§ SUPPLY considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,258, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had no desire to make any observations in reference to palaces occupied by the Royal family; but he believed that no member of; the Royal family resided in Kensington Palace, and that the only person there was a very old lady, and he, therefore, wished to know how the £1,237 set down for it was expended. For Bushey Park House the sum of £1,319 was asked, and he, wished to ask who it was who occupied: that building. There was also an item for; repairing and cleansing the fittings in the Chapel Royal, St. James's, but he believed that Her Majesty never attended that chapel.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved, that there had been a general and silent increase in these Estimates from year to year. He wished to have some explanation of an apparent excess of £12,696 spent beyond the sum voted for 1862–3
MR. COWPERsaid, that the expenditure on Kensington Palace and Bushey House was solely for the purpose of keeping them in ordinary repair and preventing them going to decay. The Chapel Royal, St. James's, was attended every Sunday by a considerable congregation, and it was necessary to maintain the building in a proper state of repair, Though Her Majesty had a chapel at Buckingham Palace, still many members of the Royal family attended the Chapel 411 Royal, St. James's. In reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Evesham, he had to observe that the excess referred to was paid out of the balances of previous years. The old system was to pay money for the purpose for which it was originally voted, without reference to the year in which the payment was made; but a different plan was now adopted, and at the end of the year the balance was paid over to the Exchequer.
§ MR. PEACOCKEsaid, it appeared that a private road, by which the public had been admitted to Richmond Park through Roehampton Gate, had recently been purchased by a gentleman named Prescott, and closed by him against the public, so that Roehampton Gate was only of use to that gentleman, his family, and friends. He did not see that the public should be put to the expense of keeping up the gate solely for the use of that gentleman, who would not give the public in return the use of the road, and he moved that the Vote be reduced by £50, which would be about the expenditure connected with the gate.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,208 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces." — (Mr. Peacocke.)
MR. COWPERsaid, the case was rather peculiar. The gate was, of course, open to the public, as all the other gates of Richmond Park were, but the road that led to the gate was private property. That property had lately come into the possession of Mr. Prescott, and he allowed all the residents in Richmond Park to pass along the road, but not the general public. If Mr. Prescott were more: liberally disposed he might have opened it to the public, but it ought to be remembered that the expense of repairing the road fell upon the owner, and if he were to allow the public to use it the increased expense of the repairs would be thrown upon himself. He had suggested to Mr. Prescott that he might, without incurring additional expense, allow al persons on horseback to make use o the road, but he did not know whether that suggestion would be adopted. If the extreme rights of the Crown were enforced the gate might be shut up al together, which might not be a very agreeable thing to Mr. Prescott and other 412 persons living on the road. However, he annual expense of repairing the gate pas only about £5, and if any reduction was to be moved it ought to be £5, and not £50. He hoped, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would content himself with having expressed a wish upon the matter, and would not divide the Committee.
§ MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he would not press his Motion provided the right hon. Gentleman would see the suggestion carried out—that all persons on horseback and in private carriages should be allowed to pass through the gate in return for the use of it by Mr. Prescott.
§ MR. PEACOCKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might shut up the gate. If be would engage to shut up the gate, unless Mr. Prescott opened the road, he would not divide the Committee.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not be asked to enter into a specific engagement. Mr. Prescott was, no doubt, a gentleman of intelligence and sagacity, and would understand what the feeling of Parliament was upon the subject. The existing state of things was certainly one which ought not to continue.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £77,531, to complete the sum for Public Buildings.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to a sum of £9,933 for repairs of ecclesiastical and collegiate buildings, &c., in Scotland. There were sums set down for maintenance and repairs of the old Scotch cathedrals, which were no longer of any use.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had extended his economical views beyond their legitimate bounds. No one had seen the Scotch cathedrals without feeling that they contained some of the most beautiful specimens of architecture, not only that the three kingdoms, but that the world possessed, while the sums asked for their preservation were but small. He was sure the Committee would not agree with the paring-down spirit of the hon. Gentleman. He was happy to see that something was going to be done at last about that very valuable possession of the Crown — Burlington House. Some twelve years 413 ago when he first had the honour of a seat in that House, there was talk of doing something, but nothing had been done, When the immense value of a spot of ground in that part of London was taken into consideration, some explanation of the delay was due. How was it that successive Governments, during a period of so many years, had made no use of the spot. As he understood the plan that was in contemplation, a building was to be erected at the rear in order to receive the: national pictures. But to place our National Gallery — a building which, no doubt, would be of some architectural merit — in the background, required explanation. It appeared there was to be an approach to the Gallery, through the centre of Burlington House; but he could not make out how that was to be managed. He could not help thinking that something ought to be done to give; the public an opportunity of seeing Burlington House. For one hundred years that building had been admired by architectural critics, and yet it was kept from the view of the public. He supposed at; some time it was intended to carry a street from Piccadilly to the north, through Cork Street, or thereabouts, for the purpose of relieving Bond Street and Regent Street; but if those buildings were erected there, all hopes of that kind would be put an end to.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the people of Scotland took a different course; with respect to their cathedrals from the people of England. Here the people defaced the cathedrals, but kept them in their own hands; but in Scotland they respected them, but handed them over to the Crown. And now a sum of £9,000 was asked for those beautiful buildings, simply because they were Crown property. With respect to a different question, when the time came for deciding whether a new National Gallery which would cost £150,000, ought to be placed on the ground behind Burlington House, he hoped that matter would be discussed by a more numerous Committee. He hoped at that time, also, they would have a satisfactory solution of that really difficult question, His hon. Friend could not understand how it was that two successive Governments had failed to settle the question about Burlington House; but that there had been two successive Governments explained that unfortunate fact. Had there been only one Government, the 414 matter would have been decided long ago.