§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,057, 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 1886, for the Main tenance and Repair of Royal Palaces.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it was somewhat surprising that the economical section of the Radical Party was not more numerously represented in the Committee on that occasion. He was of opinion that this item for the Royal Palaces ought never to be allowed to pass through the Committee without being distinctly challenged and carefully scrutinized. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Oh!] The hon. Member for Eye interrupted him when he made that assertion. He was very much astonished that in expressing that sentiment he should have been interrupted by the hon. Member, whose earliest infancy was spent under the banner of the Stars and Stripes in a country where there were no Royal Palaces, but which found itself very well able to get on without them. With the permission of the Committee he (Mr. O'Connor) would examine the items which were included in this Vote for the Royal Palaces. The total amount of the Vote was £35,057 for 1885–6, as against £36,865 for 1884–5, showing a decrease of £1,808. He thought the decrease was entirely due to the searching examination which took place into these items last year. The principal items in the Vote were 1054 £21,907 for ordinary repairs and maintenance, against £22,219 last year; £2,010 for salaries, wages, and allowances, against £2,015 last year; £4,776 for new works and alterations, against £6,623; £2,230 for furniture and fittings, against £1,923; £2,250 for fuel, gas, and water, and one or two smaller items. In spite of there being a decrease in some of these items, he ventured to say that these were monstrously exaggerated charges; and if any hon. Member could be found who was in favour of a general reduction of charges, he would find ample justification for any course of action he might feel disposed to take on the present Vote. No man of feeling or humanity could pass through the streets of London without having his heart wrung by the wholesale misery which existed among the labouring population at the present time. Constant appeals were made for alms by men who were willing to work, but found it impossible to obtain it. But notwithstanding the existence of this widespread misery and distress, the Committee seemed to have nothing better to do than to vote £36,057 for the maintenance and repair of Royal Palaces. He found a sum for Windsor Castle of no less than £4,182 for ordinary repairs and maintenance, and another of £6,109 for Hampton Court Palace. Everywhere was to be found the same extraordinary and profuse extravagance. He should like to hear what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had to say in favour of £4,182 being spent upon Windsor Castle in ordinary repairs and maintenance. Last year the Committee, in discussing this Vote, had the advantage of the experience of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), whose absence they all regretted. The noble Lord was well qualified to speak on the subject, because there existed in the possession of his own family one of the finest Castles or Palaces in the country; and the noble Lord declared most positively that the outlay upon the Royal Palaces was incalculably and incredibly beyond all ordinary expenditure. He (Mr. O'Connor) trusted that the Vote would not be allowed to pass without further explanation, or otherwise they would encourage similar extravagant expenditure in the future. As he had said, there had been a decrease of £1,808, and 1055 although that was not a very large sum, he believed there would have been no decrease at all if it had not been for the discussion which took place upon the Vote last year.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that the other day he had addressed a Question to the Junior Lord of the Treasury with regard to some decorations at Windsor Castle, and the reply he had received was neither full nor definite, nor was it any answer whatever to the allegations he had made. He now found in the present Vote that Windsor Castle figured for upwards of £4,000 for ordinary repairs and maintenance, and he took it that the subject of his complaint was included in this Vote.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the present Vote had nothing to do with the decorations at Windsor Castle.
§ MR. BROADHURSTasked the hon. Gentleman to say what the sum of £4,182 was for?
