CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

HC Deb 21 April 1884 vol 287 cc190-239

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £30,603, 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 1885, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

wished to make an appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to this Vote, which was one that had been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism year after year. What he desired was that the Secretary to the Treasury should give hon. Members a detailed statement with respect to the alterations and repairs which had been effected in some of the Palaces, and for what purposes made, so that they might have a proper idea of what the real state of things was. The last Government had consented to follow the plan as followed on the introduction of the Army and Navy Estimates, and for two Sessions made a statement for the purpose of placing the House in full possession of the facts of the case; and he thought it would only be fair that some explanation should be made in regard to the Civil Service Estimates by the Secretary to the Treasury, similar to those which the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty now gave. There was also a statement made with regard to India. For years they had obtained from the Secretary of State for India a full and clear explanation of the alterations in the Indian Expenditure; and in regard to the Civil Service Votes, he thought that it was desirable that the Heads of the different Departments should draw up statements which would enable the Secretary to the Treasury to place the Committee in possession of full detailed information as to the various items included in the different Votes. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would hereafter attend to that request. What he particularly wanted in regard to this Vote was that some explanation should be given by the Chief Commissioner of Works in regard to the heavy charges which year after year took place in reference to the Royal Palaces. It was well known that some of these Royal Palaces were placed at the disposal of persons who were not Members of the Royal Family; and as they were allowed to occupy the Palaces free of expense, he was certainly of opinion that they ought to do the repairs that were necessary to maintain them in proper order.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was not quite sure whether he had properly caught the opening observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but if he had gathered their purport rightly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was of opinion that it was desirable that in introducing the Civil Service Estimates a statement should be made by the Minister in charge of them as to the variation in the different Votes similar to that which was given in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates. Upon that point he cordially agreed with the hon. and gallant Member. He certainly thought that the alterations made in many of the Votes were well worthy of the consideration of the Committee, and that some explanation should be given with regard to them. In the present Votes he found that there was an item of £548 transferred from Vote 3 to Vote 8, and having reference to Longford River, in the neighbourhood of Richmond. Last year, however, the amount of the Vote was only £110; and, therefore, the entry in the present Estimates intimating a simple transfer in the Vote was entirely misleading. Then, again, the third item in the Vote had reference to Hampton Court Palace, which appeared to have cost £12,000 out of a total of £36,000. Last year the amount required was £13,000. He thought it was a matter of interest to ascertain how much Hampton Court Palace had cost the country; and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he was willing to furnish an Estimate of the amount of money spent on Hampton Court Palace during the last five years?

MR. LABOUCHERE

congratulated the Government on the fact that they had succeeded in reducing this Vote by the sum of £4,000 from what it was last year. He had no doubt the reduction had been brought about in consequence of the criticisms which were passed upon the Vote last year; and he believed that if the same course were pursued this year there would be a further reduction next. He would, therefore, ask the Committee to agree to a Motion for reducing the Vote by a sum of £2,000. He thought, if that were done, there would be a reduction in the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces during the coming year by Her Majesty's Government, which would amount at least to another £4,000. There were at present in the Vote many items which ought not to figure in it at all; and he wanted to know upon what grounds so many Royal Palaces were maintained? He could well understand that, so long as the country was ruled by a Monarchy, there ought, at least, to be two Royal Palaces; but Her Majesty already possessed one at Windsor, which was one of the finest in the world, and in London there was Buckingham Palace. If hon. Members would look down the list given in the Vote they would see a large number of houses, palaces, cottages, and gardens, and goodness knew what, all of which cost a large sum of money to maintain. He did not know what their object was; and his own opinion was that a good many of them ought to be sold, or let, or pulled down. He saw one item for Frogmore House and Grounds, and another for the White Lodge in Richmond Park. With all due respect to Her Majesty, he wished to know if she ever resided at White Lodge or at Frogmore House, and why those buildings were put down as the Royal residences of Her Majesty? He did not object to St. James's Palace in London, because that was occasionally used for State purposes; but he saw items for Clarence House, and the residence of the Duke of Cambridge, &c. Now, very large sums of money were voted to every Member of the Royal Family; and he did not see that, in addition to those sums, the country should not only be bound to provide, but also to maintain a house for each of them. The expenditure was one which ought to be taken into consideration at the time provision was made for the Royal Family. His hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) complained of the expenditure incurred in regard to Hampton Court Palace. No doubt, Hampton Court Palace was a kind of poor-house for the aristocracy; but it was also a Palace for the people; and he doubted whether it was desirable to diminish the expenditure incurred in keeping it up.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