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONScomplained that while £11,000 was asked for rates and taxes for public buildings in Westminster and London, the Government refused to pay not only poor rates, but rates for drainage and sewerage for their large establishments at Deptford. In some places Government paid those rates, in others they rejected all claims for them. The practice showed such a want of principle as to require some explanation.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he took objection to the item for rents paid for public offices erected upon land belonging to the public. He might instance the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, as an example, where a large amount of money had been expended in building upon land belonging to the public.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the complaint of the hon. Member for Truro really was, that a better system of accounts was now adopted than had been in use in former times. Now that the department of Public Works was separated from the Woods and Forests, it was right that rent should be paid for Crown land, whether let for public or private purposes. With respect to the item for repairs of ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland, they were about twenty-four in number, and among them were the palaces of Holyrood and Linlithgow, the Register Office in Edinburgh, and some ruined cathedrals upon which a small expenditure was necessary to prevent them from absolutely disappearing. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir William Fraser) into a discussion of a Vote that would come on for consideration at a future time, but when that time did arrive, he would be prepared to give the fullest explanation, and hoped to persuade the House that the course proposed by the Government was a wise one to pursue. With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) it was quite true that a different practice had been adopted with regard to public buildings in the metropolis to that which prevailed in respect of public buildings outside the metropolis. The distinction, however, had been made for many years, and had invariably been observed. The subject adverted to by the hon. Member for Greenwich was under the consideration of the Government and would receive their earnest attention.
§ COLONEL W. STUARTasked for an. explanation of an item of £42 on account of the formation of a road near Holyhead.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the explanation of the First Commissioner of Works only led to the question of why rent was not paid for the Treasury or for the parks.
MR. COWPERsaid, he must admit that perhaps rent ought to be paid for the Treasury, but the parks were in a different category, as they were placed by Act of Parliament under the management of the Office of Works. The small item for the road at Holyhead was a mere re-Vote of a sum formerly voted, which had lapsed on account of not having been claimed.
§ Vote agreed, to.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he could not understand why a large sum was asked for the furniture of the Kensington Museum. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £3,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,300, be grantee to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course o payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Supply and Repair o Furniture in the various Public Departments." —(Mr. Augustus Smith.)
MR. COWPERsaid, the furniture was no more than was required for the School of Art and the buildings attached to it. He admitted that in the first instance the item might have been placed in a different class in the Science and Art Department. It had, however, appeared in these Estimates in former years, and it was not desirable to shift it now, as that would alter the headings and prevent an accurate comparison between one year and another.
§ MR. GREGORYcomplained of the manner in which the Estimates were compiled with reference to the Votes for furniture. It was the practice with regard to the Irish Industrial Museum, because it was out of favour with the Government ant very popular with the people of Ireland, 416 to make the expenses for fittings, furniture, &c., as large as possible, thereby creating a false impression with regard to he cost of that establishment. It was very strange that the cost of these articles or the British Museum should be included in its own Estimate, and the South Kensington excluded from its own Estimate.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was never satisfied with the mode of arriving at the Estimates of fittings, furniture, &c., required by the various Departments. The officer who was really responsible for the Vote was the Vice President of the Committee on Education, and not the Chief Commissioner of Works; and he regretted that the former right hon. Gentleman was not present to explain it. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works exercised a supervision over the general Votes for furniture; but with regard to the fittings at South Kensington he was in the hands of the officers of the Department, and was as powerless as a child. On the first blush of it the cost appeared to be great, as it amounted to about one-third of the whole sum required, but he had no doubt it was susceptible of explanation. The item, however, ought to be transferred to the Vote for Education.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he thought it better to make the alteration at once than to wait for another year, when, the matter might be forgotten.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLasked, whether the Vote for furniture at South Kensington was to be regarded as an annually recurring charge, or one of an exceptional nature consequent on the extensive alterations which had been recently sanctioned by Parliament?
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had only named £3,000 in his Amendment as a round sum. He found by reference to the Estimates that the exact amount asked for fittings and furniture for the Department of Science and Art was £4,300, and he accordingly begged to substitute that amount in his Amendment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
MR. COWPERsaid, that about one-half of the expenditure was for special purposes, which it was hoped would not occur again. It was required for the completion of very extensive galleries and rooms which had only recently been 417 finished, and which would require special furnishing and fittings. The ordinary repairs in future years would probably not he more than £2,300 instead of £4,300. He agreed with the noble Lord that this was a duty he would rather not have placed on his Department, but that it should be transferred to the responsible person. The control had, however, remained with the Office of Works because it was considered more economical for his office, which was continually making contracts for these things, to supply all articles of this kind that were required for South Kensington. On the score of economy, it was better to leave the supplying of these articles to his Department.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, there was a positive increase of £3,800 on the Vote for the present year, and asked for an explanation.
