* THE EARL OF MEATHrepeated the question he had asked Her Majesty's Government a few days ago, whether it was a fact that they had offered the balance of the site of Millbank Prison, some 10 acres in extent, not required for the Tate Gallery or barracks, to the Loudon County Council as a site for artizans' dwellings, at the price of £2,500 per acre; whether this price was not considerably below market value; whether they were aware that the Local Authority of the district, the Westminster Vestry (St. Margaret and St. John) were 190 strongly averse to further building, and were anxious, on a basis not exceeding £4,000 per acre, to negotiate for the purchase of the land as a public open space, offering to subscribe one-fourth of the purchase money themselves, and to take steps to find the balance; whether, under these circumstances, the Government would withdraw their offer to the Loudon County Council of the land for building purposes, and offer it at the same price as an open space; and, if not, whether they were prepared to subsidise to a similar extent—namely, £1,500 per acre, other Public Bodies, Commercial Companies, or private individuals erecting dwellings for the working classes? He wished to call attention to strong evidence which be did not bring forward on the previous occasion showing that for many years past the local Vestry bad been exceedingly anxious to provide an op n space in the neighbourhood. Since 1860 they had spent some £22,600 on asphalting streets in their district, not large thoroughfares through which traffic would pass, but alloys and courts in which children might play. As a general rule, a man's bona fides in his profession of faith might be judged by the money value of his support of it, and the Vestry had clearly placed a considerable money value on their profession of faith with reference to the need for open spaces in their district. He therefore hoped for a favourable answer from Her Majesty's Government.
* LORD TEYNHAMsaid, the Government were offering this land to the London County Council at little more than half its value for a purpose which the Local Authorities considered not only unnecessary but undesirable, as the district was already overcrowded, and it, in fact, contained some of the worst slums in London. Probably no difficulty would be found in obtaining some of them for building purposes. As the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) said the other night, it was more important that people should have wholesome and decent dwellings than open spaces to take a walk in; but why should not they have both? Land for building purposes could easily be obtained, but another opportunity was not likely to occur of securing 10 acres for au open space in that neighbourhood. If this generous Government wished to aid the County 191 Council they might help them out of the Estimates in the usual way. This scheme would simply make the district more congested than ever, and was opposed to the particular fads of the Government—Local Option and Home Rule; for they were actually opposing the Local Authorities in the matter, and were thrusting down the throats of the people of Westminster what they did not want. Uncharitable people might say it was an attempt to make political capital out of the scheme by offering the laud at £1,500 per acre less than its value for buildings to be let in tenements to working men and turning them into red-hot Home Rulers and Progressives. The Government, by making such an extraordinary offer, were laying themselves open to such accusations. If the Loudon County Council were so wealthy as to be able to pay an enormous sum for an edifice in which to conduct their deliberations they should be able to pay a proper price for this land.
§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsaid, he hoped the noble Earl would not think him wanting in courtesy if his answer on behalf of the Government was somewhat short and concise. They attached primary importance to the application of this space to the building of artizans' dwellings, as indicated in the Act for the Housing of the Working Classes, 1885. He was not sure whether that was the Act to which the Marquess of Salisbury referred the other night when he said he had introduced a Bill in 1885 to give effect to the recommendation of the Dilke Commission, that land set free by the demolition of prisons (Millbank Penitentiary among them) should be disposed of as sites for artizans' dwellings. He twitted the Liberals with having strongly resisted the Bill, but that was not really the case.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe provisions for that purpose disappeared, did it not, as I stated?
§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDthought not, and that it was under that provision that the Government were now about to proceed. The Act received the Royal Assent on the 14th August, 1885.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI merely wish to explain what is my impression; but, of course, speaking from memory it is very likely I am wrong. My impression is that the measure, as it 192 was introduced into the House of Commons, contained a more distinct intimation that the land was to be disposed of at a favourable price, but that as it passed the House of Commons that provision was struck out. But it is mere recollection, and it is eight years ago.
§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDThe words in the Act are "at a fair market value."
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYExactly; but that was not in the original Bill.
§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsaid, that with the view of carrying that out the Government had offered the space to the County Council at the best price they could obtain in order to effect that purpose. The Government regarded this object, which was for the advantage of the working classes generally in the Metropolis, as more important even than the reservation of an open space for the use of a particular locality which was already supplied with such spaces. They, therefore, did not feel disposed to withdraw the offer they had made to the County Council. They had no such intention as that indicated in the last paragraph of the noble Earl's question.