HC Deb 28 June 1869 vol 197 cc652-85

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £36,418, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, there was an increase of £ 1,650 over the Vote of last year, and that Vote showed an increase over the previous one of £14,293 which, however, he admitted arose from exceptional causes. He must complain generally of the great increase which had taken place in this Vote during the last five years. The very large sum of £6,735 appeared to have been expended upon Hampton Court; yet that establishment was mainly remarkable in the present day for legal proceedings, which had been going on for three years, with the object of screening debtors resident within its precincts. The Crown had, perhaps, the strongest interest in maintaining the dignity of justice, and for a Royal palace to be turned into a sanctuary for those who would not submit to the law of the land like other subjects of Her Majesty, was, in point of fact, a public scandal. Who was it, he should like to know, who had been expending money for the last three years in employing Solicitor Generals and gentlemen of their class in the legal courts in the way that had been done? The Head of this Nation had not lived in Hampton Court for a couple of hundred years. He would make a suggestion, if we did go to the expense of keeping up those old palaces, one of them, at least, might be in a condition to receive foreign princes, so that when they came to visit this country they would not have to go to an hotel to live.

MR. MELLOR

said, that including the keeping up of the grounds and pleasure gardens, Hampton Court cost no less than £16,000. He thought that was an excessive amount to be expended on the maintenance of a single palace, and wished for information.

MR. LAYARD

said, that an item of over£6,500 was attributable to the precautions to be taken to protect Buckingham Palace against fire, a proceeding which was most desirable on account of the very large amount of valuable property which it contained. Captain Shaw had most kindly looked into the matter with him, and they had found it absolutely necessary that steps should be taken with this object in view. An item of apparent increase was explained by the fact that £4,500 not expended last year was re-voted for drainage of Windsor Castle; there had consequently been a considerable decrease, instead of an increase, in this Vote. As to St. James's and Hampton Court Palaces, he must remind the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that when the Crown surrendered its revenues, out of which those Palaces had been maintained, the country undertook to keep them up, as well as the gardens and grounds attached to them. He could not agree that the sum expended upon the maintenance of Hampton Court was extravagant; on the contrary, the Palace and grounds afforded a source of recreation and enjoyment to thousands of persons, as any person could not fail to see who visited the place on Sunday or any public holiday. As to what had been said about legal proceedings in connection with the sanctuary supposed to be afforded by Hampton Court Palace, he must remind his hon. Friend that the question was one depending upon the state of the law, which the First Commissioner of "Works had no power to alter. If the law was such as had been stated, the privilege would continue to exist until Parliament thought proper to alter it.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that he had raised the question last year as to the excessive amount proposed to be voted for divert- ing the drainage at Windsor Castle from the Thames, and the Government promised that the matter should be inquired into. The money was not expended; and he hoped it would not be this year without some further inquiry. The cost of the work ought to fall mainly upon the owners, of whom the Crown was one.

MR. ALDERMAN J. LAWRENCE

said, he did not object to the expenditure on Hampton Court Palace and Gardens, considering what healthy pleasure the public derived from visiting them. But he thought the Chief Commissioner's answer respecting the right of sanctuary was inadequate. If the law protected persons living in the Palace from pursuing creditors, the people would look to the Government to take steps to alter the law.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought it was not proper to press the Government to act in this matter at present, because, as he understood, the ultimate Court of Appeal had not yet decided how the law stood.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought if the law was as it had been stated to be, that it was a great scandal, and immediate steps should be taken to alter it.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he concurred in the view of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) that it was premature to raise the question of the Royal Palaces being a sanctuary for debtors until they knew what the state of the law really was. If it were ruled that they were a sanctuary, then he thought the House ought to refuse the Votes for them until the law was altered.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,877, 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 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

MR. BOWRING

appealed to the Chief Commissioner of Works to distribute more equally the expenditure on embellishments of public Parks. On behalf of many of the residents in the neighbourhood of Kensington Gardens, he had to complain of the neglect shown to the north end of those Gardens, and of the removal of Queen Anne's arbour from its original site, where it afforded an agreeable shelter from the heat of sun in summer and from rain. He would also call attention to the dreary and desolate appearance of the Gardens in the immediate neighbourhood of the site of Dr. Jenner's monument.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he rose to call attention to the great public convenience which would result by the construction of a carriage roadway from the Mall, across St. James's Park Bridge, to Queen's Square, Westminster. There was now an absolute necessity for some measure of this kind, in order to afford the required convenience to the public, and to relieve the traffic of the neighbourhood. He believed that the plan he suggested was first advocated by Sir Benjamin Hall, when Chief Commissioner of Public Works. Just before the time of the Great Exhibition, the privilege was conceded to the public of the drive through Marlborough House Gate to that by the side of Buckingham Palace. That accommodation, however, was found to be quite insufficient. In consequence of the construction of a new railway station, in Old Tothill Street, there was a proposition before the Government to open Queen's Square to Birdcage Walk, nearly fronting Marl-borough House. The whole roadway across the Park, exclusive of the bridge over the ornamental water, would not exceed 800 feet, and the saving from the south end of St. James's Street to Palace Yard would be no less than 500 yards, to say nothing of the relief to the traffic on the present route. The foot-bridge across the water was not of the most ornamental character. He apprehended that the cost of the proposed roadway might be from £20,000 to £25,000; and, having regard to the extent to which it would promote public convenience, it was very likely that the Board of Works might be induced to bear a large share of the cost. Any objection to the scheme on the ground of interference with the rights of the Crown was easily disposed of by the fact that public carriages had been permitted to use the road between Marlborough House and Buckingham Gate, and by the further fact that since the Great Exhibition public carriages had been allowed to pass through the west side of Hyde Park. It could not be pretended that the construction of the road would be any interference with the rights of the public, for the present path would have to be made very little wider for a carriage-way; iron palisades protected the sides of the footpath, and on one side there was an enclosed space not dedicated to the public at all; and the additional ground required for the carriage-way could not be a serious abstraction from a total of twenty-seven acres on the eastern side of the Park. He would beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will grant an inquiry on the subject either by a Select Committee or otherwise, as they may think fit?

MR. DILLWYN

rose to Order. If questions of that kind were to be introduced, it would be impossible for the Committee to make any progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) was in Order, as the Vote related to the Royal Parks.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he should be satisfied if his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would institute an inquiry.