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEFor the ordinary maintenance and repair of the exterior and interior of Windsor Castle.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the most striking point of view in which this Vote could be regarded was afforded by the Table which appeared in the Estimates at page 4. That Table divided the Royal Palaces into Palaces wholly or partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, and Palaces not in Her Majesty's occupation at all. The Committee would see that the Palaces wholly or partly occupied by Her Majesty cost the country between £15,000 and £16,000, while the Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty cost upwards of £19,000. The places in the personal occupation of Her Majesty were Buckingham Palace, the Royal Mews, Pimlico, Windsor Castle, Windsor Home Park, with Adelaide Lodge, &c, Windsor Royal Kitchen Gardens, Frogmore House and Grounds, and White Lodge, Richmond Park. Assuming that the five residences were required for the regular occupation of Her Majesty, the items of expenditure upon them were not unreasonable; but the question remained whether all the rest of the Royal Palaces, including residences for the Duchess of Cambridge and other members of the Royal Family, should be maintained at the expense of the country. Among them were Kensington Palace, Pembroke Lodge, 1056 Thatched House, East Sheen Cottage, Richmond Park, Bushy House, and Hawthorn Lodge. No explanation whatever was given of the purposes to which those residences were applied; and he thought the country acted with sufficient generosity in keeping up at great expense the Palaces that were necessary for the occupation of the Sovereign. It was rather too much to add to them a number of other residences, the public use of which was not designated. Among the items was one of £40 for an allowance to the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland for expenses attending the occupation of rooms in Holyrood Palace. Surely if the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland was allowed the use of rooms in Holyrood Palace, free of expense, it was most unreasonable that he should charge the public with his expenses while occupying them. Then, again, there was another item for a ratcatcher at Buckingham Palace. There appeared to be no ratcatcher at Kensington Palace or Windsor Castle, or even at Holyrood, which was, perhaps, the most ancient Palace of the whole. Certainly the individual was a most reasonable ratcatcher, seeing that he only charged the small sum of £8; but it was anything but reasonable to charge even this small sum to the public.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he had ventured to express his dissent from the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in the usual and Constitutional way known to that House, and for doing so he had drawn down upon himself a rebuke from the hon. Member. A great deal of the feeling expressed by certain hon. Members in regard to this Vote, and a great many of the objections raised to the Royal Palaces, were pure clap-trap. It was a cheap means of obtaining some attention and notoriety, and it never came to anything practical. The hon. Member for Galway was supposed to be connected with some of the Democrats who sat in that House, and would understand him (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) when he said that the real question at issue was the comparative cost of Royal and Democratic Governments. That was what the whole question came to. This expenditure of a few thousand pounds was not really worthy of occupying the attention of the 1057 Committee, especially when they considered that in the case of a neighbour across the Channel the expense of maintaining the Government was £40,000,000 in excess of the Expenditure of this country. If they went across the Atlantic to the United States they would find that the cost of the Civil Services was much greater than it was in this country, and that there was, in addition, gross corruption in the way in which the money was expended. It was obvious that these objections to the cost of keeping up the Royal Palaces were altogether unworthy of the House of Commons.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENwas understood to say that other hon. Members were entitled to hold opinions as well as the hon. Member.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he did not quite understand the observation of the hon. Baronet, who was generally humorous at that hour of the night. What he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) maintained was that these popularity-hunting objections to the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces were altogether unworthy of the House of Commons. On the whole, the cost of the Government of this country was very much less than that of any Republican Government that existed, and in that point of view the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces was anything but excessive. That was his justification for the slight groan with which he had received the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who began the discussion with the ordinary stock objections the Committee had so long been accustomed to hear.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he accepted the observations of the hon. Member so far as they applied to himself, and he felt that the hon. Member might have had some reason for making them. It was not, however, the first occasion upon which attention had been called to the total want of affinity between the remarks of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) and the question before the Committee. He had listened patiently to the remarks of the hon. Member, and all he had ventured to say was that other persons might have their opinions as well as the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member said that anything he (Sir Patrick 1058 O'Brien) might say at that time of night would be futile.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTNo; humorous.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that as he had caught the word it was "futile." [Cries of "No; humorous."] Well, he had nothing to say upon the point of humour; but as to the word "futile," he must remind the Committee that they were considering a Vote which involved a very large annual expenditure. The hon. Member made a statement which he said ought to impress the public. Now, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was one of the members of the public, and there were other members of the public in that House; and certainly he was never very much impressed or interested by anything the hon. Member said. The hon. Member talked about the Republic across the ocean. His own impression was that the hon. Member read all the London papers carefully every morning, and having learned his politics from them, especially in regard to Afghanistan, he presented the House with a hashed up résumé of them every evening. But in reference to the Soudan, or Afghanistan, or anything else, the hon. Member was really more ignorant than nine out of every 10 men they might meet. Of all men who attempted to throw stones across the floor of the House the last should be those who lived in glass houses themselves—at any rate, if they were desirous of being safely preserved in such a costly arrangement. The hon. Member had alluded to the Republic across the Atlantic; but was he aware that the Democrats, who were the aristocracy of America, were now ruling there, and not the Republicans? It was not necessary to reply further to the hon. Member, because the laugh of the House was against him on every occasion, and ought to convince him of the real estimation in which he was held. That was the only reply he considered it worth while to make.
