§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £33,800, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect' of the Royal parks and pleasure gardens.
Sir J. D. REESI rise not merely for the purpose of criticism or to impugn the diligence of the right hon. Gentleman. I object to the policy of the First Commissioner of Works in respect to these park keepers. We have here a sum of £33,800, in addition to £182,000, which has been already granted. These are very large figures, and I want to know if these policemen and park keepers who get this large sum of £12,000 in wages and £18 000 in bonus are not to be employed to keep St. James's Park open after seven o'clock at night? Some members may laugh, but it is quite a serious matter. Hon. Members spend a good deal of their time here and often dine here—perhaps it is due to the excellence of the cuisine and of the company—but they do occasionally go home in the evening to see their families, and I want to know why, if a Member of this House wants to walk home from this place in the evening he should not be allowed to go across St. James's Park after seven o'clock. Why should these places not be kept open for them as well as for other members of the public, if we are spending these large sums to keep up a staff and to manage these parks? We are working men here, like everyone else, and we should be enabled to take advantage of these parks, and we should be able to go home through them instead of having to walk over the hard 305 roads and facing the risk of being run over by ears with dazzling lights. I bring this matter forward because it is not only a question of St. James's Park, but of the other parks, and I want to know why St. James's Park and the Green Park are to continue to be kept from the use of the public in the evening?
§ The CHAIRMANThe general policy of the Government with respect to the parks is not a matter that is open to discussion on this Vote.
Sir J. D. REESMay I respectfully submit that the question of policy and the amounts to be paid to the staffs of the parks are inextricably connected if we are to have these large staffs, I submit that we ought to have the parks open later in the evening. That is not a large question of policy; it is a simple deduction from the fact that these staffs are employed. I think I am entitled to urge the First Commissioner of Works to tell us what return we are going to have for this money.
§ The CHAIRMANIt would not be in Order on this Vote to discuss the time of the closing of the parks. The point is the question of additional wages and bonus to the park-keepers.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI wish to ask a question regarding the staffs at Kew. We are being asked for an additional sum of £3,800 for a hostel for them. The original estimate was £7,000. What is the reason for this increase? Mention is made of a hostel. Has that hostel to be enlarged? Has there been any special reason for requiring this additional sum of £3,800? If there is any reason, how-is it that, while we are giving this very large sum in war bonuses to the park-keepers and others—I presume they are part of the gardening staff—we should also provide this hostel for them? Surely if they have got increased wages they will not need this hostel. What is a hostel? Will anyone explain that? I hear an hon. Member remark that it is a form of hotel. If that is so, I am not sure why we should be asked to give this kind of hotel to the gardeners. In these days economy might be exercised, and we should not give this "hotel" for the park-keepers in addition to the increase of wages. I should think they live in houses, and that there is no need to provide a hotel for them.
§ Mr. HOGGEI have a question to ask upon the same subject. The original estimate was £14,440. How much of that was put down in respect to this hostel? I see a sum of £8,240, and this £3,800 is also proposed now. One does not know what is in the real total. Obviously, a smaller sum of £7,100 is included in the sum of £14,440. What else is there in that sum? I should like to know whether or not this hostel has been acquired? If it has been, who acquired it? On whose authority was it acquired; Who gave the First Commissioner of Works authority to acquire any hostel and adapt it for any such purpose? There is far too much of this "white elephant" business going on, and we ought to put a stop to it. If we do not put a stop to it, the public are going to put a stop to us. Though some hon. Members may laugh at the suggestion, it is quite true. This country cannot go on as it is going. I want to warn the Government that we are out to economise, and to do that we must examine these Estimates line by line, and make sure that there is no sum of money which has been improperly put down. How many of us will ever see this hostel or these gardens of the Royal Botanical Society? I think the nation could do very well without the Royal Botanical Gardens. What is the use of talking nonsense about these institutions? How many people in Scotland, Wales, Ireland or Yorkshire will ever see the Royal Botanical Gardens?
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot on this Vote discuss the policy to be adopted with regard to these Royal parks and gardens. We can only discuss the matter described in the supplementary Estimate, which is an additional sum in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds. We cannot discuss the whole Vote of the Department.
