HC Deb 31 March 1862 vol 166 cc303-23

House in Committee.

MR. MASSEY in the Chair.

(1.) £33,583, Royal Palaces,

MR. W. EWART

said, that it was his opinion that many of the works of art at present in Hampton Court Palace ought to be removed nearer London, where they would be more accessible to the artists of the country. He also thought that copies of them might be taken and distributed through the chief towns of the country. As they were circumstanced at present they were in considerable danger of being destroyed by fire.

LORD. WILLIAM GRAHAM

said, it appeared from the Vote that money had been paid for cleaning pictures at Hampton Court Palace. He wished to ask what pictures had been subjected to such treatment, and why a practice which had been given up at the National Gallery was still adopted at Hampton Court Palace?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he felt much disappointed that no general explanatory statement had been made by the Secretary of the Treasury in bringing forward the Civil Service Estimates. Such a statement was due both to the House and the country, and was all the more necessary as the Committee was now asked, for the first time, to consider a particular part of those Estimates without having the entire series before it. They were not even furnished with a general abstract of the whole of the accounts to guide them. Besides, many of the Votes in Class No. 1, which they were discussing, were connected with Votes in other classes, and particularly with those in Class 4; and without having the whole of the Estimates before them they could not judge accurately of the expenditure they were sanctioning. The utter want of method in the preparation of the Estimates rendered it almost impossible to tell what was the total sum required for each different establishment, some items being lumped together where they ought to be separated, and others, which ought to be brought together under one view, being scattered up and down through the whole group of Estimates. It was, therefore, most difficult to get at the entire amount of Expenditure under a particular head, or to institute a true comparison between one year and another. On the face of the Estimates there appeared to be a saving on the charge for Class 1, Public Works and Buildings, that charge being this year £700,000 in round numbers, as against £834,000 the last year. On examining the figures, however, more closely, it would seem that the amount this year would be at least £750,000 instead of £700,000; the former sum being the amount of expenditure sanctioned, while the latter only represents the money voted, the difference being made up by the Balances in hand to the credit of these various works. There was a sort of caprice, too, in the way in which the particulars of different Votes were stated. Very full details were given of certain small items, while, in regard to larger items, the Committee were expected to be content merely with the total sums. In short the Estimates were drawn up in the most confused, heterogeneous, and imperfect manner, and he must earnestly press upon the Government the adoption of a clearer, more intelligible, and more orderly arrangement.

MR. PEEL

said, that the Government had been anxious to lay all the Miscellaneous Estimates before the House at the earliest possible day, but accuracy was quite as important as despatch, and it was impossible that they should undergo the revision of the Treasury, and yet be produced at an earlier period. It had not been usual for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a general statement upon the Civil Service Estimates corresponding to the statement of the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary to the Admiralty. The reason was that there was no connection between the different classes of Votes, nor did they hang together, like the Estimates of the army and navy. For the last year or two the practice had been to make certain reductions from the Votes in respect of the Estimates of the coming year, on account of balances remaining over from the previous year. The hon. Member was not without the means of making a comparison between the proposed expenditure of that and former years, and he would find the comparison favourable to the present year. The aggregate of Class 1 of the Estimates of last year, irrespective of the deductions of the surpluses of former grants, was £962,666. The detailed Estimate of the same class of the present year was only £750,215, showing a reduction of £212,451. There was a small deduction of surpluses this year amounting to £55,000. The deduction last year on account of balances was £128,000. The real decrease therefore, was £212,451 on Class 1, although apparently it amounted only to £139,451, in consequence of the Exchequer balance taken in diminution of the Votes for 1862–3 being so much less than for the year 1861–2.

COLONEL FRENCH

But are these real balances, such as can be made available for the service of the coming year?

MR. PEEL

They are sums that are called balances, and are the unexhausted remains of the Votes of last year. During the coming year the balances will be surrendered to the Exchequer.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

Will that apply strictly to the next year?

MR. PEEL

Yes.

MR. ROGERS

said, he wished to ask whether the cartoons in Hampton Court Palace were insured against fire?

