SUPPLY—REPORT. (Hansard, 16 April 1877)

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he again intended to renew the objection which had been raised on a previous evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the sum of 1246 £155 for the feeding of pheasants in Richmond Park. Although he did not admit the propriety of voting public money in aid of the amusements of the Ranger of the park, it was not on that ground that either he or the hon. Baronet were opposed to the item just mentioned; but on the ground that the preservation of game in the parks was incompatible with the full and free enjoyment of them by the public. He thought it was time to call attention to that subject, because complaints were made by people living in the neighbourhood of Richmond of increasing encroachments on the park, and he believed that the same thing was going on in Great Windsor Park to the exclusion of the public. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £155.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
was sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea had brought that question forward again, because a satisfactory answer regarding it had been given a few nights ago. That sum of £155 was taken for rearing and preserving a small amount of game in Richmond Park, and any hon. Gentleman who had experience of the matter knew how small was the quantity of game that could be preserved for that sum. In fact, the greater part of the expense incurred was borne by the Ranger, who had the privilege of shooting over the Park, and ho reserved what game he liked for himself. The rest went to the Queen, who disposed of it as she thought right; and those who read the newspapers knew that Her Majesty periodically sent game to the London Hospitals, and also to the poor and sick at Windsor. He had seen in The Times, a few days ago, a letter written by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, stating that those parks were mainly used by the Crown authorities for the preservation of game, instead of for the benefit of the public. To that statement he now gave the most unqualified contradiction. The number of people who walked in the parks, who picniced there, and who drove there, were annually on the increase. They might roam about as much 1247 as they pleased, so long as they did not break into the plantations or commit any depredation. Those plantations were not made for the preservation of game; but for the purpose of beautifying the Park and of restoring the timber which was cut down every year, and which formed a source of revenue to the country. He would ask the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) if he had a plantation in his own park, whether he would allow the villagers to go indiscriminately into it and to mutilate and destroy the trees? If the Office of Works did not guard against such an evil they would be justly blamed. He did not think it was just or right to bring against persons occupying official positions charges which were based upon mere rumour, and without having obtained evidence for the correctness of the statements.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
explained that he should not have dreamt of writing the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded, had not the question been wholly misrepresented in the papers, and he had no opportunity of referring to it through any other channel. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most official speech which furnished a strong argument in support of the Motion. He had spoken of the public, for whose use the Park was intended, as trespassers, and of the Board of Works as if they were private owners of the property. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I said the public had perfect liberty to roam everywhere they pleased; except in the plantations.] Instead of a light iron fence which could easily be climbed over, the plantations were surrounded by a great deer fence, and the public were thus excluded from a large portion of the Park. The only reason for this exclusion that he could see was the preservation of game. It was true the amount challenged was small, but they desired to take the opinion of the House upon it as a question of principle.

§ MR. M. BROOKS
hoped the Motion would not be persevered with. He could not see any harm in having game in Richmond Park, for he thought the people who frequented the Park derived much pleasure from seeing the pheasants and other game. Dubliners who visited Richmond Park regretted that their own Phœnix Park was not equally well taken care of.