MR. W. F. COWPER

said, the hon. Member might be right in point of Order, but he was quite wrong in point of taste. It was a monstrous proposition that for the sake of the very few people who could want a short and direct cut to nowhere—for he hardly knew where the southern terminus of the road would be—they should interfere with the most agreeable and best laid-out walk in the neighbourhood. St. James's Park was a beautiful specimen of landscape gardening, and the driving of cabs and carriages right through the centre of it would spoil its effect and destroy its charm. The making of the roadway would be a piece of Vandalism of which he hoped they would not be guilty.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he quite agreed that the appearance of the foot bridge was not ornamental, because it cut in two the ornamental water; but he entertained great doubts whether its ornamental character would be improved by the alteration proposed. The bridge necessary for a carriage-way must be a considerable structure; and there was great difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory foundation even for the present footbridge. As the proposal would involve considerable cost, he advised the hon. Member to leave the matter in the hands of the Chief Commissioner of Works at present.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he desired to call the Committee back to the consideration of the actual question before them—that of the proposed Vote for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. He was glad to notice a diminution in the whole amount as compared with that of the previous year, but there were some items respecting which he thought some additional information should be given. Of the Vote for Hampton Court Palace the charge of £3,690 only had reference to that part of Hampton Court Palace and grounds from which the public enjoyed the benefit. No one grudged this; it was the large additional sum of £6,700 that this place cost from which the public derived no benefit, at which he grumbled. He wished to know how it was the Ranger's Department for Richmond Park cost upwards of £2,000, whilst the Ranger's Department for St. James's, Hyde, and Green Parks only cost £131? £2,017 had been expended on the extension of the horse rides in Hyde Park. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner would not curtail the area too much in making his improvements, or forget the poor people who wished to enjoy the Park as well as those who went there on horseback. He was against the surface of the Parks being encroached on much by making even rides and ornamental flower gardens. He next referred to the sum now being expended in making the Serpentine shallower; and, in reference to Victoria Park, he objected to a building within it being licensed for the sale of beer. He disputed the necessity for the sale of beer in any park. It was offensive to teetotallers and men who wished to promote temperance to set up a drunkery in the middle of a public park. He was not a teetotaller, but he sympathized with those who wished to forward their views, and he did not want needlessly to give offence to any class. It did not become Parliament to permit a beer-shop to be established in the middle of this Park—it dare not do so in Hyde Park—and, therefore, he protested against it. He wished further to know how it was the charge for the police force in the Parks had increased so much?

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the Vote for the Parks was one that must force itself on the attention of the Committee as a question of principle. A few years ago this Vote amounted to between £50,000 and £60,000; and in 1867 it rose to £90,000, and now it reached £127,000. He did not think that the whole of this increase ought to be borne by the public. If the increase was to be defrayed out of the Estimates, they would find the other large towns in the country making demands for contributions for the same purpose and from the same source. In Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns these parks were purchased and supported out of the municipal funds. He had just been to Liverpool, where he saw two large and beautiful parks, and heard that the town had purchased a piece of land for an ornamental garden, which would cost £400,000. Some portion of the cost arising from the improvements effected in the existing London Parks ought, at all events, to be borne by those who more immediately derived advantage from them. He would suggest that the Vote for the Metropolitan and Royal Parks should be fixed at some definite figure—say at £100,000 a year; and if that plan were adopted, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Commissioner of Works) would know what amount he had at his disposal, and would be obliged to refuse many demands which were made upon, him. ["Move."] For the purposes of the discussion he would presently move the reduction of the Vote by £27,000 a year.

MR. GUEST

said, he rose to move the omission of the Vote for Clothing and Salary of the Gatekeeper at Clarence Gate, Roehampton. It was difficult to understand why the public funds should be called upon to defray the expense of a keeper who was placed at a gate for the purpose of preventing its being used by the public. There were many hon. Members who, like himself, had been disappointed by being repulsed from this gate, and having to go a considerable way round; and, as passage by this gate was invariably refused, it was unreasonable to charge the Estimates with this expense. The gate was maintained merely for the convenience of a private individual, the proprietor of Clarence Lane—the Royal Family using it only by courtesy.

MR. BOWRING

said, that he should have brought the proposition forward himself if the hon. Member (Mr. Guest) had not done so. He had himself been a frequent sufferer from this man's refusal. When he saw the present Vote on the Estimates he took it for granted that everything had been settled; but, on going that way he found this Cerberus more surly than ever. He believed it was not too much to say that in the summer time as many as 100 parties were frequently turned away in the course of a single day from this gate. If the gate must be kept in its present state, he would suggest that it should be called "Dog-in-the-manger gate."

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, he called attention to the subject last year, and from what was then stated had hoped that that was the last time the Vote would have appeared in the Estimates, unless the gate was open to the public. The restriction extended, not merely to persons entering, but to persons leaving the Park by the particular gate. The continued existence of a monstrosity of this kind affecting a Royal Park was only to be explained by its connection with, a Government Department. A simple plan of solving the difficulty would be to brick up the gate, pull down the lodge, discard the gatekeeper, and save, not only his salary, but the other incidental expenses. If that were done, there would soon be applications from persons resident in the vicinity and desirous of a nearer approach to the Park than a circuit of two or three miles.

MR. LAYARD

said, it would be observed that he had departed from the usual course, and had put down the gatekeeper at Clarence Gate as a separate Vote, leaving the Committee to deal with it as it thought fit. What had been stated was perfectly true. This gate, leading into the public park was maintained at the public expense, and was the nearest access to the Park from the metropolis. Hundreds of thousands of persons would pass through that gate if they could do so, but it was approached by two private roads belonging to individuals or to a company, he really could not tell which. These roads were closed against all the public except the Royal Family and certain persons inhabiting Richmond Park to whom permission was given to use them; and so strictly was the privilege insisted upon, that having the Park under his charge, and wishing the other day to see these roads, a bar was slammed to and he was told that he could not pass. He mentioned his name and official position, but was informed that a Mr. Rogers, secretary to the company had given special orders that the First Commissioner of Works was to be excluded. He thought this rather a strong step, but he found a notice posted up to the effect that no one but shareholders and the persons he had already mentioned were to be allowed to use these roads. That a gate maintained at the public expense should thus be made a source of profit to shareholders in a private undertaking was no doubt a monstrous thing. On the other hand this gate was certainly a great convenience to the members of the Royal Family inhabiting the White Lodge; the roads were undoubtedly private property, and a mistake seemed to have been made in disputing that point. He had been given to understand, on what he considered very good authority, that the owners of these roads were willing to take £2,000 for them, and he induced his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to what would have been in the public interest a very fair method of settling the question. But the owners of the roads having ascertained that the Government were willing to give £2,000 for the roads, immediately raised their terms to £4,000; or they offered to give one of the roads—that leading to Roehampton—for £2,000, retaining in their own hands the one which would have been most useful to the public—that leading to the main London road. The negotiations accordingly had fallen through; and it was now for the Committee to determine what course they would adopt.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

asked whether, if the company had a right to go into the Park through the gate, the right hon. Gentleman could cause it to bricked up?