§ MR. BIGGARregretted that no Member of the Government had evinced any disposition to reply to the statements which had been made by several hon. Members in regard to this Vote. He had no wish to make any reference to the expenditure upon the Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, or partly in her occupation, nor would he reply to the observations of the hon. Member 1059 for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) as to Republican Governments and their economy or otherwise; but there was an item in the sum set down for Hampton Court Palace upon which he certainly desired some explanation. Hampton Court Palace was a substantial old building, and he did not see why any money should be expended upon it for new buildings. In point of fact, the expenditure of money upon repairing and keeping up the Palace could scarcely be justified at all, because the apartments in it were allotted free of rent to the persons who occupied them, and the sum of £1,600 charged for new works and alterations certainly appeared to be excessive. Then, again, there was an item of £434 for Hampton Court Stud House; and he certainly should divide the Committee against it, because he regarded any expenditure for keeping up a breeding stud at Hampton Court as a most outrageous waste of the public money, which could not be justified at all. The horses bred there were scarcely fit for Hansom cab horses, and the Government were not only expending a lot of money there, but they were degenerating the breed of horses in a most mischievous manner, and setting a very bad example. He proposed, in the first instance, to await an explanation in regard to the Hampton Court Stud House before moving the rejection of that item of the Vote. He was certainly curious to learn what the explanation would be.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that, although a general attack had been made upon the Vote, it showed altogether a decrease of more than £1,800 upon the Vote of last year, and a decrease of more than £4,000 upon the Vote of the preceding year. There was, therefore, on the whole, a satisfactory decrease. Most of these Palaces, as everybody knew, were exceedingly old, and old buildings required constant repair, and consequently a considerable outlay of money. In the case of Windsor Castle, for instance, it would be found that there was an item for re-facing the stonework of the outer walls of the Curfew Tower, and there was constantly work of that description going on. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had called attention to Hampton Court Palace. Now, Hampton Court Palace substantially existed for the benefit of 1060 the people; and if the hon. Member would go down there he would not only enjoy himself, but would see thousands of other people enjoying themselves. But Hampton Court Palace was a very old building, and in order to keep it up properly it was necessary to undertake frequent repairs; and, owing to the great value of the furniture and the pictures, it was necessary to employ a large staff of attendants. The hon. Member for Cavan also objected to the sum put down for the Stud House. He thought the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension in regard to that item. It was for the maintenance of the building itself, and there was no charge for the horses in the Vote. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had called attention to a charge of £40 in the shape of an allowance to the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland in connection with the occupation of rooms in Holyrood Palace. He (Mr. H. Gladstone) was of opinion that that was a very fair charge to be placed upon the Votes, because for 10 days or a fortnight the High Commissioner was required to reside at Holyrood as the Representative of Her Majesty, during which time it was his duty to entertain large numbers of people, and so to incur a very considerable expense. So far as the ratcatcher was concerned, he presumed that when persons of that character were employed even in Royal Palaces it was necessary to pay them for their services.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHasked what was the amount of the salary paid to the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, that it became necessary to supplement it by the sum of £40 for the expenses attending his occupation of apartments in one of the Royal Palaces?