MR. COWPER

said, it had not been the practice to insure Government property, but every precaution was taken against fire. With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord W. Graham), a sum of £475 was taken for cleaning and varnishing the pictures and cartoons at Hampton Court. The cleaning would be executed under the direction of Mr. Redgrave, superintendent of the Royal pictures, by the most competent persons. The pictures at Hampton Court had not been touched for many years, and many were perishing for want of varnish, and were obscured by the dirt on the surface. The cleaning of these pictures was a delicate matter, and Mr. Redgrave would be responsible for the manner in which it was done. The great cartoons of Raphael were already under glass, and those of Andrea de Mantegna would soon be similarly protected. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. Ewart) had suggested that the cartoons of Raphael should be brought to London; but at present there was no edifice to contain them. When the enlargement of the National Gallery took place, there would be, he trusted, ample accommodation for the proper exhibition of the cartoons, and it would then be desirable that works of art which were without parallel should be rendered accessible and brought to the metropolis.

MR. C0NINGHAM

said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that if he wanted space for the cartoons, he had only to turn the Royal Academy out of the National Gallery, and then he would find plenty of room. He was sorry to hear that picture-cleaning was recommencing in the public galleries. It was proved a few years ago that the pictures at the National Gallery had sustained great injury from the process of cleaning, and if the pictures at Hampton Court were exposed to similar treatment, they would be irreparably damaged. He had often thought that the health of the people would be improved if all allopathic doctors were abolished, and was similarly convinced that art would be greatly advantaged by the abolition of picture-cleaners.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he saw that the probable surplus of former grants under the Vote was estimated at £10,000. He wished to ask, whether that was the total of the surpluses of several years?

MR. COWPER

said, that the balance in the Exchequer of the Vote for 1861–2 was £34,000. Of that sum £10,000 might be treated as a surplus, and would not be wanted. The House would not be asked to vote that amount again. The balance arose from the great economy of the department.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

remarked, that if that were true, the Estimate seemed to have been an extravagant one.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

Said, that the balance arose from the change of system, consequent upon carrying into effect the recommendation that had so long been made in regard to surpluses. The sums referred to were not proofs of extravagance, but were sums which had been voted before for services which had not yet been paid for.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he had expected an explanation from the Treasury bench, but the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had, no doubt, given the real explanation. They were not payments in the course of the year, and how could there be an economy?

MR. COWPER

said, that by the exercise of economy the whole amount estimated had not been expended.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £89,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he wished to call attention to the large amount of rent paid by the Government for public offices. The sum had increased from £25,000 last year to £26,900 in that year. If the Committee would look through the list of public offices, they would find the Government rented buildings all over the West-end, which entailed a great deal of inconvenience upon those having business to transact with them. That sum of money represented the interest of £900,000, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) whether he could not devise some better mode of expending the public money?

MR. CHILDERS

said, he had to complain that the Government had separated from the War Office the fortification branch of that office, and had taken for it rooms which cost the country £1,312 a year. He thought that system led to very great extravagance, and he wished to know whether the offices would be retained permanently or not, or whether there would be a concentration of all the offices under the War Department?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

observed, that in the Civil Service Estimates were many charges which ought properly to appear in the Military Estimates. Chelsea Hospital, the Royal Military Asylum, and the Tower of London were instances; as also the items for coals and furniture for offices connected with the military branches.

MR. COWPER

said, he could not admit that the arrangement of the Estimates was justly open to criticism. He did not think the expenses mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Smith) could fairly be includ- ed in the Army Estimates. The Fortification Branch had been placed in Victoria Street, because there was not room for it at Pall Mall, but the arrangement was expected to be but temporary. With respect to hiring houses for temporary purposes, that was more economical than purchasing expensive sites and crecting costly buildings; but in respect to some of the offices it would, perhaps, be better to have permanent buildings.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he wished to ask whether, as they expected to have a good many foreigners in London during the year, it would not be possible to give the fountains in Trafalgar Square a better appearance than they then presented in spouting forth hot water, which emitted clouds of vapour, and prevented no beauty of the fountains from being seen.

