§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £30,072, 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 1872, for the Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, it had been found possible to make a reduction in the item of £15,000 for the drainage works at Windsor Castle. On the other hand, there would be an increased outlay upon Frogmore. The result would be that the total Vote required for Royal Palaces would be reduced from £51,032 to £42,072.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed that considerable difference of opinion existed with regard to the plan of drainage for Windsor Castle, and asked the nature of the amended plan adopted.
§ MR. DILLWYNcalled attention to the expenditure of over £18,000 upon Royal Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. The House would refuse nothing that was required for 504 the use and enjoyment of Her Majesty; but a large expenditure was incurred in keeping up Kensington and other palaces, which were not used by Her Majesty, and which might be turned to profitable account. Some of them were occupied by Royal and noble persons, but they would doubtless be better pleased with more convenient abodes; some of the palaces might, of course, be regarded as national monuments, and be devoted to national purposes. He therefore simply referred to the matter, in the hope that at some future time the opinion of Her Majesty might be consulted, and a useless expenditure saved to the country.
§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was not warranted in proposing, without Notice, an increase in the expenditure upon Frogmore.
§ MR. EYKYNsaid, that very serious difficulty would arise unless the Board of Works carried out a uniform system of drainage at Windsor from the Castle and the town.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, he had found from experience that the first result of attempting land irrigation by means of sewage was a considerable expense; and the second result was an indictment for a nuisance, together with an application to the Court of Chancery for an injunction. That, at least, was the case in a vast number of towns. He (Mr. Muntz) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had taken these subjects into his consideration, and he thought that until some plan of sewage irrigation was found by experience to be unobjectionable, it would be dangerous to drain Windsor Castle with a view to irrigation. Eton College was not far from the Castle, and anything which interfered with the sanitary state of the district would be prejudicial to the health of the boys at the College.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENcalled attention to the neglected state of some portion of the ground outside Buckingham Palace, and would suggest that the dead wall in front of Grosvenor Place should be replaced by an iron railing.
§ MR. CANDLISHasked for an explanation of the item of £550 for contribution in lieu of rates, and other hon. Members of other items.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he had merely proposed a convenient mode of proceeding; but if the Committee objected to the course and required more detailed explanation, the Vote had better be postponed.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it would be unreasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should be called upon to withdraw the whole Vote, merely because an alteration had taken place in the views of the Department with regard to the scheme of diverting the sewage at Windsor Castle. But it would be satisfactory to have more epxlanations on the Vote.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, as it seemed to be the opinion of the Committee that he should proceed with the Vote, he would give some further information; but he desired it to be understood that he had no wish to take the Committee by surprise. The plan for the drainage works had been provided by a gentleman outside the Board of Works; but, as it was objected to, it was revised at the Office of Works, where there were gentlemen quite as competent to deal with the question as any persons outside. The result was that it was found that the service could be performed in a more skilful and economical manner. Instead of expensive mechanical contrivances being resorted to, advantage would be taken of the natural incline of the ground, and the whole work would be done by gravitation without machinery, while the irrigation would be removed to such a distance from Windsor Park as to relieve the question from all embarrassment. It was for this reason that the Board of Works had been able to reduce the proposed expenditure. Having been a member of the Committee which investigated different projects for the utilization of sewage, he was enabled to say that the proposed scheme was well considered and could be carried out. If the town of Windsor made any proposal to him on the subject of drainage he should be prepared to consider it; but at present no such proposal had been made, and he thought Windsor Castle should rather set the example in diverting its sewage. As to the increased Vote for Frogmore House and grounds, it would be applied to necessary repairs.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTobserved that there were parties practically conversant with the efficient carrying out of drain-506 age arrangements, and if competent persons were not employed in the first instance great additional expense would be occasioned. He wished to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that persons properly qualified would be employed in carrying out these complicated arrangnements. He also desired to know whether contracts were made for such works?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that all works of any importance, not being mere repairs, were the subject of special contracts. There was a general contract, the result of tender by competent persons; but in cases of special work not within the limits of the running contract, regular estimates were made and put out to tender.