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he believed the High Commissioner's salary was £2,000 a-year.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the explanation of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone) in reference to the expenditure upon Hampton Court Palace was altogether unsatisfactory. There was a large expenditure provided for in the shape of new works; and he was of opinion that no old building should require to be patched up with new work, and that, as a matter of fact, new work, under such circumstances, was positively mischievous, and only tended to spoil the appearance of the Palace. Whoever 1061 the Commissioner of the Board of Works might be, it was evident that he failed to perform his duty when he allowed expenditure of this kind to be incurred. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gladstone) told the Committee that the item of £434 for the Stud House at Hampton Court included nothing for the horses; but surely the Stud House itself was for the horses, and any expenditure upon it was for the horses.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEWhat I said was that no money was included in this Vote for the horses themselves.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was quite aware that the horses were merely ornamental goods; but the Stud House was rendered necessary simply on account of the breeding of horses at Hampton Court—and a very poor class of horses they were, too. He would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £434, the item for Hampton Court Stud House.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,623, 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 1886, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes £3; Noes 60: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 87.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £1,120, Marlborough House.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £91,369, 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 1886, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
§ MR. BIGGARasked for explanations with regard to the increase of the charge on account of Bushy Park and Hampton Court Gardens; also with regard to the charge for Holyrood Palace and Edinburgh Park. It was, in his opinion, a great question whether any expenditure on Holyrood Palace ought to be incurred at all. Although there was a considerable expenditure for keeping the public Parks in London in order, he was not aware that it was the practice to give large sums of money for that purpose in Provincial towns. On the whole, 1062 he thought the expenditure on these public Gardens was absolutely unreasonable and extravagant.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he might, perhaps, be in Order in referring upon this Vote to a question which he had intended to raise upon the last. Some years ago he had visited Hampton Court, and found that on that particular day the Palace was shut up; in consequence of that he suggested to his friend, Mr. Gerard Noel, then Chief Commissioner of Works, that a notice might be set up, and information otherwise given to the public as to the days on which the Palace was closed. He desired to call the attention of the First Commissioner on the present occasion to the circumstance, with the view of his making some arrangements for giving notice of the days when the places were open, which would prevent persons going down to those Royal Palaces and Parks and finding them closed when they arrived there.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that when the Vote was taken last year for improvements at Hyde Park Corner, it was expressly stated that it was a contribution on account of such improvements; and they were told that the Prince of Wales's Committee was engaged in collecting a further sum of money for that purpose. He would be glad to know whether that Committee had succeeded in collecting the sum that was expected, because the House voted the £6,000 upon the distinct understanding that a much larger sum would be provided by public subscription.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) replied to hon. Members who had addressed the Committee on the Vote, he thought it highly desirable that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), or, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman at his side, would state who was responsible for what were, by a misnomer, in his opinion, called the improvements at Hyde Park Corner. It was a misnomer, at any rate, in an artistic sense, so far as the Triumphal Arch was concerned, which by being placed sideways in a position it was never intended to occupy would be altogether an offensive object. Now, the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Arnold) had frequently 1063 raised this question; and he thought it desirable that some statement should be made to the Committee, and go forth to the public, as to what was actually going to be done, and who was to find the money for those alterations. They had been told last year that a subscription had been set on foot by a number of distinguished individuals; but he believed that a considerable number of the subscriptions expected had not been forthcoming, and it seemed probable that Hyde Park Corner would be left as it was at present. There was another point in connection with this subject which he would venture to place before the Treasury Bench. They were told last year that £6,000 was to be devoted to a statue which he understood was being now made by Mr. Boehm, to be erected at Hyde Park Corner, the old statue having been conveyed to Alder-shot. He would like to hear from the present Representative of the Department or his Predecessor what was to be done with regard to the pedestal. Anyone who had paid the slightest attention to the works of the Old Masters, and the statues which they had erected, whether equestrian or otherwise, must be a ware that they attached as much importance to the pedestal as to the statue itself. As an example, he would refer to the statue at Charing Cross—a statue placed upon a pedestal which was designed with the greatest possible care by Sir Christopher Wren; and although in his book upon the statues of the Metropolis the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not mentioned the fact, if he had further prosecuted his investigations he would have found that so careful was Sir Christopher Wren about the pedestal that he made no less than four or five designs, which might now be seen at Oxford. He desired to impress upon the Committee the absolute necessity of this point being attended to, because otherwise there could be no doubt that unless it was placed upon a suitable pedestal the effect of the statue would be thrown away. He would like to know whether any plan had been adopted, or whether counsel had been taken with regard to the pedestal, and whether any sculptor of recognized ability had been applied to? He had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the importance of employing an efficient architect for the purpose of erecting the 1064 pedestal, and he would be glad to hear whether anything had been done with regard to that matter. Finally, he would ask whether the alterations or so-called improvements at this"junction"—whatever it might be termed—were to be carried out under the original plan or otherwise?