§ Order for Consideration read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
§ MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)said, he rose for the purpose of moving the Amendment which stood in his name, and which was, in fact, to leave out Clause 15, which provided that the question of purchasing the land should be decided by a public meeting of ratepapers held in the Vestry Hall and presided over by the rector of the parish, after the necessary advertisement, unless at least one-fourth of those present should demand another, making requisite the approval of the ratepayers shown by a poll to be taken in the same way as under the Public Libraries Act, and re-insert in a clause which that House agreed to unanimously with the consent of all parties concerned in the matter.
§ THE CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)No; that is not quite accurate.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that his hon. Friend said that that was not quite accurate. He wished to be strictly accurate. The clause to which he wished to refer was agreed to by hon. Gentlemen opposite; at least no objection was taken to it, and there was no Division upon it.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to 1529 explain how the matter stood. He said that the clause he proposed to insert was agreed to. That was not the case. A certain proposal had been assented to, and that was embodied in the Bill as it stood.
§ MR. BROADHURSTbelieved his hon. Friend was technically right; but an Instruction was agreed to on that occasion, and the new clause he had now to propose would carry out that Instruction. The object of the clause was to provide that the question whether the Bill was to be adopted and the purchase of that plot of land assented to, should be submitted to the whole of the ratepayers, and not be decided by the Vestry or by a public meeting. So far as the clause was concerned, which had been inserted by the Committee after the Instruction he had alluded to was agreed to by all parties, he should have to ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he explained how the matter stood. He would state, as shortly as he could, the history of the Bill, and the reasons why he opposed it. Now the Bill related to a plot of ground on Brixton Hill, which was owned by a Vestryman, and the son of its owner was also, or had been, a Vestryman. The land was originally purchased for building purposes, no doubt with a view of bringing shop fronts up to the margin of the pavement. That House, in its great wisdom, in the early part of last year defeated a scheme which had for its object the breaking of a law in reference to property in that part of London, and which provided that within a certain distance of a main road no permanent building should be erected. They defeated a Bill which was introtroduced into that House for the purpose of breaking that law. The owner of the property immediately turned round when he saw there was no hope of the Bill being passed by that House, and got up an agitation for the purchase of the property for a park. It seemed to have been discovered at once, but not until after it became known that there was no prospect of passing the Bill, that this was an admirable place for a park, and an agitation was at once commenced at the instance, he believed, of the owners of the property, in order to induce the Lambeth Vestry to take steps for purchasing these 12½ acres of land for a park site. He wished hon. Members 1530 present to notice the fact that there were three acres of this ground which could not possibly be built upon, and which consisted of enclosed gardens, nor could any building be erected upon that ground. Therefore, all the calculations made as to its value were erroneous, because they had been based on the theory that the whole of the 12½ acres were available for building purposes; whereas three acres could not be touched, because they were protected by the Act he had already referred to—namely, the Rush-common Act. What happened after the agitation for the purchase of the property in order to convert it into a public park was this—There was another Vestryman who had a site for sale. He also seemed to have discovered that that part of Lambeth was very much in want of a park site. He (Mr. Broadhurst) had no doubt that Vestrymen who were landowners had very great sympathy for one another, and he had not the least doubt in his own mind that the Vestryman to whom he had referred took a course which best suited his own interests, and, consequently, he was desirous of securing the interests of a friend who was in a similar situation, and that, last of all, he took into consideration the necessities and requirements of the poor ratepayers of the parish. The first step taken in this case was the promotion of a Private Bill. It was presented to that House, promoted and petitioned against; but who were those who petitioned against it? He hoped hon. Members would mark this fact. Among the Petitions presented against the Bill, the chief Petition was one from the man who desired to sell the land. He petitioned the Committee, presumably, against the Bill; but his Petition had been rightly and properly described as a bogus Petition, because it was a Petition presented in order to mislead, and, no doubt, it did mislead, the House, although, happily, it did not deceive, because everything in relation to that particular Petition was discovered. The next step to take was to negotiate with the Metropolitan Board of Works. Now, there was a distinguished gentleman, an architect named Fowler, who represented one of the wards of Lambeth on the Lambeth Vestry, and represented Lambeth Vestry on the Board of Works. In consequence of certain statements, or revelations, which had been made, Mr. 1531 Fowler no longer represented Lambeth on the Vestry, and the Vestry had rejected him as their representative on the Metropolitan Board of Works. Consequently, that connection between the Lambeth Vestry and the Metropolitan Board of Works no longer existed, and another representative had been sent by the Vestry to the Board of Works in the place of Mr. Fowler. He came now to the question of the necessity of acquiring this land for the purposes of a public park, and he wished to point out to the House that although the site was a small one of 12½acres, about two acres of it were already built upon, and contained houses and gardens which could not be got rid of for some years, because there were 22 or more years