INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 19 April 1888)

§ MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.),
in moving— That it be, an Instruction to the Committee on the Vauxhall Park Bill, That they do provide that the purchase of the Park be not made until the opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth has been taken on the desirability of such purchase, said, that the Instruction was similar to that which was moved for by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) some time ago in reference to Brixton Park, and acceded to by the House. Before the ratepayers were made responsible for the expenditure of a large sum of money, they ought to be called upon to say whether they were in favour of the scheme or not. He could not understand upon what grounds the Motion should be opposed. It was a singular fact that the adoption of his Motion would involve no additional expenditure of money whatever, inasmuch as the Bill must go before the same Committee as the Brixton Bill, and it contained identically the same powers as those which were provided in the Brixton Bill. He desired to point out some rather curious facts in reference to this Park. In the first place, the owner of the Park and the vendor of the land to the ratepayers was a vestryman, and those who had taken the most active part in the matter were the ground landlords of the houses facing the proposed Park. He be- 1703 lieved that his hon. Friend the Member for the Kennington Division of Lambeth (Mr. Gent-Davis) intended to oppose the Motion, but his hon. Friend could have no wish beyond that of providing the public with open spaces. He wished to point out, however, that when this ground was originally proposed to be formed into a public Park the value of it was very much exaggerated. The original price was between £60,000 and £70,000. Even the vendor's reduced valuation of £42,000 was understood to be many thousand pounds more than he paid for it recently. In the next place, the area was spoken of as 10 acres, whereas it was little more than eight. One gentleman had reported the value as being £50,000; but the gentleman in question was not a valuer, and it was somewhat unfortunate that he should have made so great a mistake, seeing that an eminent firm of valuers in London had declared the value of this property at £14,000 at the outside. Those who were opposing the scheme declared that the value was certainly not more than £30,000, or £12,000 less than the Vestry proposed to spend upon it. He had no wish to deprive the Vestry of Lambeth of the power of acquiring this land for a public Park, although he believed that the price proposed to be paid for it was most extravagant. He should certainly not oppose the opening out of this Park to the public; but if the House accepted the Instruction he was moving, there would be no sort of danger that by doing so the public would run any risk of losing the Park. Whether the Instruction was given to the Committee or not, there would be no doubt whatever that the Park would be formed. He hoped that it would not be suggested that the ratepayers had really no interest in the matter. He had been informed that no money was to be required from the ratepayers; but, on turning to Clause 3 of the Bill, he found it provided there that— It shall be lawful for the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Vestry of Lambeth, or either of them, by agreement with the owners of the land, to purchase the said land or any part thereof. Then, again, in Clause 8, it was provided that— In the event of any agreement being entered into for the purchase of the said land or any 1704 part thereof by the Metropolitan Board by the authority of this Act it shall be lawful for the Vestry of Lambeth to make a contribution of such an amount as they may think fit. It was ridiculous, under these circumstances, to say that the ratepayers had no interest in the matter. The real point, however, to consider was, whether vestrymen, at a time when a matter of this kind had never been dreamt of, were to plunge the ratepayers into such a heavy expenditure, and whether the ratepayers were to be saddled with a large expense for the purpose of purchasing open spaces in a parish? He maintained that the ratepayers of Lambeth ought to have a voice in the matter, and the only way they could obtain that voice now was by sending this Instruction up to the Committee. It might be urged that it was too late to take action; but it could easily be explained why this Instruction had not been moved earlier. He had not been aware, until the hon. Member for West Nottingham moved the Instruction in regard to the Brixton Park Bill, what course it was desirable to take in order that the ratepayers might protect themselves. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gent-Davis) had backed the Bill, and the ratepayers, therefore, knew that he was not likely to help them. In asking the House to agree to this Instruction being sent to the Committee, he (Mr. Kelly) wished to impress upon hon. Members the fact that there had been a great deal of difference of opinion upon the matter. It was suggested in a Paper which had been generally circulated to the House that there had been no division, but that the Lambeth Vestry was unanimous in its support of the scheme. He ventured to think that his hon. Friend would not care to make that statement now. On the 13th of October, 1887, the Vestry signed a Report in favour of forming the Park, but subsequently declared, by 46 to 43, to petition the Metropolitan Board of Works not to purchase the ground at all. On the 17th of September the Vestry decided not to increase the amount of its contribution to the cost; an amendment, empowering the Vestry to increase its contribution from £1,500 to £1,600 per acre, having been lost by a majority of 8 to 6. The Vestry had since declined to take up the Bill now before Parliament. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would not 1705 say that even the Vestry were at all unanimous in the matter. Indeed, some persons who were greatly interested in the matter very strongly opposed it. He held in his hand a copy of a letter signed by the Under Secretary of the Norwood Ratepayers' Association, dated the 26th of March, stating that a resolution had been passed by the Association, declaring that in view of the exorbitant price proposed to be paid for Vauxhall and Brixton Parks, and the unsatisfactory provisions of the Bills now before Parliament, the Association respectfully urged the Lambeth Vestry and the Metropolitan Board of Works to rescind the resolution adopted by them in favour of the acquisition of the property. It, therefore, could not be denied that a great body of the public were opposed to the scheme, and he might call attention to the fact that there was only one part of Lambeth which was in favour of the Bill. In September the Vestry refused to support the Metropolitan Board of Works in purchasing the property; but the Metropolitan Board themselves, by a majority of 4, were in favour of purchasing it. If, however, it had not been for those who represented outside wards, a majority of the Vestry, amounting to one-third, would have rejected the scheme. For these reasons he trusted the House would be of opinion that the Instruction he now begged to move should be sent to the Committee.

§ MR. DE COBAIN (Belfast, E.)
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)
said, he hoped the House would not agree to the Instruction. The point was a very small one; in fact, the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) had ruled himself out of court, because he bad said that, no doubt, the property would be obtained with or without this Instruction ultimately. Under those circumstances, there was no reason why the people of the district should be put to additional expense, and there was no necessity of referring the matter to the parish. He thought it was a question 1706 in which the Vestry might be allowed a discretion. Under the general law of the land, the Vestry had full power to incur expenditure for this purpose if they thought fit. This property might have been acquired under the general Act, if it had not been found necessary to introduce other clauses into the present Bill. He thought the Vestry might be fairly entrusted with the decision of the question. The proposal of the hon. Member was that the course pursued in reference to Brixton Park should be adopted in this case. So far as he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was concerned, if he had been aware that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) intended to move an Instruction, he should have been prepared to oppose it. There had been several other cases for the purchase of land in the Metropolis which had been effected without appealing to the ratepayers. He thought the House, if it assented to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member, would be adopting a very bad practice and a very bad principle.