CLASS 1.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 18 March 1878)

§ MR. DILLWYN
asked for an explanation with regard to the first item, which was a charge for fitting up apart- 1517 ments in Kensington Palace for the Inspector of Buckingham Palace. He had never yet heard of that office, and he should like to know whether it was a new appointment, and, if so, why the Inspector had apartments allotted to him at Kensington Palace? It was an inconvenient plan to make one Royal Palace the lodging-house for the Inspector of another. There was a further Question which he had to ask with reference to an amount for repairs of a stable at Hampton Court. It was said that a large stud of horses was kept there, and that they were sold. It would be satisfactory to know whether the proceeds of the sale went, in its entirety, to the Exchequer, or in what way any part of the proceeds was disposed of?

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, that with regard to the Inspector of Buckingham Palace, the appointment was not a new one. During the past year the late Inspector had died, and the fresh appointment had involved the refurnishing of the apartments, inasmuch as it was found that the rooms were much dilapidated from the prevalence of dry rot. The salary of the Inspector was provided for in the Civil List.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
objected strongly to giving apartments in Palaces in the occupation of the Crown to officers like Inspectors. It was necessary for the Crown to have every comfort and convenience; but the residence of Palace Inspectors had no connection with that comfort, seeing that the Palace of Kensington had been given up to individuals having no claim to live in Palaces; and as regarded officers employed to look after the buildings, it would be far better to give the Inspector a lodging allowance, and let him find his own apartments. The occupation of any part of this Palace by such functionaries, or by any other private individual, was objectionable; a Palace ought not to be turned into a poor-house. No doubt, many persons in the Royal Palaces might deserve well of their country, and many were well selected for bounty by the Crown; but it would be an economy in administration, as well as a proper course for individuals, not to allow them to occupy Royal palaces.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
asked what could be done with the rooms in the Royal Palaces if they were kept un- 1518 occupied, in accordance with the hon. and gallant Baronet's suggestion? If unoccupied, there would be just the same charge for repairs, and the damage to the rooms from damp would be much greater.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, it seemed that the occupation of the rooms had not been able to stop the dry rot, which was now proposed to be removed by spending money that the Committee was called on to vote.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
observed that there was a now item in the Estimates. It was for the erection of a school at Hampton Court Palace. He wanted to know what was the meaning of a school there, how it was occupied, and for whom required? He had understood that there were only a few ladies living at the Palace, and of course their education was completed.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, that an old-building which contained a schoolmistress's house had been pulled down. It was necessary to build a new school-house for the children of the soldiers and persons employed about the Palace. It was not a new school, having been instituted in 1840; was maintained by voluntary contribution, principally from the ladies in the Palace, by the children's pence, and by the Government grant. It was under Government inspection.

§ MR. WHITWELL
would like to have some information as to whether the items that had been alluded to were the commencement of a new expenditure? He did not remember any Vote last year, and therefore supposed the Supplementary Vote was on account of an expenditure without a Vote.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, that it was a new Vote, and it was anticipated that £300 would cover the whole cost of the building.

§ MR. DILLWYN
remarked that the Supplementary Estimates voted by the House ought not to have been for new works. It was a small matter, but still the principle was the same. It would be convenient if some of the officers of the Government would let them know in all cases in which they asked for a Supplementary Vote, whether it was for the commencement of a new work. When a new work was begun, the House ought to know all about it. It was said these works would 1519 only cost £300; but it was a bad principle not to let the House know whether or not it was voting for the commencement of new works.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, that no doubt, it would be in the knowledge of hon. Members that last year the House sanctioned certain items for the buildings. Those repairs, and the extension of those repairs, involved the removal of the school-house, and the Vote was only for the completion of repairs which had already been commenced.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
complained that it was very inconvenient that the Commissioner of Works did not issue an annual Report, in the same way as was done by the Board of Inland Revonue. The House never had any precise information from the Commissioner of Works in the shape of an annual Report as to how he spent the public money. Instead of imposing on the hard-worked Secretary to the Treasury the arduous task of explaining to the House the state of the Civil Estimates for the enormous amount of £23,000,000, each responsible Minister should perform that duty for the portion of the funds which were under his control.

§ MR. M'LAREN
thought it would be very desirable to have a Report from the Commissioner of Works, similar to that of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. He was glad to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place, and he would take the opportunity of suggesting to him that his Department, comprising, as it did, a multitude of sub-departments, should also adopt the plan he had mentioned. It would save a great deal of time, and Members would not require to ask for so much information as they now did in the shape of Parliamentary Returns.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
thought the Estimates might be prepared in a way which would give much more information to the House, and prevent loss of time in asking about doubtful items. It would be extremely convenient, and cost a comparatively small sum, to have full details printed for the House.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES,
before the Vote was put, would like some information with reference to the school. Was it a new school, or was it an alternative school for one which had already existed? The House had a perfect right to inquire into the circumstances 1520 under which the new school was required.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, it was not a new school. It was attended by 40 or 50 boys, chiefly belonging to the soldiers and to persons who were employed in the Palace.