MR. LOCKE

said, he would also suggest that a better supply of water should be provided for the fountains. Those fountains had been a laughing-stock to foreigners, and during the time of the Exhibition it would be much better that they should not be allowed to play, unless they were to be more sportive than they had hitherto been. It was admitted on all hands that they were the most outrageous failures ever attempted in this country.

MR. COWPER

said, he quite agreed that the fountains were in a condition that Englishmen might well be ashamed of. But he would venture to promise that in the month of May they would be such as every Englishman would be proud of. The House was good enough last year to vote a gum of money for increasing the supply of water for the fountains. Works for that purpose were in progress, and the new jets with which he proposed to fill the surface of the basins would produce a very ornamental effect. The water which supplied the fountains was, for economy's sake, water which had been used in the condensing part of the engine, and which was thereby raised to a very considerable heat. It was then sent out to cool as a fountain, and again returned to the condensing part of the engine.

MR. HUNT

said, he wished to call attention to three items—£700 for the Stationery Office in Prince's Street, Westminster; £110 for the "late Stationery Office," Great Newport Street; and £205 for "late ditto" in Gate Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. He wished to know whether the public was paying for those three offices?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he was anxious for some information with regard to what was called "the new State Paper Office." As he understood, what was really a new building, and had coat between £40,000 and £50,000, was going to be pulled down. He therefore wished to know what was to be the sum total of the change; what was to become of the records while a new building was being provided, and what would the entire cost be? What would the public get out of it for £120,000?

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that some explanation was required in respect of the item of £1,094 for the Queen's Prison. He believed that all the persons who had occupied that prison had been sent about their business. What then was going to be done with the building? There was also an item of £900, rent of a house in St. James's Square for the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners. The; work of that Commission had been reduced; to nothing, and yet there were three Commissioners. There was another item to; which, in his opinion, there was so much objection that he should move its rejection. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £680, the rent of a house for the Ecclesiastical Commission.

MR. COWPER

said, he deeply deplored the necessity of pulling down the State Paper Office. The fact was, however, that the site which had been obtained for he new Foreign Office and the new India Office could not be made available unless that step was taken. It was true that the existing State Paper Office had cost about £40,000; but in reality it was not at present worth more than half that sum, as a large portion of that expenditure had been incurred from a want of the knowledge of the use of concrete in laying the foundations of a building upon so treacherous a soil. The new India Office would be erected on the very spot occupied by the State Paper Office, and it would be impossible to make its elevation harmonize with the rest of the proposed new edifice. The "late Stationery Offices" to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) had referred had been taken by the Government on lease, and could not be given up till the lease was expired, but they were let at the same: sums as those set down in the Votes. In reference to the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners, he had to observe that many additional duties had of late years been thrown upon them, and that at present they had a great deal of work to perform as Inclosure Commissioners. An objection had also been made to the payment of the sum for a house for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But the House of Commons had in previous years decided that those Commissioners performed duties of a public character which justified that expenditure; and it should also be borne in mind that only one quarter of the rent in that case was paid by the public.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he believed that was the last time the Committee would be culled upon to Vote any sum on account of the Queen's Prison, Since the passing of the new Bankruptcy Act a great reduction had taken place in the number of prisoners confined for debt, and arrangements were being made for the purpose of removing all the remaining prisohers in the Queen's Prison to Whitecross Street Prison. When those arrangements were completed, a Bill would be submitted to Parliament authorizing a sale of the Queen's Prison.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he wished to ask, where the public records would be removed to when the State Paper Office would be pulled down? At present a large portion of the public records were stowed away in houses in Chancery Lane, which were in a very dilapidated condition, and by no means such as any gentleman would choose for his private papers.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he would ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought he was doing wisely in paying a rental of £27,000 a year, instead of concentrating these offices? It might, indeed, be better to continue to pay that rental, rather than erect new buildings in the style of the Foreign Office; but he believed that a building, modest in its elevation, but sufficiently commodious to accommodate the whole of these offices, might be constructed at a cost, in the shape of annual interest on outlay, of not more than half the sum now paid as rental.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he wished to ask, whether the plan of extending the buildings of the Admiralty, by taking a portion of the houses in New Street, Spring Gardens, was to be carried into effect, or whether it might be considered that the notices served on the owners of these houses had been withdrawn?