MR. LAYARD

Oh, yes.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £52, for the Gatekeeper at Clarence Gate, Roehampton, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Arthur Guest) —put, and agreed to.

Original Question, as amended, proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,825, 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 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

MR. W. F. COWPER

asked, what was proposed to be done with the trees in the Cambridge Enclosure in St James's Park; and, also, what arrangements had been made with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster?

MR. LAYARD

said, that in replying he would commence with the matter to which attention had been drawn by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk.) His action with regard to Victoria Park had been altogether exaggerated and misrepresented, on the one hand by the teetotallers and on the other by the publicans. In parks constructed under' Act of Parliament and where cricket was played, such as Battersea Park and Victoria Park, the sale of beer had always been permitted, and was carried on when he acceded to Office, but the beer was sold in tents at a bar. Of the the system of drinking at a public bar, or what his hon. Friend called "a drunkery," he entirely disapproved; but to the system which existed in the best parks abroad, where a man could have his dinner at a restaurant, and a glass of beer with it, he by no means saw the same objection. He had accordingly sanctioned the opening of a restaurant, believing that this would be a great source of comfort to the working classes, who having come long distances with their wives and children, naturally wanted something to eat, and did not wish to go to the bar in the tents. At present they could get nothing but a few cakes and ginger beer, unless they went outside the Parks to pothouses, which had arisen in consequence of this state of things, where the scenes were not always such as he or his hon. Friend would desire, and from which persons often came back into the Park drunk, a state of things which certainly did not contribute to the maintenance of good order. Persons would now be able to obtain a plate of hot meat and potatoes, with a glass of beer, or tea if they liked, inside the Park, which ought to be a check upon, instead of an incentive to, drunkenness. During the Whitsuntide Recess he had gone to Paris, and had an opportunity of ascertaining how cheap eating-houses in parks and public gardens were conducted. The attempt had succeeded very well in Glasgow, but there was nothing of the kind in London; and it would, he believed, be a very great been if such establishments could be opened in places of public resort. The person who had taken the eating-house in Victoria Park appeared to be a thoroughly respectable man, and the tariff was nearly the same as that which had been fixed for the refreshment rooms in the South Kensington Museum, where all kinds of persons obtained a very good repast at a small cost. The place was under supervision, and if he heard of a single case of bar drinking or drunkenness, the permission under which the business was now carried on would be withdrawn. He should add that no spirituous liquors were sold on the premises. The publicans round looked about with considerable alarm on this attempt; they did not like to see a working man contented with his dinner and a single glass of beer with it. They wished him to have his beer with something in it which would make him thirsty and want to drink more, and thereby lead him on to drunkenness. The clergyman of the district, the Rev. S. Hansard—a most excellent man, who took a deep interest in the welfare of the working classes—was at first led by misrepresentations to oppose the opening of the restaurant, but since the matter had been explained to him, he had come completely round. In reply to the question of his hon. Friend. (Mr. W. F. Cowper), he must admit that the Cambridge Enclosure was in a bad state, and he would try and put it in some kind of order, but he should not interfere with the trees. With regard to the item for a stone and inscription in Hyde Park, the explanation was there was formerly a convent on the spot which belonged to the Dean and Chapter. It was pulled down, but they had stipulated that a stone should be put up to show that the buildings once belonged to them. He would admit that the gravel walks and the drainage of the north side of Kensington Gardens were not good, but next year he would see what could be done to improve them. The arbour of which complaints had been made was formerly in a dirty corner, but it was now a rather ornamental object, and, though, he did not place it where it was, he did not think it was worth the expense of removing it. The ride in Rotten Row, the extension of which had been complained of, had, he thought, added to the amusement and pleasure of the pedestrians as well as of the riders. With regard to Hampton Court, it contained not only gardens and grounds, but an interesting historical collection of pictures and tapestries, and on Sundays and holidays there were thousands of visitors to see the Palace as well as the grounds. London had now two new and fine Parks—Victoria and Battersea—but the principle laid down by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldney) had been recognized in the two Parks latest constructed—Finsbury and Southwark—which were made by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and paid for out of the metropolitan rates. He did not think it would be advisable to reduce the expenditure for the Parks by any considerable sum. Many of the items would not occur again, and it would be a pity to limit the Vote to a particular sum, and that the works already undertaken should be abandoned.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that the Police Vote had increased from £15,000 to £17,000, although there had been no increase of park space during the past year. Unless some satisfactory explanation were given it would be his duty to move the reduction of this Vote.

MR. GILPIN

said, he should oppose any such reduction. If the hon. Member had to go across the Parks as frequently as himself he would have known that one of the great complaints was that they were so inadequately protected.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that when he last filled the office of First Commissioner of Works his attention was called to the complaints of want of due protection in the Parks. On going into the question he satisfied himself that this arose from no fault on the part of the old soldiers who were park constables, but that a change in the system was rendered necessary by the vast numbers of people and the valuable property now in the Parks. He determined not to dismiss all the park constables, but gradually to substitute the metropolitan police force for them. The change had been attended with the happiest effects and had given the greatest possible satisfaction.

MR. LAYARD

said, that the increased charge was rendered necessary by the large number of police now employed in the preservation of order and of public property in the Parks, Hyde Park being now open during a greater part of the night. The charge was as low as it could safely be. As a proof he might mention that there was only one policeman at night in the Victoria Park.

MR. CARTER

said, it was rather hard upon the great towns to have to pay for the construction and maintenance of parks which were almost exclusively used for the benefit of the people of the metropolis. The London Parks should be paid for in their localities, as were those at Leeds.

