§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £106,000, Site and other Expenses of New Courts of Justice and Offices.
§ MR. BENTINCKregarded the discussion that had just occurred very much in the light of one for locking the stable door after the animal had been abstracted. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), he thought the expenditure of money already contemplated for the new Courts was so large that it would not be fair towards the public to increase it to any great extent. The Committee appointed last year had come to the conclusion that no one of the competing architects had produced a design that was fit to be executed. In answer to an inquiry that he had made in the House on the subject, he had been informed that the question had been remitted to the Law Officers of the Crown to ascertain whether it was competent for the Committee to appoint two architects or only one. He wished now to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before requiring them to agree to the present Vote, he would not explain to them the position in which that question now stood; whether the dead-lock that had existed still continued; and whether there was any prospect of their being called on to decide upon the design which 291 he had understood was to be submitted to the House before its final adoption?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not made any explanation in moving the Vote, because it was really almost a matter of form after the Act that was passed in 1865. That Act provided that certain sums of money, which should ultimately come out of the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery, should be temporarily advanced from the Exchequer, and be re-paid from the interest of that Fund. Authority had also been given by the Act to purchase what was known as the Carey Street site; accordingly, the properties there were being gradually bought up; and each Session a Vote was proposed to enable the Treasury to advance the money, which was to be re-paid in the manner be had described. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bentinck) had correctly stated what had previously occurred in the House on that subject. In answer to a question put to him, he had said that the Treasury having great doubts whether the decision of the Judges of the Designs could be held to be an award in any sense, the matter had been referred to the Attorney General. All the parties had received notice of that fact, and had an opportunity of representing their case to the Attorney General. He understood from the Attorney General that he had given his opinion on the point within the last day or two; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not aware that it had yet reached the Treasury. As soon as they became acquainted with his hon. and learned Colleague's opinion, it would be the duty of the Government to consider what course should be taken in the matter, and then the House should be duly informed on the subject. In reference to the subject named by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) before the House went into Committee, he begged to say that the importance of it was recognized by the Government, and it should receive every consideration.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, that in August last he put to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, without receiving any very satisfactory reply, the question, whether the Judges of Designs bad made a Report to the Treasury without waiting for the Report of the gentleman to whom a fee of 500 guineas had been paid for investigating the estimates? He afterwards heard that this gentleman's Report, with reference to the two designs most highly 292 thought of, showed that in one case the architect had under-estimated the probable cost of his building by £400,000, and in the other that the discrepancy amounted to £300,000. Under these circumstances, the whole thing was now at a dead-lock— not a very creditable position for all parties concerned.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £3,000,000, Abyssinian Expedition (beyond ordinary Grants of 1868–9).
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £102,905, tie 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 1869, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENobserved that there was in the Vote an item of £1,470 for the erection of a house for the Professor of Theology in King's College, Aberdeen, and for the rent of a house during the erection of the new house. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun), and of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Lamont), who bad lately expressed so much hostility to the granting of money out of the public funds for theological purposes. He certainly thought they would have watched this Vote, and saved him from the necessity of asking for any explanation with regard to it. He wished the Government to inform him, whether it was the fact that the Committee were now asked to grant money out of the public purse for the support of a Professor of Theology in the University of Aberdeen, and for the building of a house for that professor, and for the rent of a house until the new house was built?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that a sum of £1,885 was granted last year for the same purpose, and the present Vote was required to complete the undertaking, to which the sanction of the House had already been given.
§ MR. POWELL, remembering what had been said in the course of Wednesday's debate (upon the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill) about Jewish, Parsee, and Roman Catholic theology, said it would be interesting to ascertain what kind of theology was taught by the Professor at the University of Aberdeen. It was the 293 common boast that was thrown at the heads of the friends of the old Universities that those in Scotland were altogether un-sectarian.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the Department which he represented had no thing to do with theology, but was concerned in maintaining in a proper and decent state the fabrics of the Scotch Universities.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had asked what kind of theology was taught in the University of Aberdeen. He believed he could tell the hon. Gentleman. A distinguished foreigner described the Church of England during the last century thus:—It had an Arminian clergy, a Popish liturgy, and Calvinistic Articles. Well the Calvinistic Articles of the Church of England were the theology taught in the Universities of Scotland; but the other part of the description did not apply. Objection had been made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Column O'Loghlen) to spending public money for any theological purposes. In that he entirely agreed, and if the hon. Baronet chose to divide the Committee he would cordially vote with him.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, when he attempted to put an end to Votes for Professors of Theology he received no support from either side of the House. The whole Conservative party strongly opposed him eight or ten years ago, when be objected to a further endowment of this Theological Professorship. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would choose to divide on this Vote he certainly should have the greatest pleasure in voting with him. He was glad that hon. Gentlemen had their attention directed to these Votes more than they had formerly. He hoped the day would come when no Grant would be made by the House for religious purposes, especially for the Theological Chairs.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that this Vote had increased by £6,352, and he should like to know how it was occasioned. There was an item of £1,900 for a Jewel House for the Tower. Last year £3,200 had been granted for the same purpose; but he objected to the system of dividing Votes in this way, and obtaining the sanction of the House to a scheme in fragments, which would be sure to be rejected if it was proposed in toto. There were also many items in the Vote which had no connection with its proper object, and the classification of subjects ought to be amended.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, that encouraged by the observations of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), as to the sum sought for the erection of a house for the Professor of Theology in the Aberdeen University, he should move the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £1,470.