§ In reply to Mr. CANDLISH,
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that Holyrood Palace was certainly not in a fit state to enable Her Majesty to remain in it one day on her journey to or from Balmoral, and the expenditure proposed to be laid out in necessary repairs was extremely small.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he must object to the item of £550, and moved that it be left out.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £550, for Contributions in lieu of Rates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Candlish.)
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the contribution had been made in lieu of rates, reserving the rights of the Crown.
§ MR. EYKYNsaid, he must defend the item. There was a large area in Windsor which, being Royal property, could not be rated, and an additional burden was therefore thrown on the population. It was only fair that such a contribution should be made towards the rate. It was fully justified by the circumstances.
§ MR. DILLWYNasked, why the contribution was charged in the Vote before them; whereas it seemed to belong to Vote 22?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he would give an explanation on the Report, and if he was unable to give an explanation they could deal with the matter then.
§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that he wished to raise the question of the stud-house at Hampton Court, when
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, such allowances as that before them should be carefully made; but he thought that in the present instance there were reasonable grounds for sanctioning such a contribution.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought Windsor had great advantages as a locality, in consequence of the Royal residence and the amount of money that was consequently spent there. But he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea to be content with the promise that the right hon. Gentleman would give an explanation on this question in the Report.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, the item was not a new one, and that the mistake in placing it in the present Vote was made on the previous year.
§ MR. CANDLISH, in withdrawing the Motion, expressed his regret that the mistake had been repeated.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNasked for some explanation as to the expense of the stud-house and paddocks at Hampton Court. They were supported by a Vote on the Exchequer, and he wished to know to what account the produce of the sale of yearlings was carried?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that under the Civil List Act the external service required for the honour and dignity of the Crown was appointed to be carried on by the Office of Works by Votes in Supply. This particular service was necessary for the establishment of the Sovereign. Her Majesty had a Master of the Horse and a stud of horses. There was also a breeding stud, and an establishment of buildings was necessary for that state of things, and that being so, it was his (Mr. Ayrton's) duty only to see it carried out economically. The subject was one that concerned the Civil List only, for the expenses of Her Majesty's stud being paid out of that fund, the profits, if any, which accrued from the establishment in question must be placed to the credit of that fund. The Office of Works was merely concerned in the repairs of the buildings.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he could not see why the country should pay for the ex- 508 penses of breeding racehorses and hunters for Her Majesty.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he thought that if Her Majesty paid the expenses of her breeding stud herself, that House had no right to tell her that she had no business to keep up such an establishment, nor any claim to have anything to do with the profits that might accrue.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he must object to palaces which were not used by Her Majesty being kept up at the public expense for the sole use of persons in good circumstances. Hampton Court Palace, which was never used by Her Majesty, cost the country £6,475, in addition to £2,800 for improving the drainage, and £840 for water. That House ought not to be called upon to vote large sums in order to provide handsome houses for the members of the aristocracy.
§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that, in his view, the trade of breeding racehorses had nothing to do with the privileges of Royalty, and therefore he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £728.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £728, for Hampton Court Stud House and Paddocks, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Aytoun.)
§ MR. STOPFORD-SACKVILLEsaid, he hoped no "screws" would get into the brood stud, though that was more than he could say in regard to that House. He was surprised at this wrangle, which had been raised by hon. Members from north of the Tweed, where Her Majesty was accustomed to spend very large sums.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would withdraw his Motion. Whether the balance arising from the breeding and sale of these horses was in favour of or against the Civil List, the matter did not concern the public in the slightest degree, as it was part of a general arrangement which could not be disturbed. Ho, however, understood that generally no gain resulted from these transactions.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he must protest against any hon. Members in that House being alluded to as "Scotch Members." They were all Members of the Imperial Parliament, and had a perfect right to object to any item in the Estimates.
§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, that, whether Her Majesty chose to make use of the premises in question for breeding racehorses or not, the building itself would have to be kept up at the public expense, and therefore it mattered but little to what purpose it was put. Her Majesty had shown that she was anxious to improve the breed of horses in the country.