§ MR. BIGGAR,
in reference to the charge for extensive repairs at the Stud House at Hampton Court, complained that money had been wasted upon it. If the Government intended to keep up a stud of horses, it should rather turn its attention to breeding useful horses, than such as were now turned out at Hampton Court. The horses that were, now bred there had neither bone nor substance, and were, after a few years, only fit for cab horses. Every year it was more and more difficult to get the right sort of horses, and if horses were bred at all at Hampton Court, they should be of a useful character.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
asked for an explanation with regard to the duties of the Inspector of Buckingham Palace?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the Inspector to whom the hon. Member had referred was paid out of the Civil List, and not out of the Estimates. His duties were those of a rather superior clerk of the works; he had to examine and report upon the state of the buildings. The Inspector received £300 a-year from the Civil List.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
asked for an explanation in regard to the works which had been carried out at Marlborough House. The sum which the Committee was asked to vote was a large one, and what the country would require to know was that the work had really been satisfactorily done. There was no doubt that every Member of that House, and every person out of it, was desirous that the House in which the Heir Apparent to the Throne resided should be properly drained, and, in all other sanitary respects, rendered perfect.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, that when Marlborough House was being got ready for His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, about 15 years ago, all the works were then inspected by Sir James Pennethorne, the eminent architect. Since that time, the building had been under the charge of His Royal Highness, who 1521 employed his own staff and sanitary-engineer. When, unfortunately, typhoid fever broke out last year at Marlborough House, and Prince Albert Victor took the fever, as well as some other members of the Royal Household, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales applied to the Government with a view that they should have the whole of the drainage overhauled. The Office of Works was commissioned with that duty, and when the proper officers went into Marlborough House, they found that the drainage was in a most dreadful state. Drains ran in from the street, and from the direction of St. James's Palace; and there were runs for rats all over the place. The whole of the arrangements had been changed; the defects had been thoroughly removed; and Marlborough House had now been drained, he might say, on the most scientific principles. During the whole of the time the works had been going on, His Royal High-ness's medical attendant, and Mr. Raw-linson, of the Local Government Board, had been in constant attendance, and had thoroughly approved of everything that had been done by the Office of Works. There were now no drains within the house; they were all outside and ran direct into the main drainage, passing down by the Horse Guards. From the information which he had received, he believed that Marlborough House was now the best drained residence in London.

§ DR. LUSH
remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very satisfactory statement as to the sanitary condition of Marlborough House. It was, however, rumoured abroad that, notwithstanding the present admirable drainage of that residence, it did require, in the opinion of one of the gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, periodical flushing; and he (Dr. Lush) should like to know how that had been provided for?

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
believed that the arrangements for flushing were also perfect. An officer of the Office of Works, who had been to Marlborough House only two or three days ago to try the flushing, had informed him that everything was as perfect as possible.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
expressed his satisfaction at the statement of the First Commissioner of Works, and asked him whether the Committee were to under- 1522 stand that Marlborough House was the property of the country?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
replied that, under the Act 13 & 14 Vict., the house was to be held, as now, during the joint lives of Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales. Subject to that provision, it was public property.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, he desired to say a few words in reference to the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. In the first place, he should like to have some explanation of the items of £1,900 and £1,000 for fencing the Edinburgh Arboretum Grounds, and for restoration of Inverleith House respectively. Then for re-arranging the heating apparatus in the Palm House, Royal Gardens, Kew, a sum of £1,900 was charged. Now, he would put it to his right hon. Friend, who did his duty remarkably well, that this Palm House was, after all, a very shabby concern on which to expend so large a sum of money. While on the subject of Royal Parks, he should like to ask his right hon. Friend why he paid no attention to the north side of Hyde Park? On the south side he planted tulips, hyacinths, and rhododendrons; but the north side he left in a state of desolation, so that one might fancy he was travelling in places such as owls frequented and made a noise at night. The people living on the north side of Hyde Park were an aggressive people; and unless the right hon. Gentleman did something to improve it, they would refuse to grant him the money that he wanted.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury was somewhat ungrateful, or else, perhaps, he had not been into the Park lately. [Sir ANDREW LUSK: I was there yesterday.] It was only last year that he (Mr. Gerard Noel) asked for a considerable sum of money for the purpose of improving the north side of Hyde Park; and if the hon. Gentleman would only walk from the head of the Serpentine to Lancaster Gate, he would see in course of construction very beautiful flower walks, similar to those on the south side. With respect to the Arboretum Grounds at Edinburgh, they 1523 comprised about 36 acres, and were handed over last Whitsuntide to the Government on the understanding; that they should maintain them in the future as a pleasure ground and a scientific garden. As to the Palm House at Kew, he thought it was one of the most beautiful things of the kind that it was possible to see, and the re-arranging of the heating apparatus had been rendered necessary by the damage caused to it by the floods of last year.

§ MR. M'LAREN
wished to give an explanation in reference to the Arboretum Grounds and Inverleith House. The latter was the mansion house of an estate in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, for which the inhabitants of that city were, as he thought, so foolish as to give about £26,000, and then to make a present of it to the Government on consideration that they would maintain it in all time to come. One reason assigned for the gift was that the Botanical Gardens, which belonged to the Government, were found to be too small for their purposes, and it was intended that this property would be joined to them, Inverleith House becoming the residence of the Professor of Botany, who was charged with the superintendence of the Gardens. This hope, however, had not been realized. The house was burned down soon afterwards, and the Insurance Office had paid to the Government a sum of £1,547. He believed that the authorities of the Botanical Gardens, at the time the property was handed over to the Government, contemplated, in addition to the present botanical school, the teaching of forestry with a view to the qualification of young men going to India. If ever the Government got a good bargain they got one in this instance.