MR. LATARD

said, that no park in the metropolis was more frequented than St. James's Park, but it would utterly destroy its beauty to carry a public road across it. It was, however, deserving of inquiry whether the road could not be shortened between Marlborough Gate and Queen's Square, and he would consider the subject. There was after all, some difference between the metropolis and the large towns in regard to public parks. The three capitals—London, Edinburgh, and Dublin—were a source of national pride, and thousands of persons came up every year from the country who took a pleasure in visiting the London Parks

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that in respect to local funds the unfortunate metropolis was not one whit in a better position than the town of Leeds. The Board of Works had no property except that raised by the different parishes. No new parks were allowed to be placed on the Votes. The sum asked was what would meet the requirements of the year in the customary form; and the present system he thought would be found more convenient than to fix a sum beforehand—say £100,000,—as now proposed, which would always be spent. Whatever the necessities of the case, that would be the minimum. There would be no hope of keeping the expenditure under £100,000. He thought the hold which the Committee now had over the different Estimates and items greatly preferable. If any Vote was improper or excessive it was competent to any Member to move its reduction or omission.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he quite admitted that considerable difference should be made in favour of London as the Imperial city. But, when it was said that people from the country came up to the metropolis occasionally, it should be remembered that they were made to pay pretty sweetly for their visits, and the Londoners might very well be made to keep up the Parks for them in return. Some arrangement should certainly be made by which at least one-half the charge of the Parks should be borne by the local taxation of London. It was not enough that localities should pay for new parks. That rule should apply to the old as well.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, he was obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) for bringing this subject forward. Every one must admire the taste displayed in the metropolitan Parks, but the charge was an increasing one, and there was great temptation to lay out very large sums in making beautiful borders and additions to the Parks. He did not wish to overlook the agreement with the Sovereign that Parliament should keep up the Royal Parks; but if the Vote were limited to a specific sum improvements would be carried out with greater economy. Some check ought to be placed on the taste of the Chief Commissioner, be he who he might, for the temptation to lay out money in beautiful borders at other people's expense was almost too great for human nature to withstand. £2,017 was a very large sum for the new ride in Hyde Park, as was £355 for the flower border.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that the ratepayers of the metropolis were already taxed to the utmost extent of their means; the lower class of shopkeepers being barely able to meet the taxation which was laid upon them, and all for the public improvements going on in London. The rate-payers were, in fact, made victims for the benefit of future generations. The Metropolitan Board of Works already owed about £6,000,000, and there was a further loan of £380,000 asked for. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) could have considered the real state of the taxation in London, or he would not have made the proposal he had done.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he would at once move the reduction in the Vote to which he before referred. The Chief Commissioner stated that the Vote had been increased by a number of expenses which would not occur again; but it was to these exceptional sums that he objected, and unless some check were imposed they would next year still further augment the amount. If the sum were limited, it would be found sufficient to the requirements of the case. He knew of a remarkable instance in which a gentleman had seventy or eighty men employed in his garden grounds. He died, his heir made a reduction in the number of gardeners employed, and during the last fifteen years the same grounds had been kept in equally good condition by eleven men. No doubt the Chief Commissioner had loads of letters from different parties, each asking for his own locality to be beautified, and he was obliged to give way; but with only a certain limited sum at his disposal he would lay it out economically and to the best advantage. He moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £28,825.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £56,000, 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 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Goldney.)

MR. CAWLEY

said, he believed the country was quite willing to bear a fair proportion of what might be deemed the legitimate charge for the Royal and ancient Parks of London, which were enjoyed by all who came to the capital. But that expenditure was increasing on them from year to year; and it was perfectly clear that there were heavy items included in the Vote in which the country at large was not in the slightest degree interested. There was, for example an item of £13,000—part of £26,000—for reducing the depth of the Serpentine to prevent the danger to skaters. That expenditure might be a very proper one, but it did not seem one for which the whole country should be asked to pay. Then as to the police he entirely agreed in the importance of having the Parks well watched if they were thrown open during the night; but certainly people did not come up from the country to enjoy the Parks of London during the night. Again, Victoria Park and Battersea Park were not Royal Parks, or places in which people from the country took any interest. It was, in his opinion, high time to put a limit on that expenditure.

SIR PATEICK O'BRIEN

said, as an illustration of the manner in which the details of the Parks were administered he might mention that a private person who objected to the position of an alcove house situated near his residence in the neighbourhood of Princes Gate, was allowed by the Office of Works, on his undertaking to pay the expense of its removal—£400—to have it removed to the opposite side of the park, without consulting the convenience of the residents in that neighbourhood, whose view of the ornamental water it totally intercepted. He wished to know whether, if there, were any complaint of this, the alcove would be re-placed on its original site?

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. Instead of arbitrarily suggesting that a lump sum should be taken from the Vote hon. Gentlemen who objected to it should point out the particular items which they thought required reduction. That, he submitted, was the logical way of treating the subject. They might as well ask the people of London to maintain Buckingham Palace as to maintain the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds. They were national institutions for the benefit of strangers coming to London as well as for that of the permanent inhabitants. There was a large sum voted for Holy-rood Park, Edinburgh, and Phœnix Park, Dublin.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the alcove house to which reference had been made was found in its old position to be extremely inconvenient inside of Kensington Gardens, as well as a most unsightly object outside of them, as it projected on to a public road. The Office of Works, over which he had the honour to preside at the time, thought the proposal that it should be removed was a good one, and in sanctioning its removal their object was not the benefit of a few people who lived near it. As to the particular spot to which it was to be removed, the private persons spoken of had nothing whatever to say. That spot was adopted on the ground of convenience, and the Committee should remember that between the alcove and the houses opposite there were a number of well-grown trees. If it now obstructed the view of anybody in the neighbourhood he regretted it. But during the whole time that he held Office he heard of only one gentleman having made such a complaint. The change was a very beneficial one; and it ought not to be alleged against it that it did not entail a halfpenny of expense on the public.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

asked whether the residents in the houses opposite the new site of the alcove house had been consulted before it was placed there?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, certainly not. He never thought there could be any reason why it should not be put there.

