CLASS I. (Hansard, 10 April 1899)

HC Deb 10 April 1899 vol 69 cc734-67 734

§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum not exceeding £33,000, 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 1900, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.

§ Motion made— That a sum, not exceeding £32,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)
I rise to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the installation of the 735 electric light at Buckingham Palace, which is estimated to cost £11,000, and on which £3,500 has already been expended, is to be completed? I notice also that new works at Buckingham Palace are estimated to cost £3,575, but particulars are only given in the Votes of works of the value of £2,700. The maintenance of the Palace last year amounted to £3,050, and this year to only £1,300. I should like to know how this extraordinary difference is accounted for, and whether the present sum may be looked upon as the approximate sum for the future? Then, with regard to Buckingham Palace, the question arises, whether the gardens ought not to be made more accessible to the public than they are at present. Of course, it may be said that Buckingham Palace is the personal possession of the Sovereign. Well, so is Windsor Castle, and Windsor Castle is more in the possession of the Sovereign than Buckingham Palace. The Queen stays more at Windsor Castle than at Buckingham Palace, but, that notwithstanding, the public have more access to it than to Buckingham Palace. It does seem to me that there is no possible objection to the suggestion that Buckingham Palace should be a little more accessible to the public. Now, there is one other matter in connection with Buckingham Palace to which I wish to draw attention. There is a very valuable collection of pictures there. Those pictures were given by one of the Georges. As a matter of fact, those pictures are not seen by the general public. There is no reason why these valuable art treasures should be locked up in the Palace without the public seeing them. I think that something ought to be done in that direction. These pictures are not exactly the private property of the Sovereign. They were given to the nation, and were deposited at the Palace for the general convenience of the public. Now, Sir, it is only a question of time, but I really do think that the grounds of Buckingham Palace and the Palace itself, with its art treasures, should be made a little more accessible to the public than they are at present. They are kept up by the nation at consider- 736 able expense, and the grounds, at all events, might be made more accessible in the same way as the grounds of Windsor, which is in the personal occupancy of the Sovereign. I quite recognise, of course, that there is a difficulty. I quite recognise that the First Commissioner of Works might say, very naturally, as he did say last year, that he has really to do more with the buildings, and not so much the uses to which they are put; I quite recognise that so far as the present position is concerned. But so far as this House is concerned, we can only deal with the question by bringing it before the Committee, when the Estimates come before us. We are spending a very large sum of money on these buildings, and we are entitled to criticise the use of the buildings when we are asked to vote for their maintenance and upkeep. Although it is perfectly true that, so far as the First Commissioner of Works is concerned, he may feel that he has not the power to grant this demand, on the other hand, the only way in which we can bring the matter before those who have the power is by discussing the matter upon the Estimates, and we naturally do it. It is not so much that we blame the First Commissioner of Works in this matter, as that we wish to bring this matter before the proper authorities. I do think, so far as regards the little matter of the opening up of Buckingham Palace, of the pictures, the art treasures, the gardens, and the grounds to the public, that it would enhance the beauty of the district in which it is situated, and be an ornament to the city; and I think it is a question to be considered by those who are more immediately connected with the matter. Now, in the same Vote we have an increase for the Royal Mews. In 1897–1898, I notice the amount was £1,770; this year it is £2,730. I should like to know what is the reason for the increase in that Vote. It looks as if the amount was for new works, but the new works only come to £825, and that does not account for the whole of it; so the new works from 1898 no doubt will come in as well. There is a considerable rise in this Vote, £1,000; and the 737 First Commisioner of Works may be able to give us some particulars with regard to it. With regard to the Royal Palaces, again, I find in the case of Windsor Castle that the new works amount to £3,500; that is the amount which is put down in the Estimates, but we only have particulars given to us for £2,200, which leaves a balance unaccounted for of £1,300. No doubt the First Commissioner will be able to give us some particulars with regard to it. Then, I find a considerable rise in the amount. The amount which is put down this year is £4,460, whilst that for last year is only £2,250. That is a very considerable rise in the amount required for maintenance, though no doubt the First Commissioner of Works will give us some explanation with regard to that. I do not know why the cost of maintenance of Windsor Castle should be increased so much, but I hope the First Commissioner of Works will be able to give us some hope that there may be a prospect of Buckingham Palace and its art treasures and the gardens and the grounds and the Royal Mews being opened to the public more than they have been. If you go to foreign countries, you will find that there is an obligation on the part of the Sovereigns to open their Palaces to the public. That is not the case here. In this case, there is a considerable amount of tourist traffic from the, provinces to London, and, naturally, one of the things which they most want to see is the Royal Palaces, if they can. I think it is desirable that Buckingham Palace should be opened. I admit there may be some little difficulty in doing it, but it is only by bringing the matter forward when the Estimates are before the House that we can hope to bring it before the authorities. Therefore, in order to do that, I move to reduce this Vote by £100.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
I do not quite agree with the honourable Member who has just sat down as to the desirability of opening Buckingham Palace to the public in general. The honourable Gentleman says that foreign palaces are always open to the public; 738 of course, his experience may be greater than mine; but that is certainly not my experience. There is one subject, however, which I am rather surprised the honourable Member opposite sitting for a Scotch constituency has not mentioned, which amounts, to my mind, almost to a national grievance. There is a mysterious item in this Vote, which I have never been able to understand, and that is the item of the turncock. There are two at Buckingham Palace, one at Hampton Court Palace, one at St. James's, and one at Kensington; in fact, although there are one or two in every Royal Palace in England, there is not one at all at Holyrood, and I certainly should have thought that the honourable Members opposite would have made a complaint with regard to that. But I cannot understand this item of turncock; why two at Buckingham Palace and only one at the other palaces, and why should there be any at all? In ordinary houses it is not the custom to keep a turncock on the premises. You rely for the turning on of your cock on outside' authority provided by the water company. I cannot understand why there should be a turncock in these premises; I can, understand the watchman, the fire brigade, the lodge-keeper, and the gatekeeper, but this turncock I cannot understand, and I think there should be some explanation with regard to that by the First Commissioner of Works, and perhaps he will tell us, if it is necessary to have them in English palaces, why it should be unnecessary to have one in Scotch palaces.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)
The amount which we are taking this year for the extension of the electric light in Buckingham Palace is an amount on account, and there will be probably some further sum required before the full service is complete. This, matter was very carefully gone into some two or three years ago by a Committee from the point of view of safety from fire. There' were at that time, unfortunately, two fires which occurred at Buckingham Palace, and the palace for some time' was in considerable danger. That was in 1897. 739 That Committee considered the means of securing the palaces from fire, and one of the means which they decided upon was this scheme of electric lighting so far as it was possible. It was decided on for no other reason than for the safety from fire. The honourable Gentleman has asked me to explain the Vote for the Royal Mews. A large amount of that is accounted for by new works which are proposed to be completed in the present year. All these works are quite necessary, and will in many cases secure a saving, inasmuch as better care will be taken of the carriages and harness, which are now housed in very unsuitable places. The honourable Gentleman also mentioned a question which we have discussed several years, the opening of Buckingham Palace to the public. I do not think that the country can complain of Her Majesty's exclusiveness in regard to access to the Royal Palaces. Her Majesty has given every possible facility to the public to gratify their curiosity in viewing all the objects of art in certain of her Royal palaces. But Buckingham Palace stands in a different category. It is much more used than the honourable Gentleman thinks; it is the town house, so to speak, of the whole of the Royal Family, and I may tell the honourable Member that when this question was raised some years ago I went thoroughly into the matter and discussed it with the Lord Chamberlain, and I found for the greater portion of the year that there were very few days when Buckingham Palace was not occupied by some member or guest of the Royal Family. I do not think that Her Majesty can be complained of as being exclusive. Last year a very great boon was given to the public with regard to Kensington Palace and Kew Palace, and with regard to a large portion of the grounds at Kew, which Her Majesty has thrown open to the public. I do not think we can press this matter, because this palace is not shut up for a large portion of the year. What we have to consider is, that for a very large portion of the year it is in the occupation of some member or guest of the Royal Family. I cannot see myself that 740 much can be done with regard to this, and I cannot hold out any hope that any further concessions will be made in this matter.