§ MR. GOURLEY
said, that he altogether objected to this Vote, inasmuch as the principle involved in it amounted to this—that the city of Edinburgh was to have grants made out of the Imperial funds for the purchase of a local Park. If this were to be done in the case of 1524 Edinburgh, why should not Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and other large towns have provided for them public Parks paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer? He thought that the time had come when Parliament ought to exercise some control over the expenditure of money for this purpose, and moved that the Vote be disallowed.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, that as he had had something to do with this matter, he was in a position to give an explanation to the Committee. The Queen's Park in Edinburgh was let as a sheep-farm, for about £800 a-year, consisting of many hundred acres. At one corner of the Park was the Queen's Palace, and adjoining was a small estate, the owner of which died some three or four years ago. The -trustees of the deceased, with a view to preserve the amenity of the Palace, offered the estate to the Government at a very moderate rate; but they refused to buy it. Efforts were made by the local authorities in Edinburgh to induce the Government to purchase it, not as a Park for the City, but in order, as he had said, to preserve the amenity of the Queen's Palace; but they still refused. After a time the trustees sold the estate with the house upon it to some speculative builders, who set to work to erect workmen's houses on the ground. Those houses would be within 200 yards of the windows of the private apartments of the Queen's Palace; and another representation was made to the Government about the monstrosity of allowing such a thing to be done. At length the Government agreed to buy the property. But it was the old story of the Sybilline Books—they refused to give the small sum asked for it, and they afterwards gave above £5,000 more for it than the sum at which it was first offered to them. The reason was that the speculative builders found that they had made a very good bargain for their purposes; and it was not at all unreasonable that they should sell what they had purchased to the best advantage. His answer, then, to his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) was, that this money was required, not to provide a Park for Edinburgh, but to improve the amenity of the Royal Palace.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
thought that the explanation which had just been given by the hon. Member had 1525 made the case rather worse than it was before. The hon. Gentleman had said that the land was necessary for the amenities of the Royal Palace; but the Palace of Holyrood was one in which no British Sovereign had resided in their time, nor was one ever likely to reside there. And when the hon. Member told the Committee that the projected buildings would have been within 200 yards of a Palace which was only used for the election of Scotch Peers, he must say that he did not see in that a sufficient reason why so large a sum of public money should be spent in purchasing this land.

§ MR. MACDONALD
thought that the hon. and learned Baronet who had just spoken was in error, because, if his memory served him right, Her Most Gracious Majesty had put up at Holyrood so that for the time being it was a Royal residence. And it might happen that Her Majesty would again put up there. He thought that the explanation given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a very satisfactory one indeed. The only thing to be regretted was that the Government did not buy the estate when it was offered to them at a very reasonable price; for anyone who was acquainted with the place must admit that it would be very undesirable to allow this land to get into private hands. This was to be noted as well, that it was not because of its being a benefit to the Palace it was to be added to the great Park for the people.

§ DR. LUSH
remarked that most of them had probably looked down upon the Palace of Holyrood and been struck with its charming situation. Therefore, so far as its surroundings were concerned, he did not think there could be any necessity for purchasing this additional land. Many of their Royal Palaces—as, for example, St. James's Palace and Buckingham Palace—were surrounded by houses of all classes; but he had never heard that any great objection was entertained by Royalty to being so surrounded. He thought that this was a most exorbitant sum to ask the British Parliament to vote; and if the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) went to a division he should vote with hirn.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
wished just to mention that the main reason for making this purchase 1526 was that a change had taken place in the occupancy of the house and ground in question. They had been occupied as a private house and garden, and as long as they remained so they were no injury to the site of Holyrood Palace. When they wore first offered to the Government, there was a likelihood that they would still be retained for that purpose, and there seemed to be no reason for going to any expense in purchasing them. But afterwards they were bought with a view to the erection of lodging-houses, and one effect of that would have been to spoil the amenity of the view. Another would have been that a right of way which existed through a portion of the Royal Palace would be largely used if these buildings had been erected. As had been stated, the Palace of Holyrood was occupied from time to time. The year before last the Queen was in Edinburgh for several days, and during that period she resided in Holy-rood Palace, and gave, he believed, several entertainments, and saw company there. Therefore, it was not quite reasonable to speak of it as being a Palace that was unused.

§ MR. WHITWELL
expressed a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would withdraw his opposition to the Vote. There was a national interest taken in Holy-rood Palace, and a desire entertained that Scotch historical monuments should be preserved. The Committee could not but regret, however, that the offer of the trustees had not been accepted by the Government.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
said, he only rose for the purpose of pointing out that, as regarded public Parks in the North of England, there was hardly a single instance in which it was not alleged as one of the great grounds for the purchase of these Parks by the locality, that the ground was likely to be bought by speculators. Therefore, it appeared to him that there was no reason why this money should, in the present case, be spent by the country generally; and he thought that the charge ought to be borne by the locality.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
was not going to oppose the Vote exactly upon the ground which he had heard stated; but he wanted to give a little advice to his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gerard Noel who looked after these matters— 1527 This additional sum was required for the completion of the purchase of the Clockmill or Belleville estate immediately adjoining Holyrood Palace, and carrying' with it a right of way through the Queen's Park, it having been found impossible to purchase the property with the amount (£15,000) previously voted for the service. What he found fault with was, that the Government had not, in this instance, exercised a fair amount of discretion and judgment. Last year the First Commissioner of Works asked for £15,000, and they granted it because they were simple enough to believe that he had arranged to pay that sum to the Clock-mill proprietors for their estate. But they immediately turned round and said—"No; we want £3,000 more." The right hon. Gentleman, before he asked for the £15,000, should have settled that point with them. But he now came and said that the Clockmill estate was worth £3,500 more than he thought. Of course, these persons directly they saw that Parliament had voted £15,000 wanted more for it.

