The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-30 00:00:00

FINSBURY PARK.

The report from the Streets Committee, submitting a
plan of Finsbury Park, showing the proposed arrangement
of building sites on the 20 acres of land which the board
are empowered to dispose of for building purposes, and
recommending the Board to approve the same, was further
considered. To this recommendation Mr. Savage had
moved the following amendment :
" That inasmuch as the Board have limited their pur-
chase of the land for the purpose of Finsbury-park to 120
acres, instead of taking the 250 acres authorised by the
20th and 21st Vic., cap.lso, no portion of the land so taken
be let or sold, but that the whole be devoted for the health
and recreation of the public."
Mr. Shaw, in resuming the debate, said ho should be
very glad if the people of Finsbury should have a park of
500 acres, or ono as largo as Hyde-park, if the rest of the
inhabitants of the metropolis were not to be called upon
to pay for it. He hoped the Board would retain full 20
acres of land for building purposes, so that they could to
that extent repay themselves, and therefore he strongly
supported the recommendation of the committee.
Mr. T URNER said, while he was at all times willing to sup-
port the recommendations of the committee when ho could
do so, and also to consider the interests of the ratepayers,
he was quite at a loss to understand how buildings could
be set up on two strips of land on each side of this park
without those buildings being a great detriment to the
rest of it. Were the recommendation of the committee to
be adopted, the approach to this park would be like the
neck of a bottle or the nozzle of a pair of bellows. If the
part next to the Seven Sisters-road were to bo built upon
they would lose the advantage of an approach at both ends,
and it would be a serious detriment to the park to have
a belt of houses between it and the Seven Sisters-road.
With the view of giving the fullest effect to the intentions
of the Legislature, ho should support the amendment of
Mr. Savage.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR said that this is a question that was
not now before the board for the first time, and it was also
one that could not be dealt with offhand. He should take
the course ho had hitherto consistently pursued, and con-
tended that the ratepayers of the metropolis should not be
taxed for the formation of parks in the locality of London
at all, and until the board took upon themselves this duty
tho Government selected the sites for parks, and they pro-
vided Hyde-park and the Green-park without any expense
whatever to the people of London. Very recently they had
formed a park which was a great boon to the inhabitants of
the cast end of London, entirely at the cost of the Legisla-
ture, but by the coarse the board had taken they had per-
mitted the Consolidated Fund to be relieved of this ex-
pense, and they had thrown it upon the ratepayers.
t tPhaerrlei
faomr
ee ni
it Was
h ad
notgiN'e-anvp,oi
uwnetra
rtyo
the ll
Bh eo
aCriclA tionnmi Aa
kN es;iadrkt that
a;
act on their part, but was a duty passed upon them by the
Legislature.
Mr. TAYLOR continued, and said the Board were willing-
to grasp at overything, and it had entailed upon them an
enormous cost. Parliament had allowed them to purchase
sites of land, but the localities where those parks were to
be formed were not to pay for them, and the cost of them
was to be thrown upon the ratepayers of the whole metro-
polis. There was not only the cost of the purchase, but
1
there would be the expense of the maintenance, which
would involve the employment of upwards of 50 gardeners,
park-keepers, and other officers. The meddling of the
Board in such matters had involved them in an expendi-

tura of thousands a year. He did not begrudge Finsbury
a park, but ho should have thought that Finsbury, which
talked so much about the advantages of self-government,
would have taken the maintenance of it into its own hands.
This was not self-government, but centralisation, and tho
project of Sir Benjamin Hall was a myth. Under these
circumstances, and to make the matter as little of an evil
as possible, he should support the recommendation of the
committee.

Mr. LEGG supported the recommendation of the com-
mittee.

Mr. BRUSHFIELD believed that if the Board allowed
houses to be built near this park it would be a great evil.
Mr. HALL said it was a farce and a mockery to call this

"Finsbury Park," as it was only a stone's-throw from the
boundary of it, and tho bulk of the poorer inhabitants were
not within three miles of it. As regarded Victoria Park,
tho Government, in devoting 250 acres to it, reserved the
right to appropriate 50 acres of it to building purposes, and
took powers to appropriate 20 acres of Battersea Park. if
they gave 100 acres for a park at Finsbury, he thought they
would act most liberally towards the inhabitants, and ho
hoped the report of the committee would be carried by a
large majority.
Mr. TITE, M.P., hoped, if the thing was to be done at
all, it would be done handsomely ; and by not damaging
the park by buildings their kindness would bo appreciated
by the people of Finsbury.
Mr. Rocun hoped that Finsbury would be put in posses-
sion of this park without any buildings whatever being put
upon it.

Mr. DALTON said it was his opinion that the support of
parks should bo derived from such portions of the land as
could bo spared being devoted to building purposes.

Mr. WESTERTON said if this was a matter which affected
Finsbury alone, it would be all very well; it was one that
affected the whole of the metropolis. Now, as to the size
of the proposed park, he found that the Green Park con-
tained only 58 acres, and St. James's Park 61 acres, so that
together they eoktained only 119 acres, while they proposed
to give Finsbury 100 acres. Ho asserted that was a very
noble thing, and believed that thepeople of Finsbury would
bo deeply indebted to the board foi its liberality.
Mr. DOULTON, M.P., supported the original motion, and
mentioned that the proposed park for the densely-populated
district of Bermondsey was only 60 acres.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question, and the amend-
ment was negatived by a majority of 26 to 15.

Mr. SAUNDERS then moved another amendment, to the
effect that only 10 acres of land should be sold for building
purposes.
Mr EVANS seconded the amendment.
This led to a further discussion, but eventually the
amendment was negatived bp a majority of 23 to 17.
The original motion was then put and agreed to.
The Chief Engineer (Mr. Bazalgette) having read his
usual report, some routine business was transacted, and
the board adjourned.