SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 18 July 1867 vol 188 cc1672-708

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £30,479, 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 1868, for Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.

MR. HADFIELD

moved that the Vote should be disallowed, except the sum of £366 for supporting the widows and orphans of ministers of the Synod of Ulster. This charge, including grants for chaplains of priories, had increased from £26,300, in 1834, to £44,460 this year; while the number of Presbyterians had decreased from 1834 to the date of the last Census by 114,666. It appeared that the amount of the Vote increased as the number of those who were to be benefited by it decreased. One of the conditions was that no congregation sharing in the grant should be of less than twelve fami- lies, or contribute a less amount than £35 a year; but it appeared that no attention was paid to this, and there were seventy-one Presbyterian congregations in Ireland who contributed less than that amount. By this, and other circumstances, very great dissatisfaction had been excited, not merely amongst those who did not participate in the money, but amongst members of the particular communion itself. At the meeting of the General Assembly, when the question of renewing the application for an increase of the grant was discussed, the proceedings, as usual, were conducted with closed doors; but it appeared that sixty-one Members voted against the application, and 152 in its favour. Out of a population of 5,720,000, only 500,000 derived any advantage from this grant, and he knew of no reason why exclusive privileges of this kind should be maintained for the sake of a body consisting of but one-tenth, or, more accurately, one-eleventh, of the population of Ireland, The immense majority of the inhabitants of that country assumed the responsibility of maintaining their own clergy, and were perfectly determined to reject any aid from the State. Within the last two years the increase in the fund had been £675, and it increased constantly. In 1843 a large secession from the Scottish Church took place, which was entirely supported by voluntary contributions, amounting since that time to the immense sum of £7,540,000, He understood, from private sources of information which were beyond question, that the wealth of the Presbyterian body in Ireland considerably exceeded that of the Scottish seceders. Yet, in the course of that time, they had received more than £500,000 of the public money. Belfast and the North of Ireland were never in a more prosperous condition than at present, or better able to maintain their own ministers; but the amount contributed by each person for that purpose did not exceed 10d. a year. Well might they proclaim their abhorrence of voluntaryism at this rate, though it did not exhibit their character in a very favourable point of view. He was aware they had a Missionary Society to which they gave £10,000 a year, and, when in Dublin, a few years ago, he had seen a place of worship erected by a single individual of that body at a cost of £16,000. This proved that they could do many things if they chose; and he maintained that the prosperity of the denomination would be immensely advanced by their declining the receipt of State aid, and relying on their own resources and the bounty of their own members. It had only recently been determined that the grants for religious purposes in the West Indies, amounting to £20,000, should be discontinued; and he proposed that the same course should be adopted as in that case, the Vote being gradually discontinued, and the life interests of existing parties respected. He should conclude by moving, in the name of the Presbyterian body, and on their behalf, as well as on behalf of the entire country, the reduction of the Vote to the small sum he had mentioned. It would be a real boon to the population, and would tend to the removal of existing sources of bitterness, which had a most pernicious effect, preventing the affairs of Ireland from being placed on a footing satisfactory to all.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £366, 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 1868, for Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."—(Mr. Hadfield.)

MR. PEEL DAWSON

said, notwithstanding the constant opposition offered to this Vote by the hon. Member for Sheffield and a few of his Friends, he was of opinion that the State had judged wisely in granting assistance to the Presbyterian body of Ireland, and providing for the extension of their congregations. This opinion he had formed after a lung residence in Ireland, and he would submit that an opinion so formed was more reliable than any abstract theory connected with the voluntary system, which was entirely unsuited to the present distribution of ecclesiastical property in Ireland. He believed that the State would suffer from any violent dissolution of the ties that existed between the two great Protestant Churches through their connections with the State. The Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, contrary to the hem. Member's statement, were far from being a wealthy body, with the exception of a few individuals. They felt that, having been invited in the reign of James I. to colonize Ulster, and having been promised a considerable portion of the tithes, out of which, however, they were afterwards cajoled, they had a strong claim upon the Government in reference to the maintenance of their Church, and that there was a compact to that effect which was binding upon the country. It was notorious that not a single Fenian belonged to the Presbyterian body, and where that religion predominated the gaols were empty, and the only inmates of the workhouses were the very aged and the very youthful part of the population. On those grounds he felt it to be his duty to resist the Motion of the hon. Member; but he went farther, and must express his hope that the Government would listen to the earnest wish entertained by the Presbyterians of Ireland that some slight increase should be made in the stipends of those ministers. The present amount granted to them was not to exceed £75 Irish, equivalent to £69 4s. 8d. English, or only one-eighth part of the amount received by the ministers of this body 200 years ago. To raise the stipend to £100 annually for each minister would require only a sum of £16,000 or £17,000, which he hoped would be acceded to.

MR. KENNEDY

said, that he represented a constituency, the greater part of whom were Roman Catholics, although he himself was a member of the Established Church. He thought the hon. Member for Sheffield had commenced at the wrong end of legislation. While the Established Church in Ireland received an enormous revenue from the State, he could not consent to be a party to removing so paltry a grant as that given to the Dissenters.

MR. HUNT

hoped that the Motion would not be pressed to a division, for the Vote was one which had been sanctioned by successive Governments for nearly two centuries, and it was looked upon by those who received it in the light of an endowment. He believed that the conditions which were laid down some years ago were still carried out; that congregations could only qualify for the grant by having a place of worship, and by themselves endowing the minister to the extent of £35 a year; and further, that a congregation must consist of not less than twelve resident families. He could not make any answer in reference to what had been said about the report of the General Assembly, because having had no notice upon the subject he had not looked into the matter.

COLONEL STUART KNOX

said, it was satisfactory to know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, so far from representing the feeling of the whole country, would only be followed into the Lobby by some half-dozen of his immediate Friends. The advantages of the Vote were admitted by all who knew the state of the North of Ireland and nothing could more clearly evince the excellent feeling and dispositions which animated that portion of the population than the fact that amongst them not a particle of sympathy with the Fenians was to be found. When the Roman Catholics derived aid from the public for Maynooth, how could it be asserted that no other body of Dissenters in Ireland received State assistance but the Presbyterians? The Presbyterians had received every encouragement from the late Government and the softest words from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, until it was discovered that they would not instruct their representatives to support the late Government on all occasions.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

must say that the Presbyterians of Ulster deserved no support from the Catholic Members of that House, because be believed that on all occasions they had been found in the ranks of those who defended the ascendancy principle in Ireland; and even in the present day their representatives in that House opposed every Vote brought forward for the removal of the religious disabilities under which the Roman Catholic body Buffered. A Roman Catholic would have no more chance of being returned as a representative of any place in the North of Ireland where the Presbyterians were strong, than Beelzebub himself. Notwithstanding, however, that feeling, he must vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend, because he viewed it as but a small portion of a large question, which must be soon dealt with by Parliament. In the face of the Maynooth grant, too, he could not vote against the Regium Donwn. He believed that the grant had been originally given as a bribe to induce the Presbyterians to support the Established Church in Ireland. He had no doubt but that the Church question in Ireland would in a short time be the great question of the day; and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not apply his great mind to a better purpose than to that of devising a wide and extensive measure on the subject.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that for centuries this system of Church endowments had been pursued, and it had remained a stain upon the country. Those Churches in Ireland that were endowed made themselves offensive to the Irish Roman Catholics, just because they were not endowed. God's law was to trust the stability of a Church to love and Christianity, but statesmen's law was to trust to money and Acts of Parliament. This state of things could not long exist, and the sooner it was put a stop to the better. Money was given to three religions in Ire land, and was not that highly inconsistent, because they could not all be right? He hoped the House would put an end to the system.