MR. COWPERsaid, that if the hon. Member would compare the sum proposed that year of £17,300 with £19,611 last year, he would find there was a decrease on the total, and if he compared the particular item under discussion with that of last year he would find a saving of £311.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he must press the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the classification of expenditure which had been suggested.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would express a hope that the hon. Member for Truro would not divide the Committee upon the Vote. The principle of his Motion would go much further than the Motion itself. No doubt it was desirable, and it would be very convenient, that the figures should be so arranged as that they might see at a glance the expense of each public Department with regard to furniture, fittings, &c.; but to do that they must depart from the principle which they had very largely adopted, and which they regarded as a general rule in the arrangement of the Estimates, namely: —That every article required by a Department should be furnished in the most economical manner possible. They could not recognize the two principles together. To get the articles at the cheapest rate it was desirable that they should be furnished by the Board of Works, because they had dealings with the tradesmen who had to supply them, and were accustomed to make the necessary contracts. It would be far less economical than at present were the dif- 418 ferent Departments to send out a messenger or housekeeper all round London for the purpose of ordering each for itself what was required. Although his right hon. Friend had not so much control over this Vote as, he would over the supply of chairs, tables, and carpets, with which he was so familiar, for the other Departments, yet he was essentially a manufacturer, and could obtain what was required at a much less cost than the Vice President of the Council on Education.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHadmitted the soundness of the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was not carried out in all the Departments.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSthought it was not worth while to divide on the Vote. He thought the Vote was in its proper place.
§
Whereupon Motion made, and Question,
That the Item of.£4,300, for Fittings and Articles of Furniture for the Department of Science and Art, be omitted from the proposed Vote,''—(Mr. Augustus Smith,)
—put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (4.) £72,944, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds.
§ MR. COXsaid, that the Vote contained items of £6,846 for Battersea Park, £1,584 for Kennington Park, £9,964 for Regent's Park, and £5,934 for Victoria Park. A petition had been lately presented complaining that a certain portion of Battersea Park had been handed over to the Civil Service Cricket Club for their exclusive use. He was informed that the club consisted of 230 members, and that 19,000 square yards of ground had been set apart for them. Another portion of ground of about 18,000 square yards was allotted to 14 other clubs, consisting of 600 or 700 members. A third portion, which was of no use whatever, was given to the general public for cricket. He wished to ask whether similar arrangements had been made for playing at cricket in Regent's Park and Victoria Park, and whether the First Commissioner of Works had selected any portion of those parks for the exclusive use of any other servants of the Crown. He had another question to ask in regard to Kennington Park. It was an inclosure not much larger than Lincoln's Inn Fields, comprising about 15 or 16 acres of ground. Every year between £1,500 and £1,600 419 was laid out, not for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, but to furnish grazing for sheep. He himself lately saw the poor children of the locality, who used freely to play on the grass when the place was called Kennington Common, excluded from the grass of the park and compelled to play on the gravel, while the sheep were enjoying the turf. He thought it too much to maintain a spot of ground at a cost of £100 per acre for the exclusive benefit of a few sheep.
§ MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that the Civil Service Cricket Club had expended a great deal of money on their cricket ground in Battersea Park, and had made it worth something, whereas the space occupied by the general public being constantly knocked about was in very bad condition. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the space allotted to the public was worth nothing, but if the general public were admitted to play on the Civil Service ground that would soon be worth very little as a cricket ground.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to know whether the ground rents of Regent's Park were reckoned in the item relating to that Park, or carried to the public account?
§ SIR EDWAED DERINGsaid, the public in general owed great obligations to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner for the improvements which he had made in the parks. There was, however, a class of persons whose good opinion no doubt he would wish to conciliate, and whose requirements had been overlooked, and who had a paramount claim upon his attention—he meant the ladies who rode in Rotten Row, and who had at present not the slightest shelter or protection from the inclemency of the weather. After a smart shower the ride had to be given up, or the unfortunate individuals were obliged to ride in their wet clothes, which no doubt caused much discomfort and inconvenience. The question was whether it would not be very easy to adopt a remedy for all this inconvenience. If the right hon. Gentleman would only adopt the precedent in the Bois de Boulogne, in various parts of which were scattered about shelter sheds, simple in construction and inexpensive, he would afford shelter both for riders and pedestrians, and at the same time not encroach on the rights of the people. There was, he believed, a central and convenient spot where these shelter sheds might be placed. The House should 420 remember, too, that the ladies were never insensible to benefits conferred upon them.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to know, from either the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, or the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth, whether Battersea Park had made the Return for the expenditure devoted to it which was so confidently anticipated some years ago. He regarded the case of Battersea Park as an example of the principle which lad been adopted of levying taxes throughout the United Kingdom for the benefit of London alone. The amount spent upon Ireland or the provinces was very small indeed. The most serious complaint that had been made that evening was that made by an hon. Member with reference to Rotten Row, where it was said that no defence or shelter was provided for those anonymous individuals. He did not know that there was any necessity for spending more money upon conveniences for pretty horsebreakers, as he believed we were going quite fast enough without that.
§ SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, the hon. Member was misrepresenting what he had said.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, he would apologize if he had misrepresented the hon. Baronet, but he believed he had literally interpreted what had fallen from him. The hon. Baronet did not name the unfortunate individuals, and he therefore concluded that they were anonymous. There was an Estimate of £594 for extending the horse ride in Battersea Park, and a little further down the hon. Baronet would find an item of £62 for public conveniences. He saw that there was included among the accounts an estimated expenditure of £1,051 upon Longford River. He did not know where Longford River was, nor had he been able to discover its locality. He knew a county of that name, however, in Ireland, but he did not believe that the sum was intended for the benefit of any place in that neighbourhood. They would see that the income they derived from the parks and pleasure gardens amounted to £3,527, while the expenditure upon them was £97,952, so that they were really in receipt of about 3½ per cent for their money. He could not understand how so much as £20,000 could be expended on Kew Gardens. But it was of no use to move a reduction, and, therefore, he would not attempt to obtain any. He despaired of having these enormous Votes for parks and horse rides and such trumpery cut 421 down or rejected until some Member of position, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the matter up.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose to object to an item of £25 for the construction of a plantation upon Primrose Hill. At present there was a very good view of Highgate from one side, and of Hampstead from the other, and he believed that the only result of the plantation would be to obstruct this view.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he desired to remind the Committee that Battersea Park was purchased with the public money, and that it was, therefore, the property of the public. If any portion of it had been devoted to the exclusive use of the Civil Service, such appropriation was, on that account, clearly unwarrantable. The expenditure on the parks was much heavier than it ought to be. It was an annual burden, and he believed that it would be difficult to show how so large a sum could be profitably expended.
§ MR. COXmaintained that Kennington Common was not appropriated to the purpose for which it was intended—the recreation of the people and the benefit of the neighbourhood in which it was situated. Formerly, hundreds of children might be seen playing there and rejoicing in the fresh air. But now, if the hon. Member for Lambeth went to Kennington Park some hot day in July, he would see poor children running about on the hot gravel while the sheep engrossed the green grass.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, that Battersea Park was of no more use to the constituents of the hon. Member for Lambeth than it was to the inhabitants of the County Cork, and if so it had better be shut up altogether. He thought that £1,600 was a large sum to pay for keeping up a park and for shutting out the children and giving playgrounds to the sheep there; and he had little doubt that if the hon. Member (Mr. W. Williams) were made head ranger he would keep the park in good order and save £1,400 a year.
§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that in laying out Battersea Park it could never have been contemplated that a toll bridge should be erected between it and the public; and if the building ground around it was to be let to advantage Battersea Bridge must be thrown open. He must say that the expenditure on the parks was rather extravagant. Ten years ago the Vote asked for was about £60,000, and now it was very nearly £100,000. He thought too much 422 money was being spent in what he might term gardenizing these parks. In his opinion, it was not right to place beds of flowers in all sorts of incongruous places there. As to Primrose Hill, it would be much better to leave it in its present open condition.
§ LORD ELCHOasked what proportion of the total expenditure was caused by the wages and superannuation allowances of the park keepers. They were in many instances too old and infirm properly to maintain order, and, moreover, were not in the parks at night time. He would suggest that a considerable saving would be effected, and that the parks would be better kept, if they were handed over to the police.
MR. COWPERsaid, he could not admit that there was any undue expenditure whatever upon the Parks. The sum of £25,500 upon Hyde Park, St. James's, and the Green Park might seem a large one; but when hon. Members came to think of all that was necessary to be done they would find the expenditure exceedingly moderate. Out of the total he had just mentioned, £10,000 was appropriated to roads, for there were eight miles of roads in these parks, and thirty-five miles of walks. Another item was for repairs of lodges and railings, &c., £5,000. The constables cost £3,500 including everything, and they were less expensive than policemen who were employed at Kennington Park. These constables were always selected from men who had served in the army, a preference being given to those who had distinguished themselves and had obtained medals; but before their admission into the force a medical certificate was required of their being able-bodied men. The parochial rates amounted to £1,100, so that the money actually spent upon the grass lands and plantations was only £3,410 out of the £25,000. That was not a large sum, he thought, considering the necessity of keeping the grass and plantations in the order that was necessary. It seemed to be the impression that large sums were spent in cultivating flowers, but the recent creation of flower beds had given immense gratification at a small cost, and flowers were now necessary for the embellishment of the parks and for the enjoyment of the public. Last year the flowers in Hyde Park cost £600, including fuel, labour, and every expense; and he did not think that that was a large sum. With 423 regard to Battersea Park he anticipated that their views as to future remuneration would be realized. Recently he had an advantageous offer for a considerable portion of the land adjoining Battersea Park, but he did not feel himself justified in accepting it without competition. At present a main sewer was being constructed there, which when completed would enhance the value of the land, and he intended to call for proposals for the letting. He could assure the Committee that all the regulations in the parks were made for the benefit of the public at large, and if at any time it could be shown that they operated injuriously towards the public he would be quite ready to re-consider them. As to the objection about the sheep, if none of those animals were put to graze in the parks, and the public were allowed always to walk on every part of the grass, the result would be that after a short time there would be no grass in those places of recreation. In Kennington Park he had set apart a portion of it exclusively for children to play in at all seasons. Of course they would destroy all the grass in that separate portion, but he supposed that sacrifice would be cheerfully submitted to in order to secure a play ground for children. In Battersea Park he had thought he had gone as far as he was justified in doing towards providing a cricket ground by making a portion of the park smooth and level, leaving it to clubs who wished to improve the ground to mow it, and otherwise keep it in good order for the game. Originally the exclusive use of a portion of it had been allowed to the Battersea Institution Club on those terms, and last year he had complied with an application from the Civil Service Cricket Club for the exclusive use of another portion of it on similar terms. He did not think that any wrong was done to the public by those arrangements, but if it could be shown that the privilege granted to these clubs was unfair towards other persons, he would be ready to re-consider the matter. He had been asked whether in the Regent's Park there was any payment for Crown rents. He had to answer that no part which paid Crown rents was included in the Estimates. The plantation which he proposed for Primrose Hill would be on the level ground and not on the height, and would relieve the monotony of the place. He agreed with the noble Lord that it would not be desirable 424 to interfere with the hill itself. As to the arrangement proposed by the hon. Baronet for ladies who required shelter in rain, he would take the matter into consideration; but while anxious to contribute to the comfort of those who frequent the parks he must take care not to do anything to disfigure those places of public recreation, and there might be some question whether rustic roofs and iron sheds might not prove to be a disfigurement.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he had been requested to call attention to the inconvenience caused in these days of late dinners by the closing so early as ten o'clock of the communication between the north and south sides of Hyde Park, which obliged persons wishing to go from Westbournia to Kensington to drive round by Park Lane.