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken always disclaimed artistic experience and knowledge, they on that side of the House were prepared to credit him with a great deal in both respects. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was quite ready to bear his share of responsibility for the improvements at Hyde Park Corner. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had asked him what had been done in the matter of the subscriptions towards the cost of those improvements. His Royal Highness had collected a large sum of money—he believed the amount was between £14,000 and £15,000—and as soon as the models were completed by Mr. Boehm it would be determined in what way the money collected by His Royal Highness would be expended. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had asked about the pedestal for the statue. He had no doubt that Mr. Boehm was perfectly cognizant of the importance of having a suitable pedestal to the statue. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman dissented; but it should be remembered that Mr. Boehm was a great artist, and there was, therefore, no doubt that he would deal with his subject in a suitable manner.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman challenged him to speak of a particular case, he would refer him to the pedestal of the statue of Lord Lawrence, at the lower part of Portland Place, which after it was set up had to be taken down, and another substituted for it. With regard to the practice of the Old Masters, he said that the pedestal was as much a part of the work of the Old Masters as one thing could be of another. He was glad of having had the opportunity of mentioning this subject to the Committee; and he hoped that as Mr. Boehm was charged with the responsibility for the statue at Hyde Park Corner, it 1065 would not in any way resemble that which was set up in Portland Place.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out that Mr. Boehm himself was dissatisfied with the statue, and had very generously removed it.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the £14,000 collected by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as a very large sum: but he had last year mentioned that it was expected that £40,000 would be raised.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREI intended to convey to the Committee that that sum might possibly be raised.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked who was responsible for the cutting down of the trees at Hyde Park Corner?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREThey were removed with my authority. It was impossible to leave them there consistently with the improvements to be effected.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, the charge this year for the maintenance of St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks amounted to the enormous sum of £37,118, and was an increase over the amount voted last year. No doubt their Parks were very well kept; but he contended that the expenses ought to be kept down rather than increased. He found there was an increase this year over last year of £1,023. The Parks should be properly kept up; but he considered that they cost the country too much money. Parliament ought to refuse the continual excess one year over another; and therefore he begged to move that the sum of £1,023 be deducted from the Vote, that being the amount of the increase over the sum voted last year for the maintenance of St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £90,346, 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 1886, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that, in answer to his hon. Friend, he would point out that the increase he complained of was mainly owing to the laying of "the asphalte footpath between the Duke of York's Steps and Storey's Gate." That footpath was made chiefly on the strong recommen- 1066 dation of Members of Parliament; and, if he remembered rightly, among those Members was the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dillwyn's) Friend, the hon. Member for Northampton, (Mr. Labouchere). He (Mr. H. Gladstone) might also mention that new railings were being put up round the Green Park; but no money would be charged for the work. It was expected that the new railings could be paid for out of the Vote of last year.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he did not complain of the total expenditure upon the London Parks; but he did protest that the charge did not fall upon London exclusively. He did not propose to divide the Committee upon the question; but he wished to give the Government, through the hon. Gentleman who represented in that House the Board of Works (Mr. H. Gladstone), a word of warning. He (Mr. Illingworth) and others hoped there was a time coming when a change in regard to the London Parks would be seriously considered by the Government. They hoped that to the privileges which would be conferred on the Metropolis by the proposed London Municipal Reform Bill this very proper one would be added—namely, that London should pay for its own Parks. He knew it was contended that Provincial people came up to London and enjoyed the Parks; but he considered that the Provincial who came to London paid for his visit heavily in many ways. Now, there were many towns in England which, in proportion to their population and wealth, had expended as much upon their Parks and playgrounds for the inhabitants as had been expended upon the Parks of London. It wa3 but reasonable that the Metropolis should pay for keeping up its own grounds. Of course, he did not complain of the annual expenditure upon the Parks; but he thought he was entitled to protest against the continuance of the present system. He anticipated that in the new Parliament a very much stronger feeling would be expressed on this point, so far as Provincials were concerned, than had hitherto been expressed; and more than that, he ventured to think that when the working classes of London were adequately represented, it would be found that they would not be so mean as to ask those who lived in the Provinces to pay for privileges London people enjoyed.