CLASS I. (Hansard, 28 March 1889)

§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)
I do not propose to renew at this stage the opposition that was offered in Committee to this Vote, but I do wish to call attention to the remarkable observation offered by the First Commissioner, 1095 and to the still more remarkable explanation offered by him this evening. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say in the first instance that the expenditure on Marlborough House was in consequence of an agreement entered into in 1878 between the Treasury and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. When I put a question to him he answered that there had been no such agreement, and that he never said there had been such an agreement. Now, Sir, in vindication of the position which I and others have taken up, I wish to say that in referring to the ordinary reports of the proceedings of this House I find that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is thus reported in the Times newspaper— Mr. Plunket explained that the charges now asked to be provided for were undertaken by the nation on agreement entered into in 1878 in consideration of His Royal Highness spending a large sum on Marlborough House. I myself in the course of the debate repeatedly referred to the understanding, or whatever it is, as an agreement without any objection being taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) went a good deal further than I did, because he said it was a corrupt and profligate agreement. I do not mention this by way of insisting on the accuracy of the epithets he applied to it, but rather to show that he understood the First Commissioner to defend the Vote as the result of an agreement between the Treasury and the Prince of Wales. I do think that in justice to the House it is necessary to call attention to defences of this kind which are perpetually being set up in Committee of Supply, and I do think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have to defend Votes in this Committee owe it to themselves and to us to be extremely careful and precise and accurate in the statements they make in this Committee, especially on subjects of this nature.

§ *MR. PLUNKET
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I spoke the other evening I intended to use the very words I used in my reply to his question, and I believe I did, because I read out my statement from a note which I had before me—namely, that it was a direction given by the Treasury under certain circumstances 1096 which I explained. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have misunderstood me.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
Do I understand that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales does not spend anything on the repair of Marlborough House? Is the nation under the obligation of maintaining this fabric both externally and internally? I believe on a former occasion some statement was made that the Marlborough House property was not on the same footing as the other Royal Palaces, but belonged to the nation, and was occupied by His Royal Highness on some sort of lease, I should like to know whether that is so?

§ *MR. PLUNKET
Marlborough House was in former times a Royal Palace, and it has also been used as an office; but at the time the Prince of Wales was coming of age an Act of Parliament was passed to enable Her Majesty to vest Marlborough House in His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales during his life. In 1878 His Royal Highness had spent a large sum out of his private resources on the maintenance of Marlborough House, and the Treasury then decided that, having regard to this expenditure, it would be fair that the external and internal repairs of the house should be made in the same way as in the case of certain other Royal Palaces.