§ MR. COXobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given an explanation about the arrangements in the Regent's and Victoria Parks.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, it would conduce to the comfort of many persons if more seats were placed in the parks, and if the seats had backs. [An hon. MEMBER: Bath chairs.] No, not Bath chairs; but chairs with backs.
§ MR. BUCHANANasked whether there was any intention of finishing the portion of Hew Gardens nearest to Richmond?
§ MR. LYGONcomplained that too many of the park gates were closed and left without rangers to let visitors out immediately after the hour arrived for excluding the public from the enclosure in St. James's Park.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was very sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had been interfered with in returning from his dinner party. [Mr. MALINS: Not myself, but friends of mine.] He wished he could remedy the grievance complained of, but there was this difficulty—the park required to be opened at five o'clock in the morning to enable workmen going to work to pass across the park, and if the gatekeepers had to be up at that early hour it would be hard to ask them to remain up later than ten. Still it was a matter for consideration, and he should be very glad if the difficulty could be got over. The gatekeepers in St. James's Park were required to remain at the gates till ten minutes after they were shut, so that parties who had entered at one gate might be allowed to get out at another. In the 425 case referred to, he supposed the constable had been negligent of his duty. He would make inquiry into the facts. The Estimates of the year would contain provision necessary for adding to the seats in; the parks. A certain number were added every year; but he entirely disclaimed having placed seats there without backs, There might he a certain number of uncomfortable seats, but these were of an; old construction, and the last pattern was a very easy one. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he might add that in Victoria Park one part was set apart for cricket matches and another for practice. In Regent's Park cricket was not allowed after eight o'clock in the morning. The suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would receive attention.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman not to carry out his design with regard to the plantation on Primrose Hill, The space was too contracted.
MR. COWPERsaid, the word "plantation" did not express his intention. He contemplated a group of trees which after a little time, when thinned, would stand; out singly, and not interrupt people walking, but would contribute a little to break ' the dreary waste.
§ Vote agreed to,
§ (5.) £22,144, to complete the sum for; the Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished the Vote had come on at an early sitting, that he might have asked hon. Members to pay a visit to the Peers' robing-room, in order to examine and judge for themselves of: what he might call one of the most noble specimens of modern art, and when he told them on their return that the painter; of that great picture had been employed on it for six years and eight months at a remuneration not exceeding £500 a year he would have asked them had he been adequately remunerated? It was said i that Mr. Herbert, having entered into a contract, must be bound by it; but what were the facts of this case? According to the original estimate the work was to be done in fresco, which being rapidly executed Mr. Herbert calculated he would be adequately remunerated by the payment of £2,000 for each picture, because it would not occupy him more than twenty months. But the state of the frescoes. in that House had attracted the atten- 426 tion of Parliament, and the Prince Consort, being struck with the superiority of the glass water process, requested Mr. Maclise to go to Berlin and inquire into the process. Mr. Maclise did so, and, having made himself practically and theoretically acquainted with it, came back to England and employed it in the prosecution of his own works. The Prince Consort was so satisfied with it and the report of Mr. Maclise, that he sent a jar of silicate of potash to Mr. Herbert, and requested him to make some experiments and satisfy himself. He did make those experiments, and so satisfied was he of the superiority of the new system over the old fresco, that he destroyed the whole of the work he had previously been engaged on, and commenced his new work on a totally different system. [The hon. Gentleman read a letter from Mr. Herbert to that effect.] Under these circumstances he thought that Mr. Herbert, having altogether changed his process at the request of the Prince Consort and adopted the new mode, the argument as to contract fell to the ground. The new process was very different from fresco. It admitted of every variety of detail, and Mr. Herbert had employed on his work an amount of time and labour which only those who saw it could adequately realize. He was authorized to say on the part of Mr. Herbert, and every man would believe the word of a great artist, that he had been conscientiously employed upon, the work, not exclusively in painting, but in preparing the cartoon and studies from it, during the whole period he had mentioned. The frescoes in that House and at Munich, although only executed a few years, were decaying; and, taking into consideration the atmosphere of London, its damp and smuts, it was a point of economy to employ a different process, whereby the works produced would be as durable as the structure on which they were painted. Like most other Members, he must abnegate all notion of taste, but he would say that every person going into the room where Mr. Herbert's painting was exhibited felt himself in the presence of a great work. He read the opinion of a foreign artist on this subject, M. Carl Haag, who pronounced the picture, in composition, expression, drawing, colouring, keeping, and execution, worthy to be ranked with the works of any artist in history. Mr. Herbert for several years before he began that great work was making on an average about £1,850 per an- 427 num, and, being a man with a large family, if it had not been for his previous accumulations he would have found it difficult to get on. For the reproduction of one figure alone in this great picture he had been offered £1,000. For his picture of the "Railway Station" Mr. Frith had got £8,700, Mr. Holman Hunt had received £5,500 for his "Christ in the Temple," and, after the great success he had achieved, Mr. Herbert might reasonably expect to make large sums if he gave up working for the country. Mr. Herbert, however, was not the least influenced