§ MR. MELDON
said, that this was the first time he had ever heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) in that House advocate the expenditure of public money. Whenever any Irish Vote came on there was not a more energetic opposer of it than the hon. Member, who would not vote a single penny for any purpose in Ireland. Whenever public money was asked for public Parks in the Metropolis no complaint was made, and the money, without stint, was voted; but if it was asked for other parts of England, for Scotland, or for Ireland, if it was granted at all, it was granted in such a niggardly manner that it was not worth having. If this Vote was for the benefit of the public, he, for one, would not oppose it; but such was not the case. He thought this Vote was the most monstrous one that was ever proposed, because it was really for the purpose of preventing houses being built near the Palace of Holyrood. If it had been for a public Park it would have been different, because he was quite willing that public Parks should be purchased in the North of England, in Scotland, or in Ireland. But when the money was wanted to remedy a sentimental grievance in connection with Royalty, there seemed no difficulty in getting it. On the ground, therefore, that this Vote was asked merely to prevent the erec- 1528 tion of dwellings for the citizens of Edinburgh, within sight of the caretakers of the Palace, he would oppose it. But there was a much more serious objection to the manner in which the money was sought to be obtained. He asked the House to look at the precedent it would be setting. The sum of £15,000 was originally asked by the Government for the purchase of this Clockmill property, upon the faith of a statement that a contract was entered into for the sale for this amount; and the consent of Parliament having been obtained upon this statement, a further sum of £3,569 was immediately required to complete the purchase. If they established this as a precedent, it would be followed again and again. What was there to prevent a Government asking the assent of Parliament to the purchase of a property, or to the expenditure of a sum of money, upon the ground that the bargain was a good one, or the expenditure small; and having established a principle by this means, then to turn round and ask for a Supplementary Vote. An inducement was also held out, by a procedure similar to the present, for persons dealing with the Government to extort money. With reference to the Clockmill estate, the owners were willing to sell for a much smaller sum than was now asked; but when they found Parliament was willing to vote the money, they raised the price, and even now they had no guarantee that if this additional sum were voted they would not be asked for a still further advance. Inasmuch as Her Majesty visited Holy-rood Palace only once in about a quarter of a century, he hoped this Vote would not be granted; especially in the obnoxious and dangerous way in which it was asked for, which was to supplement a Vote already obtained.

§ MR. VANS AGNEW
said, if the "hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had known anything of the locality, he could not have made the speech he had. He did not seem to be aware that Holy-rood was an old historic Palace, occupied almost annually by some members of the Royal Family, and annually by a Representative of Her Majesty, who kept a sort of Vice-regal Court there, as the Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland. It was eminently a Royal Palace. It was situated at the extremity of the Queen's Park, which was probably one of the finest Parks in 1529 the Kingdom, and contained the whole of Arthur's Seat, from which was obtained most picturesque and beautiful views of the surrounding country. This magnificent property might be greatly deteriorated if the Clockmill estate was let for building purposes. The Government proposed—and very properly—that the estate should be acquired, and there was no objection made to this last year, when the sum of £15.000 was voted for the purpose. That, however, proved insufficient, and the purchase was now opposed, because a comparatively small additional sum was asked, for. He hoped the Committee would agree to the grant of this surplus sum, in order that this addition might be made to the Park—not so much with the view of enlarging it as to prevent the erection of buildings which would destroy much of its beauty.

§ Mr. M'LAREN
supported the Vote, because he considered that this was not merely a local matter, but an improvement to one of Her Majesty's Palaces. To a large town an estate of a few acres, placed quite at the corner of the Park, could not be of the importance that some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imply this was to Edinburgh. The purchase was quite out of the way of those who walked in the Park, and had nothing to do with the amenity of Edinburgh. The estate was in the market; a builder got hold of it, and was proceeding to build working men's houses upon it. Surely it was the owner of the estate adjoining—the Crown—who should look after the amenity of this public property, and not the people of the town. It was not the business of the holder of the small property to add to the amenity of an adjoining estate, but to make money by selling it for building land. If he did that, no doubt he would get £18,500 for it. If the Government chose to sell it, they might make even more money out of it in the course of time, for the value of such land was rising rapidly all round the city of Edinburgh. It seemed a most logical matter that the Government should purchase this small corner of ground in order to improve the amenity of an estate and Palace belonging to Her Majesty. The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Meldon) had accused him of never defending anything Irish in the case of expenditure. The fact was, he 1530 grudged expenditure whenever it was unnecessary or extravagant, either in Ireland, Scotland, or England; and if the hon. Member would look at the Estimates submitted to the House year by year, he would find there was about six times as much voted for parks, buildings, hospitals, and all kinds of things in Ireland as there was in Scotland.