§ MR. FIELDENcould not understand why the item appeared in the Votes at all, and why it was not provided for in the Civil List.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £76,124, to complete the sum for Royal Parks.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had to call the attention of the House to the question of the communication, through St. James's Park, between Marlborough House and Storey's Gate. He had brought this question before the House during two or three Sessions, and he had endeavoured to persuade Her Majesty's Government that it would be to the advantage, not only of themselves but of the country, to establish a communication extending across the Ornamental Water. He had good reason to believe that this idea had made considerable progress with the public. He had brought this question before the right hon. Gentleman last year, together with the proposition that a carriage-way-should be made from Marlborough House to Storey's Gate. Unfortunately, by a most extraordinary coincidence, the remarks of his right hon. Friend on that occasion did not appear in the authorized version of the debates in that House. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, after opposing a proposition for the construction of a carriage-way across the Ornamental Water, referred to the prospect of having to shut up King Street while the Home and Colonial Offices were being built, and said, that in order to relieve the narrow part of Parliament Street from the traffic which would be thrown upon it, and with a view to public convenience, the road from St. James's Street, round the end of the Park to Storey's Gate, would be kept open for private and hired carriages and equestrians. But he (Mr. Bentinck) had found, with considerable surprise, that 510 the use of that road was limited to Members of Parliament, and that even Her Majesty's Judges were not allowed to pass along it in their carriages. The engagement which the right hon. Gentleman made last year had, therefore, not been complied with, and he now wished to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some account of the reasons which had induced him to change his intention, and to ask, whether the road would be left open to the use of Members of Parliament during the Recess?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that what he stated last year was, that Her Majesty was anxious that hon. Members should have every facility of coming to the House for the performance of their duties. If he was understood to have said that the use of this road would be allowed to the public as well as to Members of Parliament that was a misunderstanding. As it was, the relief to the public was considerable, because the public road was not now inundated with traffic at particular hours of the day. If the general traffic were allowed to use the road by way of Storey's Gate, the purpose for which the arrangement was made would be defeated, as an obstruction would be created, which would prevent Members of Parliament from getting to and from the House with the least possible delay. When the Session was at an end there would be no obstruction in Whitehall or Parliament Street, and therefore there would be no necessity for keeping this road open to Members of Parliament during the Recess.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, his recollection of what had occurred entirely bore out what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bentinck), whom he had congratulated at the time upon having succeeded in his object. He hoped the road to Storey's Gate would not be closed, but, on the contrary, that it would be thrown open to the public at large, in the same way as the road from St. James's Palace to Buckingham Gate. He had voted in the minority with respect to Constitution Hill; but he trusted that, at a future time, Constitution Hill would be thrown open. He would like that the expense of making the new road to Storey's Gate should be given, as the Prime Minister stated that if Constitution Hill were thrown open the cost would be a great deal.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKobserved that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner must have forgotten what had occurred on the occasion referred to. In order to freshen the right hon. Gentleman's memory, he would read the Notice which he had given. It was to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps had been taken with a view to establishing a communication for public carriages between St. James's Street and Storey's Gate, through St. James's Park? At the same time, he commenced his observations by suggesting that a public carriage-way should be made across the Ornamental Water in St, James's Park, which he pointed out would effect a saving of 500 yards between St. James's Palace and Storey's Gate.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had always objected, and always would object, against special privileges being given to Members of that House. He did not believe that any hon. Member wished for any special privileges for himself which were withheld from the public. That the road in question should be assigned exclusively to Members of Parliament would be highly objectionable.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he quite agreed with hon. Members who, having found this road such a convenience to themselves, wished to extend the benefit to the public. When they saw that the carriage traffic ran so easily and smoothly between Pall Mall and Buckingham Gate, there could not be the slightest reason why it should not run as easily over Constitution Hill to Storey's Gate. He believed there was no other city in Europe where the public Parks were so closed to the public as here.