by money, but was devoted to his art, and most anxious to continue his work, though the country ought not to take advantage of that. He had already finished two other sketches to adorn those walls, and if the justice of Parliament should allow the room to be finished, it would be an honour to the nation and a delight to those who saw it. He was told that there was some difficulty, inasmuch as other gentlemen might have a claim for additional remuneration if Mr. Herbert's claim were allowed. No doubt Mr. Maclise had a strong claim. Before he undertook to work for the nation, he was making £2,000 a year, and at one time as much as £4,000. He had been working now conscientiously, and he (Mr. Gregory) might add incessantly, for the public for eight years, and the whole sum which he would receive would be £7,000. True he had made no application for a further payment—and such was the generous, almost chivalrous character of Mr. Maclise, that he would work for nothing rather than apply. But Mr. Maclise had not a young family to support, and Mr. Herbert had. If Mr. Maclise, owing to his peculiar circumstances, had not made any application for additional remuneration, it was hard that Mr. Herbert should be debarred therefore from receiving that to which he had a strong claim. We had now got at length a great man; and they should keep him and attach him to the nation. Cheap art was the worst of all art, and if they aimed at obtaining productions of art they should be worthy of the country. He entreated the Committee not to ask sacrifices from an artist, such as they ought not to accept, even if they were offered; and, above all, he entreated them not, for the sake of a miserable economy, to allow it to be said, that the nation which professed to reward art was not sufficiently rich to reward an artist for a great work, but turned him over to the picture dealers, who could 428 adequately reward him. He (Mr. Gregory) could not, in accordance with the forms of the House, move an addition to the Vote, or even its postponement, but he was convinced that the tone of the discussion would be such as to convince the Government that Parliament was ready to behave with justice and liberality in the matter.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that the case was not in his opinion one to be brought forward in formâ pauperis; it was not a question of charity; it was not because Mr. Herbert had a large family that he should receive additional remuneration. It was a simple question of justice. His hon. Friend had understated rather than overstated the case; for Mr. Herbert had been at work for six years, and taking into account the cost of materials and incidental expenses he had scarcely realized £350 a year, and yet nearly the whole of his time had been devoted to that work, which was a most magnificent specimen of art. Were they to allow a gentleman, who had been previously realizing £2,000 or £3,000 a year, to receive such a miserable pittance? The House must remember that this was a great experiment, and that independently of the work itself another one had been destroyed in order to carry out the experiment which had been approved by the Prince Consort. The whole payment for the picture would be £3,500; and he thought that if the amount were doubled they would have a magnificent work at a very reasonable figure. The question was, whether they would pay fairly and justly for the most perfect work which adorned the walls of Parliament.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the discussion had proceeded as if some blame ought to be cast upon the Government in the matter, but he suspected that the right hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Gladstone) and his Colleagues agreed in the main with the hon. Member for Galway. Evidently his views as to the justice of the case met with the approval of the Committee. With respect to the measure of that justice, he (Mr. Bright) did not pretend to know a great deal about art; but when he went into the room containing that great picture he felt that he had not known until then that there was a painter in this country who could execute a work of art such as that. That, he believed, was the impression produced by it on the minds of a large number more competent than himself to judge. He was not in favour 429 of a costly decoration of the Houses of Parliament, for he thought the purpose a mistaken one. Moreover, he was not sure. that the picture under discussion was in I a room sufficiently large to do it justice, while the cost of a room fitted in a creditable manner would be large, and; he would have preferred that so much had not been spent in decorating the building. The expenditure, however, was of a kind the most harmless, and to many perhaps the most gratifying, to which a portion of the public money could be devoted; and he would, therefore, make no complaint on that point. If, however, the walls of the Houses of Parliament were to be decorated, they ought to be decorated: in the best and most lasting manner. It might matter little to those then sitting in that House whether the picture lasted a few years or a hundred; but there would come a time, if it were done in a manner that was not durable, when everybody would regret that the Parliament of this day was not more attentive to the proper expenditure of its money, and did not take care to have these costly works executed in a way that was more likely to endure than ordinary frescoes appeared to do. Then if this picture, so great as it was acknowledged to be, was executed in a manner that would give it what was meant by the word eternity in relation to any work of art, should not the House behave honourably, generously, and justly to a man who had so much distinguished himself, and done that which in all probability would attract thousands in times to come to visit that building Having known Mr. Herbert more or less intimately for years, he believed that he had always exhibited a devotion to his art amounting to perfect enthusiasm, and that if he only got a crust he must paint by the very nature of his constitution and mind. That was, however, no reason why, having been drawn from his private practice to paint for the public, the public should not fairly, honestly, and generously pay him. Therefore, although no member of the Committee could move a larger Vote, it was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into consideration in that spirit. He was afraid to name the sum to which the Vote ought to be made up, but he thought the House would consider it no extravagance or waste of public money, but a just and moderate consideration of Mr. Herbert's claims, if that gentleman 430 were to receive not less than £5,000 for that picture.