§ Mr. HOGGEI think that the Vote includes the £7,100 in respect to these gardens, and I think it will be cheaper in the long run not to spend that money. It is not a question of policy, it is a question of voting this sum of money. What right has the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to spend this money before he has got permission from this Committee? We want to stop that practice. Before these sums of money are spent the Department ought to have the approval of this Committee, 307 and we must watch that they do not spend money that they have no right to spend.
Lieut. - Colonel MURRAYI agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. There was a time when Ministers could run these Estimates through without criticism. But it is now time that due consideration should be given to all these Estimates. There is no other subject that comes before this House which ought to receive closer consideration. I also should like to ask a question with respect to these new premises and alterations, for which the additional sum of £3,800 is asked. Is any of this asked for with respect to any of the temporary buildings in St. James's Park or the other parks? If so, how has it been expended? Has it been spent in making alterations in these buildings or adding to them, or in taking some of them away? Will the First Commissioner of Works tell us what is the intention of the Government with regard to these temporary buildings? The House of Commons ought to exercise the strictest supervision over all buildings that are erected in the public parks; and that used to be the case. The sooner these temporary buildings are removed the better. It should be done at the earliest possible moment.
§ Colonel ASHLEYWhen the First Commissioner of Works replies, will he explain Item F, which is for additional war pensions to workmen employed in the Royal parks? Why should he not do away with these war "boni" and get a standard rate of wages, so that we should all know exactly what we were voting in the first place? It is time there was a consolidated standard rate of pay instead of these war bonuses. Is it the intention of the Office of Works to effect that? I think we ought to know quite clearly what they intend to do. In this sum for new works, alterations and additions the original Estimate was £14,440, and the revised Estimate is £18,240. Then there is this hostel to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has referred. This, it appears, is going to cost not only the original sum of £7,100, but also this addition of £3,800, a total of £10,900. For what purpose was it necessary to spend this sum of over £10,000?
§ Sir A. MONDIn reply to what has been said about the wages paid, that is a matter for the Treasury and not for my Department. The war bonuses have been given under the Civil Service arbitration awards of the 31st March, 1919, and a later date. The wages were raised from 30s. to 33s. a week. With regard to the other questions raised on this supplementary Estimate, I am asking now for an additional sum of £3,800 in respect to the acquisition of a hostel at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew That is not the total Vote. It is a Vote on Account. I am asked, who gave authority for it? My answer is that I am now asking for authority. No money has been spent. I am now asking for the money. That is the object of introducing such a Supplementary Estimate This is not a scheme for building a "hotel for gardeners." The scheme has been approved by the Minister of Agriculture in order to find accommodation for students who are studying at the Royal Botanic Gardens. Whatever hon. Members may say, the Royal Botanic Gardens form one of the most important educational establishments of this country. They might as well talk about the London University or the Imperial Institute or the Royal Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Sixty students will use the hostel. They will have a lecture room and a laboratory. The students receive a subsistence allowance, and in that matter there will be an income to balance expenditure, which will really make it a self-supporting institution. In this district, as everywhere else at the present time, accommodation cannot be found for the students. Therefore, the scheme was proposed, and is sanctioned by the Treasury. Premises are under consideration and will shortly be acquired when the Estimate is passed. As far as I have been able to judge, the scheme on the whole ought to be a very useful one, and ought to entail no charge on public funds.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move, that Item E. [New Works, Alterations and Additions] be omitted from the proposed Vote.