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
I think the House must have listened with some surprise to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, especially with regard to his remarks in answer to the demand made for public inspection with regard to Buckingham Palace. We had a hope that that demand would have been conceded last year, and I think the right honourable Gentleman, got his Vote last year on the suggestion that he should see the authorities as to what was going to be done.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
That was the year before last. Last year I took the same course as this year.

§ MR. DALZIEL
There is a rather delicate point about the subject, and that is, the fact that Buckingham Palace is the town house of the Royal Family. That is the case against my honourable Friend, who demands that the house, and the grounds, and the art treasures should be thrown open to the public. It is suggested, in answer to him, that Buckingham Palace is the town house of the Royal Family. Is it the town house? My information does not at all agree with the statements of the right honourable Gentleman that Buckingham Palace is used for all but three or four days during the year. My information is that for months and months it is not used at all, and if the right honourable Gentleman grants us a Return upon that point you will find that my information is more correct than his. My honourable Friend's suggestion is that Buckingham Palace gardens and the palace itself should be thrown open more than they have been in the past. I think that is a legitimate demand. If it is the town house of the Royal Family, why do you provide Marlborough House, St. James's, and other palaces? Her Majesty has not slept at Buckingham Palace six nights during the last eight years, so that it is not her that we have to 741 consider in this matter. But apart altogether from that, the demand made by my honourable Friend is a small demand and a reasonable demand. We are asked to vote £32,000 for electric lighting at Buckingham Palace, and that is a very large order. What I suggest is this: I think it is only reasonable that there should be some consideration given to the country in this matter. The people of London should have an opportunity of seeing the grounds and the art treasures of that palace. The right honourable Gentleman speaks of it as gratifying their idle curiosity; but when the people of London and the country go to see their own property and the buildings upon which they have spent their money there is not much idle curiosity about it. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not allow this matter to slip out of his mind, and I think it is reasonable that this palace and these grounds should be thrown open for the public, if only for a few weeks in the summer.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I have no desire personally to wander about Buckingham Palace and see the rooms. I have been to palaces both here and abroad, and in most cases I have seen only large rooms most inartistically furnished. But in this particular palace there are some very fine pictures, which are the property of the nation, which are in the possession of the Sovereign for the time being, whoever the Sovereign may be. If they are the property of the nation, it does seem to me that they ought to be removed to a place where the public might see them. I put it to the Commissioner of Works—and I am sure he has done his best to try and get the public a right of way to Buckingham Palace—that he should not treat the matter of the pictures in this manner. These pictures belong to the nation in contradistinction to the Crown, and the nation surely have a right to see them, and, therefore, I put it to him whether they should not be removed to some museum where they could be seen.

§ MR. CALDWELL
I think that the First Commissioner of Works must be satisfied that this is a point which is 742 intended to be forced publicly upon this House on every occasion that it can be brought forward. It will come up again at some future time, even on the Appropriation Bill if necessary. It is not a matter which we are going to allow to sleep, and the explanation that some members of the Royal Family come up there and occupy the palace is no reason why it should not be thrown open. They have apartments in other places, and so far as Her Majesty is concerned, and everything must be considered in her interests, Windsor Castle is in her occupation, and the public can see a great deal more of Windsor Castle than they can see of Buckingham Palace. Her Majesty would be more willing to let the public see the palace than some of the underlings, than would be some of the younger members of her family, and I do hope that the First Commissioner of Works will bring this to the attention of the authorities. If this motion is to be negatived, it will be brought up upon every occasion, because we all think that so far as the palace and the grounds are concerned there ought to be a reasonable allowance of time given to the public for seeing them.

