§ 1. £29,000, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)said the First Commissioner of Works would recollect that on a former occasion he referred to a certain collection of paintings and other articles, the property of the nation, which was in Buckingham Palace. As the matter had been already discussed he did not desire another discussion, but he thought it was important that the Vote should not be taken without reference to the subject, as in that way a reform might in years be brought about. The paintings referred to were left by one of the Georges to the nation, and not to the Crown personally. They were very historic and valuable, and the question arose whether they ought not to be removed to some place where the public might view them, or, if that were not possible, whether some portions of Buckingham Palace should not be thrown open a little more often to the public. Royal Palaces on the Continent were much more open to the public. Even Windsor Castle was thrown open at certain times, and it seemed strange that the public should be excluded from Buckingham Palace, which was less in the personal occupation of the Crown than any of the other Royal Palaces.
§ [Mr. GRANT LAWSOX (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) succeeded Mr. A. Graham Murray in the Chair.]
§ MR. CALDWELLIt was remarkable that as regarded Palaces occupied by the 906 Crown there was no difficulty in the way of the public getting access to them at certain convenient times, whereas the public were excluded from Buckingham Palace in the interests of minor people. He did not think the Crown had any wish to exclude the public from Buckingham Palace, and that must be the act of some minor officials. It was quite true that the First Commissioner of Works expressed himself clearly on the subject last year, but another year had since elapsed, and he hoped there would be a change of opinion, and that Buckingham Palace would be thrown open to the public at certain times. If not, then the collection to which he had referred, and which was the property of the nation, should be removed to some building where the public could view it. He noticed that the installation of electric light in Buckingham Palace had cost £11,000, and that was an additional reason why the Palace should be thrown open to the public. With regard to the installation of electric light at Windsor Castle £2,000 was taken on account, and he would be glad if the First Commissioner of Works would state how much was to be expended altogether. There was hardly anything at all for repairs to Holyrood Castle. It had the disadvantage that the Queen only went there occasionally, but the building required that money should be spent on it to keep it in decent repair, especially when so much was spent on the Royal Palaces in England.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine'sThe hon. Member has again raised the question of the opening of Buckingham Palace to the public, but I am afraid I have no other answer to give him than that which it was my duty to give on several previous occasions. I would point out to the hon. Member that Buckingham Palace is on rather a different footing to other Palaces. Although Her Majesty does not occupy it to any very large extent, it is after all the town house of Her Majesty and her family, and I can assure the hon. Member that there are very few weeks in which it is not occupied either by members of Her Majesty's family or Her Majesty's visitors. I do not think that Her Majesty can be accused of any want of consideration or selfishness, in the way in which 907 she throws the Royal Palaces not in Her Majesty's occupation open to the public. I may illustrate my argument by reminding the Committee that within the last two years Her Majesty has allowed Kensington Palace to be opened to the public, and further, has thrown the grounds attached to the Royal Palace at Kew into Kew Gardens. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that so far as Buckingham Palace is concerned it will be thrown open to the public. The hon. Member also referred to the electric lighting installation at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. The safety of Buckingham Palace was recently considered by a Committee, and it was reported that it was in an extremely unsatisfactory condition, and the committee recommended that it should be lighted with electricity. With regard to Holyrood Palace, we have not spent as much money there as I should like to have seen expended, but I sincerely hope that this year I shall be able to spend more upon that palace, and reduce the inequality which exists. The hon. Member will bear with me, I think, when I remind him of the very great expenditure we have had to incur this year with regard to national matters, and when I say that this is not a year in which I could successfully or fairly approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a large sum of money for this purpose. I will bear in mind the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and if during the year I should feel myself justified in approaching the Treasury with regard to further expenditure on Holyrood Palace, I will do so.
§ * MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)asked the First Commissioner of Works if some of the pictures and art treasures at Buckingham Palace could be transferred for a time to Holyrood Palace. He was glad that the renovation of the tapestries at Holyrood Palace was proceeding, and he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee any idea when they would be completed, and if it was possible to increase the staff of girls engaged on that work. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was going to try to get more money for Holyrood Palace, which was one of the most neglected of all the palaces.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he desired to ask a question in regard 908 to an item for fuel, light, water, and household articles supplied at the Royal residences. He wished to know if, when they gave an eminent person a free residence, they provided him with household articles, such as coal scuttles and slop pails. He had been told that the First Commissioner of Works kept a kind of chandler's shop to supply these goods to such people. He did not think this kind of thing was ever intended, and anybody who had a small house like Pembroke Lodge rent free, and enjoyed a great many other advantages, should not come upon the State for fuel, light, and household expenses. It was not right that the State should buy those small articles for these people, and he should like a little explanation as to what those household articles were, and whether they could not be reduced.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASI entirely agree with the gist of the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down. There is no fuel or light supplied free to any of the residences he has mentioned. The only charge is one of £25 for Pembroke Lodge, and that is in regard to the water supply. In all cases where residences are lent by Her Majesty they pay the whole of such charges. Certainly if the occupants of these houses live rent free by Her Majesty's favour, they ought not to receive such perquisites.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)I wish to call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the road from Pall Mall to the entrance to Buckingham Palace. Last year I defended what was considered to be an extravagance, but I am glad to see now that the road has been completed. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that in front of the stables at Buckingham Palace the paving of the crossing places and road is not in that good condition which it ought to be, and I would suggest that he should write a letter to the surveyors of the parishes concerned, asking the local authorities to put those roads in a proper condition.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASI may point out to the hon. Member that that question does not arise under this Vote. I may, however, thank him for his suggestion, and I will see what can be done to carry it out.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASI did not mean any discourtesy to the hon. Member, but I thought I had answered his points when I replied to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. With regard to the pictures and art gems at Buckingham Palace being transferred to Holyrood Palace, that is not a matter with which I have to deal. I think, however, that we should be very thankful to Her Majesty for allowing so many of the Royal Palaces which are in her occupation for life to be thrown open to the public. With regard to Holyrood Palace, I agree that the amount spent there is somewhat out of proportion to the expenditure upon the palaces in London. In regard to the tapestries, I will take care that no delay occurs, and if a larger number of hands can be employed, that shall be done if it is possible with the amount of money at my disposal.
§ MR. CALDWELLthanked the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the suggestions which had been made, and he had no doubt that he would carry out his promises. He desired, however, to point out that the public did not get as many facilities for visiting Buckingham Palace as they did of visiting Windsor Palace. There were some very valuable pictures and art gems at Buckingham Palace which they were not permitted to see, and as Buckingham Palace was closed so much to the public he thought it would be a good thing if those pictures and art gems were sent for a time to Holyrood Palace.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £73,000, 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, 1901, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to ask a question upon a matter about which there seemed to him considerable doubt. On page 11 there was an item, "Appropriations in Aid" for key subscriptions amounting to £696. He 910 believed those were subscriptions to public parks set apart for private use. He understood that this sum represented the sale to private individuals of private privileges in public pieces of ground. He thought all public parks and pleasure-grounds for which they were asked to vote money should be devoted to the public. He did not think the First Commissioner of Works should set aside any portion of those grounds exclusively for the use of private persons. He thought the appropriations in aid were altogether wrong and improper. He did not propose to move a reduction, because he believed it would be ruled out of order. His opinion was that it ought not to be there, and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of it. He proposed to move to diminish the amount of these appropriations.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that his motion would leave the amount of the Vote exactly as it was now.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESThe amount voted will not be increased or diminished by one farthing by my motion, and the sum would be voted whether the appropriation is there or not.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid there was always a way of getting out of the difficulty, for they could move a reduction at any time or for any reason. There were certain privileges which had been given to certain people which, he thought, ought not to have been given, and, therefore, they could move a reduction on that ground. They were quite entitled to say that they declined to allow this sum of money to be voted for the public parks, for which special privileges were given to private persons. He contended that a motion for the reduction of the Vote would be a perfectly competent proposition, on the general ground that the parks had not been used for the public generally.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid what he suggested was not a reduction of the 911 Vote by £100, but simply that the appropriation should be diminished, which would leave the Vote unchanged.