lease yet to run. That meant a very small piece of land available for park purposes; and it was a piece of land which lay at right angles back from the main road, so that it presented itself in the form, as it were, of a hole in the wall—there was only one way in and one way out. Now, they were all in favour of open spaces where they were reasonable and required by the public, and where proper arrangements in every shape might be carried out. But as to the requirements of this particular parish—and he spoke as a friend of open spaces—they were far less than the requirements of other parishes. In that instance, the whole of the ratepayers of Lambeth were to be called upon to pay through their rents an exorbitant price for the purchase of this piece of land which was situated at the further end of the parish of Lambeth, where open spaces were least necessary than in any other part of the parish. If this were a space near the Westminster Bridge Road, they would all be at once prepared to support its conversion into a public park on account of the over crowded condition of the neighbourhood. But this neighbourhood was not over crowded. Unfortunately, he had not got the figures with him, but he read them to the House on the last occasion that that Bill was discussed, and he thought he said that there were only from 140 to 150 persons to a square mile. Certainly, that was not a very over crowded neighbourhood. In the next place, Clapham Common was within less than a mile of this very spot, and within one mile and 100 yards in another direction there was Tooting Common. 1532 Consequently there were two fine commons within easy walking distance of this wretched little plot of land for which the Vestry sought to extort an exorbitant price out of the pockets of the ratepayers. And what had been the means employed to bring this matter underneath the notice of the ratepayers? All sorts of schemes and plans had been adopted, one of which was the recognition of the Temperance League, who held a large meeting on this site on Whit Monday. Happily for his quietude and peace of mind, he was not at home on that day; but he was told that the temperance demonstration resulted nearly in a riot, and nearly everybody who attended it was exceedingly drunk, and that the whole scene was one of the wildest disorder that could be imagined. It disgusted the whole neighbourhood, and people came to the conclusion that if this piece of land were turned into a public park, it might on any day be employed for a similar purpose. It carried reason on the face of it, and he had no doubt it was drawn by the Committee without knowing much of the depth of cunning which animated the promoters of this scheme. The clause in its beautiful innocence said that—
The decision of the ratepayers is to be taken at public meetings assembled to be held at Brixton Hall, Acre Lane, after proper and necessary advertisement had been given, and is to be presided over by the rector of the parish.At that meeting, a resolution was to be submitted approving of the purchase of the said land, and the questionShall be decided by the majority of the ratepayers present and voting thereat; provided that not less than one-fourth of the ratepayers present, on the show of hands taken for the purpose, shall demand that such question be taken by a poll of the ratepayers, such poll to be taken in the same manner as under the Free Libraries Act.Perhaps he would be allowed to point out to the House that the promoters of the Bill were persons who had an interest in the sale of this piece of land. He was not saying whether they were actually to reap a profit or not; but they had a large interest in the Bill, which meant that if they were successful, they would obtain a profit of from £22,000 to £23,000. Now, was it to be supposed for a moment that in the hall holding only 600 or 700 ratepayers these persons, having £22,000 or £23,000 at stake, 1533 would not take care that the hall was thoroughly well packed and the meeting primed with the right sort of men to give the necessary vote when the resolution came to be submitted by the rector of the parish, who was to preside as ex-officio Chairman of the Vestry of the said parish. There could be no doubt that the hall would be packed and that those present would vote as they had been instructed and induced to vote by every means known to persons of that class. What he asked the House to do, in place of that clause, was to insert a clause which would give the right to the ratepayers of the whole parish to decide whether the park should be purchased or not—that was, that every ratepayer should have a paper left at his house and should vote in precisely the same manner as he would do in the case of the Free Libraries Act, saying "yea" or "nay" to the proposal. Surely, that was a proposal which hon. Gentlemen would agree to. Could anyone say that it was not a fair and reasonable proposal? The Vestry, by a majority of two to one, had decided against the proposal two or three times. An election had since taken place on which there was a considerable expenditure of money, and the result was that that majority had been reduced, but still there was a majority of the members of the Vestry against the Bill. He asked the House to secure to the ratepayers the right of saying whether this Bill should be passed into an Act, or whether it should not. He (Mr. Broadhurst) saw that his hon. Friend who sat for the division in which he lived was at that moment in his place. This plot of land was situated in the centre of the division his hon. Friend represented. He (Mr. Broadhust) did not think that his hon. Friend intended to support the Bill. On the contrary, he thought he was going to vote against it. He had only one other point. The completion of this scheme partly rested with the decision of the Metropolitan Board of Works. As he said earlier, the Metropolitan Board did, through the representative from the Lambeth Vestry, agree, under certain conditions with regard to the purchase, to subscribe £1,000 per acre; but he would ask the House whether it was right that the ratepayers of Lambeth should be left to the mercy of the Metropolitan Board under existing cir- 1534 cumstances. Why, the ratepayers of London were at that moment without a municipal government. They had no proper authority on which they could rely or in which they had confidence to protect them against jobbery and outrage. The Metropolitan Board of Works existed in law, but it did not exist in the confidence of