§ COLONEL MILWARD (Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon)
I think there ought to be some correction as to the amount of money which is to be spent upon Buckingham Palace. The honourable Gentleman opposite said that £32,000 was the amount, but, so far as I can see, it is nothing like that amount.

§ MR. DALZIEL
I do not know whether the honourable Member is referring to me, but I said that the whole amount of the Vote in connection with the palaces not in the occupation of Royalty was £32,000, and that was rather a large order.

§ COLONEL MILWARD
The amount so far as Buckingham Palace is concerned is £5,000.

§ Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £32,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 46; Noes 142.—(Division List No. 71.)

743

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Labouchere, Henry	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Atherley-Jones, L.	Logan, John William	Spicer, Albert
Billson, Alfred	M'Dermott, Patrick	Steadman, William Charles
Burns, John	M'Ghee, Richard	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Causton, Richard Knight	M'Kenna, Reginald	Ure, Alexander
Cawley, Frederick	Maddison, Fred.	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Channing, Francis Allston	Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)	Wedderburn, Sir William
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Duckworth, James	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	O'Connor, James (Wicklo, W.)	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Paulton, James Mellor	Wilson, John (Govan)
Gold, Charles	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Rickett, J. Compton
Hogan, James Francis	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Dalziel.
Holden, Sir Angus	Schwann, Charles E.
Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Horniman, Frederick John	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

NOES.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Galloway, William Johnson	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Garfit, William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlirgton
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond.	Pierpoint, Robert
Baillie, James E.B. (Inverness)	Gibbs, Hon. vicary(St Albans)	Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin.)
Balcarres, Lord	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Banbury, Frederick George	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l
Barnes Frederic Gorell	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Bartley, George C. T.	Graham, Henry Robert	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gunter, Colonel	Robson, William Snowdon
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Round, James
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)
Bethell, Commander	Heath, James	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Biddulph, Michael	Henderson, Alexander	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme	Howell, William Tudor	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Kemp, George	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)	Kenyon, James	Spencer, Ernest
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Knowles, Lees	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Lafone, Alfred	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)	Strauss, Arthur
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Charrington, Spencer	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Thomas, David A. Merthyr)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)	Thornton, Percy M.
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Lowe, Francis William	Valentia, Viscount
Cranborne, Viscount	Lowles, John	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)
Curzon, Viscount	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Denny, Colonel	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Macdona, John Cumming	Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'gh, W	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Donkin, Richard Sim	Malcolm, Ian	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.
Drage, Geoffrey	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Fardell, Sir T. George	Milward, Colonel Victor	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fisher, William Hayes	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry
Fitzgerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Flannery. Sir Fortescue	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Folkestone, Viscount	Northcote, hon. Sir H. Stafford

Original Question put, and agreed to. Vote agreed to.

745

§ Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £79,000, 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 March 1900, for the Royal parks and pleasure gardens.

§ MR. WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)
I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner how it is that the ranger, the deputy-ranger, the bailiff, and the other officials draw pay or pensions" under the Army or Navy Votes as well as salaries under this Vote. It ought to be made perfectly clear what their total salary is. The bailiff of the Royal parks receives £700 a year, and he has an assistant-bailiff who is paid a considerable salary. We should like to know what the actual duties of these officers are, and why their total salary is not put down on the Paper? I am not, of course, referring to pensions, because they have been earned by past service.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
The bailiff is the official who has entire charge of the whole of the Royal parks, including Hyde Park, Regent's Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park. He is an Engineer officer of some standing, and was entitled to an Army pension in that capacity. But in consideration of that fact his remuneration as bailiff was reduced proportionately, and his salary is fixed, having regard to his being entitled to an Army pension which he does not draw. Since the present bailiff has been in charge there has been a marked improvement in the London parks. It was found impossible for one man to do the whole of the work, and other savings were made to enable us to appoint a proper assistant-bailiff, who receives £400 a year. He is a Major of Engineers, and draws an Army pension, but a certain percentage is taken off his salary on that account. All the park-keepers are old soldiers or old sailors.

746

§ MR. WARNER
I am quite aware that the work is very well done by the present officers. I was not finding fault on that account, but I want to know, if there is a salary paid out of the Army Votes, why the total is not stated? We have been told by the right honourable Gentleman that the bailiff superintends the parks most ably, with which I agree; but what are the duties of the ranger? We have just been told that the bailiff is the head official. Is he superior to the ranger?

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
The ranger of Hyde Park and Green Park draws no pay, but he receives £110 a year as ranger of Richmond Park. His deputy receives a small salary. Their duties are of a more general character than those of the bailiff. They have nothing whatever to do with the bailiff, in so far as he caters for the public in the amenities of the park, the cultivation of flowers, and the general appearance.

§ Motion made— That a sum, not exceeding £78,900, be granted for the said Service."— (Mr. Goddard.)

§ MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)
It seems to me, Mr. Lowther, that there is a great multiplication of unnecessary officers. The ranger receives £110 a year. He has a deputy who receives £57 a year, and I understand that both of them are military officers who are in receipt of pay or pension. In addition to these gentlemen you have a superintendent under the ranger who receives £250 a year, and a further £96 in lieu of fees, which seems to me a very objectionable system of payment, with a residence rent free thrown in. The assistant-superintendent receives £90 a year in addition to residence rent free. I think the time has come when we might get rid of some of these sinecure offices. There is no need for a ranger, a deputy-ranger, a superintendent under the ranger, and an assistant-superintendent. The payment of £96 in lieu of fees is a very unnecessary payment altogether. This official receives £250 747 a year and residence rent free, and I think he might very well do without the £96 a year given in lieu of fees. I do not consider the explanation given by the right honourable Gentleman as a satisfactory one, and I move to reduce the Vote by £100.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I have not risen to join in the attack which has been made upon one of the greatest institutions in the country, that of ranger, but merely to ask my right honourable Friend the First Commissioner of Works one or two questions in connection with the London parks. I observe that he proposes to take in the Estimate the sum of £4,000 to lay wood paving between Marlborough and Buckingham Gates. I admit that it is necessary that this road should be paved with wood, but I suggest that a strip of the roadway near the Palace railings should be utilised for horse riders, so that it will be possible to ride a horse without imminent danger of breaking one's neck. I know this suggestion will be an expensive one to carry out, but as it would prove a great boon I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider it. Under the right honourable Gentleman's management Rotten Row has been greatly improved, but it is still far from being perfect. It was quite a quagmire this morning, and the arrangements are such that when a heavy fall of rain comes it is apt to wash away the sand from the surface and expose riders to the danger of falling over uncovered bricks. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman may be able to hold out the hope that the ride will be extended into that deserted part of Kensington Gardens which is not even frequented by babies and nursemaids, and which is yawning, so to speak, for the extension I am suggesting. This extension would, I am sure, prove a great boon to riders. At present the ride is so short that if a horse is fresh and gets away with its rider there is no room to pull it up, but if the ride was extended into Kensington Gardens the difficulty would be obviated. I do not think the extension of the ride in the direction I have suggested would really do any injury to 748 anyone. Some consideration should be given to riders, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be able to furnish some satisfactory reply. Recently, Hyde Park has been invaded by those abominations called motor - cars, which are nauseous in every way. There is plenty of room outside the park for these cars. In the park they frighten horses, and should not be allowed to run there. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will tell us that he is willing to make provision for the prevention of this nuisance in the parks.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
The honourable Gentleman opposite seems to be a somewhat timid rider, but I do not see why public money should be spent in order that he might ride in Hyde Park without fear and trembling. His view, apparently, is that Rotten Row is not long enough to enable him to pull up his peculiarly fresh quadruped, and the honourable Member wants a kind of circus ride created around which he might guide his horse should it run away. But that is not enough for the honourable Gentleman. When he gets his circus ride he is afraid of the motor-car, which I look upon as a most useful invention. I do think it would be a very reasonable thing if a drive or ride were made in Kensington Gardens. I remember often riding in Kensington Gardens in. 1851. At that time there was an exhibition in the park, and riders could not get on to Rotten Row, and a ride was made for them in Kensington Gardens. It was a very pleasant ride, but the nursery maids and other people in charge of children said they were disturbed in their avocation with the children and the Life Guards, and protested so strongly that a large number of Members came down to this House and insisted upon riders being deprived of the privilege of riding in Kensington Gardens. Coming to Richmond Park, I want to know the nature of the distinction which is made between the park proper and the department of the ranger as to the maintenance of the park. We used to have these Estimates presented in a far more detailed form than at present. I want to know if there is still a large number of game- 749 keepers. It used to be said that the gamekeepers were employed for the deer, but it was generally admitted that they were employed for keeping up a head of game there. I contend that game should not be kept in a public place like Richmond Park unless every taxpayer has the right to go and shoot there. I hope the right honourable Gentleman may be able to inform us that these abuses will be done away with.

§ MAJOR BOWLES (Middlesex, Enfield)
I desire to draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner to the want of accommodation for bicycles at Kew Gardens. An immense number of cyclists ride to Kew Gardens, but at present there is no accommodation for their bicycles. I certainly think some adequate provision should be made in this direction.

§ MR. MCLAREN (Leicester, Bosworth)
I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works what his intention is with reference to the road between Buckingham Palace and Marlborough Gate. Now that Constitution Hill is used for general traffic, the number of carriages has increased enormously, and I would suggest that as there are four good broad avenues along the part of the park I have referred to, one of them should be set aside for traffic going east and another for traffic going west; the third might be reserved for foot passengers, and the fourth for cyclists. The right honourable Gentleman has done so much to improve the London parks and to accommodate the public that he might, I think, reasonably give this matter his favourable consideration. In regard to Hyde Park, I would ask the First Commissioner whether he could not see his way to get the rules altered so as to allow cycling in that park till a later hour in the day —say to 2 o'clock.

§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)
I rise to plead for a more equal distribution of the right honourable Gentleman's favours in Hyde Park, and to urge that something should be done for the beautifying of the north side of the park, from the Marble Arch westwards, in the same way as the side running parallel with 750 Park Lane is treated. At present there is nothing but bushes and quite uncared-for sort of trees on the north edge of the park, although flowers and tropical plants would flourish there even better than along Park Lane. Such an improvement would, I think, be greatly appreciated by the large proportion of people who travel east and west to and from the direction of Bayswater.