MAJOR GUMMING BRUCEsaid, that having seen many famous fresco paintings, he wished to express his belief that a more magnificent work of art than that of Mr. Herbert existed nowhere in the world. He could not quite agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) that they were not to consider the claims which Mr. Herbert's family had upon him, because it was their duty to encourage a great artist, and relieve his mind from those pecuniary anxieties with respect to those dependent on him, which had depressed the genius of many a great painter. The amount named by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last would be a very moderate sum to pay for a work that would shed the greatest honour on the country which possessed it.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he believed, from the experience he had had in these matters, that the sum which had been named was not one half of the price which that painting would fetch to-morrow if taken to Christie's for sale. Mr. Herbert had refused many commissions simply on account of his devotion to that picture, and he considered that both Mr. Herbert and Mr. Maclise were entitled to the greatest consideration on the part of the Committee.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he believed that the work of Mr. Herbert embraced in itself all that there was in ancient art of grandeur, dignity, and elevation of conception, with a delicacy of detail, and a precision and accuracy of execution which could not be surpassed by the most distinguished modern painter. He therefore cordially concurred in the suggestion which had been thrown out for an increased remuneration. The country had at length obtained a picture which would hand down to posterity a noble monument of what it could achieve in the way of art; let it not become evidence against it of shabbiness and parsimony.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were a number of considerations connected with the matter which placed Her Majesty's Government in a position of considerable difficulty. He entirely shared in the feelings which hon. Gentlemen had expressed—as far as he might presume to have an opinion on the subject—with regard both to the character of the particular work of art under discussion and to the character of Mr. 431 Herbert. The atmosphere of a deliberative assembly was not, perhaps, the most favourable one for the practical decision of these questions. It was much more common within those walls to hear the professors of art criticized with extreme severity than eulogized in terms of warmth and enthusiasm. He did not grudge one word that had been said about Mr. Herbert. On the contrary, not a syllable could be spoken in praise of his genius and devotion to his work which he was not ready to echo. He could wish that as generous feelings had been evinced to every other artist on every occasion. But there were some — some, perhaps, then alive, and others dead—who had not always been equally fortunate in the treatment they had received in that House. He thought a very wise course was pursued by the Government of the day when it first approached the subject of the decoration of the Houses of Parliament with great paintings and statues. He might, in passing, observe that it could have been wished that the same spirit of wisdom and prudence had characterized all the proceedings taken in connection with the erection of the buildings themselves. Experience had proved the wisdom of both the executive Government and the House of Commons, divesting themselves of the responsibility of a task which he did not think either very well fitted to perform— namely, to carry through in detail the business of choosing artists, of choosing subjects, of appreciating the execution of their work, and estimating the remuneration which should be awarded for it. The House would recollect that the whole of those duties were delegated to a Commission, by whom arrangements were carried out in a manner much more satisfactorily than would have been the case if they had been content to trust these matters to the ordinary machinery of the Government acting under its responsibility to Parliament. The result of considering that question in the department, and the effect also of listening to its discussion that evening, convinced him that the subject lay beyond them for its satisfactory settlement. There was no difficulty at all, if they were dealing with an isolated case, in giving way for once to the feelings they entertained. But he must observe that if they were to compete with the picture dealer they must restrict the scale of their enterprizes of that description. If they were to compete with the picture 432 dealer they must not attempt to cover thousands and thousands of feet with works of art to be paid for at the picture dealer's rate. The House would observe that very extensive commissions had been given, and that very large works had been executed, some of which were on their walls. It was not, he might add, one case with which they had to deal, but a great number of cases. Mr. Herbert himself, if he were not mistaken, had informed him that Mr. Dyce had left on their walls works, on which animadversions had been made, two or three times the value of the money which he had received. In one respect he must object to what had been said in reference to the devotion of Mr. Herbert to his art. Devotion to art was, he was happy to say, no uncommon sentiment among the artists of this country, and the delicacy of feeling which accompanied that devotion, and which was to artists like the air which they breathed, very much complicated the difficulties of dealing with the question. What the Government proposed to do under the circumstances was that the sum of £1,500 should be paid to Mr. Herbert, in addition to the sum of £2,000 which he had received, but that that £1,500 should not be regarded as a final settlement of the matter, but should be paid rather as an instalment in regard to the number of pictures painted than those about to be painted. He might further observe that it was the wish of the Government to form a small Commission of persons judiciously selected for the purpose, who would go carefully into the whole question in reference to contracts on the one hand and performance on the other, and who would endeavour to advise the Government impartially on a view of the whole case as to the course which ought to be adopted. Of course, some delay must occur before such an adjustment could take place as would bring about a fair and just award; but that delay would be as nothing to the difficulties into which the House might rush if under the influence of feeling they were to proceed to a decision which would be taken, not on the whole, but on a single portion of the case.