§ MR. J. HARDYrecommended that a carriage-way should be opened over the bridge in the ornamental part of St. James's Park. He did not know with whom it would interfere, and it would be really the proper way of adding to the convenience of the public.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYremarked that one part of the road to Storey's Gate was extremely narrow, and would not suffice for the traffic, if opened generally to the public. The public, however, had a right to be considered in the matter, for the streets of London were too narrow for the traffic which, owing to the great ex- 512 tension of the Metropolis, was daily increasing. Anyone who went into Piccadilly or Bond Street in the afternoon would find this to be the case. It would be the greatest possible convenience if the road from Pall Mall were continued over the Ornamental Water in St. James's Park, and it was only by that means that the public could have the convenience to which they were entitled, and which the hon. Member for Whitehaven had asked for.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he remembered the late Lord Llanover stating, at the time the bridge was built, that he was so deeply impressed with the necessity of having such a thoroughfare that the bridge was made of a strength sufficient to allow of the additional traffic.
MR. GOLDSMIDmaintained that if they opened a road over the bridge they would very much damage the appearance of the Park, and would cut up one of the prettiest portions of it. No expense, beyond a trifling sum of £150 or so, would be incurred by allowing the public to make use of the road to Storey's Gate. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider whether it would not be possible to leave the road open all the year round.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should be sorry if the Government came to a conclusion all at once on the questions that had now been raised; but he must earnestly press on the right hon. Gentleman not to lose a single day in pulling down the houses in King Street and widening Parliament Street.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire that it would be extremely unwise to come to a hasty conclusion as to the questions which had been raised. He rose merely for the purpose of pointing out that his right hon. Friend had undertaken, on the part of the Government, to give the whole of those matters the most earnest consideration. At present, the questions were quite immature.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that one of the great advantages of opening a road over the Ornamental Water was that it would lead directly to one of the principal stations of the Metropolitan Railway. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Rochester 513 (Mr. Goldsmid) that it would be a great injury to the beauty of the Park.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the cost of the road from Storey's Gate to St. James's Palace was not put in the Estimates because the road was made after the Estimates were prepared, but the cost of draining and repairing it was £1,250.
§ MR. C. B. DENISONsaid, he would assume that the discussion about Storey's Gate had been brought to a close, and before the Vote about the Parks was put from the Chair, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner about the cost of the police employed in the Royal Gardens? He found the total cost put down at £17,702, but turning to another page of the Estimates, he found the total cost of the establishment of the Royal Parks, including the police, was £26,835. These police, he observed, on looking into the details, came under four heads—first, the superintendents and constables; second, the ranger's establishment, and his constables and keepers; third, the metropolitan police, representing a sum of £8,882; and fourth, night watchmen, £2,765. The other day he had made the modest proposal to the House to restore to the Park some land which he believed belonged to it, and one of the arguments used by his light hon. Friend the First Commissioner was that it would necessitate extra police. Another argument used against him was the cost of taking down the rails and adapting it to the other portions. On turning to another page of the Estimates he found that the cost of re-arranging the boundary of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens figured in the last year's Estimates for £5,760. He wished to be informed of the details of this enormous Vote; what proportion of the metropolitan police was bonâ fide detailed off for the conservancy of the Parks; whether the Parks had the sole control of their services, or whether they were mixed up with the police in the neighbourhood of the Parks; and what was the proportion of the night constables, as it would be a satisfaction and consolation to the people out-of-doors to know, when the argument was brought forward that the present area of the Park could not be added to because of the expense of keeping the police, that the police es- 514 tablishment was already on a large and liberal scale.
§ MR. BOWRINGcomplained that the north side of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, used chiefly by poor people, was neglected, while large sums were spent on the south side, which was frequented almost exclusively by the upper classes.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSasked what progress had been made in putting up the fence in Regent's Park?
§ COLONEL SYKEScongratulated the First Commissioner of Works on a reduction of £19,087 in the Vote as compared with that of last year; but he feared that, from economical motives, the Parks had been lately neglected.
