§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD
asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is true that the Metropolitan Board of Works, by declining to state what assistance it will render in the formation of a Park at Paddington, has prevented any action on the part of the Corporation of London with a view to the formation of the Park; whether, in particular, the Board has declined to state, either to the Corporation or to the Park Committee, whether its promised contribution of £1,000 for every acre of Park secured may still be considered available; whether it is the fact that, although the metage on Grain Duty was dedicated by Parliament to the preservation of open spaces, the Corporation of London, the administrators of the Duty, cannot, without the consent of the Board, apply it in preserving any open space within the Metropolis, the district whence the Duty is mainly derived; and, whether the Board has refused to state whether it will consent to the application of the Grain Duty in defraying the expenses of forming the proposed Park at Paddington?
§ MR. SPEAKER
It appears to me that the Question is justifiable, as it relates to a matter of public interest. and may properly be put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG
I can assure my hon. Friend (Mr. Boord) that I have not the slightest objection to answer the Question. I am quite unable to state what effect the course taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works with regard to the proposed Park at Paddington may have had on the action of the Corporation of London. The Board originally agreed to contribute a sum equal to £1,000 per acre towards the formation of the Park; but when the Bill was thrown out by the Select Committee of this House the Board, having no scheme before it, felt unable to answer an inquiry, made both by the Park Committee and the Corporation, as to the assistance it might feel disposed to render in the matter. The metage on Grain Duty was dedicated by Parliament to the preservation of open spaces in the neighbourhood of London, not within the Metropolis, as defined by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855; and I fail to see how the Corporation could apply the Duty in any other way, even with the consent of the Metropolitan Board. With respect to the last paragraph of the Question, the reply of the Board, both to the Park Committee and the Corporation, was limited to the statement that, as there was no scheme before the Board, it was not in a position to answer the inquiries made.
§ MR. FIRTH
asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have decided whether to take any and what course with respect to the removal of the District Railway ventilators now that the Company have abandoned their Bill; and, whether it is true that the two London Underground Railway Companies are now burning coal, instead of coke, thereby increasing fourfold the foulness of the air in the tunnels?
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG
If the hon. Member was in the House at the time of Private Business, he will now be aware of the course taken by the Metropolitan Board with respect to the District Railway ventilators. With re- 1630 gard to the second part of the Question, I regret that I am unable to afford the information asked for by the hon. Member.