§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
I want to say a word in support of the plea that has been urged on behalf of the cyclists. I really think cyclists have been treated very shabbily in the Royal parks. The matter has been placed before the right honourable Gentleman quietly and persuasively year after year, and I now again appeal to him to consider whether he could not do more in Kew Gardens and in the other parks for cyclists. I think that the restriction as to hours might be done away with altogether, or, in addition to extending the hour from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock, that at half-past 6 p.m. in the summer months cyclists might be admitted to Hyde Park. If cinder paths were laid down for cyclists it would prove a great benefit, and prevent a number of accidents. I think all the parks which are reserved for carriages might with public advantage be thrown open to cyclists. The suggestion made by the honourable Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicester that an avenue of the Mall should be set aside for cyclists is one which the right honourable Gentleman ought not to resist. Speaking of St. James's Park, I think the proposal to lay down wood paving between Marlborough and Buckingham Gates is a serious experiment. I think it would have been far better if the width of the road had been doubled and macadam retained a little longer. Wood paving is sometimes an exceedingly dangerous form of paving, and, seeing that so many pedestrians use this part of the park, the laying of it here is an experiment which should receive more consideration than it has received up to the present. I should like some information upon another point. I understood that the right honourable Gentleman was going to set up refreshment kiosks in Hyde Park, and some of the 751 other parks as well. I would like him to tell us how this experiment is getting on. I understood that a new and pretty tea-house was to be provided near Hyde Park Corner. That would be a most desirable improvement. I think everybody will admit that one of the great drawbacks in our parks is the difficulty which is experienced in getting refreshments in them. That splendid site along one side of Piccadilly could not be used to better purpose, in my opinion, than as a site for a magnificent glass restaurant. I think that is one of the finest sites in the world for such restaurants, and if they were constructed the right honourable Gentleman would derive from them a great deal of revenue towards the expenses we have to meet year by year. There is room for improvement in all the parks. I agree that cheap refreshments are desirable, but I think better class refreshments might also be provided if the First Commissioner entertains the idea of erecting these kiosks. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will tell us what steps are being taken in this direction.

§ COLONEL MILWARD
I desire, Mr. Lowther, to urge the extension of the hours of cycling in Hyde Park. The large number of cyclists who frequented Hyde Park some years ago caused a considerable amount of obstruction, but now that the novelty has worn off the number of cyclists has decreased to a very great extent, and I think the First Commissioner could safely extend the hour to three o'clock. I also think the suggestion that one of the avenues of the Mall should be reserved for cyclists is an excellent one, which I hope the First Commissioner will endeavour to meet.

§ * MR. BURNS (Battersea)
I desire to associate myself with the honourable Members who have asked that greater privileges should be given to cyclists in all the Royal parks. I see no reason why there should be any restrictions in Hyde Park at all. and as the bicycle mania is over there is no need for fear. I would suggest that Hyde Park should be treated in regard to cyclists in the same way as the London County Council treat 752 their parks. If that were done I do not think the privilege would be abused in any way. I would also ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner to respond to the appeal made by the honourable Member for the Enfield Division of Middlesex that at Kew Gardens some accommodation should be provided for bicycles used by visitors. There is no reason why one or two men in the service of the Government could not be put in charge of some such arrangement, and, if it were necessary, a small fee could be charged. I am sure cyclists would be delighted to pay it rather than be compelled to depart, as they are now, owing to there being no one of a reliable character with whom they can leave their bicycles. I think a shed could be conveniently erected for the storage of the bicycles at the back of one of the shrubberies. I frequently walk or ride down to Richmond on Saturday afternoons and enjoy myself in that beautiful park. It is a source of pleasure to me to see the increasing use to which Richmond Park is every year subjected, and I would ask the First Commissioner of Works to seriously realise that this splendid park is now frequented—I speak in the correction of the honourable Member for Richmond, but I think I am correct—by four or five times the number of people who visited it even 10 years ago. Richmond Park has of recent years been invaded by eighteenpence-an-hour horsemen, who career all over the Park to the danger of foot passengers and to the serious damage of its splendid turf, and I would urge the First Commissioner to put some restriction upon them, if only for the preservation of the excellent turf. Hundreds of people now get to Richmond Park on bicycles, and I am under the impression that the increasing use of the park warrants the First Commissioner of Works in getting rid of the coverts and reducing enclosed portions of ground in the centre of the park. There is no reason why preserves should be kept up any longer. It is a characteristic of the Londoner that he rarely interferes with birds in the parks. He is very kind to all sorts of birds and animals, and it seems to me the time has arrived when the coverts should be thrown into the park, and additional 753 room given for the people who use it. Now I come to the gentlemen paid to look after the park. It seems to me that the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the deficit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us about on Thursday, has scope for economy in the, management of Richmond Park. I make no reflections on the officials, but I must call attention to the fact that of all the Royal parks there is no park that can be more easily managed than Richmond Park. There are no flower gardens and no elaborate gardening to be supervised, and there is not a great deal of special knowledge required. It is a very beautiful park, with broad roads and great swards of turf, but ordinary labourers with a competent foreman ought to be able to keep it in order. In Richmond Park there is, however, a ranger with £110 per annum, a deputy ranger with £57, £250 for a superintendent, and other allowances in lieu of fees, making a total of £603 per annum for the management of the park, which, with proportions of other amounts paid to the head officials, bring the cost of supervising Richmond Park up to £1,000 per annum. Let me give comparative figures. That sum is more than the London County Council pays for the supervision of 3,200 acres of parks and open spaces distributed over the whole County of London, most of them of a different character from Richmond Park, and requiring more attention and technical knowledge. I think the time has come when we should get rid of the ornamental ranger and deputy ranger and one or two other gentlemen whose services are really not required; and if the Government are determined to spend the money these gentlemen now receive, they might use it in slightly increasing the salaries of the men who do the work in Richmond Park. I would appeal to the First Commissioner of Works to effect certain improvements by dispensing with the ornamental officials, who, like the rabbits in the coverts, are eating their heads off at the nation's expense. I now come to the suggestion made by the honourable Member for Islington. I am a bicyclist myself, and the necessities of distance and the exigencies of public life compel me to 754 adopt the ironmongery that the honourable and gallant Member for King's Lynn objects to. But, fond as I am of bicycling, I cannot go to the extent of asking that we should have a cinder-path around Richmond Park. I do not think it is necessary, and it might lead to racing and scorching. It would be most objectionable, from the æsthetic point of view, to have a black cinder-path running around the park intersected by the ordinary roads, and obtruding its black surface above the green turf. I hope the suggestion will not be adopted. It would be a standing argument in favour of keeping the existing roads in a worse condition than they are at present. Good flint roads as now would be more satisfactory. There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. I am rather favourable to the establishment of kiosks in Hyde Park and elsewhere for the convenience of Londoners. But I respectfully suggest that the very last place for a kiosk is Piccadilly. I am a stranger in that part, and I have not the experience necessary to speak with the authority others may have, and I may be wrong. If kiosks are to be gradually introduced in the parks, I think there ought to be one in St. James's Park for the sale of refreshments for children and others; but if we are to adopt the Continental restaurant system, I would not select Piccadilly as the first place where the experiment should be tried. I again impress the advisability of economy in the management of Richmond Park, and I protest once more against the practice which is becoming too prevalent, especially in the Office of Works and elsewhere of appointing military men with pensions to positions when there are other men better qualified. I have nothing to say against Colonel Wheatley, but I think if it is necessary for him to have an assistant some man from Kew should be appointed, who is either a gardener or a forester. In these days, when we are so far behind in the study of forestry, the Government should select from Cooper's Hill or Kew a competent forester to be Colonel Wheatley's assistant. I certainly trust the First Commissioner of Works will take a 755 lesson from the criticisms he has heard, and that he will effect economy in the management of Richmond Park, and that he will not select Army men without technical qualification and with pensions to do work which a qualified civilian could do infinitely better.