§ MR. M. CHAMBERSseconded the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £1,470, for the erection of a House for the Professor of Theology of King's College, Aberdeen, and for Rent of House during such erection, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. Candlish.)
§ MR. CRAWFORDasked what would be the consequence if this Vote were refused? Would the Professor's House then become one of the interesting ruins of Scotland?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) had just suggested the real question which the Committee had to consider. In consequence of a Vote agreed to last year a contract had been taken for the house, and the work had made some progress. As, however, it had not been finished before the termination of the financial year, he was obliged to ask the Committee to re-Vote a certain amount of the money. If the Committee refused to do this it would be adopting a course for which, he believed, there was no precedent.
§ MR. BENTINCKopposed the Motion, on the ground that he was not friendly to disendowment either in England or Ireland, in Scotland or Wales.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not conceive himself voting for the endowment of any Professor of Theology; but in this case the house had been begun, and therefore he did not see how the Committee could refuse to agree to the Motion.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. M. CHAMBERSdrew attention to the inconveniences that arose from the way in which the different offices of one Department were scattered about London, instead of being concentrated in one quarter. He wanted some information recently about the Greenwich pensioners, and he went to Somerset House, but he was told by a gentleman there that he must go to the War Office; and he had never since been able to get the information here- 295 quired. The separation of these Offices was not only productive of inconvenience to Members, but of great expense to the public. He knew these complaints had often been made before, but they did not appear to produce any effect.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that this matter had engaged the earnest attention of the present Government, as well as that of their immediate predecessors. The late Government appointed a Treasury Commission to consider how all the great public Offices might best be concentrated in the neighbourhood of Whitehall and the Houses of Parliament; and since the present Government came into power its investigations had been continued. Three or four days ago his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury laid that Report on the table; and when it was printed—which it would be in a few days—the Committee would see that it had entered most fully and minutely into the question. The House of Commons had yet to consider whether it would sanction the recommendations of the Commission for the concentration, in the most convenient manner, of all the public Departments and their subordinate Offices. In answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), he stated that £1,500 of the increase arose from the necessity of providing increased accommodation for the Poor Law Board; two other items, formerly placed under another head, amounted to over,£1,000; and the charge for Westminster Bridge was this year increased by £2,500 to provide for its being re-painted and gilded. These sums would account for the excess referred to by the hon. Member.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsuggested to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works, that Glasgow Cathedral should be thrown open to the public; the last year's fees for admission amounting only to £106 17s. 10d., as against £256 1s. for the staff of attendants.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (4.) £13,000, to complete the sum for Furniture in Public Departments.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that the Vote had increased £1,500. He contended that the head of each Department should make his own expenditure on this account, and be responsible for it; if a Minister could not undertake the duty he was not fit for the place.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that past experience had shown that it was 296 better to place the furnishing of the public Offices under a responsible Minister, rather than leave it to the heads of the various Departments. The increase in this year's Vote, he added, was occasioned by the contemplated removal of the Board of Trade to the temporary Foreign Office, which would be vacated in a few days.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £122,524, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked if steps had been taken, as proposed last year, to throw open Constitution Hill to the public, especially when the Queen was absent from town?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERS,in the absence of the Home Secretary, said he was not aware that any change had been made in that way.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that there was a sum of £49.000 included in this Vote for St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park. Now, there was a good deal of discussion last year about the Parks, and it was then stated that these Parks belonged exclusively to the Sovereign and not to the nation. If that were so, he should like to know why the nation was called upon to pay £49,000 for them. There were a great many items in the Vote referring to money expended on Hyde Park. Though they talked a good deal about liberty in this country, it was almost the only country, he believed, in which cabs were not allowed to enter the public Parks. If they went to Vienna or Paris they found that the inhabitants of those cities were permitted to drive in cabs in the Parks there. The noble Lord might say that the roads in Hyde Park were not wide enough to admit of cabs and carriages together travelling upon them. But the Champs Elysées was not so large as Hyde Park, and yet the road was made sufficiently wide to admit cabs as well as carriages to travel upon it. They were advancing, be would not say in democratic views, but in independent views and in common sense—as the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) had just said— both in that House and the country; and it was time that a person who had not a carriage should be allowed to go into Hyde Park in a cab. To prevent persons driving in the Park who could not ride in their own carriages was to restrict its use to some 10,000 persons. He had received a good many representations on this subject from 297 his constituents, who lived in the neighbourhood of London, and who, when they came up to London, were often anxious to enjoy, with their wives and daughters, a drive round Hyde Park, but who were unable to do so in consequence of the exclusive system which now prevailed. He himself would often take a drive in the Park if only he were allowed to go in a cab. It was an injustice to tax people for the maintenance of the Park, and to allow them only to walk in it unless they could ride in their own carriages.