remarked, that ample provision was made for it in another Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had no doubt that was so; and that when the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever represented the Government in the matter, was called to it, he would say that he did not know anything about it. He was glad to see that the Government had made some reduction from last year in the item of the Hampton Court Stud House. Instead of £900 being asked for, a sum of £490 only was to be spent this year upon that Stud House. He hoped the Government would be able to inform the Committee what the Stud House was wanted for at all. Then, again, there was an item of £495 for Bushy House, gardens, and stables; upper lodge, and paddocks; the cottage; Hawthorne Lodge; Waylands; and the park, and carpenters' cottages in Bushy Park. They were establishments which, probably, nobody had ever heard of before; and he should like to know what they were. Considering that the Royal Palaces provided for, and actually occupied by, Her Majesty, were liberally maintained by the country, and that the other Members of the Royal Family received large and handsome allowances, he thought the places they selected for their residences ought to be maintained out of their own means. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £28,603, 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 1885, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he hoped that no reduction would be considered necessary by the Committee, in regard to Hampton Court Palace at least. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had described Hampton Court Palace very incorrectly and unjustly as a retreat for the aristocracy. It was well known that Her Majesty, through the Government, had given up Hampton Court Palace to the relations, and especially to the widows, of distinguished officers who had fallen in the service of the Crown; and certainly the apartments of the Palace could not be devoted to a better use. The hon. Member admitted that it was also a people's Palace—that was to say, that it afforded a great amount of pleasure and recreation to the people of the Metropolis. There was also a valuable and interesting collection of paint- ings gathered together in Hampton Court Palace. He was bound to say that the criticisms which had been passed upon the Vote assumed, to his mind, a niggardly and pseudo-economical aspect. He did not think that any special reason had been given by the hon. Member for the reduction of the Vote; and until the hon. Member made a more authoritative statement it was desirable that the Committee should pause. He would take, for example, the criticisms which had been passed upon Bushy House and Park, and upon the lodges which were now maintained and kept up. Of course, in the preservation and maintenance of Parks of that kind some expense was necessary from year to year; but it would be found, on reference to the total expenditure, that it had only reached the sum of £394. He had no wish to defend the Vote in general. That was not his business, but must rest with Her Majesty's Government. He had only risen to defend the Vote for Hampton Court Palace; and he was bound to say that no reason had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton for the reduction of the Vote.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) seemed to think that the demand made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for a more economical expenditure of the money of the country was only a pretence and a sham. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) did not wish to depart one iota from any of the conditions under which the public were charged with the maintenance of the Royal Palaces; but he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works to state under what Act these Royal Palaces were in the charge of the country, in order that hon. Members might distinctly understand which of these buildings they were bound under the Statute to maintain, and to what extent they were bound to maintain them? They would then be able to consider whether any of the buildings now brought under the Vote were brought under it without full justification. He should be perfectly ready himself to defer to the Act of Parliament. On a previous occasion his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works alluded to the fact that the Statute was passed in 1838, on the ac- cession of Her Majesty to the Throne; and he would be very much obliged to his right hon. Friend if he would lay down distinctly the conditions under which the country was called on to maintain the various Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, and those which were not in her occupation. What he maintained was this—that the Government ought to be careful, under the present system of voting grants for repairing and keeping up these buildings, that they did not give to irresponsible people an opportunity of charging much larger sums, under cover of improvements and repairs, than were necessary. That was the point he wished to raise. A very considerable amount of expenditure went on from year to year which never would be incurred at all if the Royal personages who occupied these buildings had to pay for it out of their own pockets. He did not mean to say, under the present arrangement, that they ought to be called upon to bear the expense out of their own pockets; but what he contended was that the system which ought to be adopted should be one which would provide that the public would not be called upon to pay more than the persons who occupied the buildings if they had to pay it out of their own pockets. No doubt, the public had the greatest possible interest in maintaining Hampton Court Palace. It was one of the Establishments which the people of the Metropolis and of the country largely frequented and enjoyed to a very considerable extent. In point of fact, it was a national institution; and it would be most absurd to refuse to maintain it. At the present moment Hampton Court Palace might be said to be divided into two—that was to say, that one part of the institution was made use of for the occupation of persons who had, more or less, a claim upon the Crown for a recognition of their services, while the other part was thrown open for the enjoyment and recreation of the general public. Only a short time ago, in consequence of part of this national property being occupied in this peculiar and very objectionable manner by private persons, it was nearly burnt down, through some carelessness on the part of the servants of one of the persons who happened to be provided with one of the apartments. It was stated in the public Press at that time that it was a most short-sighted policy to have this people's Palace, thus occupied by private individuals, running the risk of having it destroyed in consequence of the carelessness of some housemaid, or of some servant employed in the building. It would be much better if the distinguished persons who were now supplied with apartments, or who had a claim on the Government, should have special grants provided for them, rather than that Hampton Court Palace should be converted into a kind of rabbit warren. Hon. Members must also bear in mind that it did not follow, because it was desirable to keep up Hampton Court Palace, that they should spend upon it the large sums now expended. The question was, were they spending more than was necessary? He suspected that they were spending more than was necessary, and that Hampton Court Palace could be maintained in such a manner as would amply protect the property for three-fourths of the amount now expended. He saw in the Vote another item for the Royal Mews at Pimlico, which had cost no less than £1,257 for ordinary repairs and maintenance. Hon. Members must further consider that this was not an exceptional year, because last year the Royal Mews at Pimlico cost just as much. [An hon. MEMBER: Rather more.] He could not conceive that, in maintaining the Royal Mews at Pimlico in a proper state of repair, it was necessary to expend anything like £1,250 a-year. He did not believe that anything of the kind was really incurred. He was quite satisfied that hon. Members in that House did not pay anything like the same proportion for keeping up their own mews; and that the amount now asked for in the Vote was far in excess of what it ought to be, compared with the amount which noblemen and hon. Members paid. ["No, no!"] He, certainly, had not much experience in the matter; but he had an idea that noble Lords and hon. Members would grumble somewhat strongly if they had to pay £1,250 a-year for the maintenance of their mews. If his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) went to a Division he should certainly vote with him; not from any indisposition to maintain the Royal Palaces, or to depart one iota from any condition in the agreement under which the House had undertaken to maintain all these buildings; but simply on the ground that in the Estimates from year to year there was abundant evidence to prove that that care and economy of administration were not practised which would be exercised if parties who enjoyed the advantage of those improvements and repairs had to pay for them out of their own pockets.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had commenced his remarks by admitting that the Vote showed a reduction of £4,000 as compared with the Vote of last year. He could assure the Committee that he had gone through the various items in the Vote with the greatest care; and, granting the necessity of maintaining and preserving these Royal Palaces, he did not think it was possible to make any further reduction upon them. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) asked under what Act of Parliament the duty of maintaining the Royal Palaces was thrown upon the country? His hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that the duty was imposed by an Act of Parliament. The Royal Palaces were maintained by Votes of Parliament under an agreement with the Crown, which was made at the time when Her Majesty came to the Throne, and which was similar to the agreement entered into with previous Sovereigns. Under that agreement the Government undertook to maintain and keep certain Royal Palaces in repair. If Her Majesty had undertaken to defray those charges herself, as a matter of course the Civil List would have been much greater than it was. As the matter stood, the Government were certainly under an obligation to maintain and repair all the Palaces included in the Vote; and he did not think it was now open to them to decline to repair and maintain any one of them. Those Palaces were divided into two classes—first, those which were in the occupation of Her Majesty; and, secondly, those which were not in Her Majesty's occupation. With regard to those in the occupation of Her Majesty, the obligation of the Government was more full and complete than it was in respect to the second class; because the Government had to undertake the internal as well as the external repairs, but not the internal decorations. In the case of the Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, but occupied by the persons placed there by Her Majesty, the internal repairs and decorations were not paid for out of that Vote; but the persons residing there, as in the instance of Hampton Court, had to do for themselves the internal repairs and decorations. The external repairs and improvements of the fabric came, however, under the present Vote. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley had called attention to the cost of Hampton Court Palace. No doubt Hampton Court Palace was a very large building. He did not think that hon. Members could have any idea of its extent, or of the consequent obligations of all kinds which it entailed in the shape of repairs. Reference had been made to Longford Canal. That was a small canal, which supplied Hampton Court with water. It was 10 miles long, and it cost £600 a-year to keep it in repair. That was one of the items which required to be paid in connection with the maintenance of a Palace of this kind, which covered more than four acres of land. It was not necessary that he should detain the Committee with further details in reference to Hampton Court. Mention had been made of the Royal Mews at Pimlico, and the same subject gave rise to some discussion last year. He had inquired into the matter during the Recess, and he had come to the conclusion that it was a much larger work than most hon. Members supposed. The establishment covered 3¾ acres of ground, and there were no less than 230 persons permanently living there. He was quite surprised, when he investigated the case, at the extent of the establishment. There were a great number of official residences in the Mews, including those of the Crown Equerries. There was provision for 147 horses, and more than 100 horses were permanently located in the stables there. The permanent establishment consisted of 17 very large coach-houses, containing between 70 and 80 carriages; a riding school, 200 feet long by 50 feet wide; and a large number of rooms and establishments of various kinds. There were official residences for the Crown Equerries, the Master of the Horse, the clerks and superintendents of the Royal Stables, grooms and coachmen; and, as he had just stated, there were no less than 230 per- sons permanently residing there. Considering the large number of persons accommodated, the sum charged in the Vote was not, he thought, excessive. The hon. and gallant Member behind him (Sir George Balfour) asked what changes had been effected in the Estimates of the present year as compared with those submitted last year. The only change he was aware of was the transfer of Vote 3 to Vote 8. He thought he had now answered all the points which had been raised in the course of the discussion.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the difference between the sum of £110 last year and the sum of £500 this year for the Longford River Canal?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that, if the hon. Member would refer to the Vote last year, he would find that the charge amounted altogether to £680.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, if he was to understand that 230 great officers of State were placed in the loose boxes and stalls of the Royal Mews at Pimlico, it was a pitiable and lamentable state of things, which fully justified him in moving the reduction of the Vote in regard to the maintenance of those Palaces which were not in the occupation of Her Majesty at the public expense. If these persons were really squatting in the Royal Mews, he had no doubt that, so long as there were any apartments vacant in the Palaces, there would be some persons squatting in them, so as to necessitate a charge for repairs and maintenance. He wished to say one word with regard to Hampton Court Stud House. The country was called upon to pay for the maintenance of the Stud House; but, so far as the foals which were the produce of that Stud House were concerned, the money they brought evidently went to somebody else.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that the Stud House at Hampton Court had long been established for the breeding of horses, and had always been kept up.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked what became of the foals?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was not aware.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that the Vote, as it appeared in the Estimates, was apparently reduced by the sum of £4,000 from what it was last year. As a matter of fact, however, it really exceeded the Vote of last year by the sum of £600; because the original Vote of last year was for £36,033, whereas the sum now asked for was £36,633. They were told there was a reduction, because last year there was an accidental increase of £4,000, which was included in the Supplementary Estimate. From the manner in which the Vote had been drawn up, it appeared that there had been a reduction of £4,000; whereas the real Vote of last year was £36,033, against an Estimate now prepared this year of £36,633. Therefore, as a matter of fact, instead of there being a reduction this year as compared with last, there was an increase, and the supposed economy did not really exist. The additional expenditure included in the Supplementary Estimates was for works at Hampton Court Palace in consequence of the fire, and it was an expenditure which he hoped they would not expect to have every year. He thought the right way of treating the Estimate would have been to put the original Estimate of last year against the original Estimate of this year, and then add to that £4,000 for accidental expenditure incurred during the year, with the expression of the hope that it would not be repeated. So far, however, from taking credit for economy, it appeared to him that the Government had actually increased the expenditure. He gave his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works every credit for being actuated by a desire to effect economy; but, nevertheless, the actual expenditure this year upon the Royal Palaces was £600 more than it was last year.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he did not mean to deny that £36,000 was the original Vote asked for last year, and that it was supplemented by a sum of £4,000 on account of the fire at Hampton Court Palace; but against that item he was entitled to put the sum of £3,900 asked for this year in continuation of the provision against fire of Hampton Court. He, therefore, still contended that, compared with the original Estimate of last year, there had been a reduction of more than £3,000, of which sum £2,400 were due to reductions in the cost of maintenance and repairs.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, the First Commissioner had stated that, in the case of Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, provision was made in the Estimate for exterior repairs only. Now, he wished to point out that for Kensington Palace, which was a plain building of no very great extent, there was an estimated expenditure of £1,233. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works if that was really the average annual expenditure for the maintenance of the exterior of the building? It certainly seemed to him an unreasonable sum for such a plain building as Kensington Palace, which was of very limited dimensions.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

