HOLYROOD PARK BILL. (Hansard, 10 August 1843)

§ Mr. W. Williams

stated, that the 30,674l. to be paid to the Earl of Haddington for his right of pasturage of the park would be equal to thirty-nine years' purchase, while only thirty years' purchase was asked. It appeared by returns that the average net rental of the pasturage for ten years, from 1830 to 1839, was 780l. 9s. 2d. at twenty-five years' purchase, which he thought too much, as it was admitted that it had of late years been gradually declining in value, and for that reason, no doubt, the rental of the last three years had not been given; the amount would be 19,500l., being 11,170l. less than the sum to be paid by the bill before the House. Would any one dispute this to be a gross job? It was pretended the money was to be paid out of the Crown property; but the Crown surrendered all its property to the public in consideration of receiving the civil list and provision for the royal family. The payment in fact would come out of the taxes paid by the distressed people of this country, and for what object?—to make a park for the people of Edinburgh. From the Crown Lands, the rental of the last three years was, on an average, 426,200l. and the expenditure was 201,400l., nearly one-half. He contended that Lord Haddington had forfeited the grant by turning the contents of the sewers of Edinburgh into the Royal Park, to increase the rental for the pasturage; quarrying stone, and selling water to the brewers, for which he had received large sums of money which it was admitted he was not entitled to. There were already thirteen royal parks to maintain, which, with ten royal palaces, gardens, stables, dogs, and kennels, had cost the country during the last five years, according to returns for which he had moved, a sum of not less than 686,990l., or annually, on an average, 137,380l. He thought the Government ought to be satisfied with this enormous waste of public money, especially when seven millions of the people were said to rejoice in potatoes and oatmeal. The increase of the expenditure on those objects year after year was quite astounding. The expenditure of 1838, 89,800l.; 1839, 98,800l.; 1840, 135,000l.; 1841, 143,200l.; 1842, 151,000l.; making a total of 617,900l. 489 The Earl of Haddington had already received 30,000l. of the public money, and after laying out another large sum in turning this park into a free public place of resort, which would require some 3,000l. or 4,000l. per annum to keep up, the Earl of Haddington would in all probability resume the post of ranger with all the advantages attending it. The honourable Member concluded by moving that the report be received that day six months.

The Earl of Lincoln

said, that the amount stated by the hon. Member as the cost of the public parks was swollen by the unwarrantable introduction of sums which in no way belonged to the permanent expenditure. With reference to the arrangement under discussion—although, in his opinion, it was one of great public utility—it had not originated with the present Government, but with Lord Duncannon, by whom it was advanced so far that even had it not been so desirable in itself as it was, it would have been difficult to break it off. As to the suggestion that when the park was laid out as a place of public resort, Lord Haddington, or some other favoured person, would be named ranger, with a salary and other advantages, the possibility of any such arrangement was precluded by words which he had introduced into the bill, in committee, which provided that no person should be appointed ranger of this park, or, at least, that no salary should be paid to such ranger if appointed. The Earl of Haddington had as clear a right to the property in this park as any gentleman in the House had to his property. The greatest pains had been taken by the Government throughout the transaction to ascertain the exact claim that Lord Haddington had to this property; and although, no doubt, his right to it was of an anomalous kind, yet some of the highest legal authorities in Scotland, to whom the case in all its bearings had been submitted, as the case of a disputed title, were unanimous in declaring that the noble Earl's right to this park was as clear and indisputable as that of any person in the country to his private estate. The amount which was to be paid to the noble Lord was only twenty-seven years' purchase. This arrangement would involve no sacrifice of public money, while it would effect a great public advantage, by throwing open to general use a park which had been hitherto monopolized by a few graziers.

List of the AYES.
Allix, J. P.	Hamilton, G. A.
Baring, H. B.	Henley, J. W.
Blackburne, J. I.	Hope, G. W.
Blake, M. J.	Howard, P. H.
Bodkin, W. H.	Kirk, P.
Boldero, H. G.	Lincoln, Earl of
Borthwick, P.	Lockhart, W.
Damer, hon. Col.	Lowther, J. H.
Darby, G.	Mackenzie, T.
Denison, E. B.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Douglas, Sir H.	Marsham, Visct.
Duncan, G.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Eliot, Lord	O'Conor Don
Flower, Sir J.	Palmer, G.
Forester, hn. G. C. W.	Polhill, F.
Forman, T. S.	Ross, D. R.
Fuller, A. E.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Trotter, J.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Wood, B.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Yorke, H. R.
Greene, T.	TELLERS.
Gregory, W. H.	Clerk, Sir G.
Grogan, E.	Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.
Brotherton, J.	Plumridge, Capt.
Crawford, W. S.	TELLERS.
Hindley, C.	Williams, W.
Peel, J.	Wawn, J. T.