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKreminded the House that on a former occasion a Vote of £9,000 was taken for Hampton Court, because it was said it was for the benefit of the public. It turned out, however, to be no such thing, but for the stables, vineries, and the Hampton stud, of which the people know little, and in which they had no interest. He did not find fault with the charge of £3,700 in this Vote for keeping in order the grounds of Hampton Court, because it was for the benefit of the public. He complained that the First Commissioner of Works did not do his duty so well on the West side of Hyde Park as he did on the East side. On the East he had planted a large quantity of beautiful flowers; but on the other side, near Kensington Gardens, the only place near London to remind one of Paradise, and a place where quiet thinking men and philosophers could walk, there were only a few common flowers, such as candytuft. [An hon. MEMBER: And pennyroyal.] Yes; and pennyroyal and Virginia stock. He thought it was too bad that in the part to which quiet pedestrians resorted there were few floral decorations.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENinquired, whether it was intended that the large sum—£4,800 odd — which appeared in the Vote for the maintenance of Batter-sea Park, should be continuous? They were told some years ago that that Park would eventually be self-supporting, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect, through the realization of sales of land in that neighbourhood, that the country would not be called upon to vote year after year the large sum that now appeared in the Estimates for the maintenance of Battersea Park.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEasked, why the receipt for grazing-rents in Hyde Park was not to be found in the Estimate, and why there were two charges for police in the Parks—one to the Ranger and the 298 other to the Commissioner of Works? He also asked why facility was given to the owner of private property outside Roehampton Gate, Richmond Park, to enter the Park by that gate, whilst he refused to allow the public either to enter or leave the Park by that gate over his private road? He would suggest to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works the desirability of closing the Roehampton Gate.
§ MR. PEASEwould like to know whether there was any reason why the present temporary road from the North end of Exhibition Road into the Queen's Drive, could not be made a permanent road?
§ MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, if the proprietors of the property outside the Roehampton Gate had the privilege of using the Gate, they ought to be asked to let the public use their road as an equivalent.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that although Hyde Park was Royal property, Her Majesty graciously permitted the public to use it, and hence the public paid for its maintenance and improvement. With reference to the questions put as to permission being given for cabs to use the parks, one reason why it might be thought impolitic to grant such permission would be that the owners of omnibuses and other vehicles would make the same demand; and if these were admitted the roads would be inconveniently crowded, and drivers might experience the blocks that were too common in the City. He did not doubt that if, in any particular instance, a strong case were made out in favour of such a course, cabs might be admitted. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Omnibuses also?] Not omnibuses. At the time the traffic in St. James's Park was under consideration, when the convenient access between St. James's Palace and Buckingham Palace was thrown open to the public cabs, it was at the same time decided that it would not be advisable to extend the privilege further. Cabs were also permitted in Hyde Park in the road between Bayswater to Kensington. These facts were sufficient to show that there was no disposition to ignore the interests of the public; but be trusted that the Committee would hesitate before they sanctioned such general proposals as those which had been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) bad complained of the increase in the Estimates; but there were in the proposed expenditure of the year several items which would probably never appear again, 299 In Regent's Park, for instance, there was an expenditure of £8,000 or £9,000, which was to be incurred in consequence of the deplorable accident that took place there the year before last. Those works were now being pushed forward with great rapidity, and would, of course, be made once for all. He might congratulate the Committee that this would be the last year that a Vote would be proposed for the Chelsea Hospital. The charge for the maintenance and watching the Hospital grounds would be transferred to the Hospital, whose estate had lately sufficiently improved to allow of the transfer being made. £700 was to be spent in connection with the old wall in Kensington Gardens, which had to be removed to prevent its falling down, and that, together with £300 for painting, might be regarded as exceptional. An expenditure of £700 had resulted from placing the watching of Hyde Park under the direction of the police, and though the change had resulted in a larger expenditure, it had, he believed, given general satisfaction. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) had expressed a hope that the temporary road in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert's Memorial would be converted into a permanent road. It would be seen from the Estimates that the formation of a carriage road was proposed, and if the Vote were sanctioned by the Committee, it would be at once commenced. His attention had been directed to the subject of the road at the Roehampton Gate, and he had been in communication with the joint-stock Company to whom the road belonged. He had every reason to believe that, either by some such suggestion as had been made that evening, or by some other plan, a result might be attained which would he satisfactory to those who desired an alteration in the present condition of those roads. As to the grazing in Hyde Park, he did not see any reference to a particular item of that nature; and, with respect to Battersea Park, he might say that property in the neighbourhood was increasing in value, and there was reason to believe that the original Estimate would be borne out.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKwanted to know if the Estimates were to go on increasing from year to year; because, if so, where are we to stop? Since 1866 there had been an increase of £40,000; and last year, as now, the Committee were told that many of the items were exceptional, and would never occur again.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSremarked that there was always a tendency to increase in the sums required for the parks. Claims for additional public accommodation, and additional public enjoyment, were continually being made, and such claims could not be met without increased expenditure. The hon. Member, while complaining of the increase in the expenditure, had at the same time appealed to him for more attention to the flowers—a matter that would, of course, involve the outlay of more money. The mere fact of placing Hyde Park under the control of the police had led to a considerable increase; but a far greater expense had been incurred in connection with the railings which had been torn down.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERexpressed a hope that the gates of the Marble Arch at the end of Oxford Street would be thrown open, instead of being kept closed, as they were now.
