OSBORNE ESTATE (RECOMMITTED) BILL (Hansard, 11 December 1902)

§ MR. CALDWELL
said he would not move the first Amendment standing in his name, as he thought the discussion he desired to raise could be raised on the second Amendment. as the House was aware, the Osborne estate belonged to her late Majesty as a private estate, and such estates were held in the same manner as if they were private estates of any subject of the realm, and her Majesty paid the rates and taxes on Osborne 973 like any private individual, so that in considering this subject the question of Royalty was eliminated. Any precedent established by this Bill would have enormous force in subsequent dealings by Act of Parliament with regard to the disposition of the property of private individuals. By the will of her late Majesty Osborne estate was left in life-rent to the King. The life-rent interest afterwards went to the Prince of Wales, and the tenants in tail were the children of the Prince of Wales. They could deal with the life-rent interest of the King and of the Prince of Wales by consent. But there arose the question of the tenant in tail. He was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and obviously was not of an age to give consent. The King's interest was a life interest, and His Majesty had no power to settle the interest of the tenants in tail under this Bill. The life interest of His Majesty was all that ought to be pressed in a matter of this kind, and the King had a perfect right to dispose of his interest as he thought fit. He did not object to the country saddling itself with the obligation to carry out the wish of the King and to pay £3,000 or £5,000 a year in doing so; but he objected to the Government giving anything to the King that did not belong to His Majesty in full right of property. It might be urged that the Prince of Wales had given his consent. The country had always been very jealous in regard to consents where persons were under any supposed influence, and the Prince of Wales was practically under the influence of the King to such an extent that it would be impossible, even supposing that he wished it, for him to withhold his consent to the King's wish. If His Royal Highness did not do so, his position would be an intolerable one; and, therefore, ho could not look upon the consent of the Prince of Wales as a matter of full and free consent which should operate in a transaction of this kind. He thought that the Bill went too far, and that it would establish two unfortunate principles. In the first place, it would overturn the will of the late Queen Victoria, and within two years of her death it would upset the arrangement that Osborne should remain one of the private estates of the Crown. A great deal had been heard in recent 974 debates about the sanetity of the Will of the founder. But here they were setting aside the will of the founder by Act of Parliament within two years and without any change of circumstances. Parliament was asked to pass a Bill to confiscate the rights of the tenants in tail without compensation; and if it could do this, it could as easily take away the rights of the tenants in tail of every Member of the House of Lords without compensation. It was really a very serious matter, and might form a precedent for dealing with the rights of private individuals.

THE CHANCELLOR OK THK EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCIHE,) Croydon
said he was astonished that if there was any foundation in the arguments of the hon. Member he was so scantily supported by his friends on the Benches opposite. He did not think that the hon. Member was correct in sayingthat there was any chance of this Bill forming a precedent with reference to the disposal of private property. The hon. Member had expressed various beliefs as to the late Queen's wishes. He did not feel that he was in a position to enter into that question. He was certain, however, that Her Majesty the late Queen would have desired no better scheme for the occupation of this estate than that which was proposed in this Bill, bearing in mind her strong feelings for her Army and Navy. So far from Osborne being a "white elephant," the country had good reason to be deeply grateful to His Majesty for the consideration which bad led him to make such a magnificent gift to (he nation. Osborne was an estate of very great value, and still greater prospective value. Of course, the hon. Member would hold that that fact only strengthened his argument, but all he could say was that if the Amendment were carried it would mean the end of the Bill. It would be impossible to ask the nation to make the necessary expenditure of money 975 if the gift was to be limited to His Majesty's lifetime, and that was the light in which His Majesty regarded the matter. It was quite true that they were taking away the right of the young Prince in the estate, but the King felt, and the House would feel, that to make this a real gift it was essential that all interests should be dealt with. Of course, the young Prince's interest was a remote one; if he were of age his consent would no doubt have been asked and no doubt given. It was acknowledged that they were taking away from an infanta right he now possessed; but that was a necessary part of the scheme, and, that being so, he was satisfied that the Committee would not consent to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. CALDWELL
contended that this was a "white elephant" so far as the King's life was concerned. As to its great prospective value, that belonged, not to the King but to the tenants in tail, and that showed how serious was the principle involved.

§ MR. CALDWELL
moved certain alterations in the phraseology of sub-Section 4, the effect of which, he explained, would be that Osborne House, so far as it had been in the personal occupation of Her late Majesty, would be open to the public, and to limit the trust in favour of officers of the services to the rest of the house, and only such portion of the grounds as might, from time to time, be reserved for them by the Commissioners.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,) Dublin University
said it was impossible to accept the 976 Amendment, as it would completely alter the scheme of the Bill. The public would have such use of the grounds as the Commissioners of Works might think it proper to give under the general powers of management conferred on them by the Acts of Parliament under which they operate, but to say that the grounds would be kept exclusively for a particular purpose, and not to allow any discretion to the Commissioners, would be to render the working of the Bill absolutely impossible. It would be entirely for the Board of Works to make such rules and regulations as might be necessary for convenience in carrying out the whole scope of the Bill, and that was a matter which might safely be left to their discretion.

§ MR. CALDWELL
admitted that the Amendment, as drafted, was rather wide, but he hoped the Solicitor General would look into the Clause which, according to its present construction, created a trust. The Commissioners would have power to make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out sub-Section 4, but they would have no power whatever to make rules and regulations to give the publicaccessto the rest of thegrounds. He thought some form of words should be introduced to make the meaning of the Clause clear.