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there were two questions he desired to ask upon this Vote. He noticed an item of £250 "for planting trees in lieu of others dead and decayed (continuance of work)"in Richmond Park. Was the work to go on from year to year, or would it only be confined to the present year? If it was to go on, how long was it likely to continue? His other question related to the Gardens at Kew. There was a charge made "for payments to experts for naming cryptogams." It seemed to him very curious that in such a well-arranged establishment for botanical instruction as Kew Gardens the services of persons who did not belong to the establishment should be required.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tomlinson) he had to say that he believed the work of planting new trees in Richmond Park would go on from year to year. As to the second question, he did not think there was any room for complaint on the score of extravagance. The examination of cryptogams required to be made by very skilled men—men of very superior knowledge. It was very probable that few Members of the Committee knew exactly what cryptogams were. For the information of hon. Gentlemen, he might say that cryptogams were a class of plants whose stamens and pistils were not distinctly visible, and they included ferns, mosses, seaweeds, and mushrooms.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) did not speak earlier in the evening, because in that case there would have been some chance of his remarks being reported in the newspapers. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) hoped it might happen that the hon. Gentleman's views would be set before the public, because he wished the inhabitants of the Metropolis, who, under the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill now passing through the House, were to receive a considerable addition to their Representatives, to note the attempt made by an eminent Member of the Liberal Party to fix upon them, through this Vote, increased burdens. In the matter of the Parks, the Metropolis only received justice, and nothing more than justice; and, therefore, he 'Mr. R. N. Fowler) felt bound, 1068 as the Representative of a Metropolitan constituency, to enter his protest against the view of the hon. Member (Mr. Illingworth).
DR. CAMERONsaid, he was sorry that when the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. H. Gladstone) made his explanation about cryptogams he did not say a word with reference to the question brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). The maintenance of the London Parks was a very important question, and he was glad his hon. Friend had introduced the question. He was, however, equally glad that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to divide the Committee, because he (Dr. Cameron) believed the Government were thoroughly pledged to deal with the matter. If they wanted any evidence of that, he thought they had it in the fact of the accession to the Government of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He believed that hon. Gentleman had been the cause of the shifting of the incidence of taxation for the Metropolitan Police Courts, and he was quite certain that the promise of the Government—[A laugh.] Hon. Members seemed to think there was nothing in a Government promise. He and his hon. Friends who sat below the Gangway had faith in the Government, and they regarded a promise of the Government as something that it was intended to fulfil. Anyhow, he was quite certain that if the Government did not fulfil their tacit pledge upon the question of the London Parks, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would resign.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not wish for a moment to imply that the charge for the naming of cryptogams was excessive. What he wished to ask, however, was whether the experts were persons who were outside the staff of the Kew Gardens? It appeared to him that the Superintendent of the Gardens ought to have on his staff a person capable of making these examinations.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEremarked that the expert was a specialist in the Department of Kew. He (Mr. H. Gladstone) did not reply to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), 1069 because it had been brought up on this Vote year after year, and the hon. Gentleman said he did not mean to divide the Committee. Hon. Members were well aware that it was proposed in the Government Bill for the Municipal Reform of London to hand the charge of the Parks over to the Metropolis. ["Not the Royal Parks."] All but the Royal Parks. The Government had every expectation of having an opportunity for the introduction of the Bill next year.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYdoubted very much whether there was any widespread feeling in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). He believed that, as a matter of fact, the people in the Provinces, so long as the thing was well done, liked to feel that they paid for it. He wished, however, to bring the attention of the Committee down to a very much smaller matter—to ask his hon. Friend the Representative of the Office of Works (Mr. H. Gladstone) whether something more could not be done to render Kew Gardens not only a scientific, but an agreeable place of popular resort? The Gardens ought to be made a place where people could sit down as well as walk about. He went there a few years ago, and he noticed that very few seats were provided. He trusted the Office of Works would see their way to an improvement in that respect.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gladstone) replied, he would like to support the request made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), with respect to Kew Gardens. He (Mr. Magniac) went to Kew once, and he found that seats were very much required. Besides, the climate of their country was such that they must be dependent upon shelter of some kind. It was very sad indeed to see the people in their best clothes flocking under the trees at Kew, endeavouring to obtain shelter from the weather. This was a matter which required to be taken up by someone outside the staff of Kew Gardens. There was another point upon which he wished to make an inquiry. Piccadilly, undoubtedly, was one of the finest streets in the world; but the upper end was far too narrow for the traffic. By extending the railings some feet into the Park—up to the 1070 trees—Piccadilly would be made the most splendid esplanade in any city of the world. The expense involved in the alteration would not be more than a mere trifle. He hoped something would be done to effect the improvement he had indicated.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that a large sum of money was voted many years ago for Battersea Park, and the House was told that the Park would be more than self-supporting. They were told that a large amount of land would be built upon, and, in short, that the arrangements would be of such a character that instead of the Park being a charge on the public finances it would be actually remunerative. He would like to know how far, after 25 years' interval, that view had been carried out?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was, perhaps, as well that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the Amendment now under consideration—namely, the very peculiar and strange Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). During the few years he had been a Member of the House, he had noticed that the peculiarity of Amendments proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) was that they never had the slightest reference to the subject it was intended they should refer to. It was the easiest and yet the clumsiest thing in the world to look at two items, the one in the Estimates of last year and the other in the Estimates of this year, to see whether there was any excess, and if there was any excess to move, without rhyme or reason, to disallow it. A little care ought to be exercised in scrutinizing the Estimates, because an excess might arise in a perfectly legitimate and proper way. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillwyn) had looked at the explanation given under "E" he would have seen two items there, of neither of which he had expressed disapprobation. If the hon. Gentleman had said he disapproved of the asphalte footpath between the Duke of York's Steps and Storey's Gate, and given a good reason for his disapprobation, he (Mr. Warton) could have understood his wish to reduce the Vote by £1,000, the charge for that footpath. If the hon. Gentleman thought it wrong to have a statue of the Duke of Wellington, he (Mr. Warton) could Lave under- 1071 stood him moving to reduce the Vote by £2,000, the amount of Her Majesty's Government's contribution towards that statue. The hon. Gentleman, however, had simply fixed upon the excess between the Estimate of this year and that of last year, and moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of that excess. He was bound to say the hon. Gentleman gained a reputation for economy in a very cheap way. He (Mr. Warton) was not a blind economist, because he could conceive a reason for an increase of expenditure. It was the simplest thing imaginable to apply the rule which the hon. Gentleman had applied to this Vote to all the Votes, and thus move to reduce the Estimates by hundreds of thousands of pounds. He (Mr. Warton) considered that a most insane Amendment; and, therefore, he should record his vote against it.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would take care that representations on the subject raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) were made to the authorities at Kew. He was not sure, however, that it would be possible to put up shelters as suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac); indeed, he failed to see why people should be sheltered more at Kew than at Hyde Park. New railings had just been put up in Piccadilly, and the improvement suggested by his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) would involve such a very large expenditure of money that he did not think the House would be inclined to sanction it. In answer to the question concerning Batter-sea Park, put to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), he had to say that £ 100,000 had been repaid with interest out of the proceeds of the sale of surplus lands. In 1880 the estimated value of the remaining surplus lands more than covered the remaining moiety of the principal of the debt—namely, £115,000.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he considered the expenditure upon the Parks was already very large; and, therefore, he should divide the Committee against any increase. He did not think the explanation given by his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Gladstone) respecting the as-phalte footpath from the Duke of York's Steps to Storey's Gate was at all satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman had said 1072 the footpath was made at the request of one Member of Parliament. He (Mr. Dillwyn) demurred to that. If large sums were expended they should be expended upon the responsibility of the Government, and not upon the request of any one Member of Parliament.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 18 Noes 57: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ MR. CAUSTONasked if the next Vote would be taken on the day Parliament assembled after the Easter Holidays. The Vote included a sum for the restoration of Westminster Hall, and he had some observations to offer on that subject.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Vote would not be taken on the 9th of April.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it would be convenient to Members to know what Votes it was proposed to take upon the day Parliament re-assembled.
§ MR. HIBBERTAll the other Votes that it is possible to take.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday 9th April.
§ Committee to sit again upon Thursday 9 th April.