§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Stockport)
I rise to join in the request for further facilities for bicycling in Hyde Park. It seems to me that there would be no inconvenience caused by allowing cyclists to remain in the Park for another hour or two, as there are not a large number of riders or carriages in the Park between twelve, o'clock and two o'clock, when the Park is almost deserted by the general public. Honourable Members are often kept in this House until one o'clock or two. o'clock, and it is very difficult to get out before eleven o'clock in the morning. I venture to say that no inconvenience would be caused, and that the general facilities of the public would not suffer by extending the time for cyclists to one o'clock or two o'clock. I hope my right honourable Friend will recognise the advisability of acceding to this reasonable request.

§ MR. CALDWELL
I desire to call attention to the growing expenditure on public parks in London. What I wish to point out is the unfairness of charging these parks on Imperial funds. The sums charged for Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, and St. James's Park amount to £61,000 a, year. Some years ago objection was taken to placing certain parks on Imperial funds, and they are now upheld by the local authorities. Practically, there is little difference between these parks and the parks we are now discussing. They are said to be Royal parks. Now, so far as the provinces are concerned, if they have parks they have to pay for them themselves; yet in the case of these Royal parks we are asked for £61,000 to keep them up for the benefit of London. What happened in the case of the equivalent grant? London got very much less than her proper share. She did not get her proportion according to 756 her rental as compared with the rest of England, Why was that? It was because London benefited in many other ways, including parks, and that was the foundation for the disparity. But if London did not get her proper share the rest of England got it, because the money was distributed between the three countries in the proportion of 80, 11, and 9. What we object to is that parks should be kept up for the benefit of London out of public funds, whereas Scotland gets no corresponding benefit. If we have parks in Scotland we have to bear the whole cost ourselves. In London the public parks enhance the value of the rental of the adjoining districts. Take, for instance, the property around Hyde Park and St. James's Park. It commands a higher rental owing to its proximity to these parks, and the more the parks are kept up the higher will be the rental. London reaps the benefit, and I do not see why the parks should be, paid for out of Imperial funds. It is no answer to say that people from the provinces use them. That is an incidental matter altogether. London reaps the benefit of any services rendered to a stranger from the provinces. It is time attention was called to this expenditure of £61,000 a year, especially when it was taken into consideration when the equivalent grant was allocated between London and the rest of England. That was a proper arrangement as between London and the rest of England, but it does not meet the injustice as regards Scotland and Ireland.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
As I have been asked several questions, I will reply to them in order. The honourable Member for Ipswich called my attention to the allowance in lieu of fees paid to the superintendent under the ranger of Richmond Park. We ought not to pay anything in fees. An official should be paid for his services by a salary, and I can assure the honourable Gentleman that this allowance which was made in connection with an existing right will not be made to the successor of the present superintendent. As far as the principle is concerned, I am entirely 757 with the honourable Gentleman. The honourable Member for King's Lynn called my attention to the condition of the road between Buckingham Palace and Marlborough Gate. As my honourable Friend knows, this question has been considered for a considerable period. Some three or four years ago I entirely shared the views expressed by my honourable Friend, but I have since been converted in favour of a wood pavement. This bit of road takes more repaving than any other road, not only in the parks, but in any part of London. It has been the subject of many inquiries, and several Departmental Committees have considered it. Two years ago I found that the repairs carried out twice a year were inadequate, and I instructed that the road should be repaired three or four times a year, but even that did not meet the difficulty. It was quite impossible to keep the road in proper repair under macadam, owing to the peculiar nature of the traffic, and, therefore, we decided to ask for this large sum of money to put down a wood pavement. This is not merely a road in a park. It is really a road connecting two portions of London, and there is more traffic on it than in many London streets, and I think, under the circmustances, we are justified in departing from our usual practice of not introducing wood pavements into the parks. I can assure my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn that I have not taken this step entirely on my own initiative, or on that of my Department. I have have had the assistance of a committee consisting of experts on the state of the London roads, and they decided on a wood pavement. when the road is being put down I will take care that the suggestions of my honourable Friend shall be considered. With reference to the sand Row, my honourable Friend will bear me out when I say that we have made a considerable improvement by rounding the corner. My honourable Friend also objects to 758 motor cars in Hyde Park. I am bound to say, as far as motor-cars are concerned, I share his views, but it is rather a difficult matter to face. I do not think I should have any right to turn a private carriage out of Hyde Park, whether it was drawn by horses or driven by electricity, or some other motive power. Whether any restrictions with regard to pace are necessary, is another matter, and it will be considered, but, as at present advised, I cannot hold out any hope that I shall lay on the Table any now rule debarring owners of motor cars from using the park. Then, my honourable Friend returns to his favourite theme of extending the ride from Rotten Row to Kensington Gardens. One of the chief objections to it is the very considerable expense it would entail. Then there is the difficulty of getting across the road which crosses the park. There would have to be a bridge or a subway, and I do not think I should be justified in taking such a large slice out of the money allotted year by year for the maintenance of the parks for that improvement, if it be an improvement. The honourable Members for Enfield and Leicester called my attention to the desirability of extending the hours for bicyclists in Hyde Park. The question is one which does not entirely rest with me. When the concession was granted three or four years ago, I came to a compromise with the gentlemen who cycled that if I were able to obtain the sanction of the ranger that bicycles should be allowed in the Park until noon they would, at all events for the time being, be satisfied. I think when the rule was first made the time only extended to 10 o'clock; then came a concession until 11 o'clock or some other hour in the fore noon that the First Commissioner might agree to. Shortly after that, at my direction, the hour was extended to noon. I am quite prepared to consider, seeing that the crowd of bicyclists is not now so great as it used to be, and the traffic 759 until 2 o'clock is not considerable, whether some further concession in this direction might not be made, but I must point out that it is not entirely at my discretion, and that other authorities must be consulted before any extension is made. With regard to planting flowers along the north side of Hyde Park, I point out to my honourable Friend that the nature of the ground does not lend itself so well to that purpose as the land adjoining Park Lane. Moreover, it would require the sacrifice of a good many trees which I myself would be loth to see cut down. But if by any slight cutting down of trees, and at no great expense, I could meet the views which have been expressed on the subject, I should be glad to do so. However, you must remember I have to cut my coat according to my cloth. There is only a certain amount of money available in connection with these parks, and I do not want to take away the flowers to which the public have been accustomed. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Battersea called attention to several questions relating to Richmond Park. If I can see my way, by some more stringent regulations or otherwise, to prevent damage to the turf by galloping horses, I shall be glad to do so. I will also see if any alteration can be made in regard to the deer reservations, although I entirely agree that these reservations are wanted for the deer. My experience is that if deer are to thrive, they must have a certain amount of seclusion. The honourable Gentleman asked me about the number of old soldiers and sailors who are appointed to the Royal parks.