If we are told that my right hon. Friend is seeking permission to spend £7,100, we know where we are. By granting this 309 vote of £3,800 we are committing ourselves to the expenditure of £7,100. We are being asked to spend that money on a hostel for students at the Botanic Gardens, There can be no reason why that should not be done far more economically in existing buildings. Lectures in botany can be given at the London University. They are given at Edinburgh University, in spite of the fact that you have Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh and that the students go to the Gardens in order to do their practical work. If the Committee are intent on spending money uselessly they can spend it and vote against the induction. There are professors of botany at the London University, and there should be no difficulty in arranging Saturday excursions to the Gardens for dealing with this matter. That is a temporary arrangement which surely can be made. I suggest that if we want to save money we can save this £7,100. It would be a warning to Ministers in charge of departments not to strike out in now directions while the finances of the State are so restricted.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe First Commissioner of Works did not answer one question—why it was necessary to have this additional sum of £3,800? The right hon. Baronet has told us that this is a hostel for students. Will he look at the vote? At the bottom of page 7 there is this note:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Acquisition and adaptation of premises for a hostel for gardening stuff.Which is correct? The First Commissioner of Works has said that, of course, he does not know all the different points and that it is not quite right to ask him. He thought the hostel was for students, whereas it appears to be for the staff. I shall presume that the estimates are wrong and that the right hon. Baronet is right. Why should we want a hostel for students? Is it the first time there has been a hostel for students at Kew? if not, why cannot they go on as in the past? It seems to me, again, that the least we can do is to continue, at any rate for the present, the practice of the past. If in the past it was good enough for students to accommodate themselves at their own expense, for heaven's sake let them go on in that way, until we are in a position to see that we can reduce taxation a little. I have no objection to students learning about the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, learning botany and that sort of thing. 310 I do not Know whether it is a very useful thing at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not want to question that, but I do say it is only right that these students should do what has been done in the past and that they should not have any fresh luxuries thrust upon them by the keenness of the right hon. Gentleman. I will ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see that the right hon. Gentleman answers my question as to whether this was part of an original estimate or whether it is a new estimate caused by alterations and additions to the original estimate.
§ Sir W. BULLCannot some use be made of the Royal Palace at Kew? It is in the Gardens and is not in use at the present time.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTI find myself in the very happy but unusual position of being in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote. I hope he will press this matter to a Division. The time has gone by when we can allow the Supplementary Estimates to slip through in any form in which Minister may choose to present them. I have been very much mystified in listening to the speech of the. First Commissioner of Works. Like another speaker, I am very anxious to know whether this is an education vote or whether it is a vote for the housing of the gardening staff in Kew Gardens. I have no sort of answer to that, and until we get an answer I hope the Government will not get their money. If it is an educational vote I should have very great sympathy with it; but I shall still want to know why these recipients of botanical education could not be housed in the ordinary way and why it was necessary to make this provision for them in a hostel in Kew Gardens. The very valuable suggestion has just been made that of it is really necessary to house these gardeners or students they could be housed in one of the Royal Palaces. At any rate, this Committee, in all seriousness, is entitled to very precise information from the Government when a Supplementary Estimate of this kind is asked for, I trust that the Estimates will be scrutinised item by item and line by line.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYSo far as I have heard the Debate, it has prompted me to support the Amendment. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should 311 not make this a personal matter at all. We have no desire to oust him from his office. He does his duty very well according to his lights. Let the House decide this question.
§ Sir A. MONDPerhaps the Committee will let me explain what this scheme is? There is no additional money asked for at all. The Supplementary Estimate is £7,100. I am asking for £3,800 on account, not the £7,100.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHow can there be a vote on account on a Supplementary Estimate? This is an Estimate supplementary to the Estimates already passed.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Sir A. MONDThis estimate of £7,100 never has been passed. We are asking for £3,800 now on account of that £7,100. Accommodation is required for student-gardeners, that is to say for students at the Royal Botanic Gardens, who at the same time are working practically in the gardens. They have to be there at six o'clock in the morning. The reason why accommodation is required is not that there is any desire to build hostels, but because there is now everywhere such a lack of accommodation that many of these students are residing from 15 to 20 miles away, and they have to travel that distance before starting their work at six o'clock in the morning. The result is that the work is being seriously affected. What we want is that the Committee should make up its mind whether this work is of value. I think it is of very great value. I am astonished at what was said by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) about the Royal Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Surely he is entirely wrong? The students have a laboratory and a lecture-room in the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Everybody knows that the people working in the gardens study horticulture, forestry, tropical plants and other matters of that kind. They require work on the spot. The students have to pay a lodging allowance. This will be of great advantage to the students who work together and who will live in close proximity to their work. The amount of money involved is comparatively small, and I do hope the Committee will not put a stop to the attempt that is being made to im- 312 Prove the sadly neglected studies of horticulture, forestry, plant culture and kindred matters in this country. There is no real economy in doing that, and there is no use half starving the provision and making the students work in a way in which they cannot render efficient service.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThe right hon. Gentleman has not told us the number of students for whom he is making this provision.