MR. VANCE

observed that every Irish Member who had spoken on the subject had supported this endowment. It was the voluntaries of England, who were opposed to the Established Church of England, who had combined to oppose this grant, and all Churchmen and Presbyterians in Ireland were justified in resisting their attempts, the object of which was to disendow the Established Church of both countries. The reasons which the hon. Member for Sheffield gave for his opposition to this grant appeared to him (Mr. Vance) rather to be reasons for endowing the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland more liberally. The hon. Gentleman said that nothing could exceed the liberality of the Presbyterians for the support of foreign missions—that they desired to augment the livings of their ministers, and were anxious to build more churches. A magnificent Presbyterian church had recently been built in Dublin by a single gentleman, These facts appeared to him to furnish good reasons for increasing the Regium Donum. Only 546 ministers were paid out of this grant, each of them receiving the small pittance of £69 4s. 8d., and in order to secure the Regium Donum the sum of £35 each must be contributed by the body at large. He hoped that this endowment would be placed on the Consolidated Fund like the Maynooth Grant, as the late Sir Robert Peel promised to do, so that the House would be spared every Session those repeated discussions.

SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEY

objected to the grant as an English taxpayer, believing it to be wrong to burden the people of England in order to support the worship of the Presbyterian body in Ireland. The hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) said that this was originally a bribe to the Presbyterians of Ulster to induce them to support the Established Church in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have added, with equal truth, that the Maynooth Grant was another bribe to the Roman Catholics of Ireland for the same object. He was rather surprised that the Roman Catholics had accepted that bribe. If they had not done so he believed that the Established Church in Ireland would have been long since placed on a much more satisfactory footing. He belonged to that party that objected to the public money being applied to any religious sect whatever, and whether this particular grant was placed on the Consolidated Fund or not their opposition to it would still continue.

MR. LEFROY

hoped that this grant would be carried by a large majority. He denied the assertion that it was given originally as a bribe to the Presbyterian body, who had ever shown themselves most loyal and faithful subjects, and most devoted to law and order. He had not the slightest fear that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should deal with the subject he would do so in a way injurious to the interests of those belonging to the Established Church in Ireland.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he should vote in favour of the present grant for this reason—because he was certain that as soon as the Reform Bill came into operation the whole question of religious endowments in Ireland would be fully considered, and until then he did not think it would be wise to interfere with any particular religious endowment that existed. With reference to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stuart Knox) on the subject of deputations, he presumed that the hon. and gallant Member desired to see deputations following the example of one which recently waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after a pleasant interview, departed without, having spoken upon the subject on which they were deputed to wait on the right hon. Gentleman. The occurrence of outrages had been referred to as against the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, but the attention of the House had been drawn to the occurrence of very serious outrages not very far distant from the region to which the grant applied. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembered the debates on the Belfast riots.

MR. LANYON

asserted that the Belfast riots were very far from being due to the Presbyterians; they had arisen from action on the part of those opposed to Presbyterians. He regretted that the subjected had been introduced in connection with the debate. Considering how greatly money had decreased in value since the pittance under discussion had been given to the Presbyterian ministers, he thought it but fair to increase it; he also approved the proposal to make the grant a fixed charge on the Consoldated Fund. He denied that the grant was a bribe to encourage Protestant ascendancy; it had been made to help the Presbyterians, and had succeeded in bringing about an amount of prosperity and healthy industry there superior to what existed in any other part of Ireland.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that hon. Members had remarked that those who were opposed to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield should bring forward some measure to regulate the anomalies connected with the Established Church, and that until that was accomplished nothing should be done in these matters connected with grants to other religious bodies. Now he entirely disagreed with that proposition. First of all the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had been constantly framing Bills on kindred subjects, as to the fate of which they all had had experience. It would be much better if the hon. and learned Gentleman were to bring forward a Motion stating distinctly what he and his Friends desired. During the time he (Mr. M'Laren) had been in the House many Motions were brought forward connected with the Irish Established Church question, but those who spoke on them usually went round and roundabout, and he invariably found that the Motion was withdrawn, and the whole thing ended in smoke. It was too bad to ask him and those who felt with him against all grants for religious purposes to bring forward large propositions on this question. It had been said this was only a small matter, and that the whole class of religious questions should be dealt with by one comprehensive, sweeping measure. But that was not the way in which the Duke of Wellington effected an entrance into the strong fortresses he had taken. He always took the outworks first, and having them in his hands, strengthened his position, and then, with their advantages for assault, obtained possession of the fortress. If the same course were adopted with respect to the Regium Donum, and the Established Church in Ireland, the result would be far different from that which had attended the many attempts to deal with that Church. He was opposed to all religious endowments, whether it was to the Church, the Regium Donum, or the Maynooth Grant; he objected to the principle whenever it came up, in whatever shape or form.

MR. O'NEILL

, adverting to the statement that the grant had continued to in- crease while the Irish Presbyterians had diminished, said, that if the request of the deputation of last year had been acceded to, the Presbyterians would have guaranteed that no further increase would be asked for. Though the Presbyterians had diminished absolutely, yet relatively to the population of Ireland generally they had increased more than 1 per cent.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he should certainly press his Motion to a division.

The Committee divided;—Ayes 33; Noes 106: Majority 73.

Original Question again proposed,

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

then moved a further Amendment, to the effect that the sum of £346 3s. 4d. for new congregations, being at the rate of £69 4s. 6d. for each, should be disallowed. If they could not get rid of the payments to the old congregations, he thought they should put a stop to any fresh charges being made upon the taxpayers of the country. He should no doubt be told that the sum was small, and that it was hardly worth while to stop it, but however small the sum was the principle was bad, and he did not wish to see it extended. They should endeavour to win the loyalty of the Irish people by equal and just legislation, and not by bribes such as these. They ought not to ask Irishmen to sell their birthrights for a mess of pottage. Principles, and not expediency, ought to guide all Governments. There was some reason why the present recipients of the grant should not be disturbed in the receipt of it, but he thought they ought not to increase the grant by extending it to new congregations.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Item of £346 3s. 4d., for New Congregations, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Lusk.)

LORD NAAS

hoped the hon. Member would not divide the Committee on his Amendment, which was substantially the same as had been just decided. It would be unjust if the Committee did not recognize the claims of new congregations. The conditions on which new congregations were established were — that the pastor must be an ordained minister; that the congregations must comprise twelve families, of not less than fifty persons; and that the minister was in receipt of £35 per annum. And these conditions were rigidly enforced before any grants were made. The establishment of any new con- gregation was an argument in favour of the continuance of these grants, and as evincing increased activity in the body. He hoped the Committee would not take so serious a step as to adopt the Amendment.