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he wanted to call attention to an item of £1,000 for the expense of a fire-engine station for the protection of the public buildings; and asked whether the Government intended to establish a fire brigade system of their own before the Report of the Committee which had been appointed on this subject?

MR. BARROW

said, he wished to know whether there was any prospect of the abolition of the Tithe and Inclosure Commission? He could see no necessity for its continuance.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that further duties besides those of acting as Inclosure Commissioners were thrown upon the original Tithe Commission. They were employed in all cases in which public money was advanced, or when public Companies received Loans from Government under Acts of Parliament. A Bill would be submitted to Parliament in the course of the present Session for the renewal of the Commission, and then opportunity would be afforded for discussing its duties and the utility of continuing it.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he observed that the amount of the entire Vote was £103,942 8s., but he feared the result of the discussion would not lead even to the reduction of the Vote by the odd eight shillings. He should be glad if an hon. Member familiar with the subject would move the reduction of some item; but if he attempted to do so, the manner in which the Votes were asked caused him terror lest he should make an awkward mistake. For instance, the Vote for the supply of water to the fountains in Trafalgar Square was included in the sum of £3,000 asked for the supply of water to the Houses of Parliament and the public buildings. He feared, if he asked the reduction of that Vote, he would be the means of cutting off their own supply of water. There was one Vote which required explanation—it was the sum of £50 for rent of stables for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These must be only the stables for a pony; and if he succeeded in knocking off that £50, it would pay, at least, for the gas spent during the last two hours of useless debate. He would, therefore, ask why any, and if any, why such a sum of money was Voted to accommodate the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

MR. COWPER

said, that stables had been attached to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's official residence in Downing Street; and as that building had been given up for public purposes, it became necessary to rent stables in Middle Scotland Yard. With respect to the houses in New Spring Gardens, he had to state that they would not be required at present, as the decision in reference to the scheme for the extension of the Admiralty had been postponed until the following year. The charge of £1,000 for fire-engines had been introduced before the Committee to inquire into the state of the measures adopted for the extinction of fires in the Metropolis had been appointed. The present arrangements made by the Fire Brigade with respect to the public buildings were not of a satisfactory character. At an interview he had held with the representatives of the Brigade, he had asked them whether they were prepared to establish a station nearer to Whitehall, the Houses of Parliament, and Buckingham Palace; but he was told that stations were formed where it was the interest of the Insurance Companies to place them with reference to insured property; that it was not their interest to place one near the Public Offices; but that they would do so if the public would defray the first expense and some portion of the annual cost. It was under these circumstances that the charge of £1,000 in the Estimates was incurred for the first cost of establishing a station in the neighbourhood of Whitehall. He had only to add that no permanent measure would be adopted upon that subject until the Committee, to which he referred, should have made their Report.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth, as he objected to finding offices for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought it desirable that the Commission should be abrogated; it would be an advantage to the Church if that were done.

MR. A. MILLS

said, that the Commission was created by Parliament, not by the Church; and as long as it continued to exist, Parliament must pay for it.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £680, for the Ecclesiastical Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote, —put, and negatived.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he wished to repeat that it was his opinion that the Government should undertake to house all these Commissions in a general public building.

MR. COWPER

said, that the suggestion of the hon. Member should have his best attention. No doubt some sites of ground in the possession of the Government might properly be used for the erection of public offices now placed in hired buildings. The south side of Bridge Street, when the houses were pulled down, might be occupied by public offices.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

asked, if anything had been finally decided on with regard to the National Gallery; and if any plan had been adopted, would it be laid before the House for its sanction?