§ COLONEL FRENCHcalled attention to the grazing of cattle in Hampton Court Park, at the instance of the Master of the Horse. These cattle gnawed the bark of the trees, and some splendid lime trees had been greatly injured. He had brought this subject under the notice of former First Commissioners, and hoped his right hon. Friend, who was formed of somewhat sterner stuff than they, would take steps to preserve the trees which still remained uninjured.
§ MR. ELLICEsaid, the diversion of the Broad Walk in Kensington Gardens had exposed them to the ridicule of every foreigner of taste. That walk was a fine feature in the Park, and formed part of the original design; but it had now been diverted, not in a straight, but in an oblique line, to the Albert Monument, and was a standing-disgrace to their national taste. He did not blame the Chief Commissioner, who could not be responsible for all details. But whoever was really responsible ought, if in the public employ, to be dismissed from the service. He might be told that eminent persons had been consulted. If so, who were they? Let their names be made known, so that they might go down in history along with this most miserable blunder. The thing was done, and some beautiful trees had been sacrificed to make that opening; but it must not be allowed to remain a standing reproach to good taste, and he wished for an assurance that during the winter, when the proper time came for transplanting trees, the blunder would be remedied. [Mr. AYRTON said, he must call the hon. Gentleman to Order, for the matter in question was 515 not contained in the Estimates.] To put himself in Order, then, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £448, which was the amount set down for two new footpaths.
§ MR. AYRTON, in rising to answer the various questions, said, those paths had no connection with the change alluded to by the hon. Member for St. Andrews. The charge for police in Hyde Park was £6,124, besides the gatekeepers and constables; and the whole expense of the establishment, from the ranger downwards, was £26,835. That was a very large establishment, and he should be glad if it could be reduced; but the largeness of the outlay was no reason why it should be added to still further. One reason for that large cost was, that while every municipal authority charged with the control of such places had the power of making and enforcing rules for good order, no such power existed there, and a numerous force of police was, therefore, necessary. As to the alleged neglect of the north side of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, suggestions for the adornment of portions of the Park were frequently made to him by persons who appeared to be enthusiastic in the public interest; but, on further inquiry, he generally found that they lived near these particular parts, and in this particular instance the south side of the Park was much nearer to people living on the north side of the Park than it was to nine-tenths of those who came to enjoy it from other parts of London. The object was not to make this side or that side of the Park particularly beautiful, but to keep the Parks generally in a good condition. With regard to Regent's Park, arrangements had been made for changing the wooden fence for an iron railing; but it was now intended to restore the wooden paling, which would cost only £7,000, as against £35,000 for the iron railing, and would be considered preferable by the inhabitants of Regent's Park. The grounds at Hampton Court, which were mentioned as being injured by cattle being allowed to graze in them, were under the charge of the Master of the Horse, who would, no doubt, pay attention to any reasonable complaint. He now came to the question of taste, and he had often remarked that, while they spoke with some amount of diffidence on all other subjects, there was this peculiarity with regard to 516 a matter of taste, that every hon. Gentleman thought that anyone who differed from him was profoundly ignorant of the whole subject. This arose from the fact that taste was often confounded with the impulses of the feelings, and those who were carried away by emotions did not allow themselves to believe that anybody could have emotions different from their own. He was bound to say that he accepted the entire responsibility of everything done with respect to Kensington Gardens, and, therefore, he was content that all the observations, however caustic, made on the matter of taste should be applied to himself. At the same time, the difficulties which had arisen in this case were not of his creation. He took office under unfortunate circumstances in reference to the Albert Memorial, because his predecessors in office had consented and advised that it should be placed in the place where it stood, but did not at the same time accept the responsibility of the advice they gave. When he came into office he found the Memorial, which was a wonderful work of art, absolutely growing up right in the midst of a jungle, and close to that work of art it had been decided that there should be a huge structure in a different style. The principle on which the Board of Works had to proceed, in conformity with the wishes of the House, was to destroy as little as possible of the plantations in Hyde Park, and to harmonize what was left with the Memorial without entailing any considerable expense. The Prime Minister having given a pledge that no further money would be expended than the grant voted to Her Majesty, the House would have a right to complain if any greater expenditure had been incurred. The question then arose as to what was to be done with the trees which intercepted the view of the great work of art, and the result was that many trees had been cut down; but all that would bear removal had been removed. As the Park was originally laid out, there was a number of radiating alleys, and one of them came down near the Memorial, producing a grotesque effect, and making the Memorial appear like something put on one side without regard to general harmony. In re-arranging the paths, it was impossible to prevent something from being oblique, and in reference to the path which had been alluded to some persons took a 517 different view from the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews, and objected to it as not being oblique enough. However, if they entered upon these matters of taste, they might discuss them not for one day, but for several days. The matter was one of difficulty, and had not been decided inconsiderately.