MR. HADFIELD

supported the Amendment.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 41; Noes 78: Majority 37.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £35,945 to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

complained of the Government allowing an action against the sheriffs of London and Middlesex for serving a writ upon an individual residing in Hampton Court Palace. He thought it was very unfair on the part of the Government or the Attorney General to allow the sheriffs to be put to these law expenses when they were only doing their duty in carrying out the law.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the Judges had now decided that writs do run in Hampton Court Palace, and the question would not arise again.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, what he found fault with was that those who were responsible—the Government or the Law Officers—should have allowed the action to be brought and prosecuted against the sheriffs. Those who nominated persons for residence in the Palace should be careful whom they selected.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, it was the first time the question had arisen. Writs were supposed not to run in the Royal Palaces, and it was necessary that the law should be determined.

MR. AYRTON

said, that, considering the large amount of money expended upon so many Royal Palaces, it was very much to be regretted that in these Palaces we could not find or provide accommodation for distinguished visitors. If the authorities would inquire into the way in which they were occupied, it would be found that they might be appropriated so that, when any person of distinction visited this country, he might be received as the national guest, and nut left to wander about. It could not be that we failed in our duty through want of space, for the Palaces contained a great many rooms and occupied large areas, and it was to be supposed that the rooms were occupied in some way. He would not say that they were misappropriated; but they must be allotted to those who occupied them by some constituted authority, and they ought to be so appropriated that a Palace could be used to meet extraordinary requirements. By our defaults in hospitality the position of this country was injured in the eyes of foreign nations. It was not merely that a slight was offered to the individual Prince or visitor, whose feelings might be a secondary matter; but his feelings were shared by the community or nation he might be said to represent. No doubt, the feeling that he was not treated here with the same honour or distinction that he was elsewhere, was, to a large extent, participated in by his own subjects, and produced a certain amount of ill-feeling. The subject was one that deserved the attention of Government. Looking to the number of Royal Palaces, some which were not, and could not, be occupied by the Sovereign, and looking at the amount of money expended upon them, he thought arrangements might be made for a better appropriation of the rooms within them, so that we might, at all times, be able to provide for the reception of persons of distinction. It was a derogation from our monarchical principles that the Sovereign did not undertake the duty of representing the nation in relation to foreign Princes. We were really converting our Government into a republic, if, when a foreign Prince came, the Sovereign of England was not able to receive him on behalf of the nation, and the duties of hospitality had to be undertaken by public subscription, unless some bountiful nobleman happened to step in and save the nation from this disgrace. He always understood that, in our relations with foreign States, the Sovereign was the only person who ought to act on behalf of the nation. It was not—and it ought not to be — content that such relationships should be confined to negotiations carried on by Ministers of State and Ambassadors. If there were duties that the Sovereign only ought to undertake, it was extremely wrong for any private subject to intervene and discharge them. He hoped that not another year would pass without the amount they were now about to Vote, and would be culled upon to Vote again, being so appropriated that it would be in the power of Her Majesty, on the occasion of the future visits of foreign Princes, to place at their disposal a suite of apartments, in town or country, suitable to their station and dignity, and in which they could be appropriately entertained.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention is undoubtedly one of importance, and is at this moment under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. But the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee must understand that in order to accomplish all that is necessary in this respect, Her Majesty must be supplied with the means of receiving guests of great distinction—Sovereigns from various parts of the world—in a manner becoming the dignity of the nation. Now, with regard to this charge of £41,000 which the hon. Gentleman thinks could be fairly administered for that purpose, it should be remembered that when you have a great many old buildings to keep up, such a sum is not adequate to effect the purpose which the hon. Member contemplates, and which, I agree with him, should be effected. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there are a great many Palaces which might be placed at the disposal of illustrious guests; but if he examines the subject and considers the various Palaces which Her Majesty possesses, he would find that though there are some fine Royal Palaces in England, yet if a foreign Sovereign becomes the guest of Her Majesty he wants to be in London. [An hon. MEMBER: Kensington.] Well, but Kensington is hardly London; though, nevertheless, it is of all places exactly the site in which I should be glad to see a fine Palace erected. But the present building is not a Palace, and those buildings which are by courtesy called Palaces in the metropolis really have not the requisite accommodation. Even St. James's Palace—though containing a suite of State rooms not contemptible—is in all other respects deficient. Now, if the House of Commons would only consider this subject in the light in which it has been viewed by Her Majesty's Government, and which is one of interest and importance to the country, it would be well that they should think what should be done to turn the site now occupied by Kensington Palace to account for the purpose which the hon. Gentleman contemplates. If a suitable Palace were built upon the spot, though the whole were not appropriated to the reception of foreign Sovereigns, a portion, commensurate with the occasion and the circumstances, might be reserved for that purpose, and a portion for the ordinary purposes of the service of the Sovereign. Now, the cost of these royal receptions is a thing which a country like England ought not to grudge. There is an impression abroad that such receptions might be furnished from means already in existence; but a great misapprehension prevails in that respect. No doubt the Civil List of this country is considerable in amount, and has hitherto been found sufficient for all occasions and circumstances contemplated. It should be remembered, however, that we are now in the midst of a reign of considerable duration, and which I trust may yet be prolonged for very many years, and never during all that time has an appeal been made to Parliament for anything beyond the amount fixed for the Civil List. The Civil List accounts, it will be satisfactory for the House to know, have been kept with strictness, the expenditure is under complete control, and the administration of the funds conducted with great ability, and under no circumstances, even when very considerable hospitality has been exercised, has there been any excess of expenditure. The Civil List is intended only for the ordinary expenses to which the Crown is put. It is audited by a public officer, and the mode in which, the money is expended is known. It does meet the demands upon it, and has been so managed that it has never exceeded those demands—a circumstance almost unprecedented in the history of this country. Now, the Committee should remember when the expense of the Royal Household of this country is contrasted with that of other countries, and unfavourably contrasted as far as regards the reception of foreign Sovereigns at home and abroad, that the Civil List of some foreign Monarchs far exceeds the Civil List of our own Sovereign. It is not convenient to refer too much in detail to matters of this kind, but when I hear hon. Gentlemen often speak of the appropriate splendour with which foreign Sovereigns who have visited some great Emperor have been received, and contrast that with the mode in which they have been received when they have come as visitors here, I must remind them that there are Civil Lists amounting to, or even exceeding, £1,000,000 sterling in the enjoyment of such Sovereigns, and though the Civil List of the Sovereign of England is not on a restricted scale, and has been adequate to the expenditure of the Crown, still it cannot for a moment vie with Civil Lists arranged on so vast a scale of expenditure and resource as those to which I have referred. All these cir- cumstances must be considered by the country and its representatives if they wish any very great change to be made in the manner in which foreign Sovereigns are received in this country. Notwithstanding the general complaints on the subject, there are really no Palaces in the metropolis that are available; and if we wish to have a Palace fitted up and devoted to such purposes—and I am myself of opinion that it is desirable that should be done—we must really make up our minds to consider it as a matter of business, and not suppose that by making complaints and speeches, a parcel of old buildings can be made to serve purposes to which they are not in the least adopted. If we wish them to fulfil such offices in a manner worthy of the country and its Sovereign, an extraordinary expenditure must be incurred, from which the country must not shrink, and the Civil List of our Sovereign must not be compared with that of other Sovereigns, whose mode of receiving their Royal guests is unjustly contrasted with that which is observed here.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

was ready to agree that we ought not to be mean or shabby, but it could not be contended that £42,000 was not an adequate amount to be expended on the repair of the Royal Palaces in a single year. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not so much as offered an explanation of the circumstances, which were matter of general observation and complaint. He did not know why they should not be furnished with a list of all the apartments in the present Palaces, and the persons by whom they were occupied. He should be glad to know for what purpose the expensive establishment of stables was kept up.