§ Mr. MARLING
was quite satisfied that this Vote would be thoroughly popular with the country, and hoped it would be passed.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
thought the Government were seriously to blame for not having purchased this land at the price at which it was offered to them last year; and if it were possible to bring that home to any individual concerned, he certainly should go with his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gourley) in resisting this Vote. There was certainly great culpability on the part of someone who administered public affairs in losing the opportunity of purchasing at a reduced rate. But there was another side to the subject, which he was sure would commend itself to the opinion of everybody in that House when they came to consider it. Holyrood Palace and the adjuncts to Holyrood Palace were not by any means a local question, but had an historical interest, extending over many centuries, to the whole of this country. It was alleged that this Royal Palace was occupied only once in a century; hut, in fact, it had distinct functions from year to year as a residence of Her Majesty's Representative. He could not conceive a more absurd notion than that the object of this purchase was to enclose the Royal residence from contact with certain houses to be occupied by the labouring class. There could be nothing more fallacious. The Royal Palaces in every part of this Kingdom were surrounded by buildings of all clsases, and it was no part of the policy of Her Majesty to cut herself off from any class of her subjects. The essential point of this purchase was a right of way. If, unfortunately, advantage was taken by those who were* sharper than Her Majesty's Government to purchase this property in order to ask an enhanced price for it, and if, in consequence, the right of way had been parted with, he thought this sum would be wisely expended in preserving this privilege.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, it seemed that Scotland got very little money from the Exchequer. ["No, No!"] He had always complained that both Scotland and Ireland got very little money from the Exchequer, and he intended to vote with the Scotch Members. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a man of very economic disposition, especially when it came to be a question of a Vote for Ireland; but he thought it was better policy to support than to oppose the hon. Member in this Vote, for the Scotch Members wanted it, and were the best judges whether it was needed, and he hoped to get their support in turn, when it came to' be a question of a grant for Ireland.

§ MR. D. JENKINS
asked if the purchase of this estate had been completed?

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, it had been completed.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, that some of the arguments he had heard were calculated to make Irish Members vote against this grant. It was a question whether this was really necessary for Holyrood House, and whether, looking to the fact' that Holyrood House had very rarely a Royal visitor at all, it was of any remarkable use. It was said that Holy-rood Palace was the residence of Her Majesty's Commissioner on Ecclesiastical affairs—["No, no!"]—then Her Majesty's representative of the Kirk of Scotland—the Lord High Commissioner—and that he during his residence held a sort of semi-Court. If they were to compare the circumstances of Holyrood House in Edinburgh and of the Parliament House in Dublin they would find a difference. The Parliament House of Dublin was turned over to a banking corporation, while they had not only large sums to keep up Holyrood House, but large sums for all sorts of extensions and additions to it; because it was used for the purposes of the Presbyterians of Scotland. The argument brought forward was one to a large extent intended to recognize the Ecclesiastical dignitaries of Scotland. He certainly had his mind made up to vote against this demand, especially looking to the very slovenly manner in which the bargain was concluded; but he thought' he would take the advice of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and just for the special purpose of overwhelming the Scotch 1532 Members with kindness, he would bow to their wishes and vote with them.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, he liked to have everything honest and straightforward, and he could not understand why it should be so objectionable to have lodging-houses erected close to the Queen's Park. He knew there were tenements near to Holyrood to which criminals ran for refuge, and he understood that this estate was closer still; but now the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had told them that this land was some distance off, in an out-of-the-way corner, and he wanted the amenities of the Palace to be maintained, and the Palace kept from being overlooked. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some further information on the subject.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, the hon. Member did not know the ground, or he would not speak of its being in an out-of-the-way corner, far away from the Palace. For himself, he did not care much about the "amenity" of the Palace; but he did care something about the amenity of the Queen's Park, which was really the people's Park of Edinburgh, and the little piece of land in question went right into the middle of it, and was surrounded on three sides by the Park. He should be glad if the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and his Friends would vote for it; because, undoubtedly, they had a splendid Park at Dublin—Phoenix Park—which was kept up at the national expense. It was very desirable that Edinburgh should have this improvement made on its public Park.

§ DR. KENEALY
said, the objection to the Vote arose from the fact that it was an increase from last year, and it ought to be explained why, when the sum of £15,000 was granted for the purchase of this particular estate, the purchase was not carried out at the time. It was setting an exceedingly bad precedent to have a Supplementary sum added to the original Vote.