MR. COWPER

said, the Gallery was at present sufficient for the purpose of the exhibition which there existed; but probably some other accommodation would soon be required. When a plan should be adopted, it would be laid before the House.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £14,611, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, the cost of furniture for the army clothing depot ought to appear in the Military Estimates. The depot, he believed, was built by private parties, and hired by the War Department.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

explained, that the expense of the furniture for the public offices used formerly to be included in the general Vote for each department; but, in consequence of remarks made in that House it was thought desirable that all the furniture should be supplied by the Board of Works and appear in one separate list.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he should move the omission from the Vote of the item £4,611 for furniture and fittings for the South Kensington Museum, the Museum of Geology, and the College of Chemistry, as he had a very strong suspicion that money had already been voted for these purposes in the Votes for the Science and Art Department.

MR. COWPER

said, that that was a mistake. No money had been taken for furniture in the Votes for those departments. The Vote was to supply glass cases, presses, &c., for the exhibition of articles, chairs for visitors, and other similar articles necessary for such exhibitions.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he thought that details ought to be given, as was the case with other departments. One department had so far condescended to particulars as to give in a claim for eighteen-pence.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he must condemn the whole system on which the Kensington Museum was conducted. The Government were diverting that institution from its legitimate object. It should be confined to the fine arts and archaeology.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he wished to point out that a Vote of £4,600 had been taken last year for fixtures and fittings in the Science and Art Department.

MR. COWPER

replied, that the Vote under consideration had nothing to do with the Vote of last year. It was for different purposes.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of,£4,611, for the Supply and Repair of Fittings and Articles of Furniture for the Department of Science and Art, viz. Museum, South Kensington, Museum of Geology, and College of Chemistry, be omitted from the proposed Vote, —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

MR. W. EWART

complained, that the public were unnecessarily restricted in the use of portions of Hyde Park by the present arrangements. They ought either to have the whole range of the park, or the animals of the deputy-rangers ought not to range beyond certain limits. He suggested that when a vacancy occurred in the office, the ground occupied by the premises of the deputy-ranger should be thrown open to the public.

MR. BLACKBURN

observed, that some cheek ought to be put upon the amount expended on the parks about London. During the past nine or ton years the expense had greatly increased, and it now amounted to about £100,000 a year. It was impossible to reduce the item by moving to strike off any specific sum; but if the opinion of the Committee were expressed, the expense in future Estimates would probably be diminished.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, that if the hon. Gentleman—a Scotchman—had a just ground for complaint against the Vote when it included £1,780 for Holyrood Park, Irish Members must have a much stronger case, seeing that not one penny piece was allowed for the ornamentation of their country. A memorial influentially signed for the grant of money to ornament Phoenix Park, Dublin, had been presented, and in reply to a question which he had put he had received the stereotyped answer that it was under consideration. He did not object to the expenditure of money on the parks in London, but, in common justice, something ought to be done for Ireland.

MR. COWPER

said, the hon. Baronet was quite right to remind the hon. Member for Stirlingshire that Holyrood had its share; but the hon. Baronet, if be had read a little further, would have found that there was a Vote for the expenses of the Phaenix Park.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, the Government had succeeded in having some gardens in Dublin opened on Sundays, but they gave no assistance towards the preservation of those gardens. It was acting upon principle against conviction. Their principle was that the gardens should be open on Sundays, and their conviction that they should not give money to preserve the gardens. Any one who had seen the PhŒnix Park must agree in the propriety of the appeal of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin. They wanted to have new trees, but none were planted. They wanted to have new roads, but none were made. It was a fine park sadly neglected, and the Irish people threw themselves on the mercy of the Committee.

MR. LOWE

said, that so far from having refused to bear any of the expense, there was a Vote in the Estimates, under the Science and Art department, towards maintaining the garden to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, they did not object to the expenditure on the parks in and about London, but public grants of that kind ought to be fairly administered. With regard to Battersea Park, he admitted that a great improvement had been effected, but they were led to believe that through the increased value of building sites that expenditure would be a source of revenue to the country. The expectation, however, had not been fulfilled. He wished to know whether the annual charge of £8,000, for the maintenance and embellishment of the park, was intended to be permanent?