MR. KENDALL

thought that a great mistake had been made by complaining of the reception given to the foreign Sovereigns who were in this country at present. Night after night hon. Gentlemen got up and talked about the matter. Would it not have been wiser to let the matter pass, and not to make the thing worse by dwelling upon it? He appealed to the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets whether he had acted discreetly in making the observations which had just fallen from him, and which would probably be translated to those august personages in the morning. He was surprised that such observations should have come from a Member of the acumen of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. However, to talk much was a great pleasure to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought greater mischief had been done by the remarks which had been made on the error—if error there was—which had been committed, than any one could possibly conceive. What should an Englishman do if he found that the country or the Sovereign had made a mistake but to keep it in the background, rather than drag it before the public?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

wished to observe, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that the Royal stables were appropriated to the breeding stud, which it was of great importance to keep up.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, a question had been asked as to where a foreign Sovereign could be received. Now, he wished to ask whether on former occasions during the reign of Her Majesty, foreign Sovereigns, such as the Emperor of Russia and others, had not come to this country and been received at Buckingham Palace? A certain discredit had been thrown on the nation as apparently unwilling to entertain foreign Sovereigns, and that he thought an unfortunate circumstance. If the nation had been asked for money and had refused it, the House of Commons might be called anything that anybody might choose to call it; but he was not aware that the House of Commons had ever been asked to give any money for the purpose. The House of Commons knew that foreign Sovereigns had been entertained by our Sovereign without any application to Parliament; but if any deviation from the usual practice was necessary on the present occasion, the nation had a right to expect that an appeal would be made to the House of Commons, and that they would not have been driven to the necessity of relying on the patriotism of a private individual, or accepting an offer generously made, to do that, in fact, which was the duty of the nation.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kendall) had complained that he had been in the habit of making speeches about the reception of foreign Sovereigns. But if the hon. Gentleman got up to make statements, he ought at least to know what had been going on. In point of fact, he (Mr. Ayrton) had not made a single observation on the subject before that day. If the Government did not wish this subject to be raised, they ought not to have brought on at that time a Vote which expressly raised the question. He thought that if any foreign Sovereign had cause of complaint, it would be a consolation to him to know that the House of Commons sympathized with his feelings, and were disposed to do all they could to prevent a recurrence of any slight that might have been offered. His observations had been confined to the question before the House. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had enlarged the discussion from the appropriation of the Palaces to the disposition of the funds voted for the Civil List, of which he (Mr. Ayrton) knew nothing. All that the Committee had before them was the fact of there being a number of Palaces, some of them not inhabited by Her Majesty, and what he contended was, that, being at some time or other inhabited by the Sovereign, they could not be such mean buildings as to be incapable, by a judicious expenditure, of being made suitable for the Sovereigns of foreign countries. He considered the remarks of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kendall) as unfounded in fact as they were unjustifiable and uncalled for.

MR. KENDALL

said, he could not apologize for a word he had uttered. He would appeal to the common sense of the Committee whether the hon. Member was justified in referring to the treatment of foreign Sovereigns, and making a grievance out of the way in which they were received.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had not blamed the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing up the subject, for he was glad that it had been discussed. He had only wished the Committee clearly to understand the facts of the case, as they would probably have to be investigated. With regard to the old buildings in London, which were called Palaces, they were all inhabited by members of the Royal family; but none of them were in a condition to be available for a Sovereign who was our guest. He understood the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) to apply to a complete Palace with nil its accommodation and equipment, which might be placed at the service of Royal visitors. Buckingham Palace, however, was Her Majesty's own residence, and was really the only Palace we had. It was a bad Palace indeed for the chief Palace of a great country like England; but it was, nevertheless, a Palace royally equipped and furnished. But what had Her Majesty done? She had invited the Sovereign of Turkey to this country, and had placed that Palace at his disposal. He was at present her guest there, and no other Sovereign could be Her Majesty's guest at the same time, for, although a certain number of private rooms were appropriated to any Sovereign staying there, the whole of the State apartments were at his disposal, and in them the Sultan, only the other day, had receptions of the diplomatic corps and other important bodies. We could not have two Sovereigns at one time guests in the same Palace. He trusted that this conversation would induce the Committee to reflect that we had no means in this country of giving that reception to guests of the Sovereign which became a country like England, and that there were no peculiar funds which were competent for that purpose. The Committee must fairly consider what steps were necessary under these circumstances, and he had no doubt they would do so.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opened a very wide field indeed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were no Palaces where tier Majesty could entertain guests, and that there were no pecuniary means available for such a purpose. He had not expected to hear in a discussion of this nature, remarks which ought, if well founded, to be offered by the right hon. Gentleman in a formal and careful statement, on proposing to repeal the present Civil List Act, and to introduce another. As for the doctrine that no pecuniary means were available for the entertainment of foreign Sovereigns, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hankey) had put a very plain question, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had totally misunderstood, and in doing so, had deprived Her Majesty of the very great honour and credit which justly belonged to her. His hon. Friend had asked whether it was not the fact that the Emperor of Russia had been received and entertained by Her Majesty in her own Palace, at her own expense, without any complaint on the part of any one of the meanness of that reception, and, indeed, as he would venture to add, with a universal acknowledgment of its worthiness. Now, he could answer that question from his own recollection in the affirmative, and could add that the Emperor of the French, Louis Philippe in his time, the King of Italy, and various other Sovereigns had been entertained by Her Majesty on various occasions with a splendour and liberality worthy of her character and her station, without any complaint ever going forth, and without any application to Parliament or any intimation by the Ministers of the Crown that such applications were to be made. It was doubtless true that very little faith was kept by many former Sovereigns with the representatives of the people with regard to their public expenditure; but it had become not the least among the honours of the present reign, and certainly not the least among the circumstances redounding to the personal honour and credit of Her Majesty, that while the strictest good faith had been kept with the representatives of the people under the provisions of the law respecting the expenditure of the Court, all entertainment and hospitality had for some time been maintained upon a scale little known in former years. This was attributable to judicious control, to the wisdom of Her Majesty, and of the late Prince Consort in his lifetime, and also to the wisdom of those selected to serve them in their household, and the whole of these great operations had been carried on with perfect satisfaction to the country, and with great honour to the Sovereign. These proceedings, he would add, had been of great political importance, for there was nothing were important than that the pecuniary covenants entered into between the Crown and the people should be rigidly observed. He disapproved exceedingly of the kind of disturbance imported into these arrangements by vague observations used by a Minister of the Crown in the responsible position of the right hon. Gentleman. If there were a change of circumstances, if there were new occasions calling for new arrangements, let those arrangements be deliberately proposed to Parliament; but he did not think this kind of preparation of the mind of the House of Commons, through these vague intimations, was at all desirable. This doctrine of the preparation of the mind of Parliament was a thing of which they had lately heard a good deal, and it was considered a great proof of skill in the control of public affairs; but he was of opinion that such proposals, when made, should be made directly, and not in this vague manner, as though they were matters of secondary consequence. However that might be, there was no doubt that whenever the right hon. Gentleman thought fit, or found occasion to introduce the subject, the House would entertain it with the attention which its serious nature deserved. His object, however, in rising had not been to animadvert on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but to supply from his own recollection, which was perfectly fresh, an answer to his hon. Friend (Mr. Hankey) and for the purpose of securing to Her Majesty, in the view of the House, that credit which was most justly deserved by the Crown, and all those concerned in the conduct of what might be called the personal affairs of the Crown, for maintaining on a magnificent and worthy scale the hospitality and splendour of the Court without any burden on the people.