MR. LAYARD

said, he wished to explain that the real annual cost of the Parks was not so great as it appeared to be in this Vote, because, when Victoria and Battersea Parks were formed, some portions of building land were reserved for sale and lease towards the expense of them, but the profit rents of these lands—which were considerable—came into the Imperial Exchequer under the head of the Woods and Forests, and did not appear in these accounts. If this deduction was taken into account, the hon. Gentleman opposite would find that the Vote did not much exceed £100,000, and it was less this year than last by £10,000. He had done and would continue to do his utmost to keep down the expenditure on the public Parks, but if £28,000 were to be struck off the Vote, after all the arrangements for the year had been made, he really could not be responsible for the result.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) would not divide the Committee. At the same time he thought the tendency to increased expenditure on the Parks had of late been rather aggravated, and he was therefore not at all surprised that hon. Members were disposed to be critical respecting it. It was obvious that the gardening expenses in Hyde Park had been increased at a tremendous rate during the last few years, and it was a question how far that increase ought to be continued. He was always for a judiciously liberal expenditure on these places of public resort and amusement, but some limit would really have to be put on horticultural extravagance. He should like to know what was the exact nature of the improvements which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out at a cost of £26,000 or £27,000 with regard to the Serpentine? From time to time controversies had arisen in the newspapers as to whether the condition of the Serpentine was such as to be productive of disease. For his own part he had never discovered that malaria arose from it, while he had frequently admired the clean and wholesome appearance of its banks, and the freedom of the water from noxious weeds. However this might be, the expense of £26,000, which was apparently intended to be incurred on the purification of the Serpentine, was a matter requiring special attention on the part of the Chief Commissioner. An analogous case occurred a year or two ago in regard to the Regent's Park; but the public mind was then excited in consequence of the frightful accident which had recently occurred through the breaking of the ice. In his opinion, however, the inhabitants of London might be fairly expected to take into consideration the fact that they incurred a certain amount of risk when they skated on so large a piece of water as the Serpentine. He was not aware that reducing the depth of an ornamental sheet of water was at all conducive to its healthy character. Indeed, his experience, especially in regard to the ornamental water in St. James's Park, which had been reduced to a depth of four feet was quite the other way.

MR. LAYARD

said, that the cleansing and purification of the Serpentine had been under consideration for a very long time, and it had been postponed so often that it now became a matter of necessity. The hon. Gentleman opposite was probably unaware that for a very long time all the drainage of that part of London emptied itself into the Serpentine, and that the depth of the mud and filth was very considerable. The bottom was, besides, full of holes, which were the source of frequent accidents to bathers and others. In point of fact it was absolutely necessary that the Serpentine should be cleansed and the bottom reduced to one uniform depth, although he by no means insisted that the depth should be four feet.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was unable to support the Amendment, because looking at the increasing population of the metropolis and the accommodation they required, he did not think the Vote excessive.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it seemed to him that the sort of economy suggested by this Amendment was the very worst that could be possibly conceived. It proposed that hon. Gentlemen should give up their function of estimating as reasonable beings each different item of expenditure, and should take the whole sum of £128,000 saying—"Our sense of symmetry and of propriety will be satisfied by granting a round sum of £100,000; we will therefore cut off £28,000 and leave the remainder to the Minister, who must make it do." Now, these Estimates ought to be framed by reason and judged by reason, and if the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman were to be followed the Government might as well come forward and say—"As far as we can see £128,000 is all we shall want, but as £150,000 agrees with our sense of symmetry and propriety, we may as well ask for that sum." The present Government, though they had not been long in Office, had already given proofs of its desire to economize, and he did not think they ought to be met with a Vote of this kind, which was one of the most difficult for a Government to endure, because it raised no objection to any item in regard to which any Minister might be in error, but simply told the Government that they were guilty of extravagance and unable of themselves to correct it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had spoken of the increase of the expenditure on the Parks, but he would remind the Committee that when the hon. Gentleman was in Office that expenditure was £10,000 more than it was at the present time. As his right hon. Friend (the Chief Commissioner of Works) had explained, a further considerable reduction ought to be made from the Vote in consideration of the rents received from the surplus building lands of Victoria and Battersea Parks, and the cry which was raised seemed to him to arise very much from the circumstance of the Commissioners of Works having been separated from the Commissioners of Woods with regard to this matter. The Queen, in consideration of the Civil List, had surrendered her forests and domains to the nation, who derived a large revenue from them; although, of course they were bound in return to maintain the Parks as being part of Her Majesty's Royal domain. Indeed, that bargain had been always regarded as one by which the Grown lost heavily and the nation gained largely. Under these circumstances it was the duty of the nation to maintain the Parks in a manner suitable to the Royal dignity, for they could not doubt that, if the Parks were in the possession of the Crown, they would be suitably maintained. He maintained that the Parks did not exist solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of London and its neighbourhood, as they were largely used by thousands of people whose permanent residence was in the country, but who spent several months during the season in the metropolis, and contributed nothing to its taxation. ["Oh! oh!"] He should like to know what a person who lived for a few months every year at an hotel in London contributed to its local rates? About the beginning of April in each year London was visited by so great an incursion of ladies and gentlemen that we could hardly cross the streets without being run over, while Rotten Row was blocked up by riders; and was it unreasonable when London was over-run in that way that they should ask for some public contributions towards the maintenance of its Parks. He was no advocate for extravagance; but the Serpentine was in a most noxious state, and if we were living in a warmer climate it would be a source of constant fever, pestilence, and death. As it was it was most injurious to the health of those who lived in its neighbourhood. No gentleman would allow a sheet of water in his private grounds to remain in so unwholesome a condition, and it ought to be properly cleaned and purified without further delay for the sake of those who lived around it, and for the sake of those who came up from the country. For these reasons he believed the Committee would do well to reject the Amendment.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that that Vote was lower by £10,000 than it had been last year; and undoubtedly in the mere item of works there had been a reduction to that amount. But no one could visit Hyde Park without seeing that there was a tendency to increase the expenditure upon it, and it appeared to him to be very desirable that the House should carefully look after that increased expenditure. He was entirely at issue with the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the state of the Serpentine. He had lived in London for the last twelve or fourteen years, and he was not aware that the Serpentine was a cause of disease or death. He believed the water would purify itself. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the Government had given such evidence of a desire for economy that they ought to receive credit for wisdom and good intentions when they advocated an expenditure of that description upon its merits. But he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should observe that the Civil Service Estimates had not diminished but had increased since last year. He did not make any particular complaint with regard to the Estimates for the Parks; but he repeated that, in his opinion, they ought to be subjected to very careful examination.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, he should vote, and for some of the reasons stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). They were intending to vote for the question on its merits when the right hon. Gentleman rose and sought to turn the question into one of confidence or no confidence in the Government; but if that was the spirit in which the Estimates were to be discussed the Committee might as well take them at once in toto. He had not the opportunity of paying very frequent visits to the Park, but the general account given of it by ladies who visited it, was that it was "something too lovely." Now he believed it was too lovely, regard being had to the fact that the country was taxed to keep it up; and he maintained that the hon. Member for Chippenham had done good service in trying to put a bridle on that tasteful but wasteful expenditure. He would beg to remind his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works that when he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) asked him, at the beginning of the Session to do an act of justice by aiding the inhabitants of the East of London in obtaining and preserving a park for that quarter of the town, though they were perfectly willing to be taxed for the purpose, he could obtain from him no further help than the assurance of his sympathy, which, valuable though it might be, would not furnish playgrounds for the children of those poor people.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that the practical result of the rejection of the Vote by the Committee would be that works which were already in progress would be put a stop to, and it would be rendered impossible that the Parks could be maintained. The vast labouring population of the metropolis which dwelt at the East-end had no greater interest in having these Parks at the West-end kept up than the inhabitants of Liverpool or Dublin. The fact was, they contributed to the enjoyment of but a small portion of the inhabitants of London. During the months of autumn and winter they were almost deserted; and of the numbers who at this season of the year occupied seats in the vicinity of the Ride, nine out of ten were not regular residents in the metropolis. He would state of his knowledge that the taxation in London for local purposes had increased enormously within the last ten years—in the case of his own house, 50 per cent—and he altogether objected to having it further increased to maintain parks for the nation at large.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he had no objection to see the Parks maintained; but then there were four items of expenditure which he regarded as unnecessary—that of £3,000 for new gates, £3,000 for new roads, £4,000 for a new hothouse, and £13,000 for the purification of the Serpentine.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 98: Majority 56.