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that it was entirely owing to the toll on the bridge that the land at Battersea Park was not let for building. He wished for some information as to the Italian garden at the head of the Serpentine. It was understood that a well was to be dug at that spot which was to supply a large quantity of water daily. He believed that the well had been sunk, and fountains erected, but up to the present moment no water was forthcoming. He desired to ask whether any water had been obtained from the well, and, if not, whether there was to be any further charge on account of that undertaking?

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he should protest against the continuance of the large annual outlay for the metropolitan parks, to which the term "Royal" could, in no sense, be applied. In order to test the feeling of the House on the subject, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £7,515, the item for Battersea Park.

MR. AYRTON

said, he held that the parks of London were a source of almost more enjoyment to people from the country than to the inhabitants. The fact was that country folks were so stifled by the smoke of the metropolis that they were glad to resort to the parks for a mouthful of fresh air. He believed that the municipality of London would have no objection to maintain the parks not Royal, if the Government would transfer them to their hands. The Chief Commissioner of Works, however, took delight in managing them himself; and if the country indulged him in that luxury, it must be paid for. He saw no reason why the parks should cost a farthing. Under the charge of the municipality they would no longer be a charge on the public revenne. That was a subject which deserved reconsideration, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was very well as a first step.

MR. COWPER

said, he suspected that although the hon. Gentleman represented a metropolitan constituency he did not represent metropolitan opinions. The municipality of which he spoke was the offspring of his own imagination, and in his dreams perhaps he fancied himself at the head of it. If such a body really existed, under such a chief, he would be glad to allow them to provide the expenditure for the parks; but he would require, if not the payment of arrears, at least a guarantee for future expenses. If the ratepayers constituted the municipality in question, he doubted whether the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would meet with their approval. Every one must acknowledge that these parks ought to be maintained. The money which they cost was spent as well as, if not better, than any other sums voted by the House. It not only gave enjoyment to the great multitude of people who came to London, but gave to residents some of the enjoyment of country life, and made them better subjects and happier individuals than if they were confined to the pavement of the streets. He believed also, that if these parks were done away with, the rate of mortality in the metropolis would show a considerable increase. With regard to Battersea Park it had been complained that the anticipations held out to the House of a great return from that park had been disappointed; but that arose from the want of a proper main drain, without which the land would not let for building purposes. When the great; southern sewer was completed, the return would come. The toll on the bridge, as the hon. Baronet had stated, was another obstacle in the way of letting the sites.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that an Act of Parliament had already been passed which intrusted the Metropolitan Board of Works with the making of any new parks. That Board constituted the municipality of London, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. With that explanation he would leave the Chief Commissioner of Works to justify the taste of personal reflections upon him, (Mr. Ayrton), which were as unfounded as they were absurd.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), who had left his seat, would not leave the House, because he believed that Battersea Park was a hare which he started some years ago to divert attention from his nibbling at cheeseparings. He was anxious that the Chief Commissioner or the hon. Member should explain to the House what revenue that park had produced, or else should withdraw the promises which had been made with regard to it. If no account of profit could be shown, he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would vote for the reduction of the Vote.

MR. LOCKE

said, that before the hon. Member for Lambeth answered the appeal which had been made to him he must say that if that hon. Member had sanctioned any expenditure, even upon the metropolis, he must have seen good reasons for doing so; for without such reasons he was sure he could not bring his mind to approve of any expenditure at all. Good reasons had been given why Battersea Park had not answered the expectations or the hon. Member. The English people did not like to pay toll. There was no comparison between Phoenix Park and those of London, for while the latter were oases in the desert, Phaenix Park was surrounded by the most beautiful scenery, and to make either cabbage gardens or flower gardens in it would be a waste of money. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets wanted to relieve the Government of the expense of these parks. He did not share in that desire, and he was sure the ratepayers of the metropolis had no desire to be rated for them; indeed, the chairman of the Board of Works had said that he looked with horror on the idea of proposing any fresh rate.