(3.) £95,805, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, &c.

(4.) £10,500, to complete the sum for Furniture in Public Departments.

(5.) £100,326, to complete the sum for Royal Parks, Pleasure Gardens, &c.

MR. O'BEIRNE

wished to know whether any arrangement could be made by which the drive over Constitution Hill could be opened to Members of Parliament when coming down to attend their duties?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the privilege or allowing carriages to pass over Constitution Hill was exercised by the Crown under the advice of the Home Secretary, and the Department of Works had nothing to do with it. He believed that the privilege was sparingly given on account of the proximity of the carriage-way to Buckingham Palace. The gateway of the triumphal arch was so narrow that it would not be wide enough for much carriage traffic.

MR. O'BEIRNE

said, there was ample space on both sides of the triumphal arch through which carriages could be admitted.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

asked whether permission could not be given for the carriages of Members to pass over Constitution Hill during the absence of the Queen from Buckingham Palace?

GENERAL DUNNE

rose, pursuant to Notice, to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £18,407. A part of this amount was to go towards repairing the damage done to the Hyde Park railings by the mob, and the other part was for putting back the line of railings in Park Lane. He objected to these expenses being paid for by the whole country. In the first case the damage was done by a lawless rabble, who had been collected by a set of reckless and seditious agitators, under pretence of petitioning this House, but in reality of breaking the law and forcing themselves into the parks. In Ireland, when outrages on property were committed, the law—and it was not the law of Ireland alone—placed the reparation of the damage done upon the district in which it was committed. He recollected that last year, when a number of windows of a club, of which he was one of the Committee, were broken, he directed the solicitor of the club to seek for damages. It was not denied that in such cases damages could be recovered, but through some technicality as to insurance he was prevented from pressing the matter. He did not see why, when outrages were committed by rioters in London, London should not be made to pay for the damage that was done. That was the law in Ireland, and he believed it was also the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. The old rule of English law was that all such damage ought to be made good by the hundred. It was very unfair to the people of the provinces that they should be taxed to repair the havoc committed by a London mob, and such an objectionable demand as that was not merely an Irish grievance, nor a grievance of any particular locality; it affected every rural town and district—every one who lived out of London; it opened a wide question between the metropolis and the rest of the country. It was said there were Irishmen — Fenians — in the mob that threw down the railings of Hyde Park, and possibly that was the fact; but let a Return be obtained of how much damage was done by Irishmen on that occasion before Ireland was required to pay for it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving— That the Vote for the expenses of Hyde Park be reduced by a sum of £18,407; that it is just and expedient that the amount necessary to repair the damage done to the railings and Park itself by a mob of rioters, some months since, should be levied on the City of London and Metropolitan districts in the same way as damage caused by similar outrages is levied in Ireland, and that such procedure is in accordance with justice and the ancient Law of England.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

entirely objected to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to transfer the burden of that Vote from the Consolidated Fund to the householders of London, who were innocent of the riotous conduct referred to. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's own countrymen, no doubt, had more to do with those riots than the householders of London, and it was monstrous to propose that that charge should be defrayed by the Metropolitan Board of Works out of funds levied from the house property of London. It had been suggested that the damage in that case was done by the compound-householder; but he believed that neither the compound nor the simple householder was responsible for it. The only way in which the Parks could be properly kept up was by charging their expense to the Consolidated Fund.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

would certainly vote against the proposition, which was most unjust. Even according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own argument that charge ought not to fall on the metropolis as a whole, but upon the particular parish or district where the injury was done. He contended that the public Parks of the capital should be maintained out of the Imperial Exchequer.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under a misconception as to the law relating to that subject. By the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 31, any damage done in a riot to any church, chapel, or other building was recoverable from the hundred in which it occurred; but that statute contained no reference to the damage done to a fence. The iron railing round Hyde Park was not a building, but a fence; and any attempt to proceed against the hundred under that statute would have failed. He therefore thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would hardly wish to press his Motion. Even if the proposal had been quite a practicable one, it would have been very questionable on the broad grounds of policy.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

also objected to the Amendment.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he had already put a question to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works respecting the flowers in Hyde Park, and he hoped the noble Lord would give him a reply. He wished the noble Lord would direct his attention to the north side of that Park, which was not nearly so well kept as the south. The north side was left in a destitute state, and was frequently covered with weeds. He also hoped the noble Lord would bestow some attention to the walk by the monument in Kensington Gardens, which a few days ago was in a scandalous and disgraceful state, being overgrown with weeds.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the fact that eight or ten years ago a sum of £300,000 or £400,000 was voted by the House for the laying out of Battersea Park, on the understanding that that amount was to be recouped by the conversion of land in the neighbourhood, which was then of no possible value, into valuable building sites. He believed that although about £500,000 had been voted for that Park, none of the money had been recouped. No doubt the improvement made was very considerable, and anything but an attractive locality had been converted into an agreeable Park; but it was a question whether faith had been kept with the country, and it was only fair that the House should know when the money would be received which had been advanced on a direct promise of the Government that it should be repaid. Not only had that money not been repaid, but an annual Vote was passed for the purpose of keeping up the Park, which it was originally understood would be self supporting. The Vote for Battersea Park this year was £1,000 in excess of that of last year.

In answer to Mr. Alderman LUSK,

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he did not think it was desirable to have precisely the same arrangement of ornamental flower beds all round Hyde Park. Everything had been done on the North side which was consistent with keeping that portion of the Park in the state in which it was designed to be kept. He hoped that next year the Vote for the Park would be smaller than the present Estimate. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien), he must observe that the original design of converting the outlying portions of land round Battersea Park into building sites was being gradually carried out. Arrangements were now in progress for letting on building leases a considerable part of the reserved land, and he had every reason to believe that before long the original anticipation with respect to the remunerative nature of the property would be realized. It was true the Vote for maintaining Battersea Park exhibited an increase this year; but £400 was for stopping up a pestiferous open drain, and £500 for the finishing of a wall dividing the Park from the river, without which the Park would not be complete. The other items of the Vote also were such as could not fairly be objected to. He wished to add that during his predecessor's occupancy of office everything that was necessary was done for the im- provement and embellishment of the Park; and the result was that Battersea Park afforded a remarkable illustration of what could be done by combination and perseverance in transforming one of the most unsightly districts into one of the most beautiful Parks in the country.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

wished roads in the Parks, contrasting, as it did, with the disgraceful state of the roads of the metropolis generally. He was glad to observe that the roads in the Parks had been crushed by means of steam rollers, and he hoped the Metropolitan Board of Works would apply that method of crushing to the laying down of stones in the streets, instead of leaving them to be crushed by the carriages and horses which traversed them.