Original Question, as amended, again proposed.

MR. CAWLEY

moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £13,125, being the amount asked for alterations in the Serpentine. He thought the account given of the state of the Serpentine by the Chancellor of the Exchequer exaggerated, and that more information was needed before the Committee could well sanction the Vote. He had no confidence that the estimate of £26,000 would cover the improvements proposed. Apart from the general question whether the nation at large ought to be called on to contribute to this expenditure, he thought the outlay itself was for a work of questionable utility. Shallow water would produce confervæ and while the mud at the bottom would do no harm where it was, the attempt to move it would liberate its noxious gases. As to the alleged enjoyment derived from these Parks by country visitors, that was an argument which, if carried to its legitimate extent, would come to this—that the country should contribute to all public parks, wherever situate; because in all the large towns where they existed parks were not in that sense made for the inhabitants of those towns alone, but for all the inhabitants of the locality who chose to go there.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £71,700, 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 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens,"—(Mr. Cawley,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £82,479, 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 1870, 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.

MR. BOWRING

said, that when it was resolved to convert the neighbourhood of Whitehall into a grand suite of public offices it was expected that there would be a considerable saving in the item of rent of hired offices. The new Foreign Office was now completed, and they had some experience of the result. The Board of Trade had entered the old Foreign Office, and the total saving on the Vote of £31,000 was £500; and inasmuch as the cost of the Foreign Office was £260,000, the total saving was less than one-fifth of 1 per cent.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he hoped that the Government would use some endeavours to reduce the expenses in connection with Chelsea Hospital, which were quite out of proportion to the number of pensioners maintained in that institution.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the hon. Member was somewhat ungrateful in complaining of the expense of Chelsea Hospital, and omitting to mention that, owing to the exertions of the past and present Chief Commissioners of Works, the cost of keeping up the Chelsea Gardens had been altogether removed from the Estimates, and transferred to the fund of the Hospital.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he wished to know why there was an increase in the present Vote over the amount voted last year for fuel and light. Coals were cheaper at present than they had been for a long time, and gas also was in course of reduction in price. The amount under this head in last year's Estimates was £18,900, and in the present Estimates it was £20,220. He moved that the item of £20,220 for fuel and light be reduced by the sum of £1,320.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the item of £20,220, for Fuel and Light, be reduced by the sum of £1,320,"—(Mr. Candlish,)

MR. LAYARD

said, that the amount for lighting appeared large, but the fact was that the way in which that House had been constructed made it necessary to burn gas in some of the apartments during the daytime. He hoped that in the course of the present year improvements would be made so as to allow daylight to enter more freely, and he trusted that the present item would consequently be reduced next year.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that the increase in the item for gas was not caused by the House of Commons, but by other public buildings.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was true that not only that House seemed to have been built in the dark ages, but that the new Foreign Office also was so constructed that some of the rooms required to be lighted by gas in the daytime?

MR. OTWAY

said, that was the case with regard to one or two passages; but it was hoped that in time the defect in that building would also be remedied.

MR. BROGDEN

said, he thought the increase of £1,300 on the item under discussion was perfectly indefensible, because there had been no extension of Public Offices great enough to account for such an additional outlay.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he believed that the Chief Commissioner had misapprehended the Vote he had moved; it had been pointed out that the lighting had nothing to do with the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some further explanation.

MR. LAYARD

admitted his error, but was not quite sure whether the cost of the gas in the courtyard was not defrayed by this Vote. The gas lighting in the new Foreign Office, however, would account for some of the increase.

MR. MONK

pointed out that the total increase amounted to the sum of £3,000.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he wished to know why the items for rates for the Government property were not put under one head?

MR. AYRTON

The item of £1,150 is a charge made under Act of Parliament. The item of £9,252 is a sum paid in aid of, or a contribution in lieu of rates—the Crown not recognizing the right to make a legal demand for them. The arrangement has not been carried out completely; when the arrangement is complete the Departments of the Army and Navy will each account for the sum it disburses in respect of the property it occupies, but will do so, of course, under the sanction of the Treasury.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he would like to know why £2,000 had been put down for increased accommodation for the Charity Commissioners?

COLONEL SYKES

said, that the rents paid for various public offices were enormously high for the accommodation provided, and that the matter was worth investigation.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, 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 3l8t day of March 1870, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the Public Departments.