wished to protest against the assumption which ran through the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in reference to the observations which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had made. He had not said one word with regard to extravagance, or against the principle of economy wherever it was practicable. All he had said was that he regarded the manner in which apartments in Hampton Court Palace were employed as a useful means of providing homes for the widows and relations of officers who had rendered distinguished service to the Crown. He protested against the time of the Committee being wasted by pseudo-economists sitting on the other side of the House, who sought to gain a certain amount of notoriety by making serio-comic criticisms upon petty details of expenditure in regard to the Royal Palaces. He confessed that he was unable to find any sufficient reason for the criticisms which had been advanced. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) commenced his observations by commenting upon Bushy Park; but, finding himself unable to make out any case in regard to that item, he quickly passed over it. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), casting his expansive eye down the list of items included in the Vote, was only able to fix upon the Royal Mews at Pimlico; and it appeared that the hon. Member was entirely unaware of the size of those Mews, or of the number of grooms, and even officers of State who were housed there. This was a clear case of wasting the time of the Committee. Before the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) came down to the House for the purpose of attacking this Vote, he ought to have informed himself whether the expenditure was excessive or not, and so also should the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). Neither hon. Member had done so; but one had selected an item in the Vote containing a number of odd names in it, and the other had chosen the Pimlico Royal Mews. Both of these pseudo-economists had been bowled over in a moment by the Minister in charge of the Estimate. This was an unfortunate position for these economists to place themselves in. Let them, if they could, bring to the notice of the Committee any real case of extravagance; but they should not waste the time of the Committee by criticizing trivial items of expenditure, when they were so ready to go into the Lobby with Her Majesty's Government to vote away millions for some unnecessary war in Egypt. To do that one day, and then to object to an item of £500 for certain Royal residences, and to another item of £1,200 for the Royal Mews, was ridiculous inconsistency. Hon. Members knew very well that the cost of Royalty in this country was very much less than the cost of other forms of government elsewhere, and that it was infinitely less than the cost of the Republic of France, or the Republic of America. He ventured, with great respect, to advise the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to study the matter more carefully in future before making these complaints.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, that if the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) desired a sufficient reason for voting in favour of the proposed reduction he would be able to find it in the manner in which the charges for Windsor Home Park and Adelaide Lodge, Windsor Royal Kitchen Garden, and Frogmore House and grounds were provided for. These were under the Office of Works, while Windsor Park was under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and owing to the divided authority which prevailed a great deal of extravagance took place. Nothing could be more extravagant than the way in which the expenditure was administered under the divided authority of the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The items in this case amounted to £3,000; and if the hon. Member wished to have a good reason for voting in favour of the reduction proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) he would find it in this part of the Vote. Anyone who had a competent knowledge of expenditure of this kind would be satisfied that if the whole estate were administered by one authority, £2,000 would only be a small part of the cost that would be saved.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 32; Noes 74: Majority 42. — (Div. List, No. 64.)

Original Question again proposed.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

wished to ask a question in reference to the unoccupied Palaces. He wished to know who it was who nominated the persons who occupied the apartments in these buildings? There was no one in that House who would be more delighted than himself to find that deserving officers were able to obtain apartments in the Royal residences; but he was afraid that many of the persons for whom provision was made were not entitled to such costly consideration from the country as this occupation involved. The First Commissioner of Works had been invited to state the nature of the agreement made with Her Majesty on her accession to the Throne; and he thought the Committee ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman what that agreement was. He had no hesitation in saying that if the persons now permitted to occupy apartments in the Royal Palaces were allowed £500 a-year each instead, it would be a more economical arrangement for the country.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty were at the disposal of Her Majesty; and it depended entirely upon Her Majesty's favour who were to occupy the apartments.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

asked if he was to understand that all the Palaces unoccupied were at Her Majesty's entire disposal? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes.] He hoped the Government would consent to lay the agreement with Her Majesty upon the Table, so that hon. Members might understand what the nature of its provisions was.

MR. TOMLINSON

pointed out that Pembroke Lodge had been occupied by Earl Russell, and another Royal building by Sir Richard Owen.

Original Question put, and agreed, to.

(2.) £1,160, Marlborough House.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he would be glad if his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would lay on the Table of the House the formal agreement under which the Government undertook, as Trustees of the public, to maintain certain Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, because he had reason to believe that Marlborough House was not looked upon as one of those Palaces.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

remarked that Marlborough House came under a separate agreement.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that, under those circumstances, he would ask his right hon. Friend under what arrangement or agreement Marlborough House was chargeable for its repairs upon the public funds? He believed he could say with perfect confidence, acting on what he believed to be sufficient information, that some years ago the Treasury refused to allow the repairs of Marlborough House to be chargeable on the Exchequer. That went on for some time, until the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), who was then First Commissioner of Works, acting upon the application of the Prince of Wales, placed this charge for the first time upon the Estimates. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might not be aware that this was so. If his right hon. Friend did not know it, he (Mr. Rylands) would be glad if he would inquire as to whether he (Mr. Rylands) had been accurately informed of the circumstances under which this charge had come upon the Estimates. Whether he was accurately informed or not, he had received the information from a gentleman who formerly occupied a high position in the Treasury; and, at all events, the Committee had a right to ask upon what authority this charge was placed upon the taxpayers? His right hon. Friend said that it did not come under the agreement with the Crown. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] He understood his right hon. Friend to say so; and he should be glad if he could have the agreement put upon the Table, as it would show what the character of the agreement with the Crown really was. If this charge for Marlborough. House did not come under the agreement with the Crown, then under what arrangement was the charge placed upon the taxpayers? It seemed to him a very important matter that the Committee should get to know that. If it was not right to charge the expense of maintaining and repairing Marlborough House upon the Civil Service Estimates, the whole thing ought to be done away with. If, on the other hand, it was right to place the charge upon the Exchequer, he thought they ought to complain of the excessive amounts which appeared from year to year in these Votes. The right hon. Gentleman would say, no doubt, that the present Vote showed a diminution, and he (Mr. Rylands) was glad to find that there had been a diminution as compared with the amount voted last year; but, still, the sum put down for the repairs and maintenance of Marlborough House was no less than £2,160, a sum which he considered altogether excessive and extravagant. In regard to the amount by which the Vote had been reduced, £400 arose from the fact that the building last year cost £400 for outside painting, which, of course, was not required this year. It did appear to him that £2,160 was a very much larger amount than ought to be charged upon the Exchequer for the maintenance and ordinary repair of a house of this size; and although he was not prepared to move the reduction of the Vote, seeing that the Estimate had already been reduced, and he was in hopes that it would be still further reduced in other years, he trusted that he might receive from his right hon. Friend information—first of all, in justification of this charge being placed upon the Vote at all; and, secondly, a satisfactory intimation as to the prospect of further economy in future in this large expenditure.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that Marlborough House did not come within the category of Royal Palaces, and had never been considered a Royal Palace in the same sense as other Palaces occupied by the Crown, nor was it subject to the agreement made with Her Ma- jesty when she came to the Throne; but by a special Ant of Parliament, passed in 1860, Her Majesty was authorized to vest Marlborough House in the Prince of Wales during the joint lives of himself and the Queen. It had accordingly been so vested by Act of Parliament in the Prince of Wales during the life of Her Majesty, For many years the repairs were undertaken by His Royal Highness himself, who spent no less than £50,000 in improving Marlborough House; and in 1878, in consideration of that large expenditure, the late Government undertook to insert an annual sum of £2,000, or thereabouts, in the Estimates for the repair of this dwelling house of His Royal Highness, and since that time an item for the repairs had always been voted every year by Parliament. For some two or three years past the expenditure had been something over £2,000; but he was happy to say that it had now been brought down to about that sum, and he had reason to hope that it might be further reduced in future. The repairs some time ago had been allowed to get into arrear, and it was necessary to expend a larger sum than would be required permanently. These arrears had now been completed, and he entertained hopes that there would be some reduction in the amount of this item in future.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was not satisfied with the explanation given with regard to this item. He believed that until 1878 the Treasury had declined to accept responsibility for the repairs. In that year, however, under the auspices of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), then Chief Commissioner of Works, acting on the application of the Prince of Wales, made the cost of them a charge upon the Public Revenue. For this, in his (Mr. Rylands's) opinion, there was no justification at all; and he begged to give Notice that if the charge appeared on the Estimates of next year he should feel it his duty to move that it be rejected. He thought the Committee were entitled to further information as to the circumstances under which this charge was placed upon the British taxpayer; and although he should not move its rejection on the present occasion, he could assure his right hon. Friend that, in his opinion, the time had come when it should disappear from the Estimates.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), carried away by his virtuous indignation, had omitted to notice the explanation of his right hon. Friend. The hon. Member had said that His Royal Highness would not in common prudence have expended this money on building's that were not his own. Had the hon. Member heard the statement of his right hon. Friend he would not have indulged in some of the observations which had fallen from him.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