the people of the Metropolis. He saw, and he was glad to see, that there were two Members of the Cabinet present. He would ask them and the Government to place themselves between those who were the lambs in this conspiracy and the wolves who were promoting it. He asked them to act as shepherds, because their natural shepherd had disgraced their standard and he trusted would soon be disestablished by law. Never was there a more unreasonable, a more unnecessary, or a more doubtfully promoted scheme submitted to the House of Commons for the so-called benefit of Lambeth than the Bill he was then opposing, and he appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject it. This was no Party question. There were no politics in it whatever. Some Conservatives were supporting it, and many were opposing it. Some Liberals were supporting it, and many were opposing it. He trusted that the House would protect the ratepayers, and insert the clause which stood on the Paper in his name in place of Clause 15, which he proposed to strike out.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out Clause 15, and insert the following Clause:—"The purchase of the said lands shall not be made until the opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth has been taken on the desirability of such purchase, by way of a poll of such ratepayers, such poll to be taken in the same manner and with the same incidents as to voting papers, expenses, and otherwise as a poll of ratepayers under The Public Libraries Act, 1855,' and the Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1877.' For the purpose of this section the expression 'ratepayer ' shall mean every person who will be liable to contribute towards any rate levied for the purpose of any expenditure or contribution by the Vestry under this Act."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
§ Clause (Approval of ratepayers) brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time.'
THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)said, the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broad- 1535 hurst), in his opening remarks, stated that he intended to give a short history of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member would permit him (the Marquess of Carmarthen) to give the House a short history of his action in regard to it. The hon. Member said that he was in favour of open spaces wherever they were needed and wherever they were necessary. But when this Bill came before the House on the first occasion he opposed it on three grounds. Firstly, because he maintained that it was a great piece of jobbery, although he produced absolutely no evidence whatever to make good that assertion in any way; secondly, because he thought the price proposed to be paid for the land was excessive, although evidence was brought before the Committee to show that, in the opinion of Messrs. Debenham and Mason, the eminent firm of auctioneers, the price was a very reasonable one indeed; and, thirdly, because there were houses upon it. The promoters suggested at the time the Bill was brought in that those houses might be kept up, and that arrangement made by which they could be utilized for the purpose of keeping up the park. The hon. Member, however, objected to that proposal, and to meet his objections the promoters withdrew that clause altogether. As the hon. Member very well knew, the houses to which he objected were only to stand until the lease expired, when they were to be pulled down, and there was a clause in the Bill which said that no house was to be re-erected. When these provisions were inserted in the Bill it was thought that they would draw the teeth of the hon. Gentleman's opposition, but it appeared now that his opposition was of a different character. He must confess that the course he had pursued was somewhat remarkable. If there was one scheme which he denounced more strongly than others it was the Vauxhall Park Bill; but where was his opposition now? It had vanished into thin air. His reasons, as he (the Marquess of Carmarthen) had explained, for opposing the Bill were that it was a piece of jobbery, that too great a price was to be paid for it, and that there were buildings upon it. One would certainly have thought that if his opposition was based on such grounds he would have had a word or two to say against the Vauxhall Park Bill, which 1536 was to acquire a site of only eight acres, whereas the site for the proposed Brixton Park was 12½ acres. He should certainly offer to the proposal of the hon. Member a strenuous opposition, because he regarded it as absolutely unnecessary. Certain Instructions were given by that House to the Committee on the last occasion that the Bill was under discussion, and the Committee, with those Instructions before them, inserted the clause which now stood in the Bill, which gave the ratepayers full control over the purchase of this piece of land. If the ratepayers were strongly opposed to the Bill, it was no great hardship to ask them to attend a public meeting and declare their views. The hon. Member said that Brixton Hall was only capable of holding 600 or 700 people. Perhaps his (the Marquess of Carmarthen's) experience was greater than that of the hon. Member. He was sure he had seen more than twice the number mentioned by the hon. Member assembled in that hall. [Mr. BROADHURST: Nothing of the kind.] For those reasons he wished to oppose the clause which had been submitted by the hon. Member. He considered it nothing more nor less than a direct attempt to wreck the Bill, and it was thoroughly characterized by the hon. Member's action throughout. The hon. Member never liked the Bill, but he never cared to get up in his place in that House and say so. He should undoubtedly divide against the Amendment, because he would be no party to saddling the ratepayers of the parish with the expense of opposing the Bill. He saw that the hon. Member was making signs to his hon. Friend the Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth (Mr. Bristowe), who was sitting on that side of the House, with a view of inducing him to get up in his place in opposition to him. He was afraid that his hon. Friend, whose constituency the future park was to serve, would have nothing to do with it. He feared that he was much more interested in another scheme which was not quite in so forward a stage. Nevertheless, his name appeared upon the back of the Bill. He sincerely trusted that the House would support him in opposing the clause.
