ROYAL PALACES. (Hansard, 13 June 1913)

§ Mr. J. M. HOGGE
Upon this Vote I desire to call attention to an unfortunate incident which occurred in the last few days and in regard to which there have been certain questions and answers in this House. I do not intend to go over all the circumstances of this incident. In brief, it amounted to this: Some extremely distinguished visitors were unable to obtain admission to Holyrood Palace, although sent there by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. Owing to some formality which required to be gone through on occasions of that kind not having been complied with, these distinguished visitors were unable to see the interior of the Palace. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote that occasions must arise on which it is impossible for any local authority to give the amount of notice which apparently the First Commissioner of Works required or demands, and I want to put it to the hon. Gentleman whether in circumstances of that kind the imprimatur of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh should not be sufficient to secure admission for visitors to Holyrood Palace. I need not remind the House of the value of Holyrood Palace to Edinburgh, and that in the summer months visitors come from long distances to see the Palace. As a matter of fact, at this 1984 moment the regulations which exist of necessity in connection with the suffrage movement means for a large section of the community of Edinburgh distinct loss. The most effective drive in the vicinity is that known as the King's Drive, and the cabmen in Edinburgh regard that as one of their chief sources of income during the summer months. If you cut Holyrood out of that drive, as you are bound to do, if you impose restrictions upon it, they must suffer very severely. That was the incident I wanted to call attention to, but I would also like to point out that there ought to be some laxity in the regulations by which in circumstances such as I have described it ought to be possible for the Lord Provost to vouch for the visitors he sends to Holyrood Palace.

Mr. BENN
In reply to the hon. Member I think it would be well to lay down three propositions with which I am sure he himself will cordially agree. The first is that it is the duty of the First Commissioner to take every care that no harm or damage is done to Holyrood Palace. The second is that any distinguished visitors who go there should have ready access to the Palace, and the third is that if the Lord Provost of Edinburgh wishes visitors to see Holyrood Palace, his word should be sufficient to secure their instant admission. Passing from these I do not think we could plead guilty to any fault in this matter. What happened was this. These distinguished visitors came to Edinburgh to see the Palace, and having secured the services of an official of the Lord Provost, they went down to Holyrood Palace. The Lord Provost had failed to notify the office, which could have been done by a visit or by telephone, that the visitors intended going to the Palace. The consequence was that when they arrived at the Palace with an official of the Lord Provost it is true, but without the matter being referred 1985 to the gentleman in charge of the Office of Works in Edinburgh, the official at the Palace had no authority whatever to admit them. He did his duty. He said I am told to do certain things, and I cannot act without instructions.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Had he not got a telephone?

Mr. BENN
Yes, and I am rather surprised that the Lord Provost's messenger did not himself telephone or suggest that the official should telephone. We regret very much these visitors were not admitted, and we want to show every consideration to the Lord Provost and to those he may wish to send to the Palace.