CLASS I. (Hansard, 8 May 1893)

§ *MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, there were a number of Palaces and houses not occupied by Her Majesty at Hampton Court and other places, but occupied by various persons; and he would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he did not think it right that as those persons had the places rent free—and, so far as he knew, rates and taxes free— should not keep them in repair? He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Buckingham Palace grounds could not be thrown open to the public at certain times of the year? He understood that they were not used at 424 present, except for a garden party now and then, which, might occur once in 10 years.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central
The rule is that persons who occupy these houses by leave of Her Majesty shall carry out all internal repairs at their own expense, and only the external repairs are charged on the Estimates. With regard to Buckingham Palace grounds, I cannot give an answer offhand.

§ *MR. A. C. MORTON
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether Kew Gardens could not be opened to the public, who had to pay for their maintenance, at an earlier hour of the day?

§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
I have so recently spoken at length on the subject of the opening of Kew Gardens at an earlier hour that I will not occupy the time of the House by repeating what I said. The opening in the early morning will be attended with considerable expense, and will not be of much advantage to the people of London, as very few persons go there before 12 o'clock. It is also open to scientific men and gardeners by special leave of the Director, who are able to examine the plants in a manner which would be impossible when the public is admitted.

§ *MR. A. C. MORTON
asked whether the First Commissioner of Works had any further information to give with regard to these Buildings, both as to the increased cost as compared with the original Estimates and the delay in their erection?

§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
I said on Friday afternoon that a part of the delay in the erection of the Admiralty Building was due to the fact that the Treasury, during the late Government, had for one year refused to vote any money for it. My statement was denied both by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary to the Treasury and by the late First Commissioner. I have since examined the records in the Office of Works, and find that I am fully justified in what I said. It appears that in January, 1889, the Office of Works found itself in a position to expend £30,000 in the coming year, 1889–90, on the foundation of the building, and asked the Treasury to insert an item in the Estimates on this account. The Treasury, in the first instance, agreed to an Estimate for £25,000; but later, at the last moment, a few days before the Estimates were presented to Parliament, they reduced the item to £500. This practically caused a delay of one year in the work. Incidentally it was the cause of a further delay of 12 mouths, for when, years later, the Office of Works was in a position to invite tenders for the main building, it was deterred, and properly deterred, from doing so for another year by the prevalence of strikes in the building trade. Thus the action of the Treasury in 1889 practically caused a delay of years in the completion of the building. With reference to the cost, I have nothing to add to what I said on Friday last.

§ *MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)
said, he had not had an opportunity of referring to the Correspondence; but his strong recollection was that, although there was a reduction in one year, that did not cause any serious delay.

§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
I can only adhere to the statement I have made.