§ MR. BRISTOWE (Lambeth, Norwood)said, his noble Friend (the Mar- 1537 guess of Carmarthen) had said that his (Mr. Bristowe's) name was on the back of the Bill. That was quite true, but he put his name on the Bill because he considered it his duty to do so, seeing that he represented the division in which the proposed park was situated. He was certainly not prepared to back up every word that had been stated by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Broadhurst) with reference to this part of Brixton in the division of Norwood not being in want of open spaces. He believed that open spaces were highly advantageous to all parts of London, and he was very much in favour of them. He was certainly not aware of the unseemly meeting which the hon. Member said took place on this piece of ground on Whit Monday. At the same time, he should go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend for this reason, and this reason only—that there was a strong feeling in the parish of Lambeth in regard to this question of the purchase of the park. He, therefore, did not think that any arrangement should be entered into, except with the consent of the ratepayers generally. On the 30th of April a Petition was presented to that House in reference to the Vauxhall Park Bill, which ran on all fours with that scheme from the Lambeth Vestry, asking that the matter should be decided by the ratepayers. Since then there had been another election, and nothing had taken place to alter the decision of the Vestry with regard to that Bill. The question, therefore, should be left to be settled by the ratepayers themselves. Now, he considered that what had taken place with regard to the Vauxhall Park Bill applied also to Brixton, where the feeling undoubtedly ran high. At the last meeting of the Board, on the 14th of June, several divisions upon this question took place, and the voting was in one case 49 to 48, in another 53 to 52, and in a third 51 to 50. Therefore, although he was in favour of open spaces, and his hon. Friend was perfectly aware of that, seeing that the feeling of the parish ran so high, and taking into consideration that the Vestry did not wish to have this power thrown on them, but desired that it should be placed in the hands of the ratepayers, he supported the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend opposite. Perhaps he might have a little more respect for the Vestry 1538 than his hon. Friend had. At all events, they were the representative Body of the parish of Lambeth, and he considered that he was only acting in accordance with their wishes and what he believed to be the feelings of the ratepayers of the parish, if he went into the Lobby with his hon. Friend, with a view of throwing the responsibility of the purchase upon the ratepayers.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, ho wished to make the House acquainted with the exact point which was to be considered. His hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) had posed before the House as a lamb. Now, in the days of Mr. Bernal Osborne, the House used to hear about the Nottingham lambs, but they were always supposed to be able to take care of themselves. He had no doubt that his lion. Friend, one of the present Members for the borough, was quite able to take care of himself. Whatever amount of accuracy there might be in the allegation that the price to be paid for the park was excessive, or that the feeling in Lambeth was against the purchase, none of these questions were involved in the issue before the House. His hon. Friend made many objections to the second reading of the Bill, and ho would make similar objections now. The Bill, however, was read a second time, and no step was ever taken to bring before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, the allegations which were made on the second reading by the hon. Member. Surely, that House was not a proper tribunal for inquiring into the accuracy of the statements of the hon. Member. The issue before the House was simply this—The Bill had been read a second time, referred to a Committee, and in accordance with a Resolution and Instruction passed by the House, the Committee put into the Bill a provision to enable the votes of the ratepayers, if necessary, to be taken, and the only question now was, in which of two ways should the opinion of the ratepayers be taken upon the question of the purchase. The question of the propriety of the purchase itself was not raised; but the question which was raised was, what guarantee they could have that the ratepayers of Lambeth were in favour of the purchase. In the absence of any opposition, the Committee, before whom the Bill went 1539 as an unopposed measure, endeavoured to carry out the desire of the House, and provided that the scheme should not be carried out unless the resolution, which must first of all be taken by the Vestry, was brought before a public meeting of the ratepayers. If such public meeting of the ratepayers decided in favour of the purchase, even then the thing was not complete, if one-fourth of those present demanded a poll. But if the opposition at a public meeting did not amount to one-fourth, then the decision of the public meeting would be held sufficient to ratify the decision of the Vestry. His hon. Friend, on the other hand, wished to have the whole parish put to the expense of a poll, even, though, at a public meeting, especially convened for the purpose, there should not be one-fourth of those present objecting to the scheme. It must also be remembered that this was a very large parish extending from beyond Brixton down