§ MR. GRANT
entirely corroborated what had been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on this question. It was not a question of advantage to the city of Edinburgh, or of an addition desired by it at the public expense to its public Park. It was entirely a question concerning the Royal Palace, and the 1533 money, if granted, would be for the benefit of the Inhabitant of that Royal Palace—Her Majesty herself. There was an argument in favour of the Vote which had not been brought forward. It had been the policy of the First Commissioner of Works for several years past to endeavour to clear away a number of buildings in too close proximity to the Royal Palace, and if this purchase was not carried out, and these new houses were allowed to be built, it would be abandoning the advantage gained by clearing away the other edifices in the neigh bourhood of the Palace, and losing the benefit of the public money spent for the purpose. The hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) had urged the claims of the north side of Hyde Park to have crocuses, hyacinths, and so forth, placed there, and the improvement of this Park in Edinburgh stood on exactly the same footing, and, therefore, he claimed the hon. Baronet's vote in favour of the grant.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, there was a remarkable difference between Scotch Members on this matter, some saying the ground was entirely for the amenity of the Palace, and others that it was to increase the public Park. He would like if the Scotch Members could agree among themselves before making appeals to the House. He was told this Clockmill estate was 15 acres in size, and that they were going to add 15 acres to 800 acres. It seemed to him that the party who was selling this property was making a Jew's bargain of it. The House should set its face against such a thing.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
was sorry that the explanation given in the foot-note to this Estimate did not convey the whole history of this transaction to the minds of hon. Members. The facts were simply those as stated. The House last year passed a Vote of £15,000 for the purchase of this estate, and it was distinctly understood by the Treasury that that sum would be sufficient to complete the purchase. But the agent, after receiving his instructions, believing it to be his duty to secure the estate, and acting on his own responsibility—he did not say whether he entirely agreed with him or not—closed the bargain for a higher sum than had been voted. [Mr. MONK: With the permission of the Treasury?]. The matter 1534 was exactly as he had stated. The bargain had to be concluded. The agent, acting on his own responsibility, had concluded the bargain at a higher price. For a long time the Treasury refused—and he ventured to think his hon. Friend would say they rightly refused—to sanction this further payment, or to submit any Supplementary Estimate to the House respecting it. Having, however, gone so far, it came to this—either to throw up the bargain altogether and be placed in the position in which the were in the first instance, or else to have the property vested partly in the name of the agent and partly in the name of the Crown. A choice of evils was thus presented; but it was perfectly impossible that they could submit to a joint conveyance or a joint occupation in having the property vested in private individuals side by side with the rights of the Crown. On consideration, therefore, and not without very grave censure being passed upon the person who acted in the manner he had described, the Government, on the whole, thought it better to place the matter in a Supplementary Estimate, and to obtain the sanction of the House for getting out of the difficulty in the way they thought best. He hoped that, having given this explanation, the Committee would allow the Vote to pass.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought it desirable the hon. and gallant Gentleman should state whether the agent who had acted in the manner described was a public officer, or simply a local lawyer, to whom was entrusted the purchase of this property.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
replied that the individual in question was the Law Agent for the Woods and Forests for Scotland, who was paid by fees, and was not in the receipt of a salary.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
complained strongly of the expenditure upon Spurn Head, for which he understood they were asked to vote this sum. Originally, a very large sum was spent 1535 upon the harbour there, and year by year expenditure was going on upon it, while no explanation was ever given. The very useful Return of the Expenditure on Harbours since the first year of this century, which had, on his Motion, been laid before the House, showed that out of nearly £10,000,000 so spent, about £30,000 had already been laid out on Spurn Point. He complained very much of the continuance of this expenditure, not because he was unwilling to give money for harbours, but because he saw no earthly use in periodically voting away money as to which no Return was given, and no information supplied as to the object or utility of this outlay. They were constantly asked, upon these Estimates, to vote money for one purpose which was meant to be applied to another. Here was a case in point. The Government wanted £600 for works at Spurn Point, and they took it from Votes granted for other places. It was unfair to take money meant to be devoted to Harwich, Ramsgate, or Dover, and apply it to this harbour; but this was what had been constantly done, and though it was no new thing, it ought to be put an end to. In the Appropriation Accounts, he found that no less than £1,000 was spent upon Dover Harbour, which was taken for another purpose. Now, no Member could keep himself acquainted with the expenses of these different harbours if the Board of Trade was allowed thus to transfer money from one harbour to another. More than that, he found on turning to' page 43 of these Estimates, in the Vote for "Civil Contingencies," a Vote of £1,470 for the Port of Dover; and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury to prevent money intended for Dover Harbour being applied for elsewhere than in the regular Vote for Harbours.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
rose to Order. He did not think the question of Dover Harbour arose on the Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN
did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman out of Order in thus illustrating his argument.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, "he was on the Committee for Dover Harbour, and he had not there heard any allusion to this sum of £1,470 as an expense in connection with that investigation. But more than that, it appeared 1536 that though voting money nominally for Dover, the Committee was in reality granting funds, part of which, it would appear, was for Spurn Point. In regard to Spurn Point, he thought they were throwing good money after bad. But what he complained of most was this system of transference; and he suggested that the Board of Trade, whose President never said one word about the harbours under its control, should follow the example of the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments in presenting annual Reports. Nothing would please the country better than to receive an annual Report from the Board of Trade, containing a record in black and white of what had been done with the harbours not only under the Board, but of all the harbours in the United Kingdom. No one could be more ready than he to recognize the good temper and the straightforward manner in which the President of the Board of Trade met any request for explanation; but so long as they were without an annual statement such as he had indicated, there would be dissatisfaction with the way the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade performed its duties.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
desired to remind the Committee that to Spurn Point considerable importance was attached, and that the House voted sums each year for the purpose of making good defects that must from time to time arise in the works. During the past year Sir John Coode recommended that certain works should be completed before the winter came on, and these works came to £650. Of that sum £500 was derived from savings on the other harbours—at least it would not be so immediately required upon these other harbours—and the Vote now asked for was the balance which they required to cover this outlay.

§ MR. DILLWYN
objected to the system of anticipatory savings, which was simply asking more for a particular purpose than was wanted for that purpose, and then applying the so-called saving to some other object. He did not object to vote money which was really called for; but he did object to vote it without knowing what it was for, and he would not be a party to a vicious principle which would by degrees sap and undermine the control which the 1537 House of Commons had over the public expenditure.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that, so far as he was aware, the saving in question arose from certain works considered necessary, but which it was not imperative they should go on with at once; while there could be no question about the urgency of the works at Spurn Point. Under these circumstances, the transference took place without either inconvenience or injustice.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, the Board of Trade had spent a very large sum upon works of this nature, with very little result indeed. More than that, the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade failed to furnish the House with that information as to results which every branch of an office spending public money ought to supply. This method of voting money for one purpose, and then for the President of the Board of Trade to use it for another and very different purpose, was likely to lead to negligence, and, in the interests of the public service, it should cease. SIR ANDREW LUSK was of opinion that when money was taken for a special purpose, it should be devoted to that purpose, or else returned into the Exchequer.