asked why the charge for repairs to Marlborough House were not upon the Estimates before the year 1878?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that Marlborough House had been specially vested in His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. In that respect it differed from Clarence House, which had always been considered one of the Palaces of the Crown.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £91,685, 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 1885, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had a Motion to make for the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,000, for the expenses of removal of the statue of the Duke of Wellington from Hyde Park Corner. He had, however, no wish to shut out the Motion of any hon. Member who might wish to reduce the Vote by a larger sum.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to the fact that the road through St. James's Park had been shut up for a considerable time. Generally speaking, that was the case more than once during the year. He saw on the Estimate a charge for maintenance of £23,695, which he presumed would include the road between St. James's Palace Gate and Buckingham Palace Gate, through which the traffic ordinarily passed. Now, he believed that the repairs that were necessary could be done in a much shorter time than was usually spent upon them, so as to mitigate, in some degree, the great inconvenience which was occasioned to the inhabitants of London whenever the stoppage of the road in question took place. He would like to know the amount expended upon that road, and whether the work was done by contract? If that were the case, he was bound to say that the contract was every year carried out in a very dilatory manner. He had seen the stones put upon the road, and could assure the Committee that, instead of the work being got through expeditiously, not more than a half-day's work was done on the average. Hon. Members would be aware that in any other capital of Europe arrangements would be made, under similar circumstances, to re-open the thoroughfare immediately by working day and night; but here a lengthened stoppage of traffic was allowed to take place, which, he ventured to say, was very detrimental to business of all kinds. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite why it was that so long a time was occupied in these repairs; and whether it was not possible to make some better arrangement with regard to them than at present existed? The suggestion that the road should be paved with wood had been met by the objection that this would not be in keeping with the characteristics of the Park, although a side path of asphalte had been laid down. However that might be, he thought it would be preferable to the present state of things. If the work was in the hands of a contractor it was evident to him that he charged more money, and consumed more time, than was necessary for effecting the repairs. For these reasons, he believed that any information which the right hon. Gentleman could give on the subject would be interesting and useful to the inhabitants of London, and to the people of the country generally.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he could not at that moment separate the cost of repairing the road referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet from the cost of the other repairs stated in the Estimate. An inquiry, however, should be made into the matter, the result of which should be communicated to the hon. and gallant Baronet, and with that assurance he trusted the Vote would be allowed to pass.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he did not think the Committee ought to be satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that he could not separate the item of cost for the repair of the road in question. Was it the case that the cost of the flower-beds in the Park was mixed up with the charge for repairs? He remembered that some years ago a large reduction of the Vote was moved in connection with a charge for tulips, which was, however, withdrawn on its being shown that a considerable advantage resulted from the arrangement; but here was an enormous sum charged for repairs, as to which the Committee could obtain no explanation whatever. They were certainly entitled to this; and, for his own part, he should not be satisfied unless further information were forthcoming.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the repairs were in connection with the road through Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park; he could not, therefore, separate from the rest the cost of repairing the portion of the road from St. James's to Birdcage Walk; but, as he had already stated, he would inquire into the matter, and let the hon. and gallant Baronet know the result.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

Is the work done by contract?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

No.

MR. GORST

said, with reference to the contribution of £400 per annum from Indian Funds towards the cost of the Kew Establishment, that he should like to know what were the services rendered by that establishment to India which justified the charge; how long it had gone on, and how long it was intended to be continued?

MR. COURTNEY

said, the arrangement was one of some standing. The contribution was partly for the purpose of maintaining the Museum, containing specimens illustrative of the produce of their Indian Empire, and partly for the services of the experienced gentleman, who had charge of the Collection. He was not cognizant of the particular cases in which services had been rendered to India under this arrangement; but from his own experience at the Colonial Office he was in a position to say that the references made to Kew in respect of the Colonies were very numerous; and he had no doubt that the work done at Kew in relation to the Indian Empire was of considerable value. Take the case of the diseases of trees and plants, for instance. One subject of great importance—the disease in the coffee plant in the Island of Ceylon—had been investigated at Kew, and similar questions had arisen and been investigated there in respect of other Colonies.

MR. GORST

said, he thought this was an instance of the petty injustice committed by Her Majesty's Government upon India. The Secretary to the Treasury said there were services of great value and of similar character rendered to the Colonies. Now, would the hon. Gentleman venture to suggest to the Australian Colonies that they should vote sums of money to be spent at Kew? [Mr. COURTNEY: Yes.] Had the hon. Gentleman ever done so? The Government had the Revenues of India under their hand; they took this money out of those Revenues; but they dared not take a halfpenny from the Colonies for similar purposes. He said the Committee were entitled to some better explanation than they had received from the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject. If the Government intended to make Kew an Imperial Establishment, contributed to by every Colony whose products and flora were represented there, it would be well if they announced that policy at once. It seemed to him extraordinary that they should select the one Dependency of India, and make it contribute to the maintenance of the Establishment.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the question of contribution had reached a practical shape in the case of the Australian Colonies. If the Colonies stood in the same relative position as India, there would, no doubt, be a contribution from them. There was no ground whatever for the statement that the Government made India contribute to the maintenance of the Kew Establishment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that India was always made to contribute in matters of this kind, and not the Colonies. The Botanic Gardens at Calcutta rendered great service to this country and to the Colonies; and he should be glad to know whether any compensation was made for the amount of work done in that respect?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

observed, that the sum of £100 was voted annually for the payment of experts for naming cryptogams. He wished to know whether this sum was paid for the invention of new names for new cryptogams, or for the correct naming of existing cryptogams? In the former case he thought the work might be done for less; and in the latter case that it might be done by the officials of the Establishment.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he rose to move the omission of the item of £2,000 under Sub-head E, in connection with the alterations made at Hyde Park Corner. In doing so, as he had already said, he did not wish to shut out any hon. Gentleman who might desire to reduce the Vote by a larger sum. Now, his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works had given the House last year some information with regard to the statue of the Duke of Wellington. On that occasion he said that a Committee had been appointed, of which he was a Member, and that that Committee had recommended that the statue of the Duke should be broken up; that the metal should be sold; and that the proceeds should be devoted to the cost of a new statue to be erected after competition had taken place; the object being to obtain a new equestrian statue of high character by the hand of a British sculptor. Since that time, however, the whole position had changed. The original Committee had disappeared, and a private Committee—not a body representing the Government—had come into existence. His right hon. Friend, in order, as he supposed, to distinguish it from the Committee appointed last year, had described this as an Executive Committee; and that Committee, of which his right Friend was not a Member, had formed an entirely different plan with regard to the statue. They no longer proposed what was felt by many to be the Vandalism of breaking up this famous statue. He did not know whether this had resulted from the fact that one of the Colonies had offered to pay a larger sum for the statue than would be produced by the sale of the old metal. However that might be, the former arrangement had been given up, and it was proposed that the statue should be removed from Hyde Park Corner and placed at Aldershot. But the great de- parture from the plan of the former Committee was that there should be no competition, and that the commission should be given to Mr. Boehm. There was the secret of this devolution. The Committee had been established by some means or other; and they gave Mr. Boehm permission to execute the statue, without other artists being allowed to compete. History repeated itself. His right hon. Friend, in an interesting article on the statues and monuments of London, had said, with reference to Bacon's monument of Chatham in Westminster Abbey— The sculptor appears to have outwitted his rivals in obtaining an order for the monument in the Abbey; for while the members of the Royal Academy were considering the terms of a competition, he went direct to the King, who said to him—'Bacon, Bacon, you shall make Chatham's monument, and no one else.' It was precisely similar in the present case. While the Executive Committee were considering the terms of the competition, Mr. Boehm had waited on an illustrious personage, who had given him the commission. He (Mr. Rylands) said that the original plan of the Committee, that there should be competition, ought to be adhered to. He knew one sculptor who, in consequence of the statement of his right hon. Friend that there would be competition, had gone to great expense and trouble in preparing models of an equestrian group; and, although he was not aware of the fact, others might have done the same. His right hon. Friend said that artists were disinclined to compete in this case. No doubt they were under certain conditions; but he was sure that if the work were left quite open to competition, a work would be produced worthy of their great sculptors. He had no wish to depreciate Mr. Boehm; but did that gentleman occupy such a position that the work could be placed in his hand with the feeling that the result would necessarily be a success? Hon. Gentlemen would be familiar with the statue of Lord Lawrence, which his right hon. Friend had described as— By no means a satisfactory figure, in an attitude singularly at variance with his dignified and modest demeanour. That criticism appeared to him most gentle; and, for his own part, he should speak of the statue in a very different way; he would say that the attitude, the clothing, and the protuberance of body, as well as the vulgarity of features, would lead anyone to suppose that it was intended to represent a tapster of a hostelry in times gone by. Again, what did The St. James's Gazette say about the statue of Lord Beaconsfield in Westminster Abbey? The opinion expressed was that— It is little more than a caricature; it might, in fact, have been taken from one of the more ill-natured of Mr. Tenniel's cartoons. The look of superficial keenness, which ceased to be the characteristic of Mr. Disraeli's features long before he won the right to wear the Earl's coronet, is the only look Mr. Boehm has caught; the thought and responsibility of the Prime Minister find no expression whatever. The action, too, is not appropriate to the place; while the treatment of the Peer's robe is clumsy and ungraceful. He was bound to say that this criticism appeared to him justifiable. When he looked upon the statue of Lord Beacons-field from one point—he would not say from every point—it reminded him of nothing so much as one of "Spy's" cartoons in Vanity Fair. It did not strike him as being of the highest order of Art; and while he did not dispute for one moment Mr. Boehm's great ability as a sculptor, he could not but feel that he did not occupy that position amongst the sculptors of the country which would justify his having the commission to the exclusion of every other artist. He regarded this as a serious departure from the intention of the original Committee, and he considered that everyone who took that view should support the Amendment he was about to move. If there was to be a statue without competition, undertaken under the proposed conditions, he would rather see the statue of the Duke of Wellington placed upon a large pedestal in the neighbourhood with which it had always been associated than run the risk of having a similar statue executed under conditions which might render the statue less satisfactory than the existing statue. There were some people who very much disliked the idea of the statue being taken to Aldershot; and he would ask them to join him in this Vote, and in that way to request the Government to reconsider the whole matter and to get rid of this Executive Committee, and come to the House of Commons upon a subsequent occasion with a proposal more likely to meet with the approval of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £2,000, the Contribution of Her Majesty's Government for a New Statue of the Duke of Wellington, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