§ MR. ELLICEsaid, he was sorry to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman; but he would not persevere with his Motion for reducing the Vote. Some day or other, no doubt, the defect to which he had drawn attention would be removed.
§ Motion withdrawn.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he could not help regarding what the right hon. Gentleman called obstructions as the real attractions of the Parks. The cutting down of trees was decidedly in bad taste. There was a large sum disbursed by the Secretary to the Board of Works, and he should like to know who he was.
§ MR. MACFIEexpressed a hope that some practical advantage would be derived by the metropolis of Scotland from the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the first Commissioner of Works. There was not a city in this country, or, indeed, in Europe, whose scenery possessed such noble and commanding features as Arthur's Seat and Salisbury Craigs, with Ben Lomond in the distance, yet Holyrood Park had not a footpath or carriage drive. He thought some portion of the Vote might be applied there with advantage.
§ MR. CUBITTcalled attention to the expenditure of £421, put down for widening the horse-ride between Alexandra and Albert Gates. Considerable inconvenience was suffered by pedestrians. The great nuisance was the barracks, which still remained, although a hope had been held out that they were about to be removed; the footpath passing by them was in a disgraceful condition.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, with reference to Holyrood Parle, that directions would be given to plant a belt of trees so as to screen off the houses on the town side of the Park. That was all it required.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEcalled attention to the necessity of securing an entrance to Richmond Park by Roehampton Gate, and recommended that the property of the lady with whom 518 the Government had been some time since in treaty on the subject should be purchased by them. The land not required for the road could be turned to other uses.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he could give the assurance that the gate would be made and maintained, but the difficulty was about one mile of road through the Wandsworth district. If the local boards of the Metropolis neglected their duty in applying the proper expenditure for the improvement of their roads, the Government could not undertake to make or maintain them at the public expense. He would take that opportunity of saying, in reply to the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Denison), that the Returns for which he had asked in reference to the employment of the police should be supplied.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he hoped something would be done to remove the inconvenience, which was especially complained of by residents at Richmond.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £99,017, 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 1872, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings and Monuments; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKcalled attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absent during the debates on the Estimates, and that his place was occupied by no Member of the Government who was able to enter into the details of the Votes.
§ MR. HERMON moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,000 in reference to the following items:—The Civil Service Commission, for the erection of additional examination rooms; the Paymaster General's Office, for the erection of two additional pay rooms; and the Admiralty Registry, for preparing rooms, &c, in No. 10, Godliman Street. He also wished for some explanation with regard to the item for cleansing the tombs in Westminster Abbey, which he thought ought to come under the jurisdiction of the canons of Westminster Abbey.
519
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £97,017, 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 1872, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings and Monuments; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon,"—(Mr. Hermon.)
