HC Deb 07 March 1898 vol 54 cc836-7
MR. H. C. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, with regard to the purchase for the completion of the Postmen's Park, it is proposed that the Post Office authorities should be relieved from their obligation to pay £200 a year and instead contribute £150 a year for the maintenance of the park; whether the Treasury contribution of £5,000 would be diminished by the capitalised value of the gain arising out of the reduced amount of the annual payment by the Post Office; and whether the total net balance of contribution made by the Treasury and the Post Office towards the purchase and maintenance of the Postmen's Park by direct payment and in the capitalised value of the annual payment taken altogether would be about, or less than, £3,000.


The Post Office authorities are not under an obligation to pay £200 a year as stated in the Question. They pay £100 a year to the City Parochial Trustees, in consideration of certain important easements of light, air, and passage over the land in Little Britain. The contribution from the public purse offered towards the acquisition of this land was £7,500, not £5,000. The original proposal was that in consideration of finding this amount the Post Office should cease to pay the £100 a year, and should receive from the City Parochial Trustees the sum of £100 a year. The garden was to be maintained by the parish of St. Botolph out of their own funds. Since this was agreed to an attempt has been made to make the Government responsible for the maintenance, at a cost of £150 a year; and to this new and onerous condition the Treasury, as I have already stated, are unable to assent.


Will the right hon. Gentleman state how the Treasury claim the right to £200 a year, when they do not pay the £100 a year in respect of the light easements? And—


Order, order! The hon. Member is now putting what is really an argument.