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he conceived that the hon. Member for Gal way had done but a simple act of justice to Mr. Herbert in bringing before the House the claims of Mr. Herbert, and he thanked him for having afforded the Government and the House an opportunity of doing that artist 433 justice. But there were other cases in f which justice ought to be done, as for instance in the case of Mr. Maclise, He thought the question of remuneration having arisen, the time had come for taking stock, as it were, of the works of art executed for the Houses of Parliament, and that larger powers should be given to the; proposed Commission than the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the case of Mr. Herbert did not stand upon the same grounds as those of the other artists.: Finding that the process which he had at first adopted was not calculated to preserve the pictures, he had destroyed 400 feet of; painting in order to adopt another and a better process. There was this peculiar circumstance with reference to Mr. Herbert—that his work was to be regarded as hors de lyne. It was a work of super-eminent merit, that it went beyond anything; we had seen in this country, and therefore he thought it stood apart from the cases; that had been mentioned in connection; with it. He did not think the proposed; Commission would meet the merits of the ease. The country ought to deal generously with Mr. Herbert, who had thrown Ms whole soul into the subject, and had produced a really great and truly sublime work, one about which there could not be two opinions.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he must protest against the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that certain hon. Members had treated the late Mr. Dyce with unfairness. He had no wish: to cast a slur upon the memory of Mr. Dyce, but he could not forget that fourteen years ago Mr. Dyce undertook to paint certain frescoes, and that in 1857, though he had received the whole amount, the frescoes were not done. On more than one occasion the First Commissioner had admitted that Mr. Dyce was in the wrong, and though no one would propose that any money should be claimed from the representatives of Mr. Dyce, hon. Members were not to be blamed for calling attention to the fact that a certain contract had not been fulfilled. He cordially concurred in all the eulogiums which had been passed upon the great work of Mr. Herbert, and he had the authority of that gentleman for saying that unless he received something like £5,000 he would never again put his brush upon the walls of the Houses of Parliament. [Cries of "No, no!"]
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman must be labouring under some mistake; it was impossible that Mr. Herbert could have said that unless he received £5,000 he would never again lay his brush to the walls of the Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he was also convinced that there must he a mistake. He had seen the picture Mr. Herbert was working at, and whatever he might do with regard to any other work of art, he did not think Mr. Herbert meant the remark to apply to the work he was then engaged upon, but it applied to any other work of art which he might be asked to execute.
§ MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that Mr. Herbert was in the room when he saw his great picture, and, pointing to the other end of the apartment, he remarked that his ambition was to cover it with a Representation of Our Lord delivering a Sermon on the Mount. Certainly that did not indicate that he would be influenced in any way whatever by the amount of his remuneration.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Taunton must have misunderstood Mr. Herbert. That gentleman might have said that, with such payment as he had hitherto received, he could not, with a due regard to those who depended upon him, continue the great sacrifices he had made while producing the wonderful work which struck all beholders with delight and admiration.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, the discussion was another illustration of the old adage that it never rained but it poured. When the House of Commons was disposed to be liberal and eulogistic it was so with a vengeance. He wished to call attention to the want of ventilation in the Ladies' Gallery, which could only be likened to the Black Hole of Calcutta. There was no possibility of obtaining air except by opening a door, which created a draught by which the ladies were almost blown to pieces. He hoped some improvement would be introduced as soon as possible.
MR. COWPERremarked that the ill-ventilation of the remote corner to which the eyes of hon. Members were so often turned was owing to a defect of structure, but he had no doubt that every effort would be made to promote the comfort and convenience of the ladies. With regard to Mr. Dyce, he was a man of great celebrity as well as of high honour, and 435 he felt deeply the observations made in that House as to his not having executed the works he contracted for. He was certainly underpaid for the work he did, and was anxious to be released from his engagement, and offered to return the money he had received if released. He (Mr. Cowper) did not feel at liberty to accept that offer, because he thought that what the country wanted was not his money, but that he should complete the works he had commenced, and he feared it was owing to the great exertion he made to execute these works that his illness was increased, and ultimately proved fatal.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to know whether the grating in front of the Ladies' Gallery could not be removed. If it were removed the ladies would have some fresh air, and he was sure Gentlemen would not be sorry to see them.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he cordially concurred in the suggestions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such questions ought, as far as possible, to be transferred from the House of Commons to a more competent tribunal. He also admitted that it would be invidious to deal specially with Mr. Herbert's case, when other gentlemen had similar claims on their consideration. He was unwilling to raise a squabble over the grave of a great artist, and should, therefore, pass over the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks on another topic, merely saying that he did not use stronger language regarding it than the First Commissioner of "Works. He did not base Mr. Herbert's claim on the fact that he had a large family; he mentioned that circumstance only to show that Mr. Herbert could not afford to make those sacrifices for the sake of art, which his generous enthusiasm would otherwise doubtless lead him to do.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he was sorry to have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.