§ MR. AYRTONexplained, with reference to these items, that in order to carry into effect the determination of that House that public appointments should henceforward be distributed by public competition, instead of by private patronage, it had become essential that the new rooms in question should be erected; that the business of the Paymaster General's Office was carried on in the most miserable and inconvenient building, which imperatively required alteration; and that the Admiralty Register Office was connected with the Court of Admiralty. With regard to the item for cleansing the tombs in Westminster Abbey, he had to state that it was a special question, that the tombs in question were objects of national interest, and that in consequence of Westminster Abbey having been granted by the Crown in the reign of Henry VIII. to the Dean and Chapter, without any stipulation being exacted that the latter should keep the tombs in repair, that duty had fallen upon the country. The tombs in question had become very dilapidated and unsightly, and such steps were being taken as were necessary for their preservation.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would endeavour to explain the precise state of the ease. He apprehended that the tombs to which the Vote particularly applied were those of King Henry VII. and Margaret Countess of Richmond. They were, he believed, the finest tombs in the world, having been executed by a celebrated Italian, a pupil of Michael Angelo, in the 16th century. Not long ago a process was discovered by a man of great ability for restoring the monuments to their original grandeur, and that process was successfully applied to the tomb of Margaret, the Countess of Richmond, and another in Westminster Abbey. Those monuments were in King Henry VII.'s Chapel, and not in Westminster Abbey proper. They were, therefore, not properly in 520 the custody of the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey, but rather under the dominion of the Crown. It was only reasonable that this small sum of £255 should be granted for the restoration of objects of such national interest.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEdrew attention to the extravagant sum that was paid for the hire of buildings for public purposes—the principal sum of which equalled £1,500,000, which, if capitalized, would suffice to buy the fee-simple of the buildings in question.
§ MR. MELLORasked why the profits derived from showing the tombs were not devoted towards their repair?
§ MR. AYRTONreplied that these profits formed part of the income of the Dean and Chapter, who were not bound in return to keep the tombs in order.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would be glad to know why the Vote for erection and maintenance of Buildings in Scotland, and Probate Court and Registries, had so materially increased over that of last year's Estimate?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he must explain that the Government, in consequence of strong recommendations from Edinburgh, had consented to expend £2,780 in providing a new Equatorial for the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. These Votes were also increased by the sum necessary for fitting up part of Somerset House for carrying on business connected with the Probate Court, but more than that amount would be realized by the sale of buildings in Doctor's Commons. As to the item for £1,500 for King's College, Aberdeen, that sum was required for a new class room for the Professor of Moral Philosophy.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, if it were the wish of the House he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!]
§ Amendment negatived.
§ On the original proposition being put,
§ MR. MELLOR moved the rejection of the item £255 for the cleansing and repairing the Royal tombs in Westminster Abbey.
§ MR. C. B. DENISONobserved that there was an item of £2,586 for maintaining, watering, cleansing, and light- 521 ing Westminster Bridge, being an increase this year of £197 on that item. He wished to know why that House was called upon to maintain, water, cleanse, and light Westminster Bridge?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, this bridge was built by the nation. Certain estates belonging to the bridge were vested in the Commissioners of Works. The arrangement was one which resulted from the carrying out of a scheme undertaken many years ago for the improvement of the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. The duties of the Commissioners were transferred to the Office of Works, and the duty of keeping up the bridge thus devolved upon the Government.
§ MR. A. JOHNSTONasked, whether there was any agreement between the Office of Works and the Metropolitan District Railway Company, under which that company could be compelled, within a reasonable time, to erect suitable buildings in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament in place of their present unsightly buildings?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that property belonging to the Westminster Bridge estate was sold to the company; and he believed the only obligation imposed upon them by the purchase deed was, that the elevation of any building they might erect should be sanctioned by the Office of Works, so that nothing unsightly should be built in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought that as the respective Motions of the hon. Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor) and Preston (Mr. Hermon) were dissimilar, it was competent for the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who objected to the item of £255 for cleansing and repairing the Royal tombs in Westminster Abbey, to move a reduction of the Vote by that amount. It appeared that the authorities of the Abbey took fees for the inspection of these tombs, but refused to pay anything for keeping them in repair.
§ MR. HERMONdisclaimed any intention of moving to reduce the charge for the repair of the monuments.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not propose this Vote until he had satisfied himself that he could not compel the Bean and Chapter to undertake the service. They were not responsible for the Royal monuments.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought there was a misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Warrington on this as on many other subjects. The Bean and Chapter were making arrangements to abolish the "tomb money," and last year they commenced this reform by throwing open the Abbey to the public every Monday.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (4.) £10,500, to complete the sum for Furniture in Public Departments.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§ (5.) £60,650, to complete the sum for Acquisition of Lands (New Palace at Westminster).