wished to make a few remarks in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley. It seemed to him very much to be regretted that the Government cared so little for the encouragement of British Art that they had allowed a great work of this kind to be given to a gentleman who, however distinguished, was not of British birth; and that they had also thought it within their duty to break faith with the House of Commons, and depart from the pledge which was solemnly given by the First Commissioner of Works last year, on the strength of which he induced the House of Commons to agree to his Vote. He did not at all agree with the hon. Member for Burnley as to the work of Mr. Boehm, because he imagined there were not two opinions amongst English artists that, in regard to English or foreign sculpture, Mr. Boehm had no superior. He believed that opinion would command considerable assent at home and abroad among artists; and, at any rate, if there was to be a new statue, the public would have some security, if it was to be intrusted to Mr. Boehm, that it would be a statue invested with a high degree of artistic merit. But he rose rather to appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Prime Minister—and to what he might say were the well-known Tory instincts of the Prime Minister on matters in which no Party issues were raised—to allow the statue not only to be preserved, but replaced. He was certain that the Prime Minister could do no act which would add more to his well-known popularity with the people of London, and with the English people generally, than by stepping in and diverting from this well-known statue the disgrace and destruction with which it was threatened. It was understood that the statue was to be carted off to Aldershot, and placed in some corner of the Aldershot Camp, where nobody would see it, except the soldiers stationed there. The statue was intimately connected with everybody's earliest ideas of the military history of the Great Duke, and, in fact, of the great exploits of the British Army. He himself never could agree with the criticisms which had been passed upon the statue as to its being inartistic in its position on the top of the Arch. It was a curious fact that in that very spiteful and ill-natured book, written by a very clever Frenchman, entitled John Bull and his Island—a book which was widely read, and in which everything in England was held up to very bitter and, in many cases, very true criticism—the writer, while finding fault with almost everything else in this country, expressed approval of this statue. That, he thought, was testimony of a strong order against those who criticized this statue. In fact, all the criticism of the statue had come from aesthetic persons, with whom the statue was something quite "too-too." Artists of the present day were a great deal too much under the domination of that school, which he believed was generally supposed to be represented in that House by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). That hon. Member would, no doubt, give the Committee the reasons why that particular school of aestheticism should object to the statue; and, for himself, while he would not further take up the time of the Committee, he must express the earnest hope that the Prime Minister would consider this subject worthy of his special attention, not only as Prime Minister, but as one of the greatest authorities on Art in this country, and would see if he could not meet the wishes of an enormous majority of the people by replacing the statue upon the Arch where it formerly stood.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

observed, that this question of granting £2,000 would be dealt with, he apprehended, in a Bill which had not yet been read a second time—namely, the Hyde Park Corner Improvement Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that was merely a matter of repairing roads.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he was sorry that that was the case, and that the Bill did not deal with the question of removing the statue of the Great Duke. He agreed with his noble Friend, and, to a considerable extent, with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that it would be far better to replace the statue where it formerly stood. In 1838 Her Majesty gave her direct sanction to the locality selected, and the Committee who had charge of the matter concurred in the advisability of placing the statue there; and he hoped that the Government, having moved the Archway from its old position, would follow the advice of his noble Friend, and replace the statue on the top of the Arch. The expense of carting the statue down to Aldershot would be considerable; and he thought the Government might just as well send it to the Nile, or anywhere else, if it was not to be allowed to remain in London, where everybody would have an opportunity of seeing the features of the Great Duke. If necessary, he would second the proposal to reduce this Vote by £2,000; but he could not quite agree with what had been said about Mr. Boehm. The hon. Member for Burnley had said he knew of one sculptor who he thought would be far preferable to Mr. Boehm.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had not meant that. He had simply alluded to the fact that one sculptor, acting on the statement that there would be a competition, had gone to great expense, with a view to a competition, and that he felt aggrieved at not being allowed to compete.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

Yes; he had gone to great expense with a model for an equestrian statue, and he felt aggrieved at being excluded from the competition. He himself was not concerned with the qualifications of the persons who were to be charged with the new statue; he was entirely against any new statue at all. He maintained that the old statue ought to remain where it was; and he should vote now, and on every other occasion, against the proposal, and try to save the country from the enormous expense which would be entailed by carting away this statue to Aldershot, and the alleged contemplated improvements consequent thereupon. Every statue in London was probably bad, and this was not a question of Art, but of sentiment; but if there was a good statue foreign opinion was, perhaps, more valuable than English opinion on matters of Art; and certainly the foreign writer already referred to had expressed himself strongly in approval of this statue. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance to the Committee and to London that the statue of the Great Duke would not be ignominiously carted away to Aldershot, or elsewhere; but that it would remain where Her Majesty wished it to be in 1838, and where the country wished it still to remain.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that with regard to the wish of the right hon. Baronet, that the statue should be replaced on the Arch, he must remind the Committee that the original intention of the Government and of himself was to remove the Arch bodily with the statue upon it; for they were well aware that whenever that statue came down it would be extremely difficult to determine where it should be placed, and wished to prevent that difficulty arising. But the members of the Royal Academy unanimously petitioned the Government to take advantage of the opportunity to remove the statue altogether; without a single dissentient, the members of the Royal Academy petitioned the Government to that effect, and stated that, in their opinion, the position of the statue on the Arch was utterly opposed to every canon of taste; that it was a disgrace to Art that the statue should be in that position upon an arch; and that it was totally unsuitable to the Arch. Upon that the Government came to the conclusion that the statue should, at all events, be removed from the Arch; and accordingly the Arch was pulled down, and the statue brought to the ground. He then appointed a Committee to advise the Government as to what should be done in the matter; and he believed the appointment gave general satisfaction, the gentlemen appointed being regarded as representing Art as fully as any gentlemen that could be selected. Upon that Committee were Sir Frederick Leighton, Lord Hardinge, the present Duke of Wellington, and three or four other gentlemen. The Committee at first recommended that the statue should be placed in front of the Horse Guards; and they gave as one reason for that suggestion, and for not keeping it at Hyde Park Corner, that owing to the huge size of the statue, if it was placed on a suitable pedestal it would overpower and crush its surroundings, and so could not be maintained in front of Apsley House. They reluctantly recommended its removal; but believed that in front of the Horse Guards it would be in a less objectionable position, and its defects would be less glaring. That was the first recommendation of this Committee, which, when it was appointed, gave general satisfaction to the House. As the House would recollect, a model of the statue was erected in front of the Horse Guards; but he must admit it gave general dissatisfaction, and he then referred the question again to the Committee; and after further consideration of the matter the Committee came to the conclusion that there was no place in London where they could recommend the statue being placed on account of its very great size and its artistic defects, and they then recommended that it should be re-cast and a new statue should be made and placed at Hyde Park Corner. The Government assented to that proposal, and he informed the House last autumn that they would ask the House to vote £6,000 for a new statue. He also stated that the work would be offered for competition, and that he should invite a limited number of the principal sculptors to compete. But in the course of the Recess it came to his knowledge that the proposal to break up the statue would not give satisfaction to the country and to the Army; and it therefore became impossible to carry out that part of the recommendation of the Committee. At that stage of the matter His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales came forward, and proposed that if the Government would undertake to carry out the proposal to spend the £6,000 on a new statue, he would put himself at the head of a movement to further decorate the new place at Hyde Park Corner; and he suggested that the statue should be moved to Aldershot, where it could be placed in a position in view of the whole Army. That appeared to be a fair compromise for dealing with this extremely difficult subject, and it also offered an opportunity of decorating Hyde Park Corner in a suitable way. The Government acceded to that proposal, and His Royal Highness then appointed an Executive Committee to advise him generally on the whole question as to what should be done in the way of decoration; and that Committee was the one alluded to by the hon. Member for Burnley. It included all the Members whom he had himself appointed, and many other distinguished men; and the Committee could see the Report of that Committee, which had been laid upon the Table. That Com- mittee again went into the question of the disposal of the present statue, and considered all the possible sites where it might be placed in London; and they came to the conclusion that they could not recommend any site in London itself, on the ground mainly of the colossal size of the statue, which would crush all its surroundings; and that if it was placed on a suitable pedestal, it would be out of place in any site which had been suggested in London. They, therefore, concluded that the plan of removing it to Aldershot was, on the whole, the best plan; and accordingly the Government now made that proposal to the Committee, in accordance with the recommendation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, that the statue should be removed, and a new statue be executed to be placed at Hyde Park Corner. With regard to the question of competition, immediately after he made a statement last autumn that there would be a competition, he received from the present Duke of Wellington a very strong protest against that proposal, in which he said it would be impossible to obtain a good work of Art in that way, and that he objected very strongly to that course. He further said that he would never have given his consent to any dealing with the statue if he had understood that there would be a competition for a new statue. The Government felt that great deference ought to be paid to the present Duke of Wellington in this matter. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] On the question of sentiment. The Government felt that his views were entitled to very great consideration. Moreover, he made inquiries as to the sculptors who were likely to compete in this limited competition, and three of the most distinguished sculptors who were approached stated that they would not enter into a competition for a work of this kind. Under these circumstances, and looking to the objections raised by the Duke of Wellington, and, above all, finding that the most eminent sculptors would not compete, the Government determined to leave the selection of a sculptor to the Executive Committee appointed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. That Committee discussed the matter, and they came to the unanimous opinion that Mr. Boehm should be intrusted with the execution of the new statue, and that selection was further ratified by a large meeting of distinguished men —60 or 70 in number—held at Marlborough House, under the Presidency of the Prince of Wales. The hon. Member for Burnley had made some remarks on the artistic work of Mr. Boehm, and had been good enough to quote from an article which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had written for one of the Reviews on the monuments of London, in which he had made some unfavourable comments on one of Mr. Boehm's works—namely, the statue of Lord Lawrence. The hon. Member might have quoted from the same article that he had praised Mr. Boehm's statue of Mr. Carlyle as one of the best statues in London; and he thought it right to state that Mr. Boehm had himself written to him thanking him for his remarks on the statues of Lord Lawrence and Mr. Carlyle, stating that he entirely agreed with those remarks, and was so dissatisfied himself with the former statue that he was at that very moment occupied upon another statue of Lord Lawrence, which he hoped would replace the existing statue. That he thought, was a very generous act on the part of Mr. Boehm, and one which entitled him to great consideration by that House. Mr. Boehm had executed many other very important monuments and statues in London, amongst others one of the late Dean Stanley in Westminster Abbey, which would do great credit to any sculptor. He was sorry the hon. Member had alluded to Mr. Boehm as a foreigner, and that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had expressed regret that the Government should have intrusted this matter to a foreigner who, he thought, would not have sufficiently studied British Art. He had never thought of the consideration whether Mr. Boehm was an Englishman or not; but Mr. Boehm was a member of the Royal Academy, and therefore he thought Mr. Boehm might, for the purposes of sculpture in this country, be considered an Englishman. In this connection he would remind the noble Lord that when the admirers of his late Leader, Lord Beaconsfield, had to choose a sculptor to execute a statue of Lord Beaconsfield in Parliament Square, they selected a foreigner, Signer Raggi, who had produced a work of high art, such as he was glad to see in this country. Many of the best works, in the way of sculpture, in this country had been executed by gentlemen who, at least, had been naturalized in this country, and had brought great credit to England. He need hardly remind the Committee of the splendid works of Roubilliac, and others who were foreigners by birth, as Mr. Boehm was; and he ventured to hope that no more would be heard of this argument, and that Mr. Boehm might be considered, for this purpose at all events, an English sculptor. He believed that Mr. Boehm was almost the only living sculptor who had produced equestrian statues. He had produced two equestrian statues which had done him great credit. Both of these were he believed, in Calcutta, one of them being a statue of the Prince of Wales, and both had acquired for him great repute in the civilized world. On the whole, therefore, he thought the Committee might be perfectly satisfied with the selection of a sculptor made by the Executive Committee. The only question which remained for the Committee to consider was whether, on the whole, the proposal which had been made by the Prince of Wales, and which was now submitted by the Government, was worthy of their consideration. That proposal certainly offered this advantage—that it would enable the decorations of the new place at Hyde Park Corner to be completed. That place was at present in an unfinished state; it required fountains and other works of Art to complete it; and it was proposed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, if the Committee consented to this Vote, and that part of the work was carried out, to appeal to the public for funds to complete the scheme. If the Committee did not agree to that Vote the whole arrangement would fail, and it would be difficult to say what could then be done. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had expressed a wish that the statue might be replaced on the Arch, and he had complained of the great cost of removing it to Alder-shot; but he did not appear to know what the cost of replacing the statue on the Arch would be. He had had an estimate made when the removal was first contemplated, and the amount estimated for replacing the statue was £3,500. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Who made it?] The same contractor who made the estimate for the original removal.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked how much it had cost to take the statue down?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the statue was brought down at the cost of removing the Arch—there was no separate item. Hon. Members seemed to think that the cost of removing the statue to Aldershot would be excessive; but that was not the case. He could not say exactly what it would be; but it would not be a very large amount.