§ MR. WHITWELL
expressed the hope that when they had passed this sum, the item would be removed from the Votes. The Vote had been continued from year to year almost beyond his recollection, and he was sure the Committee would be glad to hear when the Monument would be completed. They all desired to have the opportunity of visiting it, and being assured—as he trusted they would be—that their expenditure had been satisfactory.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
trusted, before the First Commissioner of Works answered this touching appeal, he would consider whether he could, not give some promise to the Committee that this would not be the last time upon which this Monument would be mentioned in their Estimates. Like his hon. Friend, he felt a great relief to think that the work had gone on so far. Anyone who had studied the history, and considered the tone of art, in England for a quarter of 1538 a century and more, would be glad to see it so far completed; but he was bound to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the so-called completed Wellington Monument, which was soon to be thrown open to the public, was miserably mutilated from what the artist designed it to be. In the conception of the great artist who designed it, it was to be crowned by an equestrian statue of the Duke; but a former First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton), a gentleman who, as they knew, had a strong conviction that he had a taste, and a strong way of enforcing what he believed to be taste—cut off that statue, and the Monument would now be what was called completed without it. Everyone who could at all appreciate or grasp the original design, or recollect the examples in Italy from which it was derived, must know that, in its present shape, the Monument gave a very inadequate idea of its artist's genuine conception.

§ MR. DILLWYN
regretted that the kind of taste for saving the public purse which characterized Mr. Ayrton was not more frequently exhibited, and he was bound to say that he had never known a more efficient administrator.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, the Monument was now practically completed, and in a few days he hoped it would be open to the public. He would not express any opinion regarding it, farther than to say that he believed it would be admitted to be one of the finest Monuments in London. As to the remarks regarding the original design, and whether anything could now be done to carry it out more fully than had been done, that was a matter of consideration.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
feared, large though their expenditure had been upon this matter—and it had much outgrown the limits originally fixed for it—that they had not got what they had expected, and what he believed they had a right to expect.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE
called attention to the excavation at the east end of the Museum, which Lad now been in existence two years, and had become a large pond. It was a nuisance 1539 to the neighbourhood, and the exhalations arising from it were very offensive. He hoped it would be promptly filled up.

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
was afraid he could not give the assurance that it would be filled up till the building was finished.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, before asking the Committee to pass this Vote, he hoped his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would give them the comforting assurance that something would be done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), of which Committee the First Commissioner was an active Member, as was also the present First Lord of the Admiralty. It would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that very strong recommendations were made as to the necessity and in-dispensability of completing the block of Public Offices down in that part of London. In the Committee two competitive schemes were advocated—those of Sir Henry Hunt and Mr. Mitford. Mr. Mitford's scheme would put the buildings further to the north, and give a straight roadway from St. James's Park to Charing Cross. From what they heard the other day they might assume that this scheme did not most prevail with those in authority, and it would be necessary to fall back on Sir Henry Hunt's plan, of building the Public Offices north of Great George Street. This Vote might be a small instalment in favour of that scheme. He trusted it was so, and that the right hon. Gentleman would take that opportunity of stating exactly what progress had been made.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
also asked for some further explanation in reference to the Vote. The Select Committee which sat last year had had several plans before it for the erection of Public Offices, and he wished to know to which of these the purchase of the house in Great George Street had reference; because it was obvious that before the Government purchased land they ought to have decided upon the plan they were going to adopt, and where the Public 1540 Offices were to be situated. The Committee had looked very favourably on the proposal to build Public Offices on the land at present occupied by Drummond's Bank, and go right down Parliament Street to the Admiralty; and he wished to know whether the Government had decided to adopt that suggestion, and, if not, where the new site for the Public Offices was intended to be?

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, he was hardly in a position to state what the intentions of the Government were in reference to the recommendations of the Committee which sat last Session. With respect to the Vote under discussion, it was for the purchase of a house in Great George Street, which had been offered to the Government on advantageous terms. The Committee would remember that the Government had already purchased several houses in that street.

§ MR. WHITWELL
asked for further information on the subject. The Committee was quite aware that several houses in the locality referred to had been purchased; but was it intended to acquire the whole of the north of Great George Street, with a view to the erection of Public Offices there? Were the Government acting under the powers of any Act of Parliament in making these purchases, or were they acting in anticipation of an Act being passed?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the principle upon which this purchase had been made was the same as that on which other houses had been purchased in the neighbourhood—that was to say, offers of a favourable kind having been made it was thought desirable to take advantage of them and purchase detached houses on reasonable terms, the Government feeling convinced that whenever a great purchase might have to be made, they would be in a better position by having already acquired some of the leases at moderate prices. Of course, the money was not lost, as it was invested in houses that paid rent, and were not unremunerative. With regard to the plans for the erection of Public Offices, submitted to the Committee, that of Mr. Mitford, which involved carrying the Mall through into Trafalgar Square, was, no doubt, a very fine one, but it would also be a very expensive one. The chief recommendation of that proposition was that it would have been a great metropolitan improve- 1541 ment; but the Government would not feel justified in expending the public money in effecting metropolitan improvements. The other plan—that of Sir Henry Hunt—would, no doubt, meet the requirements of the Public Offices; but it would involve a large expenditure, and the present was not an opportune moment for incurring it. The Government did not, therefore, come forward at present with any proposal on the subject.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
was curious to know the amount of the legal and other expenses connected with the purchase?