§ * MR. BURNS
I only referred to the appointment of Major Hussey while he enjoyed a pension.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
I am myself responsible for the appointment of Major Hussey, and I am sure that the State will have in him a most valuable ser- 760 vant. He is an officer who has great taste for horticulture; but, apart from that, he is able to manage a large body of men. What weighed with me very considerably in making the appointment, seeing the great difficulties we have had with the roads, was that he was an Engineer. Whatever may be said in regard to appointments to such situations from the Army, I believe that in appointing Major Hussey I have done the State good service. As to providing a convenient place for the reception of bicycles at Kew, that is a very small matter, and I have no doubt that such a place will be found.

§ MR. LOUGH
What about the refreshment kiosks near the band-stands?

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS
I have nothing further to add on this point to what I stated two years ago. I am most anxious that visitors to the park should have some means of obtaining harmless refreshment, especially in the neighbourhood of the band-stand. We have done a good deal in regard to the improvement of the music in Hyde Park. There are a large number of people there on Sundays and certain days of the week, and I think they should have some opportunity of obtaining harmless refreshment without having to go outside the park for it. I took a Vote two years ago for the erection of a kiosk, but I was unable to find a site which would meet my views. The site which was offered to me, some way from the band-stand, was in my opinion not suitable, and I therefore did not spend the money. I trust we shall now be allowed to take this Vote, as we have had very considerable discussion upon it.

§ SIR II. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I only want to make a few very brief observations. I may be allowed to express my satisfaction with the general policy which the right 761 honourable Gentleman has indicated, and especially in reference to the construction of a wood pavement in St. James's Park, between Marlborough Gate and Buckingham Gate. I think the right honourable Gentleman formerly yielded unwisely to pressure put upon him in this matter. This was a public necessity, and ought not to be put on one side, as it is one of the most important routes of traffic in London, and the right honourable Gentleman ought to be congratulated on taking the matter on hand. The improvement should have been made long ago. I am glad to hear that the right honourable Gentleman is not prepared to entertain the very debatable question of the extension of Rotten Row into Kensington Gardens. That would open up a large controversy, and occupy a good deal of time in public discussion. A point on which I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman is, whether he is considering what he promised me to consider last year—the better lighting of the park, especially between Marlborough House and Buckingham Gate. The visible darkness on Constitution Hill would be a discredit to a back street in a fourth-rate town. I know that the lighting of Hyde Park is regarded as one of the best police arrangements that could be devised; and now that Constitution Hill is open to the traffic, and a great many carriages use it, it is entitled to be well lighted.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
I have paid considerable attention to this matter of lighting, and I entirely agree with the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman opposite. My only difficulty is want of funds. I promised the House four years ago to put down in the Estimates £1,000 per year towards the extending and bettering of the lighting of the parks, and especially of the walks, and I have got a similar sum this year. The right honourable Gentleman will 762 remember that three years ago none of the main walks in the park were lighted. I agree with him that better lighting is one of the best means of policing the parks. I cannot say that we could light the whole of Hyde Park, for if we did that the aesthetic appearance of the park in the day time would be spoiled by the number of gas lamps. But I do think that where short cuts exist across the park, such as the walk from Albert Gate to the Marble Arch and from Buckingham Palace to the Naval and Military Club, these should be lighted. As soon as I can I shall extend a better method of lighting on Constitution Hill, but there is not quite the same necessity with regard to some other walks. In regard to the avenues of the Mall, I am anxious not to come to any very definite decision, because I hope that shortly we may be able to extend the Mall into Charing Cross, and it will be a question then for consideration as to how these avenues should be treated.