§ MR. M. CHAMBERStrusted the noble Lord would not sacrifice, by hasty leasing or sale, the surplus lands of Battersea Park.
§ In reply to Mr. SANDFORD,
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the public were not allowed to have access to Richmond Park, through the private road alluded to, it would be for the Department to consider whether they would not recommend the closing the gate altogether.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £47,936, 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 1869, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the original Estimate for building the Houses of Parliament was £750,000; and up to this time they had voted £2,250,000, and after all this expenditure there was not, in the entire building, one good room. As a Member of the Refreshment Committee, he called attention to the narrow, low, ill-ventilated dining-room, and to the necessity of providing better accommodation. A common dining-room for Lords and Commons had been proposed, and some Peers to whom he spoke rather approved the project, but it was not acceded to. The average number of those who dined in the House of Commons in the course of a Ses- 301 sion was 8,000. At the time the union of the two dining-rooms was talked of there had been 4,000 dinners in the Commons, and not one in the Lords; but, notwithstanding this, two kitchens and two establishments were to be kept up. It was now proposed that the dining-room should be brought down to the level of the Thames, and the kitchen was to be in the damp vaults below. He did not think that such an arrangement could possibly be submitted to; nor did he think there was much chance at present of getting the money for the extensive changes that were suggested in the House. Under these circumstances, he asked the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) to consider whether it would not be well to increase the height and width of the present dining-room?
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, the view he took of this Vote was that, after the Vote for Fortifications, it was the most objectionable —indeed in some respects it resembled the Fortifications Vote. The hon. and gallant Member below him (Colonel French) who so well represented the kitchen Department, and to whom they all owed a debt of gratitude for his great exertions, had properly called attention to the bad accommodation of the Commons dining-room. One reason given, indeed, for the longer life of the Lords was that they so seldom dined in the House; and to condemn Members to what was ironically called the refreshment-room was exacting from them a severe penalty indeed. But he had not risen for the purpose of going into the kitchen Department. The sum originally voted for the building of that House was £750,000, and the country had expended on it, not £2.250,000, but upwards of £3,000,000. And what had they got? He wondered why Sir Charles Barry's and Mr. Pugin's descendants, intead of quarrelling as to who was the architect of the building, had not endeavoured to push the question altogether aside. Why, there was no country in the world with a Constitutional Assembly that had it housed in so uncomfortable and unhealthy a place. Here was a Vote for completing the Clock Tower, and for works in New Palace Yard and its approaches, including the erection of an arcade and the formation of a subway, upwards of £13,600. What he wanted to know was by whose orders was this arcade, which was ruining the façade of the building, erected? It was not in the original Estimate, and the effect of it was to dwarf the building, already placed in a hole, and to darken 302 the rooms of the officers who lived in that part of it. Here also was a small item for pedestals for statues in Westminster Hall, and for a drinking fountain in Palace Yard, £330. Now, if it were competent for him to move that those statues, which disfigured Westminster Hall altogether, should be taken away he would move it. He could little have foreseen that a man with a taste for Gothic architecture like his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) would have consented to have those statues placed in a Gothic hall like that; and yet they were to have a Gentleman coming forward with an Amendment to-night to stick up Oliver Cromwell among them also. Now, he (Mr. Osborne) had as great a respect as any man for the memory of Oliver Cromwell, but he thought his statue should he in its proper place, He was of opinion that all these statues, not only of Oliver Cromwell; but those of the House of Brunswick, and that even of "the glorious, pious, and immortal" William III. should be deposed and turned out, for it was a prostitution of art to place those statues in Westminster Hall. There was another item of £4,000, for warming, lighting, and ventilating the House, He would ask any Gentleman was there ever such warming and ventilation as they had to undergo in that House. That evening, when they came into the House, though an important debate was coming on, there was not a single window open, and it was owing to the courtesy which distinguished the Serjeant-at-Arms who, when applied to, took it upon himself to order the windows to be opened that some air at last was admitted. Why, the ventilation of that House was simply disgraceful. Here was also a Vote for Works of Art for the decoration of the Palace of Westminster, for which he should like some explanation. There was a considerable sum in that Vote for frescoes, and he would like to know the state of the account with Mr. Maclise, who, he believed, had been very ill-used in the Votes of that House. Mr. Herbert, for his great work of art in the Council Chamber, had had an addition made to the sum he was to receive; but Mr. Maclise, who had no one to bring forward his case, and who bad not only proved his greatness as an artist but his disinterested conduct as a man, had been most unfairly treated, and had never any additional sum given him. He should like to receive some explanation upon that point, and also some information with re- 303 gard to what was put down in the Estimates as "the balance of the contract for one statue for the chronological series of statues of British Sovereigns now in course of execution."
