The criticisms hitherto passed on Earl Spencer's " Wimbledon Park
Bill" (read a first time in the Commons) are fully justified by the alterations which, as appears by a " second series " of " Further papers relating to the improvement of Wimbledon Park," his Lordship is already prepared to make in his measure. The word " park" has " thoroughly misled people," and is to be omitted throughout. Instead of a single interested autocrat, there are to be three trustees. The lord of the manor's claim of unlimited right to turf-cutting is to be given up, his rights of digging and selling gravel are to be limited, a large portion of the proceeds of the land, instead of going into his pocket is to be impressed with a trust for maintaining the common. There are to be no internal inclosures, no sweeping improvements. The shabby claim of exemption from rating on the future improved value of the land is dropped. The lord's rights, instead of being assumed, are to be proved. Finally, though clinging still to the external inclosure, his Lordship seems willing to refer even this to the decision of Parliament. The question therefore between him and the public seems in the main narrowed to this,--shall there be an inclosure, necessitating sales of land and the consequent contraction of the present area of the com- mon, or shall there be no inclosure and no sale? A second public meeting of the inhabitants of Putney and one of the inhabitants of Wimbledon, both held on Wednesday evening last, were equally unanimous against both.
Previous page