COLONEL NOLAN

What is the estimate?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the estimate was £3,200. The statue was cast in four pieces, which were soldered together. It could be removed to Alder-shot piecemeal.

COLONEL NOLAN

What does it weigh?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

replied that its weight was 40 tons. All that the plan now suggested would cost was £6,000; £2,000 this year, and £4,000 in the following two years. No further expense would be incurred. The whole of the cost of the removal to Aldershot, and placing the statue on such pedestal as was necessary, would be undertaken by the Committee appointed under the auspices of the Prince of Wales; so that, on the one hand, the Committee would give £6,000, and, on the other, a considerable sum of money would, it was believed, be raised on the appeal of His Royal Highness, to place the statue on the pedestal, to get a new statue, and ornament Hyde Park Corner. He might mention that the present Duke of Wellington entirely approved of this plan; and, as a matter of sentiment, it could not be denied that this approval must go a long way. His Grace agreed that they were doing all they could to honour the memory of his father; and that the statue which it was proposed to place at Hyde Park Corner would be worthy the fame of the Great Duke.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

desired to make a personal explanation. The right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his reference to Mr. Boehm. He had not taken any exception to that gentleman as a foreigner; and all he had expressed surprise at was that the Government had departed from the solemn pledge they gave to the House of Commons last Session that the contemplated statue was to be thrown open to competition by British artists. He had said that he had the highest regard for Mr. Boehm as an artist; and, so far from throwing any imputation on him, he believed that, as a sculptor, he was without a superior.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

The noble Lord went farther——

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I did not.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

He expressed regret that Mr. Boehm was a foreigner.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I expressed no such regret of any sort or kind.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Committee never showed to less advantage than when it resolved itself into a Committee of Art critics; and, for his own part, he considered there were many methods in connection with the Estimates by which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) could better employ himself than in giving an opinion as to the curve of beauty and the proportions of the human form. His noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been good enough to point him out as a Representative of "the modern aesthetic school." Well, it was difficult to make out what school his noble Friend belonged to, seeing that the only authority he had quoted was the author of John Bull and his Island. He did not think the question of this statue should be decided at all on aesthetic grounds. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them that the whole body of Royal Academicians had come forward and asked him to take this opportunity of removing the statue. Well, the Royal Academicians might be admirable authorities on matters of Art—although that did not appear in a recent celebrated case to be the opinion of a British jury—but this was not primarily a question of Art. It was rather one of historical association; and it was for that reason that he considered the House of Commons perfectly competent to give an opinion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had already spoiled the whole architectural merit of Hyde Park Corner by taking down the archway that, after all, however inconvenient to the traffic, was symmetrically arranged with the gate of Hyde Park, and by erecting it half-way down the hill and askew. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had made the site much more convenient for passenger traffic; but he had entirely spoilt the artistic merit of the place. The question, whether or not the Arch would look better with the Duke of Wellington on the top of it, was not worth discussing. It was because the House reflected the feeling of the English people on a question of historical interest that he considered it competent to give an opinion on this subject. He earnestly hoped the Committee would decline to give the £2,000 to the Government.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, that before they went to a Division on the matter, it should be pointed out by some person not a Member of the Government that there appeared to be a partnership arrangement with the Executive Committee to which reference had been made; and that being the case, the Committee should insist that it should only be done for solid and real reasons. He knew of no class of men in the Empire who had shown less appreciation of their public duties than the great landowners of London, who had received millions in increased ground rents whilst they were exempt from local charges; and he did very much hope that if the Committee should consent to this Vote it should be on the understanding that the illustrious and other Members of this Executive Committee had a great claim on these landowners to raise a larger sum than was contributed by Parliament for the improvement of Hyde Park Corner. The landowners of London had been excessively backward in contributing towards the cost of improvements in this great and important Metropolis. He hoped, however, that now they would rise to the occasion, and avail themselves of this opportunity of acknowledging a duty which had been very much neglected in the past. He hoped that a sum which would be adequate for the carrying out of the desired improvement would be forthcoming from those who had been hitherto backward in their duty in this respect.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had received a Memorandum from the Duke of Rutland of an entry made by his Father, on the 6th of May, 1839, and it was as follows:— The intention is to represent His Grace as he appeared on the evening of the 18th of June, 1815, towards the close of the battle of Waterloo, and His Grace has been so obliging as to sit to the artist in the costume he then wore, That was a consideration which should have great weight with the Committee. He confessed that, so far as he was concerned, he was not actuated in the view he took in supporting the Motion for the reduction of the Vote by sentimental considerations. If he were, he might point to the circumstances that the old statue had been placed so that it might be supposed that the Duke was pointing with his truncheon to the Horse Guards; and that the new statue, if replaced on the Arch, would be pointing to the Euston Square Railway Station, or to the swamps of Pimlico. Her Majesty's Government were, he considered, in this as in other matters, open to the charge of vacillation and inconsistency. As to the Executive Committee alluded to, it would be difficult to fix responsibility upon them, or to declare who of their Body was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said he was responsible; whereas the Representive of the Government in the House of Lords, in his hearing, had thrown the responsibility on the Executive Committee. The Government threw the responsibility on the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee returned the compliment by throwing it upon the Government. It was rather a curious fact that of the Members of the House who were also Members of the Executive Committee appointed last year, not one was now in his place. The noble Lord the Member for North Liecestershire (Lord John Manners) was not present, neither was the Chairman of the Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) was also conspicuous by his absence; so that it did not seem that the Members of the Executive Committee had any very great confidence in their own opinion. Then, as regarded the original plan of competition for the construction of the new statue, it had been entirely thrown overboard. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that if the selection were decided by competition all the best artists would be excluded; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that, in times gone by, the system of competition had made known the existence of some of the best artists this country had produced. The First Commissioner of Works, in an article lately written by him in The Nineteenth Century, had referred to Mr. Stevens' monument of the Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral as the greatest work executed in England since the time of Torrigiano, and the right hon. Gentleman might recollect that it was only through public competition that the merits of Mr. Stevens and of his design were realized. Mr. Stevens had had to contend with many difficulties, and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had taken no small part in supporting Mr. Stevens, when Mr. Ayrton and not a few Members opposite had endeavoured to get rid of the monument altogether. Their efforts, however, failed, and at length the monument had been completed. He entirely concurred in what an hon. Friend of his had said about Mr. Boehm, believing that it would be a misfortune if the work were given to that gentleman instead of to an English artist of equal talent, who would not be difficult to find. He could not agree that Mr. Boehm had made any success with the statues he had erected in London. In addition to the failures already quoted, he would add that of the statue of Lord Russell in the Central Hall of the Parliament Building. The Prime Minister had known the noble Lord very well; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he had ever seen him in the attitude in which he appeared in the statue? No doubt, great care should be exercised in the selection of artists for these statues. It was said that Mr. Boehm was unrivalled in his execution of horses; but he should like to know where the sculptured horses were in this country from which hon. Members could judge of Mr. Boehm's unrivalled ability? His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) general objection to the new proposal was that, by reason of the removal of the Triumphal Arch to its present position, where it stood sideways, and leading from St. George's Hospital to no where at all, it had become an incongruous absurdity, and no sum of money, however large, could invest the locality with any artistic beauty, unless they began de novo and took down the Arch, to erect it elsewhere.