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne) was not quite correct as to the case of Mr. Maclise, for he (Mr. Layard) had the honour of bringing his claims before the Committee on a previous occasion. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that Mr. Maclise had not been fairly treated. Mr. Maclise, with a delicate sense of honour, made no application, but left his case in the hands of the Commissioners; but that was not the way that others bad acted. Other artists had not completed their work, and a recommendation was made that they should get an increased sum, and it was voted to them; but it was not voted to Mr. Maclise, on the ground that he had completed his work, which was as much as to say that because he had done his duty he should get nothing additional, while others who had not done their duty should have additional pay. He regretted that Mr. Maclise had never been authorized to carry out the series of frescoes for which he had been directed to make designs. Now, he affirmed that there were no frescoes so remarkable, so important, and so likely to be interesting to future generations as those of Mr. Maclise; they had been executed with the greatest possible care, and they were a faithful record of two great events in English history. Therefore they were far more important and interesting than mere works of imagination. Mr. Maclise, however, did receive some extra sum; but he (Mr. Layard) would cordially support a farther grant to him in order to continue his frescoes.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) in what he bad said about the statues in Westminster Hall. He would venture to say that anything more incongruous than to put into a hall of the reign of Richard II. statues which were in the worst style of art of George III. could not be imagined. He was sure the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would not allow them to remain there; but he should like to hear him say so. As a matter of art he should be sorry to see the statue of Oliver Cromwell placed there, though irrespective of that he should have a word to say against such a proposal. So also would the Irish Members, for if ever there was a tyrant and op- 304 pressor in regard to Ireland it was Oliver Cromwell. With respect to the House itself he did not think they could find in Europe a building worse adapted to the purposes for which it was required. There was at the back of the House of Lords a space about four times the size of that House, which was entirely wasted. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) as to what he had said about Mr. Maclise's frescoes. They were too crowded. He did not believe that when Wellington and Blucher met they had to walk their horses over dead bodies. [Mr. OSBORNE: They never met at Waterloo at all.] Then that disposed altogether of the remark of the hon. Member for Southwark as to the value of the frescoes in an historical point of view. The Speaker's house was most inconvenient, all the rooms being too small, while there were no rooms attached to the House of Lords for consultation, for counsel, or for witnesses in attendance upon a great Court of Appeal. Then, again, where was there another Assembly in the world the Members of which were unable to properly perform their duties because they were not provided with seats in their Chamber? What was the use of electing Members of Parliament if sufficient accommodation was not afforded them for the performance of their duties? It was absolutely necessary that the House of Commons should be enlarged. Then there was that miserable "cage" in which the ladies were placed. The accommodation afforded them was most discreditable to that House. The ladies should have a decent refreshment-room provided for them; the place now placed at their disposal would not hold more than two persons at a time. It was most disgraceful that the ladies should be cooped up behind a grating which ought to be removed. A grating was not found to be necessary in the House of Lords, and why should it be required in that House? The question of the enlargement of the sitting accommodation of that House was a most serious one. It was probable that when they were returned by the reformed constituencies hon. Members would be more regular in their attendance and more zealous in the discharge of their duties, and then it would be impossible to attempt to squeeze 658 Members into a room that was only calculated to hold about 350. Even now it was frequently impossible for Members to hear a debate or even the question put, and they had to run from the smoking, 305 the tea, or the dining-rooms when the bell rang for a division, and had to ask every-body which way they were to vote.
