabitants of the Metropolis. He made the Motion principally in the interest of the inhabitants of the East-end. The Corporation of London had always taken the greatest interest in the preservation of Epping Forest, and inasmuch as any scheme they might submit would be bound to have the sanction of the House, no harm could be done by the insertion of the clause. He was quite surprised that the Government should oppose the Motion.

§ MR. AYRTON

opposed the Motion on the ground, first, that the Corporation were entitled to be present at the meetings of the Commission to assert their rights, but could not be permitted to go 1193 before them to propose a scheme. The law had vested that power in the Board of Works, and furnished it with the means necessary to give effect to any scheme proposed by the Commissioners and sanctioned by the House. After that scheme had been framed it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a Bill to carry it into effect. But a graver objection remained. The Corporation of London proposed to provide the funds for the preservation of Epping Forest as an open space by imposing an entirely new tax on the food of the people. [Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE: No, that is not so.] The deputation which went to him proposed to impose a tax on the food imported into the Metropolis, and which of necessity would fall heavier on the poor than the rich. Moreover, it was exceedingly questionable whether they had power to impose any such tax. It had been reported against by the Commission over which Sir George Lewis presided, and when it was resisted by a wealthy firm they abandoned it. Nothing could be more objectionable than to impose such a tax for such a purpose, and certainly it could not be allowed that they should introduce any such clause into this Bill. Neither the Metropolitan Board nor the House would consent that the funds for the proposed scheme should be found from such a source. With respect to their proposal to take part in the proceedings of the Commission, they might be present to assert their rights in the ordinary way, but not to appear in any other capacity. If the Metropolitan Board of Works failed in their duty, there would be ample time to take exception to their scheme when it came before Parliament. He denied in the strongest terms that either the First Minister of the Crown or the Government generally were averse to the preservation of Epping Forest as an open space for the recreation of the people of the Metropolis, and would point out that in 1866 he brought in a Bill for the preservation of the metropolitan commons, which contained ample provisions for the preservation of this among other open spaces, but it was the House of Lords who rejected those provisions which he considered the most valuable in the Bill. The whole management of the open spaces of the Metropolis was given by that measure to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and there 1194 could be no exception made with respect to Epping Forest. For these reasons he opposed the Motion.