MR. BROGDEN

said, the expenditure for furniture for the last eight years amounted to £20,898. He wished the other Departments would imitate the economy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the demand for furniture in his office only amounted to £8. Among the items were these:—Office of the Great Seal, £329; the National Debt Office—almost a superfluity—£235; the Poor Law Board, £423; the Public Works Loan Office, £453; the Record Repository, £313; the Treasury, £364; and the great item of all was £2,687 for the War Office. He admitted that the Government deserved credit for having reduced the Estimate by £1,000 from last year; but as similar sums had been voted, in past years for furniture for most of these offices, and the same remark applied to nearly all, he felt it his duty to move that the proposed vote of £10,000 should be reduced by £4,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £6,000, 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 81st day of March 1870, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the Public Departments."—(Mr. Brogden.)

MR. LAYARD

said, the Estimates showed what was expended last year, and that expenditure was the only guide to the probable expenditure of the present year. The total sum had been £15,000 a year; this year the Estimates were reduced by £1,000; and it would be his duty, in the course of the year, to cut the expenditure down as much as possible, and to see that the officers did not ask for more than they ought to have.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, surely the cost of the War Office could be reduced now that they were blessed with a new War Lord of the Treasury.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that according to an arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the item of £184 on account of their offices ought not to have appeared in the Estimates.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that the Chief Commissioner of Works seemed to think that because so much was spent last year the same would be required this year; but he (Mr. Anderson) arrived at an opposite conclusion, seeing that furniture did not wear out in a year.

COLONEL SYKES

said, the yearly expenditure upon furniture for the Public Offices was simply inexplicable. He should like to know the system pursued in the renewal of furniture. Did each office order its own furniture, and then send in the bill?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that within his recollection the vote was £20,000 a year, and the reduction to £14,000 was satisfactory, considering the increase in the number of offices. The pains that were taken at the Office of Works to check and reduce the demands which were made by other offices were most creditable; and he could not let the opportunity pass without mentioning the name of Mr. Austin, the late Secretary, who looked sharply after these demands. Whereas £15,000 was voted last year, owing to the care taken only £13,200 was expended, and there was reason to hope that the expenditure this year would be less than the Estimate.

MR. CANDLISH

said, it appeared that there was no Estimate before the Committee, and that they were asked to vote money in a manner which had been condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was just as easy to estimate the furniture as it was to estimate anything else that might be required. Practically, they were asked to vote a sum of money to be spent upon those who would ask for it.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he could confirm what had been said as to the efforts made to keep down this expenditure.

MR. MONK

said, this was no Estimate whatever, and he should support the Amendment.

MR. DILLWYN

said, at all events there ought to be no entry for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

MR. LAYARD

said, the Estimate was as fair as could be given. You could not tell at the beginning of the year what the offices would require.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, a note ought to have been appended to the item for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, stating that it would not appear again; otherwise there was no security that arrangements which were entered into would be carried out.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he could not understand, to take one item, how the Master of the Bolls could require such an expenditure in furniture for his chambers. The only principle seemed to be that if furniture was not wanted in one office it might be wanted in another.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 112: Majority 60.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £17,000, to complete the sum for acquisition of Lands for the New Palace of Westminster.

MR. GOLDNEY

asked for an explanation of the Vote. As far as he could trace it, its history was this—Five or six years ago an estimate was made for the purchase of the land that lay to the west of the House, and the proposal was to make it an ornamental garden. The estimate was £108,000, but only about £30,000 had yet been voted, and meanwhile the remaining property had increased in value, the tenants' claims for compensation increased, the original estimate had been increased to £150,000, and before the plan was completed it would very likely rise to £200,000. Now, in such a case it seemed to him that either the Government ought to go boldly with the money in their hands and buy the whole of the property at once, or they should give the whole thing up. Independent Members ought to make a stand here, and it was clear that they were fighting both front Benches on these questions of expenditure.

MR. LAYARD

said, the original Estimate stood at £150,000, and still remained at that amount. The ground to be purchased lay to the south-west of the Houses of Parliament, and upon it there were a great many old houses which, it was represented, would be exceedingly dangerous to the Palace in case of fire.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the estimate of which he had spoken was that of Mr. Pownall, adopted some four or five years ago. If danger did really exist, it would be better to buy all the land needed at once than to wait for a rise in value.

ALDERMAN LUSK

agreed with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). He thought the land should be bought up at once.

Vote agreed, to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £34,026, 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 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament.

MR. MONK

said, he must draw attention to the enormous increase of £1,221 upon the item for fuel and gas, which last year was under £6,000. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,221.

MR. PEASE

asked for explanation of the cost of warming and ventilation. The supply of three steam boilers could not account for a difference of £3,000.

MR. J. WHITE

observed a charge of £2,000 as an estimate of the cost of increasing light round the central hall and in the halls and corridors. He entirely sympathized with the object, but wished to know by what means it was to be attained.

MR. LAYARD

said, the remedy was very simple. When only a ceiling intervened between the passage and the sky, he proposed to remove the ceiling and put out the gas. This had been already done with good effect in some cases, and he hoped to do it in a good many rooms throughout the building. His attention had been called to the large expenditure upon gas, and a short time ago he sent a circular to the various officers having apartments in the Houses of Parliament, urging that economy in its use should, as far as possible, be observed. The Committee need not be told that a good deal of gas was used in cooking.

MR. CANDLISH

said, the right hon. Gentleman had just given a very good reason for the reduction of the Vote as proposed.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

asked for some explanation as to the estimate of £8,000 proposed to be expended on the improvement of the central hall between the Houses of Lords and Commons.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, that the crypt was another dark place requiring a good deal of light. He wished to know by whose authority the large sums already expended had been spent, with what object furniture had been placed in the crypt, whether it was intended to perform Divine service there, and if so, by whom the cost was to be defrayed?

MR. LAYARD

said, that the central hall, one of the most important chambers in the building, was very dark, and altogether unsuited for its purpose. He wished to alter it, by raising the lantern and doing away with the artificial light sometimes required on a summer's day. Parts of the walls also had never been finished, but were covered with paper, which was going to decay. He proposed to re-place this with suitable decorations. As regarded the crypt, the works there were undertaken by his predecessors, and the sum of £500 included in the Estimates would finish the outlay both upon the crypt and baptistery. As regarded future expenditure, it was for the House to say whether they wished Divine service to be performed there.