§ MR. BENTINCKwished to make one or two observations upon the statues in Westminster Hall. In the first place, he wanted to know why they had been placed there? [Mr. OSBORNE: Where do they come from?] He believed they were originally intended for the Royal Gallery; but that place not being adapted to receive them they had been wandering about under the guidance of the First Commissioner of; Works. When the subject was discussed last year, nothing was said as to where the statues were to be placed, and it was therefore rather a surprise to hon. Members, when they returned after the Recess this year, to find in Westminster Hall five of these statues in marble placed upon permanent pedestals, and one of Charles II., with his favourite spaniel, in plaster on a temporary pedestal. No doubt the transporting of those statues to Westminster Hall must have been attended with considerable expense. It was not right that the First Commissioner of Works should have the power of moving these statues about without previously asking permission to do so from the Committee. He wished to have some information about the drinking fountains in Palace Yard. Was the extraordinary erection at the corner of Great George Street one of them? [A VOICE: It's Buxton's.] It resembled a Chinese extinguisher, and was copied, no doubt, from something taken in the Chinese war. As to Mr. Maclise's frescoes he believed that the Fine Arts Committee of 1864 heard the evidence, and that three or four years afterwards they were called upon to vote an additional sum of money to that gentleman, and it was a matter of doubt whether they should now embark in any fresh expenditure. The water glass pictures were fading away, and would soon present an appearance equally deplorable with that of Mr. Dyce's pictures.
§ MR. CLAYthought that whatever the opinion might be as to the expense of moving the statues into Westminster Hall, he hoped that no one would object to the expense of taking them away.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEhoped that as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer) had so strong an objection to the present House of Commons, he would give his assent to the plan that was about to be introduced, by which ample 306 accommodation would be afforded to every Member, and more especially to the ladies. COLONEL SYKES said, the House was sufficiently large for the ordinary attendances of Members. ["No, no!"] He said, "Yes!" Only sixteen Members were present the other day when the question of the fortifications was being discussed, involving an outlay of millions of money. He had been a pretty constant attendant in the House, and he knew that, except on party occasions, not only was the House large enough for the Members, but scores of seats were always vacant. £3,000,000 had been already expended on the House, and he protested against the building of another House. He wished the noble Lord to state whether the operation for the preservation of the exterior of the House from decay was successful and was continued from year to year. He observed there was an item of £4,500 for furniture and the repair of furniture in the House. He had been a good deal about the House, and had not seen any new furniture. Then there was an item of £1,150 for sweeping the House. That amount seemed to be extravagant.
§ MR. GORE LANGTONprotested against the erection of a new House. The sums that had been wasted on the House were perfectly scandalous. The inconvenience of the House had been very much exaggerated. Moreover, the ablest architect having been employed, there was no guarantee that an untried man would furnish better accommodation.
§ SIR ANDREW AGNEWasked for definite information whether a new building was in contemplation?
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained of the accommodation provided for this House when summoned to the House of Lords, Members being penned in, and the Speaker having to stand like a prisoner in a dock. He did not care for himself, but proper respect should be paid to the Head of this House — the Speaker. Why should he not have a seat and be treated like a gentleman, for he was one?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, as to the dining-room accommodation, that last year a proposal was made by him which found favour in the eyes of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel French), and the other Members of his Committee, that there should be joint Dining-rooms for the Members of both Houses, and that the Tea-room, the Conference-room, and the adjoining House of Lords' Committee-room should be 307 appropriated to that object. Mr. Barry was requested to draw out a plan, and the Kitchen Committee approved of the plan; but the corresponding Committee of the Lords objected they could not afford to lose the Committee accommodation which it would entail. The Lords having thus put their veto upon the scheme, it fell through. The right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) proposed, about that time, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the entire arrangement of the House of Commons. That Committee, after sitting the whole of last Session, were re-appointed early this Session, and had just concluded their labours—their Report, he believed, being now on the table. It was therefore inexpedient to go into the question raised by them until the Chairman of that Committee had had an opportunity of calling attention to their recommendations. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), in one of those facetious speeches with which he often amused, and perhaps instructed, the House, had asked what was the history of the arcade which was about being completed in Palace Yard. Now, he believed it originated in the desire of a considerable number of Members that when the railway works had been completed they should be able to get to the station and to the Thames Embankment without crossing Westminster Bridge Road. The Vote for that purpose had been sanctioned in former years, he himself having no responsibility for the work. It was now nearly completed; and, when the difficulties which had impeded the railway company were removed, he had no doubt the arcade and subway would be found a great convenience. The hon. Gentleman had also criticized the Vote of £4,000 for warming and ventilation, and had complained that the result was not at all satisfactory. He, however, could not see how it could have been more satisfactory had the £4,000 not been expended. [Mr. OSBORNE: The thing was badly done.] He did not agree that this was the case. One of the most eminent men connected with this class of subjects had given his unremitting attention to this extremely difficult duty, and as a more frequent attendant than the hon. Gentleman, he was bound to say that he did not think the ventilation and warming of the House, or of its rooms and corridors, was such as had been described. With regard to Mr. Maclise's claims, they had been considered by the Treasury Commission appointed by 308 the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) two or three years ago, and if they had not been fairly dealt with he was very sorry for it; but this was the first coin-plaint he had heard on the subject. The hon. Gentleman had also referred to the experimental position of the statues in Westminster Hall, and the hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) had