§ MR. CALDWELLheld that according to the rules of the House if they wanted an increase in the Vote the only way to do it was to move a reduction, which was the only way of testing it. [Laughter.] There was no more absurdity in moving a reduction when they wished the Vote to remain as it was than in moving a reduction when they wished it to be increased. To put the matter in order he would move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £72,900, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASThese subscriptions only amount to something like £400. They are in respect of Hamilton Place Gardens and some private enclosures in Regent's Park, but they only amount to a small sum. My hon. friend himself has enjoyed these gardens, and I would ask under these circumstances whether he regards their use as an exclusive privilege. I do not think that any general case has been made out in favour of doing away with all these keys at once, but I will undertake to look into the matter and see if any of them can be foregone.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESWould the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many of these places there are?
§ MR. AKEES DOUGLASI think only two, but I will inquire and inform the Committee on the Report stage, or communicate with my hon. friend privately.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSAfter the conciliatory answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I would appeal to my hon. friend not to divide on this question; but I wish to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, that these subscriptions are not for admissions from private gardens only into public parks but for private entries into public parks maintained out of the public funds. That happens in Hamilton Place Gardens and other parts 912 adjoining Regent's Park, and the general public think that these persons should not get the exclusive right of user of any part of Regent's Park, and when these key tenancies terminate I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of not renewing them. I am very glad to hear that there will presently be an opportunity for exercising his discretion in connection with Regent's Park. May I suggest to him that he should adopt the policy of the County Council, who make a considerable revenue from people with premises abutting on open spaces by charging a key fee of 7s. 6d., though they have only the same right of user as the public. In Regent's Park many people pay two or three guineas a year for an advantage worth £200 or £300, because of the magnificent gardens placed at their disposal. The people outside that ring strongly oppose the arrangement, and I think the gardens should be thrown open to the general public.
§ MR W. A. MCARTHUR (Cornwall, St. Austell)I should like to ask a question—xI admit, out of mere personal curiosity. How is it that the inhabitants of Hamilton Place Gardens are the happy possessors of keys at all?
MR. GIBSON BOWLESMay I explain that. I paid three guineas for my key. It was not a gift at all, and I gave it up.
§ MR. W. A. MCARTHURI should like to ask how this particular part of the park was set apart for people who paid for their keys; and also whether there is any foundation for the statement that a payment of three guineas a year constitutes a kind of perpetual right to this part of the park. As I understand, there is no right beyond the year for which the subscription is paid, and I hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make an arrangement whereby this portion of the park will be put in the same position as the rest of the park for public use and enjoyment.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASThe fee simply covers the year for which it is paid.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
913§ Original Question again proposed.
§ * MR. WEIRI wish to call attention to the insufficient number of seats in Kew Gardens, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to provide better seating accommodation there.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASThat question will be considered.