to Westminster Bridge. Now, he confessed, that it was a serious matter to go beyond the representative authority of the parish at all, and many Members objected to it on principle; but inasmuch as the House decided that there should be a reference beyond the Vestry, the Committee put in a clause embodying a reference first to a public meeting and then to the ratepayers at large. His hon. Friend insisted that the proper course was to appeal to the ratepapers, even, although, more than three-fourths of those present at the public meeting were in favour of the scheme. Now, if it be true that at that moment the Vestry itself was opposed to the Bill, was it conceivable that the promoters of the scheme would succeed in getting a public meeting, presided over by the rector of the parish, so packed that the opponents of the Bill would not be able to number one-fourth of those present. He certainly thought that they would expose the ratepayers of Lambeth, or any other parish, to very great hardship if they were to insist upon saddling them with the expense of a poll taken for so large a parish, when the Vestry were opposed to the scheme and a public meeting was to be called for an express purpose of giving a decision by a majority of three to one. That was the whole point. If a public meeting decided by three to one, then the matter 1540 was complete. He did not think they ought to put the parish to the expense of a poll in opposition to the wishes of three-fourths of the ratepayers assembled at a public meeting. He confessed that that was not a reasonable proposition, and he asked the House to reject it.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)asked, might ho point out, in answer to the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Courtney), that he had a considerable natural distrust of the operation of these public meetings. In this case, the ratepayers of Lambeth were threatened to be saddled with an enormous burden of taxation for the purchase of that park, and it was alleged that the sum to be paid for the land was greatly in excess of what it ought to be. He should certainly be disinclined to accept the opinion expressed at a public meeting as the ultimate decision of a parish, because it was perfectly well known that that test had been applied in other cases, and had been found wanting. He thought it would be far better in this case to adopt the course which was pursued in connection with another important matter—namely, the establishment of free libraries. In that case, if there was a difference of opinion, it was competent for a small minority to force a ballot upon the parish, and have a poll taken for the purpose of ascertaining what were the wishes of the ratepayers. It appeared to him, therefore, that the lion. Member for West Nottingham was strictly following a precedent which had been long accepted by the House and the country, in asking that a similar method of ascertaining the wishes of the ratepayers should be adopted on that occasion. He was not, for the moment, going to suggest that any public meeting which might be held on that occasion would be packed or otherwise, but it was a matter of general experience that meetings of that kind had proved very unsatisfactory. Many people were not able to attend them, and many who did attend were unable to give a satisfactory expression to their views. He thought it was worthy of the consideration of the House whether, in view of the County Council which was proposed to be established for the Metropolitan area, and the municipal duties which were about to be conferred upon the 1541 Metropolis, it would not be wise and beneficial to the people of Brixton to allow this important question to be decided by that newly constituted authority when it was called into existence, rather than have it thrust on them at the hands of a moribund authority which was certainly not a representative authority. It must be fully borne in mind that if that park was purchased, the burden of taxation in the parish would be greatly increased. He thought the principle he suggested had invariably been acted upon in connection with Acts of Parliament passed by that House, and he trusted that it would be adopted here. He was sure that it was a suggestion worthy of consideration.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was sorry to find himself in conflict with his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham. Ho fully recognized his efforts in reference to the open spaces, and he regretted, therefore, on the present occasion, to find that he could not concur with the views he had expressed. But in all these cases he was opposed to a reference to the ratepayers. As, however, the House gave an Instruction to that effect to the Committee, he had not objected. In the case of Vauxhall Park, if he had been present, he should certainly have opposed the provision which was inserted in the Bill to that effect; but he had not thought it right to propose that the Bill should be altogether rejected on the third reading. He thought that the course suggested by the Chairman of Committees would, to a great extent, remedy the evils which had been pointed out; and he thought that, on the whole, the House would act wisely in agreeing to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and in not adopting that which his hon. Friend proposed to substitute. His only object in rising then was to protest against the insertion in future of clauses of the kind.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 172: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
§ Bill to be read the third time.