* MR, BURNS
On the whole I am satisfied with the general statement of the right honourable the First Commissioner of Works, although I am sorry he-has not more liberally responded to the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, who justly pressed for the better lighting of the parks at night time. The right honourable Gentleman said that it was a lack of funds and not a lack of intention which prevented him from carrying out this improvement to the full. I would suggest to him that if he-goes to Richmond and gets rid of four or five of the ornamental rangers there-he would get sufficient funds to carry out the proper lighting, not only of Constitution Hill, but of the whole of the parks between the House of Commons and Kensington Gardens. I am told by a most competent authority that for something like £-1 per lamp, incandescent burners into the bargain, you could get St. James's Park and Hyde Park lighted up. The light is wanted, and 763 every budding town is better lighted than these districts. The sooner the right honourable Gentleman goes to Richmond and gets rid of the ornamental rangers the better; he would then find plenty of money saved from these salaries for lighting Constitution Hill and Hyde Park. This year, as usual, we hear from the right honourable the First Commissioner of Works that in the matter of Hyde Park he is not alone responsible, but has to consult other authorities. I do not want to go behind the First Commissioner, but I would most respectfully suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that he should put aside those other authorities who prevent him carrying out his well-known views in regard to the improvement of the London parks. The right honourable Gentleman should act on his own responsibility, and unceremoniously put those other authorities on one side. I do not see how those other authorities we hear of should prevent him doing what he is most anxious to do. I am glad to hear that the right honourable Gentleman is going to do something in the way of removing the coverts in Richmond Park, which are not coverts for deer, but are coverts with unclimbable wire fastenings for rabbits, pheasants, and other game. I would suggest that he should reduce and open up the coverts in the centre ring, and allow the deer to wander into the external rings of the park. I trust the right honourable Gentleman will not be weary in well-doing, but will run the management of the parks off his own bat.

§ MR. LOUGH
I think this is the only occasion on which we can enter a protest in regard to the complaints as to the control over these parks. It is foolish to suppose that the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works is allowed to do as he likes in, the parks as the representative of this House, when the authority of the ranger vetoes all the right honourable Gentleman's plans. I think it is perfectly foolish for the Members of this 764 House to flatter ourselves that we have the control of these parks under those circumstances, or that the right honourable Gentleman has control over them. He has told us that two years ago, after this House had voted a sum of money for the erection of a kiosk, and after the right honourable Gentleman had selected a spot for the kiosk, his decision was vetoed by this extraneous authority. We should divide every year on the ranger's salary until we can bring the matter to an issue.

* THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
The honourable Gentleman is mistaken; there is no salary attached to the office of ranger.

§ MR. LOUGH
Then we should fall back on the whole Vote. We must make our protest against the right honourable Gentleman not being allowed to do what he wants to do in deference to the wishes of the Committee. We all desire to give the right honourable Gentleman in regard to his views as to London improvements our unanimous support, and we ought to press the matter to a Division.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS
I ought to have acknowledged the assistance which I have generally received from the ranger, not only in regard to the permission to cycle in the parks, although there may be one or two matters in which we do not see with a single eye. I could not endorse any observation to the effect that His Royal Highness was in any way desirous of excluding the public from, or of standing in the way of what would be a general improvement to, the Royal parks.

§ Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £78,900, be granted for the said Service."—[Mr. Goddard.)

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 112.—(Division List No. 72.)

765

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	M'Ghee, Richard	Steadman, William Charles
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under Lyme	M'Kenna, Reginald	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Billson, Alfred	Maddison, Fred.	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Burns, John	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Caldwell, James	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Cawley, Frederick	O'Connor, James (Wieklow, W.)	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Channing, Francis Allston	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)
Dalziel, James Henry	Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Rickett, J. Compton	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Goddard.
Holland, W. H. (York, W.R)	Samuel, J.(Stockton-on-Tees)
Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
M'Dermott, Patrick	Soames, Arthur Wellesley

NOES.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Garfit, William	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Pierpoint, Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Purvis, Robert
Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l
Bartley, George C. T.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Graham, Henry Robert	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George	Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)
Bethell, Commander	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex	Heath, James	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn	Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Howell, William Tudor	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Kemp, George	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Kenyon, James	Spencer, Ernest
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)	Knowles, Lees	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lafone, Alfred	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Charrington, Spencer	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray
Cranborne, Viscount	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverp'l)	Valentia, Viscount
Curzon, Viscount	Lowe, Francis William	Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Denny, Colonel	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Webster Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Donkin, Richard Sim	Macdona, John Cumming	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. G. E-
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh,W.)	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Doxford, William Theodore	Malcolm, Ian	Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Fardell, Sir T. George	Milward, Colonel Victor	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Morton. A. H. A. (Deptford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fisher, William Hayes	Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute
Folkestone, Viscount	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry
Galloway, William Johnson	Nicholson, William Graham

§ Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £24,000, 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 1900, for expenditure in respect of the Houses of Parliament Buildings.