urged that it was quite incongruous to place in a Gothic hall, erected in the time of Richard II., statues which would disgrace the reign of George III. Now, the discussion of statues or pictures always led to unlimited controversy; but, if it were true that these statues represented the worst style of art in the reign of George III., the artistic taste of the present reign must be in a very melancholy condition, for they had been committed to the most distinguished sculptors of the day. He, however, did not concur in the criticisms which had been levelled at them. Whether they were properly placed in Westminster Hall or no was a different question. The fact was this — When some of the statues were placed in the Royal Gallery, it struck everybody who saw them that they were too large for the site for which they were intended. His right hon. Predecessor entered into communication with the architect of the Palace upon the subject, and called on him to suggest some site where they would not be out of proportion. The architect suggested, as an experiment, that some should be placed in Westminster Hall, in order that the public and the House of Commons might be enabled to form some opinion respecting them. Temporary pedestals were therefore prepared, and the statues were placed in the Hall. He believed public opinion was extremely divided on the subject; but he was bound to say that if those statues, which were the property of the public and had been paid for, were to be removed, he, for one, should be sorry to see them re-placed in the Royal Gallery, for they would certainly have to be moved away again. This was a question on which the fullest expression of opinion should be given; and he hoped no hasty decision would be arrived at respecting them. With respect to the erection of a drinking-fountain in Palace Yard, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) had referred, he had only to state that, as a considerable number of cabmen frequented that spot, it was considered advisable that they should have ready access to the most 309 natural and most healthy of drinks; and accordingly it was proposed that a Vote should he taken for that purpose. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had put a Question with respect to the state of the exterior wails of the Houses of Parliament; and he (Lord John Manners) was happy to be able to state in reply that he had every reason to believe that the application made use of a few years ago for the preservation of the stone had answered its purpose, and that the fears expressed by the hon. and gallant Member upon the subject would not be realized.
§ MR. STACPOOLEasked, if there would be any objection to establish a communication by speaking-tubes between the doorkeepers and the various apartments about the House to which Members retired, so that they might learn with facility what was going on in the House?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSThat question had better be postponed to see whether we are in future to meet permanently in this House or in another place.
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, he did not think the explanations given by the noble Lord with respect to the mode in which the public money was expended were at all satisfactory. The noble Lord had told them that certain Members of the House had suggested the erection of the arcade; but why should the noble Lord listen to suggestions of private Members which incurred an outlay of not less than £14,000? He should like the noble Lord to inform them whether it was proposed that any more of those statutes should be placed in Westminster Hall? For his part he believed that they were entirely unfitted for such a site. Westminster Hall was, in fact, used as a lumber-room for those statutes, and if the noble Lord did not know where else to put them, he (Mr. Osborne) would recommend that they should be sent to that refuge of the destitute the Kensington Museum. With regard to the ventilation of the House, he would observe that he ought to be qualified to give an opinion upon the subject, for he had sat in that House as much as the noble Lord, and he hoped to relieve the noble Lord of the duty of occupying a place upon that Bench. He was surprised to hear his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) making any objection to the enlargement of the House, because they all knew that his hon. and gallant Friend was constantly 310 in the habit of taking the seats of other Members.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERexplained that he had not said the statues were a disgrace to the reign of George III., nor did he say anything to be painful to the artists. What he said was that, being costumed in the style of the reign of George III., the statues were out of place in a hall built by Richard II.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he must in justice insist on his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) recalling his statement that he (Colonel Sykes) was in the habit of occupying the seats of other Members. During the eleven years he had been in Parliament no question had arisen between him and another Member, except on one occasion in the present Session, and then his usual seat had been taken by another Member; and he had always occupied the same seat, or a corresponding seat on the opposite side of the House.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) about the statues, which were quite as great an ornament to Westminster Hall as the doorways on the opposite side. There were two things in the Hall to attract attention, the statues and the apple stall, and the attention of the public was divided between them. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had told them that it was a monstrous thing to put up statues dressed in the costume of the reign of George III. in a hall built by William Rufus. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Richard II.] He took issue with the hon. Baronet, for he believed the hall was built by William Rufus. But at all events, it was a Gothic hall, and they were then sitting in a Gothic building; so that if the doctrine of the hon. Baronet were to prevail, they could place no statue in that building unless they covered it in a Gothic costume, and they ought themselves to dress in the same style. They could not alter the building according to the people who sat in it, and if they wished to erect statues of great men they must represent them in the dress they were in their time. All these objections were futile, and as the statues had been shown to be too big for any other place, they could not do better than leave them in Westminster Hall, for which they could not be too big. He hoped the public at large would express their opinion upon the subject instead of the decision being 311 left to dillettante Members of that House who did not know what they liked.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYchallenged the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) to take a division on the item, for he believed that a very large majority of the Committee would be in favour of leaving the statues where they now stood. Though they might not be so fine as the statues in the corridor leading to the House of Lords, they were extremely well placed, and the public received pleasure from viewing them.