MR. COWPER

wished to enter his protest against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that the north side of the Park should be treated in a similar manner to the south side. At present there were a number of fine shady trees on the north side, with fine smooth grass beneath; and he thought it would be a great loss if the shrubbery on that side were removed to make way for flower beds. He wished to add that, in common with the rest of the public, he felt much pleased at the admirable manner in which the noble Lord had arranged that portion of the Park, thereby adding great beauty to the metropolis, and affording means of enjoyment to a large number of people.

Amendment withdrawn.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

, in explanation, said, he had not stated that he wished the north side of Hyde Park to be treated in the same way as the south side; what he said was that he wished the north side to be better kept.

In reply to a Question from Viscount ENFIELD,

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the new rails in Hyde Park, on the side of Park Lane, were to be completed by the 15th of October in the present year, and the rest of the rails by the 15th of July next year.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there was an item of £1,542 for Chelsea Hospital and grounds. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether, to meet the wishes of the inhabitants of the district, greater facilities could not be given for entering the grounds, in the shape of more gates on the river side, and whether a greater number of seats could not be provided in the grounds, particularly in the Lime Tree Walk?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, if he could be convinced that more entrances were required, he should be happy to provide them; but he thought that there was already very convenient access to the grounds, and to multiply gates without a necessity would be an evil. With regard to the seats in the grounds, he would do all he could to accommodate the public; but he believed that the Chelsea Hospital grounds were as well provided with seats as other grounds.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £45,137 to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

inquired whether there was any chance of better accommodation being afforded in the other House for Members of the House of Commons? On ordinary occasions there was standing room for a few below the Bar, and there were also a few seats in the gallery for Members of the House of Commons, and when any complaint was made of the scantiness of accommodation, they were told that if they wanted to hear speeches they could hear plenty in their own House. There were, however, occasions when the House of Commons was summoned to the other House to hear the Speech from the Throne, and then the usual accommodation was even diminished, and on the Speaker asking hon. Members to walk into the House of Lords with due decorum they found the few standing places taken by others, who, he understood, were not Members of the House of Commons. He trusted that in future the Commons would be better treated in the House of Lords, for every courtesy was shown in accommodating the Peers when they wished to hear the debates in the House of Commons.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, the question which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee was a very important one, inasmuch as it concerned the honour and dignity of that House. The scramble to get places in the House of Lords to hear Her Majesty's Speech was disgraceful, and, after all, hon. Members were so crushed and crowded that it was impossible for them to hear Her Majesty. He thought that some arrangement should be made in order that the Commons, when summoned to the other House, should have at least decent accommodation. There was another subject upon which he should be glad to receive some explanation from the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, and that was the accommodation provided for Members of the House in the dining-room. That was a very important room, especially for Gentlemen occupying the position of Ministers; and he was glad to notice that a great many Members of the present Government were patrons of the dining-room. Last year a proposition was made to enlarge the present dining-room, and a plan for the purpose, which received the approval of 150 Members of that House, was drawn up; but he understood that it was now abandoned, and that a suggestion was made to turn the present tea-room and rooms adjacent into a dining-room. It had also been suggested that the Lords and Commons might dine together in the same apartment. He should like to know whether any plan had been proposed and sanctioned for a new dining-room?

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

observed that part of the Vote was intended for the purchase of paintings, and he was sure that every Member must have noticed with sorrow the disgraceful state of the paintings in the corridors after the sums of money expended on them. Many of these works were already hastening to decay; and he wished to repeat a suggestion which he had frequently made before, that a glass covering should be placed in front of the pictures, which would protect them from the accumulation of dust and dirt, just in the same manner as many of the pictures in the National Gallery were protected. He threw out that recommendation by way of an experiment, and he could see no reasonable objection to its adoption.

MR. BENTINCK

considered it a matter of great doubt whether glass would be useful in the way suggested. At any rate, he feared the pictures were so far gone as to be past recovery. Under these circumstances, it would be prudent to consider whether the three new paintings which had been ordered from Mr. Ward should be placed in some room where they would be less liable to injury than in the passages or Lobbies of the House.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

wished to be informed when it was likely that the Com- mittee appointed to consider the expediency of making further accommodation within the House for hon. Members would present their Report. There was so little accommodation at present that many Members were on some occasions obliged to sit on the steps of the gangways, and almost on each other's knees.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

hoped that the Committee referred to would be very careful how they recommended any very extensive alterations in the construction of the House, at a large expenditure of money. He did not think that the House was much too small, after all. It afforded sufficient accommodation for the transaction of their ordinary business; and, if it were much enlarged, Members would find it very difficult to make themselves heard. He believed, however, that they had good reason to complain of the absence of proper arrangements for their accommodation in the House of Lords on those occasions on which they were summoned to meet Her Majesty in that House. It was not dignified that they should be compelled to stand up in that little pen, as if they were in a dock, and as if they were nobody at all. A sent ought, at all events, to be provided for the Speaker at those State ceremonials.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that although a good deal of confusion had frequently prevailed on those occasions on which the Commons were summoned to appear at the Bar of the House of Lords, he believed that the evil had been greatly diminished this year in consequence of the precautions which had been adopted for keeping clear the passage between the two Chambers. With respect to the accommodation provided in the House of Lords, they were under the same difficulty as was experienced in that House—namely, that although the accommodation was sufficient for the transaction of their ordinary business, it was not so on extraordinary occasions like those of delivering a speech by the Sovereign. He was not inclined to say that increased accommodation could be more easily given for Members of the House of Commons in the House of Lords than it could for Peers in the House of Commons. The arrangements generally were as convenient as they could be for the general transaction of business. As regarded the dining-room accommodation, the House was aware that that was one of the questions submitted to the consideration of the Committee of which the right hon. Member for Newcastle was the Chairman. At present Mr. Barry had proposed a plan which would remove the dining-room from its present site to the conference-room, the tea-room, and the adjoining Committee-room which was at present used by the House of Lords. That idea had, he believed, originated with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and it appeared to him to be a very good one; but, in order to carry it into effect, it would be necessary to obtain the sanction of the House of Lords who were interested in the proposed change. He believed the Committee of the House of Lords were directing their attention to the matter, and he hoped that their decision with respect to it would be made known before the termination of the Session of Parliament. The question had also been brought before the Committee of that House, but ultimately they found—