MR. ALBEET GREY

regretted that the statue of the Duke of Wellington had not been removed long ago; and he, therefore, did not think the Committee ought to quarrel with the decision the Government had arrived at with regard to it. With regard to the Memorial of the Royal Academicians, to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had referred as a justification for the course pursued by the Government, he thought that if the Government considered it their duty to take the advice of that Body in one respect, they should take it in another respect. The members of the Royal Academy last year sent a Memorial to the Prime Minister, asking the Government to appoint a Committee of experts to inquire whether it would not be possible to finish the monument of the Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral? That Memorial had been supplemented by a Memorial from artists and literary men, and by a Memorial signed by 100 Members of the House of Commons. He, therefore, hoped that, as the Government had allowed themselves to be guided in their course of action in one respect by the Memorial of the Royal Academicians, they would also allow themselves to be guided by their Memorial and the other Memorials he had mentioned in regard to the completion of what was admitted by everybody to be the finest monument which had been produced in this country for many years. He would willingly have voted against this grant of £2,000, if, by so doing, he could have secured that that sum could have been expended in finishing the unfinished monument in St. Paul's Cathedral; but he was afraid, after the discussion which had taken place, that to vote with the hon. Member for Burnley would mean an expression of opinion that the Hyde Park Statue should remain where it was. He should, therefore, vote against the hon. Member.

SIR EDWAED J. REED

should have preferred to see the statue remain in its present vicinity; but because he considered the improvements which had been effected at Hyde Park Corner of such great public benefit, and the First Commissioner of Works so zealously devoted to the public interest, he should certainly give the right hon. Gentleman his support in the Division about to be taken.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 54: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 65.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he desired to ask a Question of the First Commissioner of Works with respect to Richmond Park.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that before the hon. Member raised that point he wished to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and to ask him whether, after the debate which had taken place and the extremely close Division they had had, he would allow the matter to stand over for further consideration, and would not bring it forward at an hour when the House could not have a fair opportunity of discussing it?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he conceived that the vote which had just been taken was a conclusive vote as regarded its immediate effect. ["No!"] As he understood the question of the noble Lord, the Government were asked to give a fair opportunity for the further consideration of the matter when the Vote was reported. He did not deny that that was a fair request.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that the Vote should be taken at such a time as would afford the House a fair opportunity of giving its attention to it, and not at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, of course, his answer implied that the Report of this particular Vote would not be taken at a time when it could not be discussed.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

expressed a hope that no steps would be taken in regard to the statue or anything else, until after the Report was disposed of.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

wished to ask a question of the First Commissioner of Works with respect to Richmond Park. For many years there had been a question raised with regard to the opening of Roehampton Gate to the public, and he wished to know if anything recently had occurred in regard to it? Richmond Park was one of the free open spaces in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, and it was highly desirable that the inhabitants of London should have free access to it, and Roehampton Gate was the nearest approach to it. He believed that the property leading to that Gate was owned by a lady; and although the Park itself was open the approach to it in that direction was not. He believed that some negotiations had been going on with the lady who owned the land, with a view of securing free admission to the Park by way of this Gate. At present the House voted money for keeping up the Roehampton Gate; but it was found that two authorities were jointly interested in opening up the approach, and that neither of them—neither the Ranger nor the lady who owned this property—had any right of entrance or exit from the Park whatever except by permission of the other. The public had no means whatever of proceeding to the Park by Roehampton Gate except through the land belonging to this lady, and the lady herself had no right or control over the Park itself. All that was wanted was an arrangement by which the public could obtain access to the Park by means of Roehampton Gate. He understood that the land belonging to this lady could be bought for a reasonable sum; but it could only be bought by means of an arrangement made through the First Commissioner of Works. He believed if any additional sum were asked for the land beyond the actual value which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests placed upon it the Metropolis would be prepared to pay it; but they were unable to take any steps in the matter except by means of an arrangement with the First Commissioner of Works. As a matter of public convenience, it was highly desirable that this access should be rendered free. At present the public, instead of driving directly into the Park by way of Roehampton Gate, were obliged to go round for a distance of two miles beyond Roehampton Gate. It would really be of great advantage to the Metropolis to have this gate thrown open, so that the inhabitants of London might be able, for purposes of recreation and enjoyment, to make free use of Richmond Park. He believed that cabs were admitted into the Park itself; but that they were unable to obtain admittance to it by means of Roehampton Gate. In the East End of London, Epping Forest had been preserved by the action of the Corporation; and he thought that something should be done in regard to Richmond Park, so as to give the public at the West End of London the freest and easiest access to it. It would, how- ever, be impossible to do this until Roehampton Gate was made available.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to ask a question upon this point, but he is not entitled to debate it, because it has reference to another part of the Vote already disposed of.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he would confine himself to asking a question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works—namely, whether he did not consider that it would be of the greatest advantage to the inhabitants of the Metropolis that Roehampton Gate should be opened to the public, that being the nearest means of access to the Park? If it were opened up it would be of great advantage to large masses of the people who wished to visit the Park. ["Order!"]

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know if it was not competent for the hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote in order to place himself in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can move the reduction of the entire Vote; but by the Rules of the House he would not be entitled to enter into a debate upon this particular item at this moment.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

asked whether, if he moved the reduction of the Vote, he would not be in Order in discussing this matter?

THE CHAIRMAN

No.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said that, under those circumstances, he would confine himself to the question whether any negotiations had recently taken place with the view of securing the opening of Roehampton Gate to the public; and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider it necessary to make inquiry whether some arrangement might be effected by the payment of a small sum of money for the purchase of the land from the lady who now owned it, such payment to be recouped by an arrangement with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the object being to secure for the inhabitants of the Metropolis this easiest way of access to Richmond Park?

MR. LABOUCHERE

wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, whether it was not possible to put an end to the preserva- tion of game in Richmond Park, so that the public might not be kept out of the enjoyment of one-third of a Park for which they paid largely, in order that a very few individuals might amuse themselves by wandering about and shooting rabbits? ["Oh!"] He was simply asking a question whether this fact was not known to the right hon. Gentleman; and whether, if it was known to him, he would not take some means to see that the public, who paid largely towards the expense of keeping this Park in order, should not be deprived of the enjoyment of a considerable portion of it, in order that two or three individuals might have an opportunity of amusing themselves?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

desired to say, in answer to the first question which had been put to him, that he thought it would be of great advantage to the public if Roehampton Gate were opened. The difficulty was that the approach to that Gate was private property. It belonged to a lady who was willing to sell it under certain conditions; but he could not hold out any hope to 'the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that the Treasury would advance the sum of money that would be necessary to pay for its purchase. Neither did he see any indication that the Metropolitan Board of Works, or any private persons, were ready to come forward and to advance the money. Whenever they did so he should be glad to enter into negotiations with this lady for the purchase of the property in question. At the same time, he could not hold out any hope that any Vote of money would be submitted to the House for the purpose; and he did not think that it was a matter which ought to fall upon the Public Exchequer. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he could only say that the Park had been vested in the First Commissioner of Works for the purpose of a Park, and for the benefit of the public; but there was a distinct reservation of all the rights of the Crown, and among those rights was the right of sporting, which right Her Majesty had made over to the Duke of Cambridge, and the Government had no power of diminishing that right in any way.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that complaints had been made of the closing of the footway across St. James's Park at an early hour in the evening, He wished to know if any change had been made in that respect?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

believed that the footway across the bridge was to be kept open all night.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider the propriety of keeping open the broad path across Kensington Gardens until a later hour than at present. It was now closed at a very early hour, and considerable inconvenience was occasioned in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to keep it open later, and he (Mr. Ritchie) wished to know if steps had been taken to give effect to that promise?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

replied in the affirmative.