§ MR. GERARD NOEL
said, the expenses were £303, out of which £200 was paid to the solicitor, and the remainder to the surveyor.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he did not rise to object to the Vote, but he wished for a fuller explanation of its specific object. This was a new expenditure, not contemplated when the Civil Service Estimates were submitted; and, therefore, it was desirable that something should be said as to the circumstances under which it was asked for. Unless those circumstances were of a very remarkable character, the Government was scarcely justified in asking in the Supplementary Estimates for a Vote which ought to be placed in the Estimate for the year. He objected to it on these general grounds, though, no doubt, the Vote might prove to be a very valuable one. He thought the discussions on Votes as between Ireland and Scotland were very much to be deplored; the money ought to be considered to be voted not on the principle of giving so much to Scotland and so much to Ireland, but on the merits of each particular proposition submitted to the Committee. They ought not to hear suggestions of bargains being made between Irish and Scotch Members for returning each other's support in reference to money grants. The main consideration in all such matters that ought to guide the judgment of hon. Members was whether the object to which the Vote was to be applied was a good one.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
replied, that if the hon. Member looked to the Preamble of the Dublin Science and Art 1542 Museum Act, passed on the 14th August last year, he would find the following words:— Whereas it is expedient to promote the study of science and art and literature in Ireland, and for such purpose to make provision with respect to the erection of a Science and Art Museum, and the establishment of a National Library in Dublin, and with respect to such matters as are conducive to the above purposes, or incidental thereto, &c. The Act empowered the Commissioners of Public Works to acquire from the Royal Dublin Society and others land for the erection of a Science and Art Museum, and the purchase of the Library and one of the Collections at a cost of £10,000; and the present Vote was to carry that measure into effect. The sum of £200, in addition to the £10,000, which together made up the amount of the Estimate, was for interest on the money from the 14th August, the amount not having been made over owing to the delay caused by legal forms. The same rate of interest was given as if the money had been invested in 3 per cent stock.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
did not find fault with the amount of the Vote, but asked for further explanations as to its meaning? The Vote was for the Science and Art Museum, Dublin, and the explanation appended to it on the printed Estimates was that it was in consideration "for certain lands, buildings, &c, and also for certain Collections and Libraries;" but what, he asked, was meant by the latter? He was old enough to remember that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government had a seat in this House, and desired the House to grant money for the purchase of objects of art, he specified the treasures he proposed to buy. That was the proper course to take. The Estimates said certain "Collections and Libraries;" what collections and libraries were meant? It ought to be fairly stated what the money was wanted for, and not put down in that indefinite way which would cover anything.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, this was not making a grant of additional money to Ireland, but it was merely pulling up arrears. It was a notorious fact, that for many years, Ireland never received the same amount in proportion to England for instruction in Science and Art. Even the sum now granted was a very small one, and something more was re- 1543 quired to put Dublin on the same footing as London, in reference to science and art teaching1.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
again pressed for some further explanation of the Vote? He desired to know that value would be received for the money.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he was afraid his hon. Friend had failed last Session to watch the progress of the Bill which had now become an Act of Parliament. This Vote was simply in compliance with that Act, and was the engagement to which the hon. Gentleman himself was a party. By Section 5 of the Dublin Science and Art and Museum Act, it was provided that— The consideration to be given or paid by the Commissioners for the transfer of the Society's lands, and the Collections of the Society, shall be a sum of £10,000, to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. By passing the Vote the hon. Baronet would only be carrying out the engagement he promised to fulfil, and paying the debt he, as a Member of the House, undertook to pay.

§ MR. D. JENKINS
asked for an explanation of the items?

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, the Vote showed a large increase over last year, and it was too bad that there should be no information given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the cause of this increase. Many parts of the world still required to be provided with lighthouses, and it was not fair that the Committee should be called upon to increase the Vote year by year for one or two lighthouses without any explanation being given, either as to the state of these lights, or as to why some coasts were so favoured by the Board of Trade, to the neglect of other coasts.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, there were several sums under this Vote that were made up of one numeral and two cyphers. Of course, such a method of making up accounts was free from embarrassment and easy to calculate; but it was strange that the level amounts should always be reached. Under one sub-head, for instance, the oil that from delay in shipment was not charged in the Estimates for the year was put down at £700; the wages of the crew of the 1544 extra tender at £500, and Repairs at £600.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
thought some further information ought to be afforded to the Committee upon the item of £290—the expenses of a lightkeeper returning to England, and sending out a new lightkeeper to the Falkland Islands. It appeared a large sum; and although there might be no occasion to divide about it, the Committee ought to have particulars as to how it was spent.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
said, the item of £290 was charged in consequence of a lighthouse keeper having to be sent out by the Trinity House to the Falkland Islands to fill the place of another who had fallen ill. Other items were for the repair of the various lighthouses in harbours, and for the accommodation of an assistant lightkeeper. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), some of these payments were for contracts entered into for the year at specific amounts.

§ MR. D. JENKINS
said, it was impossible that it could have cost £290 to send a lightkeeper out to the Falkland Islands in a boat. Less than half the amount would have paid his passage.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
said, the hon. Gentleman must remember that there was also the expense attendant upon the return of the lightkeeper who had been replaced, and was obliged to come home.