MR. O'BRIEN

remarked, that the tolls upon Chelsea Bridge had been imposed in pursuance of a distinct understanding with the inhabitants of the district.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was at a loss to understand why hon. Members should seek to fasten personal responsibility upon him with regard to Battersea Park, towards the construction of which several Votes had been taken before he became a Member of the House. It was true he complained very often of what he thought the unnecessarily large outlay on the parks; and seeing that £70,000 of the amount voted last year still remained unexpended, it could not be denied that the Estimates were male very much at random; but of the condition and circumstances of Battersea Park, beyond the fact that it was of great advantage to that part of the town, he knew as little as he did of the county of Cork. It was some eight or ten years since he rode that way.

MR. HUNT

said, he wished to know how it was that £7,515 could be spent in keeping up so small a park as that of Battersea?

MR. WALPOLE

said, he could not view the construction of parks merely as a metropolitan ratepayers' question. If the responsibility were thrown solely upon them, he very much feared that, owing to the value of land in the vicinity of London, the ratepayers would prefer to build upon it. Within the last sixty years London had doubled its population. Looking upon the parks not merely as places of recreation for the poor, but as contributing very largely to the permanent health of the metropolis, he hoped the Committee would sanction the Vote.

MR. COWPER

said, he could assure the Committee that no money was spent upon Battersea Park which was not necessary. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Hunt) would visit the park on a summer afternoon and see the number of persons who there sought healthy recreation, he would not object to the expense of maintaining it. The Volunteers, likewise, made use of it for purposes of drill. The Committee which sat the year before last went very fully into those Estimates, and had not recommended any reduction of the items.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he had no great faith in the decisions of Committees, knowing how they were often constituted. At the same time, if it were the general wish, he would withdraw his Motion.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that as one of those who had originally resisted the grants to Battersea Park, he wished to remind the Committee that a large portion of the money had been advanced on what turned out to be false pretences. A distinct pledge was given, that if the bridge were built, a toll should be levied for the repayment of that money. No sooner was the bridge built than persons interested in the district raised an agitation against the toll.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I feel sure that there was never any pledge as to repaying the money spent on the park, though expectations were held out that part of the land might be let advantageously for building purposes. There was a pledge that the cost of the bridge should be repaid by tolls; and when it was moved in this House that the tolls should be remitted, on the ground that they prevented the advantageous employment of the land available for building, the House determined that the tolls should be continued. The amount expended on the bridge is, therefore, I imagine, in course of repayment. But those tolls necessarily diminish very greatly the use of the park by all the persons living on the northern side, and have also the effect of preventing, in a great degree, the advantageous employment of those portions of land intended to be applied to building purposes.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

said, he should vote for the item in the Estimates, but he was sure that as soon as Battersea Park had attained its maturity the sum would no longer be wanted. The money spent of late years on the park had been most judiciously expended, and the only way of bringing it back to the Exchequer was by taking the toll off the bridge.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £7,515, for Battersea Park, be omitted from the proposed Vote, —put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, that the public suffered great inconvenience in consequence of Kew Gardens being shut off for the great part of the year from Kew Green and Richmond; and he would suggest, with the view of removing that inconvenience, that some slight alteration should be made in the gardens at Unicorn Gate.

MR. COX

said, he observed that £1,583 were to be paid for keeping in order what used to be called Kennington Common, but what was now styled Kennington Park. To call the place a Park was absurd, as it consisted of only seven or eight walks and a few grass plots, from which even children were excluded.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he wished to know why the expense for Greenwich Park was three times greater that year than in the last?

MR. STANILAND

said, that the whole Vote was presented without proper details, so that the Committee felt a difficulty in cutting down any single item. For Greenwich Park there were two sums of between£4,000 and £5,000, and he held it to be perfectly monstrous to spend such a sum upon the preservation of two hundred acres of land. He thought that the Government would do well to withdraw the Vote for the present, and propose it again in a more detailed form. To mark his objection to the Vote in its present form he would move, that the amount be reduced by £5,000.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he thought that the sum asked for was extravagant, and instead of being reduced by £5,000 it ought to be reduced by £50,000.