§ MR. CALDWELLA large sum is paid every year out of Imperial funds for the up-keep of parks in London which, practically, ought to be kept up by the inhabitants of London themselves. The property of these parks belongs to the Crown, but the people use them in the same way as the people in the provinces use their parks, which they not only have to keep up, but have to purchase in the first instance. I do not think it fair that the London parks should be kept up out of Imperial funds; if the people of London want them let them keep them up at their own expense. It may be said that people from the provinces use them, but if people from London go to the provinces or to Paris they get the use of the parks there. There is no argument therefore in the statement that because it is London the parks should be maintained at the national expense. The buildings around these parks increase enormously in value because of their proximity to the parks, and London benefits by the enhanced valuation of these buildings. People in the provinces have reason to complain, and I never could understand why London should be treated differently in the matter of parks from the provinces.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly explain why cyclists are not allowed to use the roads in Kew Gardens under well-defined conditions. It is a favourite resort for cyclists, and it would be a luxury if they were allowed to ride through the Gardens.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASI would remind the hon. Gentleman that Kew Gardens are not a park, and I do not think it would be at all convenient, even if within statute, that cyclists should be 914 allowed to use the footpaths in Kew Gardens any more than the footpaths outside Kew Gardens. The value of Kew Gardens is, I have reason to hope, chiefly for students, and they are not regarded as a public park. I may mention that recently I caused better arrangements to be made for cycles at the entrance to Kew Gardens.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI observe there is another appropriation in aid—£217—which I believe is mainly derived from fees on presents of venison. That seems to me not creditable to the State. Certain judges and other officials receive every year a quarter or a haunch of venison which is considered a very graceful and handsome present. It appears, however, that while giving this present with one hand you take a fee from the recipient with the other. I should like to know what is the value of the venison. When any friend of mine sends me a present of venison, I get rid of it as quickly as I can, and I have strong doubts whether the venison presented is worth the £217 in fees which is received for it. This question of fees is one that requires a general looking over. I understand that many persons who have been offered peerages have refused them because of the fees. When the Sovereign sends a man a present of venison he cannot send it back and say he does not want it; but if he takes it he must pay the fee. That is not in the least creditable, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that he will abolish the practice of giving away venison altogether, or else abolish the fees.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that the fees referred to were merely nominal, and that several other amounts were included in the £217 mentioned.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSThe Chief Commissioner of Works, like his predecessor, has given privileges to athletic clubs in the neighbourhood of Kew Gardens which are very beneficial to them. But if these clubs are given grounds they ought not be allowed to display ugly and very vulgar advertisements above their scoring boards. I would suggest that where clubs are given such a favour they should not be permitted to allow a local tradesman—not of English origin either—to put up one of 915 the most vulgar advertisements I have ever seen.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, 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, 1901, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an old historic friend of his about whom he has not quite satisfied me. I refer to our late lamented friend Oliver Cromwell. I want to know whether he has changed his mind about the Cromwell statue. If a statue to Cromwell is, despite the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, to be placed within the precincts of Parliament, and if money is to be spent on it, what is to prevent a more progressive First Commissioner of Works in the future erecting a counter attraction by putting up a statue to Hooley and his communion plate? He has as little to do with the House of Commons as a Parliamentary institution as had Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell defamed Parliamentary institutions, and Hooley endeavoured to defame them by becoming a Tory candidate. I object on Irish grounds to a statue to a polluted murderer, and I object on English grounds because Cromwell was the ne plus ultra of an English adventurer. He began life by endeavouring to disestablish the Church, and he succeeded. Then he allied himself with the aristocracy, instituted a very severe administration in England, and talked scornfully of his Radical days. He was distinctly a family man, and he put into every place his own relatives and creatures. I do not like Cromwellians of that kind. He was a cowardly and vin- 916 dictive murderer; he was dead to every principle of humanity, and to have a statue to him in the precincts of Parliament is an insult to Englishmen, and a very gross insult to Irishmen. I will protest against it in season and out of season. I am sorry the First Commissioner of Works is turning a deaf ear to my eloquence, because I am about to appeal to his artistic sense against this wretched statue. I know the right hon. Gentleman is not very famous for his artistic tastes. I have known him since his Oxford days—I will not say how long ago—and candour compels me to say that at the same time the Committee should hear what he thinks of this statue, morally and politically. I saw him myself go into the lobby against it. Why then should he erect the statue? Was it because it was given by Lord Rosebery that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to put the unclean thing out of sight? Is it that the Government are afraid of Lord Rosebery, the great Imperialist, and must accept his gift even if it defiles the Palace of Westminster? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division would give us his views as a representative of Birmingham. I am a good man struggling with adversity; I am the voice of one crying in a stock-jobbing wilderness. The statue is to the Irish Members an emblem of insult. It shows the amazing want of sensibility of the English race that, although they compel us to come to this Parliament, they presume to insult us.
§ It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
§ Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.