MR. KINNAIRD

hoped his right hon. Friend did not adopt the expenditure on the crypt. Anything more monstrous or lavish it was impossible to conceive.

MR. MONK

said, that giving his right hon. Friend full credit for his efforts to economize fuel, he would not press his Amendment on that point, especially as this had been a cold summer, but he felt bound to seek a reduction in the amount of the Vote for gas.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £32,805, 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 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. LOCKE KING

said, that part of the £500 was to be laid out on a baptistry, What could the House possibly want with that?

MR. BENTINCK

said, he thought his right hon. Friend ought to be a little more explicit about these decorations in the central hall, which were to cost £8,000. The Commission of Fine Arts, which formerly existed, ran into all sorts of useless expenditure, and came deservedly to an end some five or six years ago. It was supposed that no new statues would be erected without a Vote of that House; but eight new ones had made their appearance in the north wing of the building, in the passage leading to the Speaker's Court. One was a statue of Henry VIII., who was represented as a very thin man, and was squeezed into a niche where he seemed very uncomfortable. Opposite to him was William III., who was known to be a short man, but who was represented as very tall. The other six statues were equally extraordinary. They represented early Christian kings, but were not inscribed with any names. Still they all professed to be works of art, and therefore he trembled when he heard the right hon. Gentleman talk of "some decoration."

MR. MORLEY

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not provide two or three rooms where Members could have interviews with their constituents? ["No, no!"] It was quite conceivable that an intelligent citizen should now and then wish to have intercourse with his Member.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he would call attention to the item of £1,000 for a picture of the "Judgment of Daniel," by Mr. Herbert, which was to be put in the Peers' robing room. He wished to know when that picture would be finished?

MR. MILLER

said, he thought the sum of £4,410, just put down for the subway from the House to the railway station, was very large for so small a work. He wished to know whether it had been contracted for?

MR. LAYARD

said, there was a great want of accommodation in the House for purposes suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), and he was unable to suggest a remedy. One proposal was to make a private lobby of the lobby nearest the House, and to confine strangers to the central hall. With regard to the picture to be placed in the same chamber as the fresco of "Moses with the Tables of the Law," Mr. Herbert was working at it, but he was unable to name a time for its completion by the artist. It was determined to execute the subway beneath Bridge Street by contract, and tenders were sent in. It was expected to be ready early this Session, but the parish interfered in consequence of the water pipes being removed, and other difficulties arose. With respect to the central hall he had thought it desirable to remove the windows and lighten the glass, as had been done in the Lords' corridor. The present windows darkened the hall and almost made it necessary to have gas there in the daytime. By raising the roof, however, and making a kind of lantern, he hoped to make the hall lighter. The Royal Commissioners had recommended that certain frescoes should be placed in this hall; but, after the experience they had had, he should not attempt to put frescoes there. He had been informed by Dr. Percy that no preparation of lime would stand the smoke of London; but he was going to try mosaic, and he had asked Mr. Poynter and Mr. Moore to prepare designs for cartoons for this purpose.

MR. R. FOWLER

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether the Members' reading room could not be enlarged. It was now much too small.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 129: Majority 78.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. J. WHITE

moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,500. He was induced to do so by the ominous intimation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner that part of the Vote was to be applied to the decoration of the walls of Parliament. Now, after the sad experience they had had as to decorations, there was every reason to fear that the original estimate would be largely exceeded when once they had embarked in such a dilettante matter as this, and it was better to put a stop to it in limine.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £31,526, 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 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament,"—(Mr. White,)

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought it probable the Committee might desire some further explanation on this subject before coming to a vote; because, although the sum was not a large one, it was undoubtedly the first attempt at any considerable works of decoration since the termination of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman had confined his observations to the central hall, where he proposed to make structural alterations, to fill the panels with mosaics, and to introduce glass for the purpose of giving a better light. He should be glad to have some further information on the subject. Was the architect, Mr. Barry, satisfied with the alterations proposed in the roof of the central hall? Would the alterations be in entire accordance with the architecture—and would the drawings of the two artists who had been called in be submitted to the inspection of Members of the House? It was proposed to take £5,500 for this special service, but that was only the commencement of what might prove a very serious affair.

MR. LAYARD

said, the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was quite correct in what he had stated. What he was about to do was undertaken at the suggestion of the architect himself. The hall was exceedingly dark for the greater part of the year, and even during the day it was necessary to burn gas. The lantern would be altered so as to admit more light. The panels were merely rough brick, covered with paper, which was peeling off. The alterations would be done at a very moderate expense. The architect suggested that a mosaic surface, which would reflect light, might be applied to the panels; and the two artists selected for preparing cartoons for this work were well known for their ability. Another part of the expenditure was for a change in the windows—such as had been advantageously effected in the gallery between the Queen's robing room and the House of Lords, when the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was in Office. He hoped the Committee would have confidence in him to see that these alterations were properly made.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he would certainly support his hon. Friend (Mr. J. White) in the reduction proposed. This Vote was opening a very large question, and it was difficult to see the end of it. He entered his protest against the beginning of these alterations. They were proposing still further to decorate a building which was already, in his opinion, over decorated.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he wished to know who was responsible for the Kings in Westminster Hall?

MR. LAYARD

said, he had nothing to do with the Kings. They were placed there before he came into Office.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LOCKE KING

moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500 for the crypt of St. Stephen's.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £33,526, 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 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Locke King.)

MR. LAYARD

said, the noble Lord on the other side (Lord. John Manners) would be better able to explain the matter than he could.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that last year the House of Commons had been pleased to vote a sum of £3,520 for the decoration of St. Stephen's crypt among other things. The work had been notoriously going on—for year after year a sum had been voted towards its complete restoration and decoration, and the crypt was a very beautiful ecclesiastical national work. He apprehended this would be the last Vote for the purpose, and he did not think the House of Commons would grudge it.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, this was the way money was lavished. It was a matter of principle, and he would oppose the Vote.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, this Vote was not for money expended; it was an estimate for money to be expended. Antiquarians were of opinion that the crypt had been spoilt by these lavish decorations.

MR. GUILDFORD ONSLOW

said, he hoped the House would not refuse the Vote. Two Catholic priests, friends of his, had seen the crypt, and said it was very beautiful.

Question put

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 121: Majority 79.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.