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the noble Lord that it would not be in order to refer to the proceedings of a Committee which had not yet made its Report to the House.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

hoped that after that decision of the Chairman, hon. Members would excuse him if he did not enter further into that matter. The whole subject was under the consideration of the Government, and it would be evidently unbecoming upon his part to express any decided opinion with respect to it at that moment. Allusions had been made to the state of the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament, and upon that point he had, in the first place, to state that opinions were very much divided as to whether such works could be preserved by covering them with glass; but he was afraid that no precaution they could take would preserve those on the walls now, which seemed hastening to decay. But if the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. T. Hankey), or any other Gentleman would communicate with him upon that subject, he would be perfectly ready to entertain any suggestions they might offer. In reference to the new paintings of Mr. Ward, he had to observe that they had been ordered for particular localities in that House, and he was not prepared to say whether or not they could be appropriately placed anywhere else. He hoped, however, the progress of discovery in science and art would soon furnish them with some means of preventing the extraordinary decomposition to which frescoes seemed to be subject in this climate, but he did not entertain any strong hopes that anything would arrest the progress of decay in those which were at present on the walls.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the difficulty they were in with respect to procuring increased accommodation when they were summoned to the House of Lords was, that the general government and management of the House was not under one sole and undivided authority. The petty inconveniences to which the Members of the House of Commons were subjected amounted in the aggregate to a serious annoyance. Undoubtedly, it was a great misfortune that the architect who planned the House forgot that upon certain occasions it was necessary for the whole of the Parliament to come together. The noble Lord seemed to have given the whole matter up in despair; but at all events measures might be taken to secure that the passages between the two Houses of Parliament should be kept perfectly clear. At present, although the Speaker could control the Members of the House, he had no control over the large number of strangers always to be found in the Lobby, and the consequence was, that directly after the Speaker had passed on his way to the House of Lords, those strangers rushed in pell-mell with the Members, and they all made their way to the other House in the most confused manner. There was not at present the slightest barrier, and he suggested that on such occasions one should be put up, whether of iron, wood, or rope. He also thought that the Bar of the House of Lords could be advanced a little nearer to the Throne without the slightest inconvenience to the House of Lords, and thus space for sixty or seventy more Members might be provided. A temporary stage raised a few inches would be quite sufficient to enable Members who were behind to see over the heads of those in front, and the whole might be provided without much expense. With respect to the enlargement of the House of Commons, he thought that they would be very unwise to embark hastily in any such scheme. The House was quite large enough for the despatch of the ordinary Parliamentary business; and it was to be remembered that it was not built as a theatre, where the speakers spoke from the stage to the audience, but as a room, in which the speakers spoke from their places. If the House were enlarged, although it was possible that great orators might make themselves heard, other Members would find it difficult to do so. At present there were two parties who had to be consulted in a building upon all questions of acoustics, the architect and the ventilator. No matter how the architect formed the Chamber, it was in vain for a man to expect to be heard unless the ventilator allowed him to do so. The ventilation at present was by means of a current of air ascending from the floor of the House, which acted as a complete screen between the Members on one side and the other, so that there was very great difficulty in Members hearing one another; and that difficulty would be greatly increased in the event of the House being enlarged, unless some other scheme of ventilation were adopted. He was very glad to find that the noble Lord did not seem to give much encouragement to that idea.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

suggested that the wooden shed in Palace Yard, under which the horses stood, should be removed, as it was very unsightly, and spoiled the effect of the building of the Houses of Parliament.

MR. WALROND

said, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets based one of his remarks upon the deficient acoustic properties of the House upon the fact of the air raised through the middle of the floor by a process of ventilation forming a kind of screen, which prevented Members on one side hearing what was said by those on the other. That was by no means the case. On the contrary, when any one wished to hear any particular speech, he generally went to the gallery opposite to the side on which the Member was speaking. The screen of air, therefore, assumed by the hon. and learned Member to exist, must be as unreal as it was invisible.

SIR HENRY WINSTON-BARRON

thought the space allotted to the Members of the Lower House in the House of Lords might be very considerably increased if the whole of the space below the Bar, part of which was at present given up to the fair sex, were entirely appropriated to Members of the House of Commons. He did not think he was suggesting anything unreasonable or ungallant in this, as the present state of accommodation was disgraceful to the country, the House of Lords, and the representatives of the people.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, there was an item in the Vote for the execution of two more statues of the chronological series of English Statesmen. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed any further with the execution of this series of statues for the Houses of Parliament; and, if so, whether the artists to be employed were to be those who had executed those already placed?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Andrew Agnew), said it was proposed to pull down the whole of the Law Courts at Westminster, and that the unsightly shed complained of would also be removed. It would be premature, therefore, to take away the shed at present, because, even though a more elegant structure were placed in its room, this again would have to be taken down when the time arrived for the abolition of the Courts of Law. It would be better to wait until this was done, when a structure for the shelter of the cabs and horses could be put up which would be more in accordance with the general architectural characteristics of the House. In answer to the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir Matthew Ridley), he had to say that the Vote at present proposed did not open the question of fresh orders for statues. Whenever any such orders were to be given he should be glad to communicate with the hon. Baronet on the subject.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

complained of the inconvenience to which Members were subjected in having to come down to the House on an important night an hour before the commencement of the business in order to secure a seat to hear the debates. The inadequate accommodation of the House prevented many Members from attending upon occasions when it was most necessary that they should do so. He hoped that when the Committee at present sitting upon this subject presented their Report the Government would give it their careful consideration, and would be prepared to adopt an independent course upon the matter, and urge it upon Parliament next Session. There was not a legislative chamber in Europe or America with which he was acquainted which was so uncomfortable and inconvenient. While upon this subject he might remark that he did not understand upon what principle the decorations of the House were proceeded with, on which about £10,000 a year were spent. The pictures, for instance, in the Corridors, were merely placed in the wall without frame of any kind, and the walls themselves were not painted or decorated so as to harmonize with the pictures or set off their good qualities, but were only smeared with boiled oil. His idea was that one Corridor should be handed over entirely to a single artist, who should be allowed to decorate it with some regard to the paintings, and in order that the whole might blend and harmonize. The effect even of the statues in St. Stephen's Hall was destroyed by the bare drab walls. The Lobbies and Galleries should be placed in the hands of a man like Owen Jones for instance, who understood the principles and affinity of colours, and who would be able to make these passages worthy of the building.

MR. COWPER

said, the hon. Member for Poole had criticized the decorations of the House in a manner that would have been all well enough had his remarks been applicable; but what he had advocated and wished Parliament to do had already been done. One Corridor had been given up entirely to one artist—Mr. Ward.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

Excuse me; it is not the case.

MR. COWPER

There are eight panels in the Corridor to which I allude, and the pictures have all been painted by Mr. Ward.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. What I complained of was that the whole Lobby was not handed over to one artist, so that he might decorate the framework of his pictures, and make them harmonize the one with the other.

MR. COWPER

said, the artist would have been surprised if he had been asked to become a painter of ribs, and mouldings, and bosses, and carved stone. The frescoes in the Houses of Parliament had been arranged upon a strictly methodical plan, illustrating the noblest periods of English History. The series of subjects recommended by the Fine Arts Commission had been adhered to, and they had been well executed by the best artists, With regard to the decay of the frescoes, some of those which had been painted according to the old method had faded or lost their surface; but he did not think those which had been painted in the water-glass method had thus deteriorated; and it was only fair to give this new process a trial. Respecting the size of the House, he said the Committee which had considered the architect's plans had wisely arranged that the number of seats should be in proportion to the number of Members who ordinarily took part in the business; the proceedings of this year, however, had shown that the House was not sufficiently large. A plan worthy of consideration was to enlarge the House by extending the ground floor 130 feet by taking in the Lobby and rooms behind the Speaker's chair, without altering the House in width; that would give the increased accommodation necessary.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

wished to point out that the placing of an odd picture here and there in stone had an ugly effect; ever since the 12th century the recognized way of decorating a building was to do it thoroughly or not at all. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had discovered a difference between a flat and a round-surfaced picture, because to draw that distinction was a disgrace to English taste. Some seemed to regard the frescoes as framed pictures, but they were only placed between stone coping rubbed with boiled oil. If the pictures were to be framed, by all means let them have a gilt frame.