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £23,078, 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 1872, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. BOWRINGsaid, he was glad to observe that the right hon. Gentleman had effected so considerable a reduction in the charges for gas and fuel for the Houses of Parliament—namely, from £9,033 to £8,261. He should like to know why the vote for the official residence of the Clerk of the Parliaments was this year more than twice as much as last year, and also whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any arrangements for exhibiting the electric light during the sitting of the House?
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had to complain of an act of gross extravagance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who had come into office as par excellence the economical Minister. When he acceded to office he was possessed with the idea that the most economical method of carrying out the works in the Houses of Parliament would be to employ persons who knew very little about them. He proceeded to dismiss the eminent architect who had previously been engaged on them—an act that had been condemned by the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in office, and by everybody in that House. ["No, no!] Well, by everybody who had given artistic consideration to the subject. Mr. Barry had for a number of years acted as surveyor 523 of the House, looking upon the office as an honorary occupation, for which he received merely a nominal remuneration. After he was dismissed, however, and his plans appropriated and mangled by the Office of Works, Mr. Barry sent in his little bill, which was to be found on page 15 of the Correspondence, in a letter dated December 9, 1870, and which amounted to £2,287 5s. The Assistant Secretary of the First Commissioner wrote an answer on the 20th of December, stating that he was desired by the First Commissioner to forward a check for £119 odd. The balance, however, was paid to Mr. Barry on the 30th of March, 1871; so that it appeared that the result of the action of this economical Minister was that the country was a loser by upwards of £2,100. He maintained that no buildings of this elaborate character could be economically and satisfactorily managed without a competent architect. If Mr. Barry had been insubordinate or inefficient, it was still the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a skilled architect as the surveyor of the building. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that the building should remain under the officers of the Department, and whether the £2,300 due to Mr. Barry was included in the present Estimate?
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEsuggested that something should be done to preserve the stone-work, which in some places was manifestly wasting away.
MR. GOLDSMIDthought they ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for so much diminishing the cost of maintaining the building, and for reducing the Vote by £13,179.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he felt with many other Members that Mr. Barry had been very harshly treated. After his and his father's long connection with the Houses of Parliament his removal was very painful, and the right hon. Gentleman had not shown the kindness and consideration which were due to the son of Sir Charles Barry.
§ MR. STOPFORD-SACKVILLEsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would show a little of the suaviter in modo as well as the fortiter in re. The correspondence with Mr. Barry was, on the part of the Department, most uncour- 524 teous and uncivil, and in future, when a public Department had to communicate with an architect or a man of science, he hoped language would be used more becoming an English gentleman.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had discharged the duties of his office with great advantage to the public. In dealing with officials it was necessary that Ministers should express themselves in such a way that there could be no mistake as to their meaning.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck), who had been so severe upon him in respect of his method of conducting Public Business, would form a different opinion on the subject if he had had more experience. He did not, however, attach much importance to the hon. Member's opinion, because he was probably not aware of the circumstances under which Mr. Barry had been dealt with. What had been written to Mr. Barry had been written advisedly, and with a due regard to the public interest. When anyone desired to get a statement of reasons from a Minister for any course he might pursue, it was not desirable to fall into his trap; but he could say—and a perusal of the correspondence show it—there was not a word in any of the letters to justify a single remark made by the hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!] He defied the hon. Member to point out a single remark; but, as he had said before, the hon. Member's estimate of what had been written did not appear to be of the least importance. Passing to the position of Mr. Barry, he would remark that his services were by no means disinterested. He had been employed to do certain work, for which he had been paid, and he had ceased to be employed, because the continuance of his services would have been inconsistent with the public interest. It was not merely the question of what was paid to Mr. Barry, but a question of the thousands—the hundreds of thousands of pounds which the House was called upon to supply to meet the cost of carrying out his suggestions. There were now no more of these suggestions, and, consequently, expenditure was less. He regretted to say that he was unable to proceed with his reply, because the time allotted to Opposed Business had come to an end.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day.
§ It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.