MR. COWPER

said, with respect to Kennington Park, that it was desirable the grass should be kept in existence, and that consequently the public were excluded from walking on it at some seasons, of the year. There was not, he felt assured, a shilling spent on Kennington Park which was not well laid out. Great numbers of people frequented it; but if he were to give all the details of the expenditure in connection with it, it would, he feared, be only to weary the House without leading to any useful result. So far as Kew Gardens were concerned, he thought it extremely desirable that the public should be admitted during the winter as well as during the summer months; while he might state, with respect to Greenwich Park, that a considerable amount of repair was requisite in the case of the house of the Ranger there, to which office Earl Canning had been appointed.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he thought no sufficient justification of the Vote for Greenwich Park had been given. In his opinion, the charge for keeping such a residence as that of the Ranger's in repair—a residence which was occupied free from rent—ought not, every time a change of occupants took place, to be thrown on the public.

MR. DILLWYN

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had made no objection to giving the details except their prolixity. Now, he for one should like to have them, and he should look through them with some curiosity to ascertain how so much money could be spent on these parks.

MR. CAIRD

said, that if the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) thought proper to divide the Committee for the purpose of reducing the item of Kennington Park by a few hundreds, he should have his support. That park consisted of only a few walks through less than twenty acres of grass.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

observed, that there was scarcely any place of public resort so much frequented as Greenwich Park, and contended that it would be conferring no boon upon any nobleman to tell him he might live in the Ranger's house on the condition that he should repair it.

MR. COWPER

said, that he was able to furnish the Committee with the details of the expenditure for Kennington Park. They consisted of a number of items, amongst which might be enumerated £421 for police constables and night watchmen, £645 for plantations and shrubberies and flowers, £100 for keeping up walks, £65 for watering footpaths, a superintendent engaged at an expense of £20, and £65 for lodge and railings. Then there were gratuities in aid of funeral expenses to the amount of £5; that was a contribution estimated for in case a death occurred. In the event of its not being required for that purpose, it was devoted to medical aid or relief in sickness. The Committee must also bear in mind that there was a great number of deaths among the plants and trees. The supply of water cost £50, but it was not, he might observe, completely thrown away on the land, as it was also drunk by the police constables.

LORD ELCHO

observed, that one of the chief items for Kennington Park was a charge for night watchers, their liveries, their wages, and their funerals. Sir Richard Mayne had informed him, that if the parks were not closed at night, they would necessarily come into his charge, and be included in the regular beats of the police. He therefore suggested, as a means of getting rid of the charge for night watchers, that the gates of the park should not be shut at night. The Green Park was closed each evening, and there was no watcher left in charge of it. If any park required care at night, that park did, situated as it was in the centre of London.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £79,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal: Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 94: Majority 11.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. COX

said, he would then move that the charge for Kennington Park should be reduced by £583, leaving a round sum of £1,000.

THE CHAIRMAN

intimated, that as the sense of the Committee had already been taken on the whole Vote, it was not competent for the hon. Member to propose the reduction of any particular item.

MR. COX

said, he would then propose, instead, that the whole Vote should be reduced by £583.

MR. COWPER

said, that if the Amendment was carried, the result would be that the park would not give as much enjoyment as at present. He should deeply regret any such result, for the effect would be felt in the happiness and comfort of the poorer classes.

MR. LOCKE

said, he hoped the Committee would not support the Amendment under the impression that Kennington Park was a mere grass field. The greater part of it was a garden, consisting of gravel walks, flower-beds, shrubs, and plants, which required to be renewed.

MR. MALINS

said, he thought the Vote was not too large, considering the advantages which the public derived from it.

MR. HUNT

said, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury on the same grounds as he had voted for the former Amendment.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that if the Committee, after spending a great many hours in discussing sums of every possible magnitude, should at twelve o'clock at night determine at last to cut off some £500 which was to be devoted to the enjoyment, health, and recreation of the people, they would be taking a course not worthy of them.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £84,081, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 108: Majority 44.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again on Wednesday.