MR. COWPER

, so far from having made a discovery respecting round and flat-surfaced pictures, had only alluded to a fact known to most persons conversant with art. He confessed that he would prefer seeing the mouldings between the pictures in some other colour than at present, but objected to any parti-colouring such as the remarks of the hon. Member seemed to point to.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would go with him into the adjacent Corridor, he would satisfy him that the water-glass frescoes had suffered as much in proportion to the time they had been completed as those in the Hall of the Poets; or if the right hon. Gentleman distrusted the evidence of his senses, let him ask Mr. Ward what was his opinion. He hoped there would be no more public money spent on these paintings for the present. When we had Michel Agniolos and Raffaelles amongst us it would be time to resume the work. What the hon. Member said about the mediæval mode of decorating buildings was quite true, but the old painters had not to deal with the Tudor, or crinkum-crankum style of architecture in which the House was unhappily built. As to the boiled oil it had unfortunately been applied not only to the walls, but to the statues, which had cost so much money, and the result was that it had ruined them. He wished to ask the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works whether any steps had been taken to arrest the decay of the stone work of the exterior of the House. No one could pass the building without observing a lamentable decay of the stone, and it was of great importance that the matter should be looked into.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

was not prepared to give a positive answer to this Question, but expressed a belief that the decay was not proceeding to the extent his hon. Friend feared. He promised, however, to let him know what had been done in the matter at some future time.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £1,670, British Embassy Houses, Paris and Madrid.

MR. LABOUCHERE

, inquired whether it would not be better to do away with the office of Clerk of the Works at Paris and Constantinople, and when any repairs were required to be executed at the Embassies at those places to send over a gentleman to report upon the matter from Her Majesty's Board of Works in London?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that both systems had been tried, and that the present one was considered the most economical.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £36,000, to complete the sum for New Foreign Office.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

asked whether £40,000 was not a very large sum to put down as fittings for those offices?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the offices were on a large scale, and as a consequence the fittings were also on a large scale. The library, which had to be prepared for the reception of an immense number of books, would absorb a large portion of the sum named. The hon. Member might rest assured that there would be no waste, and that the sum asked for was really necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Department.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £31,000, to complete the sum for Public Offices' Site.

(10.) £13,260, to complete the sum for Probate Court and Registries.

(11.) £420, to complete the sum for Public Record Repository.

(12.) £32,000, National Gallery Enlargement.

(13.) £7,000, to complete the sum for Chapter House, Westminster.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bentinck.)

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(14.) £30,000, New Palace of Westminster, Acquisition of Lands.

(15.) £16,000, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.

(16.) £20,000, to complete the sum for Rates for Government Property.

MR. SCOURFIELD

complained of the unequal manner in which this grant was distributed. There was a Union with which he was well acquainted, the value of the whole property of which was £140,000, while the Government property was of the value of £20,000. If the Government property had been one-sixth of the whole, relief would have been granted, but as it was little more than one-tenth it was not rateable. He thought this arrangement was not equitable, and he hoped the Government would take it into their serious consideration.

MR. HUNT

said, this question had frequently been brought under the notice of the Government with reference to particular localities. It was one, however, which ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, and he hoped that he should be able to state when Parliament met again what decision the Government had arrived at in respect to it.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding £3,000, 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 1868, for the Maintenance and Repairs of the Embassy Houses, Chapel, Consular Offices, Hospital, Surgeon's House, and Prison at Constantinople.

MR. MONK

, referring to the reductions of the Vote in 1863, and of the Estimates in the intervening years, complained of the increase this year, and moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding £2,000, 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 1868, for the Maintenance and Repairs of the Embassy Houses, Chapel, Consular Offices, Hospital, Surgeon's House, and Prison at Constantinople."—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. HUNT

said, it was exceedingly difficult to control the expenditure at such a distance. The Government had therefore sent over Colonel Gordon, an engineer officer, to exercise a general superintendence, at a salary of £300 a year. He had recommended that £350 should be spent for iron shutters at the Ambassador's residence; and he had also recommended that it was hardly worth while to repair the residence at Pera, but to build a substantial residence. The Government, however, were not inclined to go to that expense, and they directed him rather to repair the old building.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. MONK

moved that the Vote be reduced by £350 for iron shutters to the Ambassador's house at Therapia.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding £2,650, 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 1868, for the Maintenance and Repairs of the Embassy Houses, Chapel, Consular Offices, Hospital, Surgeon's House, and Prison at Constantinople,"—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

asked what they wanted with a prison at Constantinople?

MR. HUNT

hoped that the House would not assent to this Motion. They had sent out a competent person, and it would be going too far, he thought, if they could not place confidence in his Report, on so small a matter. As to the question of the hon. Alderman, he would remind him that by a treaty with the Sultan, British subjects were tried, and of course had to be punished, by our own Consuls in Turkey.

LORD ELIOT

said, he had lived for several years at Therapia, and he could bear testimony to the necessity of this expense. At present there was nothing to prevent strangers from entering the house either by night or day. But he believed a considerable annual expenditure would be saved if the Government would at once erect a substantial residence there.

MR. M'LAREN

thought they were just as competent to judge of this question as if they were on the spot. None of the Members of the House indulged in the extravagance of iron shutters. He was an advocate for lodging the Ambassador comfortably, but it was a mere waste of money to take as much precaution with his house as if it were a jeweller's shop.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

thought they were straining at a gnat and swal- lowing a camel, and hoped the Committee would not divide on so insignificant a question.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(18.) £7,000, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Fire Brigade.

(19.) £56,700, to complete the sum for Harbours of Refuge.

(20.) £21,475, to complete the sum for Holyhead and Portpatrick Harbours, &c.

(21.) £55,837, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Ireland.

(22.) £7,000, Queen's University (Ireland) Buildings.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the Vote was a very small one for such a purpose. A sum of £10,000 was all that was asked, though the London University had got a Vote of £65,000. He should be very glad if the noble Lord would confer with the Treasury with a view to the extension of the grant, for it was impossible that an adequate building for such an University as would be required could be erected for the sum proposed. He wished to know what site had been selected, and whether any assurance could be given that the work would be prosecuted without delay?

LORD NAAS

regretted very much the delay which had taken place. Communications had been going on about one or two places fit for such a building. There was a place with which his right hon. Friend was acquainted which they had been anxious to obtain, but that, he believed, could not now be done. It was intended to take a piece of land in the neighbourhood of Dublin for the purpose, and the question would be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, it was most important that the building should be, if possible, in the centre of Dublin. The site to which his noble Friend had alluded would have been admirably adapted for the purpose.

LORD NAAS

said, that the site last suggested was, he believed, not outside Dublin, but in the neighbourhood of the Exhibition building.

Vote agreed to.

(23.) £5,500, to complete the sum for Ulster Canal.

(24.) £36,360, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.

(25.) £3,600, Isle of Man Lunatic Asylum.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

c1708
1. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL. 52 words
c1708
2. WEIGHTS AHD MEASURES (DUBLIN) BILL. 55 words
c1708
3. WEXFORD GRAND JURY BILL. 49 words