§ MR. OSBORNEaccepted the challenge of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Hankey), and moved the omission of the item of £330 for pedestals for statues in Westminster Hall, for iron gates to the Royal Court, and for a drinking fountain in New Palace Yard.
§ COLONEL W. STUARTasked the hon. Member for Nottingham whether he objected to the drinking fountain?
§ MR. OSBORNEI leave the drinking to you.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Item of £330 for Pedestals to Statues in Westminster Hall, for Iron Gates to Royal Court, and for a Drinking Fountain in New Palace Yard, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. Osborne.)
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 76; Noes 234: Majority 158.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, he understood that there was an intention to place the statue of Lord Palmerston at the back of the statue of Sir Robert Feel in New Palace Yard, so that the two statues would be back to back. He wished to know whether there was any such intention. With regard to the statue of Sir Robert Peel he would venture to say that any statue so discreditable to the art of this country had never been raised, and that something ought to be done either to improve the statue or remove it.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Gentleman would find on the Votes of tomorrow night a Motion for the removal of the statue of Sir Robert Peel.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that business of great importance remained to be transacted, especially the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) for the introduction of a Bill on the subject of the Irish Church. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there were several Votes which would be agreed to without discussion, and after they were gone through there would be no objection to report Progress.
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, the hon. Gentleman might withdraw his Motion, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was not in the House to move for the introduction of his Bill.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,135, 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 1869, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREobjected to the Vote, and asked, whether it was intended to re-furnish the Embassy House at Paris, on which a very considerable sum had been expended?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when Lord Lyons went to Paris there were some necessary changes in the furniture at the Embassy which had occasioned some expenditure.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREunderstood that when Lord Lyons went to Paris he received a sum of £2,000, a portion of which was to be devoted to the re-placing of furniture at the Embassy. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £135, 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 1869, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad."— (Mr. Labouchere.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that the Embassy House at Paris was the property of the Crown. The furniture was very dilapidated and absolutely required replacing. Lord Lyons received no such sum as that stated by the hon. Member for any such purpose.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he could confirm that statement?
LORD STANLEYsaid, an Ambassador on going to his post received an allowance for personal outfit; but this was apart 313 from the cost of maintenance and repair of Embassies.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEthought it high time these Royal palaces should be diminished. They must begin by cutting down these Votes, or they would leave nothing for the new Parliament to do.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREthought it would be useless in the present state of the House to press his Amendment. He begged to withdraw it.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (8.) £19,512, New Foreign Office.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, they were asked to pay last year £40,000, this year £22,000, making £62,000 for fittings and furniture for the Foreign Office, and thought it was time to inquire when that expenditure would end?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed no further Vote would be required for the internal fittings and furniture of the new Foreign Office; but if the external elevation was to be carried out as originally intended by the architect, so as to harmonize with the India Office, a further sum would probably be necessary for statues.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENT moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ LOUD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the only Votes which would now be asked for were those to complete Votes already sanctioned by Parliament.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not wish to interfere with the Motion which the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was about to bring forward; but before Progress was reported he wished to ask the Committee to consider the principle on which Votes should be taken.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEappealed to the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman was not out of order?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question before the Committee was that he should report Progress; and on that Motion it was not competent for an hon. Member to discuss the Votes.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not propose to discuss the Votes, but to raise a question as to the principle on which the Votes should proceed. The hon. Member was about to explain this principle, when—
§ MR. CLAYappealed to the Chairman, whether he was not persisting, in spite of the intimation which had been given from 314 the Chair, in discussing a general principle which was applicable to a Vote not before the Committee.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, his hon. Friend desired to raise a question of some public importance. He had privately explained to him the position he was about to take, and it was one which deserved the serious attention of the House. At that late hour it was not likely that such attention could be secured for it; and therefore he asked his hon. Friend to postpone raising the question until the House next went into Committee.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow;