HC Deb 12 May 1887 vol 314 cc1770-98
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

Sir, in submitting this Estimate, I am sure the Committee will allow me, and, indeed, expect from me that I should take this opportunity to give some further and fuller particulars of the services for which this £17,000 is asked than would have been possible to exhibit on the face of such a formal document as this. It is not necessary for mo, and indeed it would be impertinent on my part, on this occasion, to dwell on the deep and respectful sympathy which we all feel for the desire which Her Majesty has expressed to signalize this Jubilee year of her reign by offering solemn and public thanksgiving for the prosperity and happiness with which Providence has blessed her and her people during 50 years of her life and of her rule. I am also sure that all will agree with me that it is right and fitting that this great National Thanksgiving should be made in Westminster Abbey, where Her Majesty and all her Predecessors for well nigh 600 years have been crowned as Sovereigns of England. Sir, I do not think it necessary to say more on that subject, for I hope and believe, indeed I am confident, that upon it there will be an absolute unanimity of feeling amongst all the Members of this House. But I am very glad of this opportunity of explaining the nature of the preparations which it will fall to my duty, in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain, to make on this occasion—and more especially as I know that some misapprehension prevails amongst Members of this House, and, indeed, amongst some members of the public out-of-doors, with reference to the objects to which this Vote of £17,000 is to be applied. I think if the Committee will allow me to occupy its attention for a very few moments, that misapprehension I shall be easily able to dispel. Sir, the object of this Estimate is perfectly truly described as "for the preparation of Westminster Abbey," for this ceremony and nothing else. The necessity for this Vote of £17,000 springs from the simple fact that it takes a little money to make such arrangements as will enable that Abbey to contain 10,000 men in a space which usually accommodates, I suppose, about a third of that number, and especially when it is remembered that the Abbey is so full of very old sculpture and statues of priceless historical value, which might very easily be defaced, or even destroyed. Of course, if you were simply to open the doors of the Abbey and invite only the Members of the two Houses of Parliament to walk in, there would be very little expense; but it has been felt—and, I believe, the feeling will be shared universally—that on such a great and solemn and historical occasion all classes and all interests that together make up the people should, as far as possible, be represented, and that the representation should not be confined merely to the inhabitants of this country, but should also include Her Majesty's faithful subjects in the Colonies and the great dependency of India. Now, Sir, the first and principal item in this Estimate is a sum which has been estimated at £9,000 for the erection of galleries and the necessary staircases leading to them for the accommodation of this large number of people, and for the making of such structural alteration as may be necessary for providing access to all parts of the building, and for other consequential expenses. I may say that this sum of £9,000 corresponds with the sum of £10,700 which was spent in 1872, when, as I suppose, a great many Members of this House recollect, there was a Thanks giving Service at St. Paul's Cathedral for the recovery of the Prince of Wales. And before I pass away from that item, I should like to explain to the Committee exactly how we have arrived at the amount which it will be necessary to spend for this object. It was detemined, as this was so large and important an occasion, it would be well to ask several of the leading firms of the builders and contractors in London to send in tenders for the work. We invited tenders from Messrs. Holland and Hannen, Messrs. Cubitt and Co., Messrs. George Trollope and Sons, and Messrs. Mowlem and Co. These four firms, as many Members of the House are doubtless aware, are amongst the most eminent in London. They sent in their estimates as we desired, according to a schedules of prices; and, of course, the estimate which was lowest—that of Messrs. Mowlem, which was 17 per cent. lower than either of the others—was accepted. The next principal item is also necessarily a large one, and it is as near as we can calculate it, £5,600. It is for the covering of seats with calico for the convenience of those who attend the ceremony and the carpeting of the passages. I may say at once that this work will be done on the most economical basis possible. we have endeavoured to make arrangements corresponding as nearly as possible, to those carried out on the occasion of the Thanksgiving Service for the recovery of the Prince of Wales, to which I have already referred. It is not easy to make an exact estimate of this item; but I have gone into the matter very carefully, and I hope it is more likely that we shall fall short, rather than exceed the Estimate I have given, and, in that case, the money we have over will be paid back into the Treasury. These two items together of £9,000 and £5,600 will amount to £14,600. Then there is the item of £1,300 for the Dean and Chapter. I know that it has been said that the Dean and Chapter will gain considerably by this ceremony, and that part of the money given under this Vote will go into their pockets. I am glad to have this opportunity to deny that statement; of course, it is not the fact—not one penny will go into the pockets of the Dean and Chapter. The item will be paid as insurance against such injuries as may be done to the Abbey in spite of the care that will be taken. [Laughter.] Well, if hon. Members will consider that the Abbey is very full of ancient, historical, and priceless statuary and sculpture, they will see that it is absolutely impossible to say that some slight damage may not be done, although we have taken the greatest precautions against that by shielding the monuments with wood. And so there is the sum of £500 allowed as an insurance against any such structural damage as we may, in spite of all our care, inflict upon the building. We also allow a sum of £250 for musical services and a sum of £300, their loss of foes during our occupation, which fees, I believe, are usually applied in payment of the guides. Finally, there is an item of £1,100 for the necessary printing and stationary and clerical assistance in the Lord Chamberlain's Department. We have adopted that figure from the corresponding item in the expenses that were incurred in 1872 on the occasion of the Thanksgiving for the recovery of the Princes of Wales. That was the sum actually spent in 1872; and, judging from the tide of correspondence already rushing in upon the Lord Chamberlain, I should not think that this item could well be put at less. These make together the £17,000; and I may say, in concluding this portion of my statement, that I hope the necessary arrangements will be fully covered by the Estimate. I assure the Committee that no effort will be wanting on my part to secure that result. I have taken into account the expenditure which has been incurred on similar occasions, and I believe this Estimate may be relied upon as correct. There is one other subject in which I am sure the Committee will be interested. I should like to satisfy everybody as to the accommodation which we will be able to provide, and as to the persons to be invited to attend the ceremony. For instance, it has, I am aware, been a burning question with. Members of this House as to whether they will be allowed to bring their wives. Only this evening a friend of mine said to me— "If you do not make room for Members' wives—if you do not settle this point in our favour—even your own Party will vote against you.'' I said—"Yes; but if I do include Members' wives, no man of any Party will dare to vote against me." Well, I hope we shall be able to make satisfactory arrangements on this point. With regard to the accommodation, I may say that I to-day received a letter from the Lord Chamberlain, in which he says— It may be convenient for you to know the arrangements which I have been commanded to make for Her Majesty's Jubilee Thanksgiving Service in Westminster Abbey on the 21st of June. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, in my own defence, that I shall have nothing whatever to do with the giving away of seats, although applications for admission to the ceremony are falling upon me in showers. It is wished that it shall be of a thoroughly national and representative character; and I therefore propose, in the first place, to set apart the whole of the lower level of the transepts of the north and south of the Abbey for the Members of the two Houses of Parliament. I shall hope to provide here and in the Galleries above also for the wives of Members; but this must, to some extent, depend on the number of Members who express their intention to be present. Upon this, however, I propose to consult the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. I have myself no doubt at all that we shall, on this point, be able to make satisfactory arrangements, and that it will be possible to avoid giving disappointment to hon. Members. In addition to these, I shall have to provide for the Corps Diplomatique and other distinguished foreigners; for the representatives of the Army, the Reserve Forces, the Navy and Marines, and the Civil Service; for representatives of the Colonies and India, the Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriff's of counties, the Mayors of the United Kingdom, as well as the representatives of trade, commerce, and agriculture who will be invited to attend. The Church will, of course, be provided for in communication with the Dean of Westminster, in addition to the Houses of Convocation; and I am sure you will be glad to learn— This may be taken as an answer to a Question which was addressed to me the other day, and which I was only able at the time to answer in a general way— that I have already received an assurance that the various Nonconformist Bodies will wish to be represented, and that I shall not fail to reserve places for them. I quote this with pleasure, as I have said, as an answer to the Question put to me the other day— I have not forgotten that on the occasion of the Thanksgiving for the Prince of Wales's recovery representatives of the working classes were provided for, and I shall most certainly follow that precedent on this occasion. Then the Lord Chamberlain concludes— I may have omitted to enumerate some classes of Her Majesty's subjects. If I have done so, as time goes on I shall, no doubt, be reminded of them, for the innumerable applications that I daily receive show the extraordinary interest taken in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions in this interesting ceremony. I trust that you will soon be in a position to get the Vote for the preparations in the Abbey to enable me to proceed with the arrangements. I have to thank the Committee for having allowed me to make this explanation, and I now beg to move the Vote, which I trust will be passed without serious opposition.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding £17,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1SSS, for the Expenses in connection with the Celebration of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's Reign.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I hope whatever decision the Committee may come to nobody will be induced to give a vote one way or the other owing to the "wife bribe" which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not propose to discuss for a moment whether or not there ought to be a Jubilee Service. It is decided upon, and it will take place. Nor will I discuss whether it should take place at Westminster Abbey or in St. Paul's Cathedral. I can understand the sentimental feeling, though I confess I do not share in it, which gives the preference to Westminster Abbey; but the real question is what ought this Jubilee Service to cost. I hold that the scale of arrangements is ton costly, and that if it is adopted it will be open to the condemnation of being too reckless and expensive. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that there are to be a number of galleries, as I understand, throughout the Cathedral. Well, it seems to me that when you have a Cathedral with fine spaces in its interior, you really spoil its structural advantages and its proportions by erecting galleries. You are perpetrating, in point of fact, an artistic blunder. What you are really going to do is this—with the best intentions—you are going to convert the noble aisle into a species of race-course stand, under the auspices of some West End upholsterer. I do not think any hon. Gentleman will assert this is essentially a religious function; it is rather a Court function. We understand from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that positively a sum of money is to be paid over to the Dean and Chapter for what they will lose in the way of charges at services that will have to be suspended in consequence of this particular service. The arrangement is, as I have said, inartistic; but it seems to me that this expenditure is all the more objectionable, because, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, most undoubtedly the classes will be invited to the ceremony, and the masses will not. It is all very well to talk about representative Bodies, but I should like to know if one constituent happened to be hungry he would be satisfied if his representative in this House were to be given a good dinner at the public expense? the right hon. Gentleman says Members of the House of Commons may go to the Service. I doubt whether I shall go. Certainly, if I had any desire to go but was kept out I should not be satisfied if my Representative in Parliament were allowed to go. Now, we are to pay £9,000 for the erection of these high galleries, and £5,600 for cushioning the seats in the galleries. I estimated, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, that if there are 10,000 persons present, the expenditure will be at the rate of £1 14s. per head. Hon. Gentlemen know what is the average cost of seating people. The cost of seating people in a large hall or chapel—a permanent building—is £2 per head, only 6s. more than you propose for this one show. In addition to this expenditure for galleries and cushioning the seats you propose to grant £1,300 as a species of insurance—[Mr. PLUNKET: £500.]—£500. This sum is to be given to the Dean and Chapter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Abbey is filled with monuments, which are invaluable. Now, these monuments, if they are broken, cannot be replaced or mended, and the £500 will undoubtedly go into the pockets of the Dean and Chapter.

MR. PLUNKET

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not one penny will go to the Dean and Chapter. The £500 will go to the general fabric fund of the Cathedral.

MR. LABOUCHERE

If we were asked to vote something to the fabric fund of the Cathedral, I could see that reasons might be urged in favour of the proposal. But here, under the guise of voting a sum of money for this Thanksgiving Service, we are called upon to contribute a sum of £500 to the fabric fund of the Cathedral. I think we really ought to object to that. £9,000 is far too much to spend upon wood. Let hon. Gentlemen consider what can be done in the way of building for £9,000; besides, it must be remembered that in this case this sum is only for the loan of the wood. I have seen the wood that is being taken into the Cathedral. It consists of battens and pieces cut into lengths for flooring. The greater portion of it will be precisely as good when it has been used as now; and, therefore, we are practically called upon to pay £9,000 for the loan of this wood for one day. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has put out a schedule to the various builders. I do not say it has occurred in this case, but has the right hon. Gentleman not heard of builders standing in? When half-a-dozen builders are asked to tender for certain work, it is frequently the case that they agree amongst themselves not to cut each other out; and, although I say I do not know it of my own knowledge, I think there are evidences that there has been a little standing in in this case. The right hon. Gentleman has cited the case of the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's; and he seems to consider that if he can show a like expenditure previously, we ought to cordially and thankfully acknowledge that he does not propose to expend more than he ought. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, a few days ago, what was the total expenditure upon the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's, and he said that, in round figures, it was precisely the sum asked for now. One would suppose that £17,000 is the sum we are to be called upon to recognize as the par value of such Services as these. I hope we shall establish a very different precedent. I propose to reduce the amount to the sum of £2,000. I consider this is amply sufficient. It seems to me that all that is wanted in the Cathedral—for everybody knows that the Cathedral itself is one of the finest buildings in the world—is a däis for Her Majesty and those in attendance upon her, and a few special seats for the Corps Diplomatique. I have seen a good deal of these Services abroad; but I never heard of such reckless, such ridiculous expenditure as that proposed in this case. Those who will go to the Cathedral upon this occasion will not go for religious purposes, but to see and to be seen. If £17,000 is to be expended upon Jubilee festivities, it might be expended to better advantage in various other ways, because, in all these matters, the best way is that which will please the greatest number of people. I am not advocating for a moment any expenditure of this character; but we have to deal with this positive fact, that there is to be this Jubilee Service, and the real point is, what is it to cost? Now, we are frequently asked to vote money after it has been spent; we are told we must vote it. But we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he would not think of spending 1s. of this money until it has been voted. It is quite true that a large quantity of wood is being taken into the Abbey; who, I wonder, is it who is paying for it? Anyhow, we have the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would not for a moment countenance the idea of one farthing being spent before we vote the money. We are, therefore, perfectly free to say whether the money expended shall be £1,000 or £2,000, or whatever sum we think proper. Speaking broadly, I think that, considering the atrocious want of taste in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, considering that all these galleries will only be used one day, and that they will vanish like the Baseless fabric of a vision, considering the many better ways in which this money could be expended, considering the reckless extravagance which characterizes everything which the Lord Chamberlain and such people in anything they have to do with, considering that the right hon. Gentleman can offer no better reason for the expenditure of this money than that there was a like expenditure in St. Paul's, and considering that, if we do spend this money, future generations will be called upon occasionally to act similarly, we owe it, as a duty to the country and to ourselves, to protest against this expenditure Although I have moved to reduce the Vote to £2,000, I do not want to stick at £5,000 one way or the other. Some Gentlemen think I am not proposing to reduce the Vote sufficiently; others may think I am proposing to reduce it too much. What I want to do is to reduce the Vote from £17,000 to something like £2,000. Perhaps we can make a bargain with the right hon. Gentleman. If, for instance, he is prepared to accept a Motion to reduce the Vote to £3,000, I will gladly move such a Motion. All I want is that, in a matter like this, we should say to the authorities—to the Lord Chamberlain and others—"Take £2,000 or £3,000; make the best of it, and give us as good a show as you can for the money." I beg to move that this Vote be reduced to £2,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum of £2,000 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

Mr. Courtney, I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) to be distinctly of opinion that a Jubilee Service should be held in Westminster Abbey. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I am not of that opinion. I accept the fact.] At all events, he recognizes the propriety of a Jubilee Service in Westminster Abbey; but he suggests that the Jubilee Service should be held under circumstances which would render it impossible for the Representatives of the Constitution of this country to take part in it. He proposes that only the sum of £2,000 should be spent, and that the galleries which he protests against as being an evidence of want of taste, and as being destructive of the architectural beauty of the building, should not be erected. The result of that would be, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself will realize, that, instead of 10,000 persons taking part in the ceremony, it would be utterly impos- sible for more than 2,000 persons at the most to be present to do so. And therefore all the people nominated by the Lord Chamberlain as representing the several elements of the Constitution could not be present. I do not think that that is a result which will be acceptable to the House of Commons. I believe that the House of Commons desires that opportunities should be afforded to the representatives of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects to take part in a ceremony which they regard with infinite satisfaction and pleasure, as one which reflects honour upon Her Majesty, honour upon the nation over which she reigns, and in which the people desire by their Representatives to show a lively and real interest. Sir, there is a universal feeling of thankfulness and gratitude that we have been permitted to see the 50th year of a Reign during which the country has advanced in prosperity, has advanced in liberty— [''Oh, oh!" and ironical Home Rule cheers.] I am sorry to say a single word upon an occasion like this which would afford the slightest opportunity for a difference of opinion. I thought I was fairly representing the views and the feelings of the great majority of the subjects of the Queen; but I will refrain from pursuing the topic. Perhaps I may express my own feeling, and that is that it is with infinite thankfulness that I have lived to see the accomplishment of a period which I believe will be memorable in the history of this great Empire, as a period in which certainly great advance has been made in the happiness and prosperity of all classes of the inhabitants of this great Empire. It would be only fitting and proper that an opportunity should be afforded to the Representatives of these classes to take part in a ceremony which fittingly and properly marks the occasion. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has referred to a sum of £500, which is included in this Vote, as a contribution to the fabric fund. I wish it to be distinctly understood that this is given precisely in the sense in which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) has referred to it. It is impossible, notwithstanding the greatest possible care used in the introduction of the timber, that some damage should not be done to the building. Any damage to the Abbey must be repaired out of the fabric fund, and therefore we felt that a sum of £500 would not be an extensive contribution towards that fund. Not one single farthing of that money goes to any individual connected with the Abbey. If the amount is in excess of the cost of any repairs which will be necessary, the excess will simply go as a contribution towards the fund for maintaining a building which in itself is a great national monument. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) referred to the possibility of the builders standing in. The Office of Works took every precaution which it is possible to take, in order to satisfy themselves that the amount asked for was a reasonable amount. The chief portion of the £17,000 will be spent in labour, as unquestionably much labour will be expended in the fitting up of the proposed galleries. I do not think I need recommend this Vote to the House of Commons by any further remarks of my own. It has, however, been said that there is no precedent for this expenditure other than the expenditure upon the Thanksgiving Service for the recovery of the Prince of Wales. That is not the case. I find that £55,000 was spent upon the Duke of Wellington's funeral, apart altogether from the cost of the monument. If the hon. Member would trouble himself to obtain information as to the charges which are incurred in other countries under circumstances of a similar character, he would find that those charges are enormously greater than that which is now presented to the Committee. But that, after all, is not the ground on which I recommend this Vote to hon. Members. I recommend it because the country takes an interest in this ceremony, and desires that all classes of the community should be represented in the congregation. I, therefore, trust it will be voted very cordially by the Committee.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

Mr. Courtney, I do not wish to find any fault with Her Majesty's Government in having this service in Westminster Abbey, but, on looking at this Estimate, I was struck, as I feel other Members of the House must have been struck, by the large amount of money which is to be spent upon the service; indeed, I very much doubt whether we shall get value for the £17,000 proposed to be expended; £17,000 is £1 14s. for every seat, as- suming that 10,000 are provided. It has been said that a similar expenditure was incurred upon the occasion of the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's Cathedral for the recovery of the Prince of Wales; but surely hon. Members are perfectly aware that timber is down in price since that day something like 50 per cent, that working-men's wages are down 5 to 20 per cent. ["No, no!"] I am speaking of what I know. the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's was in 1872, a year in which the wages of the working classes ranged as high or higher than they have been for some years past. I will not say there has been any collusion between the builders who were invited to tender in this case; but it is well known that London tradesmen have a great propensity for "standing in" with each other. I dare say I know a great deal more about tendering than the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket). I certainly know how tendering is often done, and I cannot help thinking that we are asked to spend a great deal more than we ought to spend considering the accommodation which is to be provided. I have no doubt that the First Commissioner of Works adopted what he considered to be the best plan; but to me the course he took to obtain tenders seems most extraordinary, as I understand the process described. The Office of Works sent out a schedule of prices, and then asked the builders to say for how much below those prices they would tender. The tenders that I am in the habit of seeing go out with specifications and with quantities supplied by a professional man, and with schedules to be filled up with prices. A tenderer fills in his schedule with prices which ought to correspond with the gross amount of his contract, with such addition as he may make after by way of making the total sum even money. In this case, the schedule of prices should not have been sent out, but a blank schedule to be filled in with prices. I merely say this because I think it is our duty, however much we desire to celebrate Her Majesty's Jubilee, to endeavour to get a fair return for the taxpayers' money that we expend.

MR. AETHUE O'CONNOE (Donegal, E.)

Mr. Courtney, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) who introduced this Vote seemed to think it necessary to refer to precedent. Well, now, the precedent which occurs to my mind most readily in connection with this Jubilee celebration is the original Jubilee from which this takes its name. It takes its name from the Hebrew word Yobel, which signifies the name of a musical instrument, which every 50 years, according to the directions in Deuteronomy, was to sound throughout the land, in notes of triumph, proclaiming liberty, and in that 50th year each man of the Hebrew nation returned into his own possessions, free in the bosom of his family. If we could have such notes of jubilation in every part of the United Kingdom as those Hebrews who witnessed a Jubilee had, there might be little question about this £17,000, or seventeen times £l7,000, to manifest the gratitude of the people, for what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) calls the blessings which Providence has showered upon Her Majesty's people during the last 50 years. In Scripture it is said that the multiplication of the people is the glory of the King, and in this country the last 50 years have witnessed an immense increase of the population. In the year 1837, the population of England and Wales was over 14,000,000; now it is 27,000,000. In 1837, the population of Ireland was over 8,000,000; now, after these 50 years of blessings, we have a population of just under 5,000,000. I wonder what the author of the Jubilee of old would have thought of these signs of blessings and of happiness of the people of one portion of the United Kingdom. Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury talked about liberty, it appeared to me there was a tone of satire about his words, and he did well I think to drop the subject. But Sir, if the Jubilee is to be celebrated at all in a religious manner, if this is a just mode of celebrating it, perhaps it is just as well that Westminster Abbey should be chosen. It is a very interesting monument, full of the records of Royalty in this country. As Addison says in one of his essays in the Spectator— "When I consider in that place kings lie by those who have deposed them, I reflect with sorrow and astonishment upon the petty wrangles, quarrels, and debates of mankind." Well, Sir, we are to have this show, or this religious ceremony, in Westminster Abbey at a cost of £17,000. In the Papers which were issued to Members this morning, there were two in juxtaposition. One was the Paper which set forth the amount of money to be demanded for this particular Service, and the other was the Paper I hold in my hand. It is headed "Deaths in the Metropolitan District." It is a Return of the number of deaths in the Metropolitan District in the year 1886, upon which the Coroners juries have returned verdicts of deaths from starvation, or deaths accelerated by privation. I find that in the Central Division there were 15 deaths from starvation, in the Eastern Division there were 16 deaths, and smaller numbers in other divisions, one of the divisions being the verge of the Royal Palaces. There was no death from starvation within the verge of the Royal Palaces; those who are there are in "purple or fine linen." You are asking for a sum of £17,000, while men are dying in this same city, in the immediate neighbourhood of Westminster Abbey—dying week after week of starvation; while men, hundreds and thousands of men, are unable to obtain work, when—I am tempted to go into a number of considerations which might perhaps be looked upon as somewhat foreign to the subject-matter of this Vote. But the fact is, that there is immense distress in this country, and what do we know besides? We know that Her Majesty the Queen is probably the richest person in the world. In Eastern countries, kings barbaric scatter pearls and gold upon such an occasion as this. In this country we do not find that the donations and bounties are in the same direction. It is the poor people who are to be taxed on this occasion. Now, I want to know what earthly good this Vote will do to the poor people of Great Britain or of London. If it will do good to the people of this country, why do you not have a similar expenditure in Ireland. Why are the Irish people to be taxed to contribute towards this £17,000 you propose to expend on this ceremony? Is it because the Government feel that there is no ground for jubilation over the past 50 years in Ireland; but if that is so, why do you expect us to contribute from the Irish resources towards this expenditure? I do not know, Sir, by what process it can be arranged that the money contributed on this occasion should be drawn entirely from those who care for this kind of thing; but there is one single expedient by which the difficulty might be met without any expenditure at all from the public purse, and that is by testing the loyalty of those deeply religious people who are to be furnished with cushioned seats at two guineas a-head, charge two guineas a-head for admission. You will get the money over and over again. The snobocracy of the suburbs of London will crowd to get in and you will be able to make a profit out of the transaction. Sir, this Estimate appears to be simply ridiculous. Admitting all the other items, how on earth can even a lavish Board of Works justify the charge of £1,100 for stationery in connection with this service? Are the tickets of admission to cost 2s. a-piece? Why you can get them printed by hundreds for half the money; £1,100 for stationery appears indicative of the character of this Estimate. It is perfectly plain it is inflated, and altogether beyond the requirements of the case. And then we are told, and this struck mo as extraordinary, that the Abbey will hold, in ordinary times, 2,000 persons. You are going to put 10,000 persons in there. You will have to put them tier over tier, five deep. Now, what kind of galleries are you going to put in Westminster Abbey, by which you will increase its capacity five fold? There must be something wrong in the Estimate. I suspect the Estimate for standing or sitting accommodation is about as good as the Estimate for stationery. Under the circumstances, I shall certainly vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).

Mr. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) what he estimates will be the return in the resale of timber. He mentioned nothing about that in his statement to the Committee, and that is a matter of great importance. The timber will be almost as valuable for all practical purposes when it is taken down, as when it is first taken into the Abbey. [Laughter] Hon. Gentlemen laugh about a matter which they really do not understand. One expense in the matter of timber is the difficulty occasioned by the stacking of it for a length of time to dry. There you have a process of drying going on to a certain extent, and to that extent the timber will be more valuable when it is taken away from the Abbey. [Renewed laughter.] These are matters about which I know something. I have one other remark to make with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statements. He said that the Office of Works had invited tenders from Messrs. Holland and Hannen, Messrs. William Cubitt and Co., Messrs. George Trollope and Sons, and Messrs. Mowlem and Co. These are the four favoured firms of the Metropolis. There are at least 300 firms in the Metropolis equally as capable of doing this work as the firms mentioned. These are firms who have been in the habit of knowing each other perfectly well for a great number of years. The last mentioned, Messrs. Mowlem and Co., was only recently admitted to the inner circle of contractors, but the three other firms have been in the habit of contracting for Government work for the last 40 years at the very least. I see a right hon. Gentleman who perhaps will be able to give us some information on this point.

Mr. CUBITT (Surrey, Mid.)

If the hon. Gentleman appeals to mo, I should like to say that for the last 25 years neither I nor any relation of mine has had any part in the firm of Messrs. Cubitt and Co. I think it would be well if the hon. Gentleman would got up his facts better before he speaks.

Mr. BROADHURST

I am perfectly within my facts. the firm is carried on in the same place as of old, and it is carried on under the name of the hon. Gentleman. Well, there are at least within the Metropolis 300 firms who are equally as capable of doing work of this kind as any of the firms I have mentioned, and I am much dissatisfied myself with the exceedingly limited number of firms invited to contract for this work. Now, I have only one other remark to make, and that is in extenuation of the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease). I am not surprised that a total sum of £17,000 is considered a very large sum indeed. I, myself, frequently worship in a Dissenting Chapel which Las been recently built to accommodate from 800 to 1,000 people. The purchase of the ground and the erection of the building, which is a very handsome one indeed—there are very few buildings in London to surpass it— cost £10,000. Now, that is a permanent building, accommodating nearly 1,000 worshippers, and it is very handsomely built outside, and well fitted inside. [Laughter.] I cannot say that the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen opposite displays any extraordinary knowledge on their part of the subject. I say that this permanent building has been erected for £10,000 or less.

MR. PLUNKET

I only rise for the purpose of answering the question addressed to me by the hon. Member. I have to say that work of this kind is always done by measure, and that the estimate includes the cost of putting up and taking away.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOE (Liverpool, Scotland)

I conceive it to be my duty to join in the protest of the hon. Gentleman below mo (Mr. Labouchere) against this proposal, and I join in his protest on the merits and the principle of his proposal as well as on the details. I must say that the two right hon. Gentlemen who have proposed this Vote invited, nay, I will say, even compelled criticism from this quarter of the House. I am surprised at this in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, who is so adroit as well as so eloquent and powerful a Speaker. I am not surprised that the First Lord of the Treasury should rather damage any cause he takes up and advocates. I deny altogether that this money will be expended in the manner the right hon. Gentleman declared. I deny that this money will be spent in the interests of the masses of the people. The number who this £17,000 will accommodate clearly shows the purpose for which it will be spent. the First Commissioner of Works told us that by this expenditure 10,000 people would be seated in the Abbey. Well, he might have added an adjective —he might have said "The Upper Ten Thousand." Both the right hon. Gentlemen said that it was their desire that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects should be represented at this ceremony. Well, I wonder how many working people will be provided with places to witness the proceedings? I understand that the procession to the Abbey is to be of the shortest and most private character, so that the humble subjects of Her Majesty will not have an opportunity of even seeing her face on the day on which this celebration takes place. I do, Sir, maintain that it is trifling with the intelligence of the House to declare that accommodation for 10,000 people does not mean accommodation for 10,000 people drawn from practically one class of society, and therefore to the exclusion of the masses of the people. That is my first objection to this Vote. I say nothing with regard to the amount of the expenditure on which criticism has already been offered by some of my hon. Friends; but I feel compelled to notice the observations as to the purpose of this celebration which were offered by the two right hon. Gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works declared that this Jubilee was in celebration of the happiness and prosperity with which Providence had blessed Her Majesty and Her people. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman adheres to that as a statement of the purpose for which this celebration takes place. the other right hon. Gentleman declared that this celebration was for the purpose of manifesting thanks for the advance which had taken place in the "prosperity and liberty" of the subjects of the Queen. Now, I presume, when these two right hon. Gentlemen spoke thus, they did not mean to exclude Ireland from their consideration. I certainly believe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, of whom, as an Irishman, we are all proud, however much we may differ from him in politics, would be the last man in the world to exclude from his consideration, on an occasion like this, the thought of his own country. Therefore, I must assume, when he used the words to which I have referred, that he was of opinion that Irishmen are called upon to celebrate the Jubilee of the Queen in thanksgiving for the increase in the prosperity and the happiness of Ireland. Now, I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman altogether on that, and I commend to his consideration a few figures that are already familiar to this Committee and the country. They show what has been the advance of happiness and the advance of prosperity in Ireland during Her Majesty's reign. The figures are these—that during the 50 years of Her Majesty's reign, 3,600,000 people have been evicted; that during the period that has elapsed since Her Majesty came to the Throne, 4,186,000 people have been driven from their homes; that in the period of Her Majesty's reign 1,225,000 Irish people, men, women, and children, have been starved to death; and that in the same period of 50 years the population of Ireland has diminished from over 8,000,000 to under 5,000,000. Now, does the right hon. Gentleman, with those facts staring him in the face, really moan to ask Irishmen to go to Westminster Abbey and to offer thanks to Providence for 1,250,000 of their countrymen having been starved to death in the course of Her Majesty's reign—starved to death by the legislation of this Parliament? Why, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that on the 50th anniversary of the Queen we should have a day of humiliation and of general sorrow at the amount of destruction and desolation brought about by famine and by plague, and emigration and eviction in Ireland during this half-century, then we might not have grudged the £17,000 that is asked for. lint it really is too much for him to ask us to thank Providence for a reign which has been more disastrous, according to the most rigid statisticians of our country, than the blood-stained and horrible reign of Elizabeth. There is an observation which I must make here. The First Lord of the Treasury had what I must, for Parliamentary reasons, call the courage to declare that we should offer our thanksgiving to Providence for "the advance is liberty" of the subjects of the Queen during the 50 years of her reign; and the right hon. Gentleman says that in the short interval of time between the debate of yesterday on a drastic Coercion Bill and the debate of to-morrow on the same measure. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, wantonly insulted the Members on this side of the House when he said that. Coming fresh from a Motion gagging discussion in this House on a Bill depriving Ireland of the fundamental liberties of free subjects in a free country, he asks us to join him in thanking Providence for the advance in liberty of the subjects of the Queen. No, Sir; we shall vote against this proposal. We know we shall subject ourselves to misinterpretation in doing so. We are anxious not to do that, and we declined, many of us, to take part in the Division which took place at an earlier period of the evening on the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill, in order to avoid that misinterpretation. But when, in the face of this House, we are asked to agree to the statement that we feel we have to thank Providence for happiness and prosperity in the midst of the terrible distress and starvation which has existed, and which is now taking place, and that we feel we ought to thank Providence for advance in the liberty when we have before us the drastic proposal of the Government for the coercion of our countrymen, we say it is too much to ask of us.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Though the hour is rather late, I should like to say a word on this matter, particularly as I shall not be here to-morrow. It is always entertaining to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) wax eloquent, and when he has so splendid a theme, which he is so capable of displaying his eloquence upon, it is really refreshing to listen to him, and I do not think his worst enemy will be dissatisfied with the manner in which he acquitted himself of the pleasing duty which fell to his lot this evening. But I cannot endorse some of his eloquent expressions as to the pleasure he thinks all classes of Her Majesty's subjects feel in passing this Vote. I will not venture to set up my experience against that of the right hon. Gentleman so far as the denizens of the Strand are concerned; but I must say, if my experience of the working classes of this country counts for anything at all, they do not care twopence-halfpenny about the whole business, and so far from allowing their Representatives in this House to vote huge sums of money for this sort of thing, when it has been shown that many of their class are starving in our streets, they would not assent to anything of the kind for a moment. When we are told, in those eloquent tones and strains which are familiar to us from Court circles, that we ought to be blessing Providence for the amount of prosperity and liberty and that sort of thing which has resulted to us from 50 years of the present reign, I would venture to ask—and I think it is a question which deserves an answer—who it is we have to thank for all the prosperity which has come to this nation in the course of the last half-century? Is it the intelligence, is it the labour, is it the energy of those who are the creators of wealth in this country, or is it the do-nothing, gilded luxury of the aristocracy, commencing with the Royal House itself, and descending to the lower grades of that aristocracy who simply batten on the labour of others and do not contribute one farthing in the promotion, or in the division, or in the creation of wealth? Why, Sir, if we calculate the burden which the Royal Family has been to this country during the last 50 years we find it amounts to £24,000,000; and when we are asked to put our hands in our pockets in order to provide for the interesting amusement of a few of the select aristocracy during an hour or two on a particular day, all I can say is that until we see some attempt made to reduce the vast expenditure that is going on for needless purposes in other parts of the country, I, for one, shall not consent, without a stern protest, to waste like this going on. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite wants to know what good this Vote will do, I will tell him. It will make the people very much dissatisfied with some of the institutions we are told most to reverence and venerate, and I shall not be surprised if, in a few years, the people of this country come to the conclusion that this shall be the last Jubilee celebration they will tolerate. [Laughter.] Well, some of us, no doubt, will be old men when the next Jubilee celebration takes place; but men may come and men may go, while the nation goes on for ever, and I sincerely hope that before another century has passed this nation will be a Republic and not a Monarchy. [Cries of "Order!"] I want to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman who has to expend this money. I want to know whether provision will be made for the servants of this House to attend the ceremonial, as well as the Members of it? I think they have quite as hard if not harder work than we have, and I think they are entitled to be considered in this matter. We are told that all classes are to be represented; but we have not yet been informed how many of the poor people, how many of the starving people of this City are to be represented. Will the right hon. Gentleman go out into the highways and bye ways and collect together a few specimens of the distressed and the starving on which Her Majesty may feast her eyes on this solemn occasion? I think it would have a good effect if the Sovereign were once to be brought face to face with some of the realities of life in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting precedents when he wants some excuse for an intolerable and unnecessary Coercion Bill. "Oh!" he says, "it is founded on the precedent of those who preceded us—on precedents coming from your side of the House." Well, if those things are founded on precedents, we have a right to ask why should not those who go to enjoy the sunshine of Royal smiles on this occasion pay for the luxury? I will give the right hon. Gentleman a precedent for our contention that those who attend this ceremonial ought to be made to pay for it. There was a banquet in St. James's Palace the other day, and I believe the Representatives of our Colonies were invited; but they were invited also to pay for their dinner. I believe the attendance was rather small, much smaller than would otherwise have been the case. I think that that is a very valuable precedent; and I think it is one that ought to have been followed in this ease. I think that those who attend Westminster Abbey ought to be charged, as has been suggested this evening, £2 2s. each for their enjoyment. There is one item, or rather, there are two items in the £17,000 I want to make a remark upon. I would, first, ask does this £17,000 include the cost of removing? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say that, because this is a sort of thing on which we cannot tolerate any Supplementary Estimate on a future day. We are told that £500 is to go to insure "priceless treasures." I want to know what consolation this nation will be able to get out of that £500, if those priceless treasures are mutilated so as to be perfectly valueless? It is impossible that all this construction of galleries can take place in Westminster Abbey without considerable damage being done, or great danger of damage being done being incurred. I think this consideration alone ought to have been sufficient to prevent these ridiculous proceedings in the Abbey. There are priceless treasures in the building, besides sculpture and masonry—there are rusty swords, and helmets, and there is the stone upon which the Kings of Scotland used to be enthroned. Will these be put away during the ceremonial, or will an opportunity be given to dishonest persons, if any should find their way the Abbey, to carry away some of these treasures? I think we should have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I see there is an item of £250 for musical services. I think we have a right to ask on what kind of musical service will this money be spent? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that there should be a special Jubilee hymn on the part of Irish Members, and poems of thankful praise for their 86 Coercion Acts? We are in the habit of regarding Westminster Abbey with feelings of veneration, and even of awe and worship; but the proposed proceedings in that splendid building incline me to apply a text of Scripture—"My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves."

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I only wish to say, Sir, that I sincerely hope the Vote will be reduced by the sum suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). In case it should be, and Her Majesty's Government should find themselves in a difficulty, and not have the means at their disposition to enable them to pay for the fitting up of the Abbey, I suggest that they might not only charge for admission, but put up the seats to auction. By that means a very considerable sum would be obtained over and above that which is actually required for the purpose of fitting the Abbey for this ceremony. It would be a very good test of the loyalty of the wealthier classes of our country. For instance, the man who would pay £1,000 for a seat would be considered a thousand times more loyal than the man who only paid £1. There are plenty of people, I believe, who would be ready to do this. There is an enormous amount of wealth in this Metropolis; and the Government might apply any surplus of receipts over expenditure to another institution which has been sending round the hat for some months past—namely, the Imperial Institute.

MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

(who was received with cries of "Divide!") said: I only wish to say a very few words upon this Vote, and I assure the Committee that in what I shall say, I shall not utter one word which can possibly be construed as disrespectful of those things which hon. Members opposite me regard with veneration. Sir, it is utterly impossible for the Irish Members to allow this Vote to pass by without some kind of a protest, and without pointing out the condition in which the people of Ireland are to-day when you are asking them to contribute towards this Jubilee celebration. Now, hon. Members opposite, Members who represent rich constituencies and are rich themselves, will not perhaps so easily understand the sentiments of men, very many of whose constituencies are among the poorest people in the United Kingdom, men who are intimate with the lives and sufferings of the poor. In Ireland to-day there are somewhere near 400,000 people in the workhouses or receiving out-door relief, that is nearly one-tenth of the whole population of our country, and under those circumstances, I think it is heartless in the extreme to expect that the people of Ireland will co-operate in a celebration of this kind which is to cost so enormous a sum of money. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has entered into the details of the history of Ireland during the past 50 years, and has pointed out how miserable the condition of the people has been in the course of that time. Therefore, Sir, it is not necessary further to point out why Irishmen, without any disrespect at all to the prejudices and the opinions of hon. Members opposite, may be expected to offer some protests against this Vote, when they are told that the celebration for which it is intended is to evince the sense of the people's satisfaction at the progress which their people and their country has made. But apart from the Irish point of view, and speaking in the interests of hon. Members who wish to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee, and I do not at all feel surprised that hon. Members who represent English constituencies should have a desire to celebrate the Jubilee of their Queen's reign, which has seen such an advance in the prosperity and greatness of England, I ask hon. Members whether, if they want to get the sympathy of their own people, they do not make their celebration in some form which will commend it to the people at large. There have been very many methods proposed to celebrate the Jubilee of Her Majesty. It has been proposed to establish an Institute; it has been proposed to erect statues, and it is proposed to hold on the 21st of June a costly celebration Service in Westminister Abbey. In the face of the poverty and misery of large masses of people in England, why do you not celebrate the Jubilee of Her Majesty by some work which will have for its object the benefiting of the people of the country who most need to be benefited. I am constantly hearing outside complaints from people, who are not averse to some sort of celebration, that no method of celebrating the Jubilee takes the form of establishing, or endowing, or helping some institution which would benefit the poor people. While £17,000 is to be spenton a service in Westminster Abbey, while large sums of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds are to be spent in erecting monuments in celebration of this year, not one shilling, as far as we know, is going by way of celebrating the Jubilee to a single hospital—["Oh, oh!"]—or a single institution which has for its object the amelioration of the condition of the people. I do not deny that in certain localities, individual effort has been made to subscribe comparatively small amounts to some such institutions, but not one shilling of the money which is asked from this House, or from the people nationally, is to go to any such institution or object, and I must say, Sir, that if I were an Englishman anxious to celebrate this Jubilee in a proper manner. I would say that, instead of spending large sums of money on a ceremonial of a single day, these large sums of money should be spent in endowing deserving institutions for the purpose of helping the weak and the suffering and the poor. Apart from the Irish view of the subject, it is impossible for any person who has been through the poor parts of this city, and who has seen unfortunate men and women in bitter weather at night with little children in their arms cowering in sheds and in door ways—[Cries of "Question!"]—yes, it is a very burning question. I do not claim that hon. Members opposite who reside in the West End are so liable to see the suffering people as men who live in more humble quarters; but I say it is impos- sible to see the streets filled with these poor and miserable people, and to vote away with a light heart such large sums of money for a ceremony of a single day. This celebration is to take place in Westminster Abbey—["Hear, hear!"]—yes, it is to take place in that Abbey, because it is considered that it will in consequence be all the more acceptable in the eyes of God, who has given the Queen 50 years of prosperity and of power. I do not think that, if the object is to signify gratitude [to the Deity, you can do so better than by spending this money well in ameliorating the sufferings of the poor, instead of spending it in enabling the ladies and gentlemen of England to attend for a few hours in costly Court dresses at Westminster Abbey to celebrate the Jubilee of the Queen. I wish to say, in conclusion, that I have made these remarks in no spirit of factious opposition at all, not because I wish to be disrespectful at all to hon. Members in regard to this Bill which is really an English, and not an Irish subject.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) whether there will be any liability under this Vote beyond the £500 in case the damage is greater than that figure? [Mr. PLUNKET: No.] Well, if that be so, I must say I regard this as a most unbusiness-like transaction. It is said that the personnel of the Abbey are not to receive any pecuniary advantage from this Vote of the Committee; but, if that be so, why should not the £500 in question be reserved by the First Commissioner of Works, and if any injury is done, or very small injury, it be provided for out of the amount? There is a very important principle involved in this question. I hope that the House of Commons will not, by a side wind, consent to grant money to Westminster Abbey under its present management. Before sitting down, I must say I can easily understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have heard observations from this side of the House not at all in accordance with their feelings and expectations in regard to this Vote. There is to be a skeleton at the feast, I say, which amazed the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who ventured to put forward, in the presence of Irish Members, the opinion that this ceremony in Westminster Abbey is to take the form of thanksgiving for the increased liberty and prosperity of the people. I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) would have met the case more fairly if he had excepted Ireland from this suggestion. Sir, the opportunities have been very few in which private Members of this House have been enabled to express what they know to be the feeling of dissatisfaction and complaint in many parts of the country in regard to the celebration of the Jubilee, and hon. Gentlemen opposite must not be surprised that even at this untimely hour (2.20) this opportunity should be taken advantage of to express feelings which many people outside hold. For my own part, I could have wished that the Committee had been spared the proposal for this Vote. I shall go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), as an expression of my opinion that it would have been much fairer, under the circumstances, that a charge should have been made to that eager crowd of people who will be anxious to visit the Abbey upon the occasion of this ceremony. It would be more fitting the House of Commons should have been spared a Vote of this character, and therefore I shall divide against it.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

A large quantity of dry timber is being taken into Westminster Abbey, and therefore I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) what precautions he is taking against fire?

MR. PLUNKET

Every possible precaution has been taken, and assurances have been effected in case of loss by fire.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

Is that included in the £17,000 asked for?

MR. PLUNKET

Yes.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

There is one point I should like to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to—it has been possibly overlooked up to the present time—and that is, that on these Benches there are 86 Members, and that of these 86 Members, I venture to say, none of them will attend this ceremony, for the reasons which have been most eloquently explained by the hon. Mem- ber for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). As we, with our wives —certainly I could not attend with my wife, because I have not got one—will not put in an appearance, I think that some amount of this expenditure might be curtailed. Then I would throw out the suggestion that, instead of providing this very large and sumptuous accommodation, very considerably smaller accommodation should be provided, and a ballot be resorted to in the same way as hon. Gentlemen are accustomed to ballot for places in the Ladies' Gallery of this House, and in this way provide the means of further curtailing the expenditure upon this ceremony. I merely throw out this suggestion in the hope that it will receive at the hands of the Government the consideration which it deserves.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 203: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. l37.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.