MR. RAIKES

wished to say a word in regard to Roehampton Gate. Did the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to spend £2,000 a-year for the maintenance of the Park, and refuse to give the small sum that would be necessary in order to render it accessible to the people of London? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not disposed to recommend a Vote, or any outlay of money, for the purpose of securing that access, which would be most convenient.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that no doubt the opening of Roehampton Gate would be convenient for the people of the neighbourhood who lived within easy reach of Richmond Park; but it certainly appeared to him that the expense of obtaining the opening up of this access to the Park ought to fall upon the inhabitants who would be benefited by it, and not upon the public generally.

MR. TOMLINSON

wished to ask a question about the Green Park, which had been raised last year. There had been a Vote for new railings at the Hyde Park Corner of the Green Park. The new railings were much more pretentious than the old ones; and he wished to know whether it was intended to continue the new form of railing, or whether it was intended to leave the railing in its present unsightly condition?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had not included in the Estimates any sum for such a purpose this year; but, of course, it might be a question for consideration in the future.

MR. MOLLOY

asked if the First Commissioner of Works would state now how many acres of the enclosed land had been opened to the public in Regent's Park, and whether the total quantity which it had been decided to give up to the public would, when opened, be free of access to everybody? He believed that three or four weeks ago a portion of the land given to the public had been again enclosed.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he thought the area thrown open to the public in Regent's Park was about 20 acres. The whole of it was opened on the 1st of March of the present year.

MR. MOLLOY

The whole of it?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Yes; the whole of it.

MR. LABOUCHERE

begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £7,161 in reference to Victoria Park. He would also move the reduction of the Vote by the items asked for in reference to Battersea Park, and Kennington Park.

MR. RITCHIE

asked if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in moving to reduce a Vote which had already been passed, in as much as it was antecedent to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

, upon that point of Order, and in reference to a previous ruling of the Chair, wished to point out that the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was for £2,000 in connection with Hyde Park Corner which appeared in Sub-head E; but later on in the Vote, in Sub-heads G. H. and T., there were the sums mentioned by the hon. Member?

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by any sum short of the aggregate amount; but in moving the reduction of the Vote by a specific item which appears in the Vote later than the items included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) he would not be in Order.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that these points of Order were of great importance. If a ruling of this nature were given somewhat hastily, it might be found that the discussion of the Votes in Committee would be practically futile, The reduction moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), in reference to the sum of £2,000 which came under Sub-head E, related to certain works in Hyde Park; but in Subhead F there was a further sum for the maintenance of that Park, and, in point of fact, the question of maintenance in connection with the different Parks ran all through the Vote; and therefore he thought, with all due respect to the ruling of the Chair, that it was competent for any hon. Member to move any reduction covered by the different subheads which came after Sub-head E.

THE CHAIRMAN

As to giving the ruling hasily, it was given in accordance with the ancient Rules of the House. The hon. Member has specified certain items relating to public Parks which are antecedent to the Vote taken upon the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). It would, therefore, be out of Order to move that reduction.

MR. RITCHIE

said, his remarks related to Battersea Park.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be out of Order to propose a reduction of the Vote upon an item included in it for Battersea Park.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that, under those circumstances, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £7,161 for the expenditure in connection with Victoria Park. This was one of the Parks of London which was kept up at the expense of the whole country. As by the ruling of the Chair the amount voted for other Parks might not be touched, there was a still stronger reason than there had been before why they should not vote the sum now asked for for this Park. He wished to point out that this was a sum of money thrown upon the country for the expense of Parks in London, exclusive of Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, which might be regarded as National Parks. He believed the country had already spent upon Battersea Park, in the formation of the Park and the River Embankment, something like £21,000, and there would also be an item, he imagined, for a new bridge, to give access to the enclosed land recently opened to the public in Regent's Park. Now, the Metropolis was a very wealthy place, and ought to pay for its own Parks. No doubt, he would be told by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that these Parks belonged to the country, and ought to be paid for by the country rather than by the Metropolis, because they were in a different position from any of the country Parks. In the country the inhabitants formed their own Parks, and supplied the money necessary to maintain them; and why should not the Londoners, who were better able to afford the outlay, do the same? The constituency he represented (Northampton) had decided upon having a Park; but no proposal was made that the public should pay for it. If such a proposal were made, he was satisfied that not a voice would be raised in that House in favour of it. He ventured to ask, then, why the country should be called upon to pay for the Parks in London?

MR. COURTNEY

They are all in the London Government Bill.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was not quite certain that that Bill would pass this Session. He thought it was likely to meet with such an amount of obstruction that its passing was very questionable. The present bird in the hand was worth very many London Bills in the bush; and he objected to any proposal for making a present of £7,000 to the City of London, on the chance that they might be able to pass the Municipal Bill this year. It would be far better to approach the consideration of that Bill with a solemn declaration on the part of the House that, whether the Bill passed or not, London should be called upon to pay for its own Parks.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £7,161 for the Victoria Park be omitted from the proposed Vote."— (Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he ventured to hope that the hon. Member would not consider it necessary to divide the Committee upon his Amendment. The question was dealt with in the London Government Bill, and it was proposed to hand over this Park to the New Government of London. It would be practically impossible to give up these Parks on the part of the Government without an Act of Parliament, and even an Act of Parliament would be necessary to enable them to be handed over to the New Government of London. He could hardly suppose that the hon. Member wished to see these Parks thrown into a state of neglect and disorder. All the three Parks which had been mentioned would be provided for in the London Government Bill.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to take over these Parks by Act of Parliament in the same way as Leicester Square.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the London Government Bill would enable them to be handed over to the New Local Government of London. There was already a Bill for that purpose on the Table of the House, and the passing of that Bill in the present year was only a question of time. Under these circumstances, it would simply be a waste of time to discuss the matter.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he was glad that a question had been put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman that one of the penalties which London would have to pay for the London Government Bill was £26,000 a-year for the keeping up of these Parks. That, he believed, was not the only penalty which the City of London would have to pay if that Bill passed. He therefore thought they were indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having brought the question forward at this time. Probably he might bring forward further questions which would tend to show the amount of benefit the Metropolis would receive from that Bill, and would show, in point of fact, a debtor as well as a creditor account. He thought the people of London would be surprised to hear that £26,000 a-year would be the first thing they would be called upon to pay, in accordance with the views Her Majesty's Government had just expressed upon the subject. He was quite sure that the inhabitants of London would protest against being burdened with the responsibility of keeping up Parks which were not for the benefit of themselves only, but for the advantage of other persons who frequented them. It was, as he had stated, one of the penalties which London would have to pay, and the neighbourhoods in which the Parks were situated would have no reason to be grateful for the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he understood that the Parks which were now enjoyed by the poorer classes of the community were to be taken out of the Estimates; while Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, which were enjoyed by the richer part of the community, would be kept in. He could not conceive anything more invidious than a proposal of that kind; and he was satisfied that many people in the East End of London would look with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction on any proposal to take the Parks out of the Imperial taxation for the purpose of throwing them upon the ratepayers of London. Whatever might be proposed by the London Government Bill would be dealt with when that Bill came on properly for discussion. He understood it was proposed that Victoria Park and other Parks were to be kept up by the Metropolis; while Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park were to be maintained out of the Imperial Exchequer. [Mr. COURTNEY: They are Royal Parks.] He did not understand the distinction, and he thought it would be regarded as an invidious one. As far as the East End of London was concerned, the people would look with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and jealousy on the enormous amounts of money that were expended in the West End of London, in the neighbourhood of Kensington, while the East End found no similar favour. Even when they asked for such a paltry expenditure as was involved in the present Vote, they were told that in future it would have to be borne by the people of London themselves. If this course was to be followed, of throwing upon the ratepayers of London the cost of maintaining the Parks of the poor, while those of the rich were kept up by the Imperial Exchequer, it would be regarded with extreme jealousy and dissatisfaction.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, which had not been answered, in reference to an item of £100 per annum to experts for naming cryptogams.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was sorry he could not give the explanation which the hon. Member asked for.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he thought the time had now arrived when Progress ought to be reported. He would, therefore, make a Motion to that effect.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. 0' Connor.)

SIR ROBERT PEEL

asked when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Report?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

On Thursday.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

Not to-morrow?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

No.

Motion agreed to.

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

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.