§ Sir A. MONDThe number is 60.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThey have been going there for years, and just when everything is dearest we are asked to provide a hostel which was not done during or before the War. Why can they not get their accommodation now as they have done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any explanation of that so far, and I shall support the mover of the reduction.
Mr. AC LANDFrom the knowledge which I have of this subject I feel bound to support the right hon. Gentleman on one point. These students are young men of considerable technical educational attainments, and they go to Kew to study the higher branches of gardening. In view of the instruction they are willing to work in the gardens at a very much less rate of pay than if they were taken on as gardeners. They are allowed to stay for a certain number of months, and there are always people anxious to take then places when they go. I think the value they give in work is more than what is paid to them by the State for the work they do. There is the point as to finance. The right hon. Gentleman wants to begin this work, which he says is long overdue, and as it is extremely difficult to get accommodation for these men in the neighbourhood, and he wants to begin this financial year, and between this and the end of this month to spend £3,800 of the total Estimate of £7,000. That, I think, needs some explanation. I am sure he is being pressed by the Board of Agriculture. It seems to me to be impossible almost to spend the money in the time unless it is meant for the hire of huts. It would be better, I think, to let the matter come forward in the ordinary way and include the whole sum in the ordinary Estimates for next year and not ask for this supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. BARTLEY DENNISSI am very glad that the First Commissioner has told us the terms under which these students are at Kew Gardens, and with that explanation I hope the House will support the item. In Estimates amounting to over thirty millions this one small item is picked out for attack. The science of botany is too much neglected in this country. I have had some experience of the science in my early days. I know the importance of it to agriculture and to forestry, two things which are rather backward in this country. The provision of accommodation at Kew Gardens is calculated to be of the greatest possible assistance because in the past the study of botany has suffered from the absence of such facilities for acquaintance with the actual plants, and also of scientific laboratories. Incidentally, this will help to solve to some extent the housing question. You take away 60 men from various districts and there are 60 more places for the British public, while the cost, so far as I can make out from the figures, is very far below the average cost of the houses which are being built by the local authorities. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) has asked why the right hon. Baronet wants £3,800 to be spent during the month of March. I do not know, but it is very easy to imagine that the plans are ready and estimates have been given and the necessary labour arranged for. This is the time for building, and if you let it go by these buildings may not be completed this year and another whole year will be lost to the study of this science. To ask for the Vote next financial year would be a risk and would lead to very considerable postponement, and perhaps abandonment of the plan altogether. I do, in the interests of agriculture and forestry, appeal to the House to pass this Vote in order to encourage the study of the science of botany. I am rather astonished that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City does not appreciate its importance. This is one of the smallest and most useful items in these Estimates of thirty millions, and I trust the House will pass it.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI desire to support the First Commissioner of Works. We spend millions of pounds on the Army, Navy and Air Force, and from what I can gather this is a proposal to establish a hostel for students who have to be at the 314 gardens by 6 o'clock in the morning. It struck me that it would not be the children of the well to do who would be there at 6 o'clock, but the children of the working classes. An hon. Member says: "Nonsense," but what I say is quite true. We know the difficulty in agricultural areas where children who attend secondary schools get up at 7 o'clock, reach school at 9, finish at 4, and have two or three hours to wait for a train to take them back home. By the time they arrive there they are exhausted and you cannot get the best educational efficiency out of those children. It would be very expensive for these students in these gardens to live in London. They would have to be up between four and five in the morning and travel 15 or 20 miles. I, on behalf of the Labour party, support this estimate in the interests of the sons and daughters of the working classes, in order to give them the opportunity of becoming efficient in education and of being able to compete with the sons and daughters of the rich.
Sir J. D. REESIf these students cannot carry on without these buildings then I submit there is a case for providing the buildings. Although I believe the question of economy is paramount at present, I could not vote for cutting this Estimate out because I know the value of these studies in different parts of the Empire. Kew has been of the most enormous assistance, for instance, to the Local Governments in India in introducing cinchona, a specific against the disease of malarial fever. It has been experiments carried out with the help of Kew Gardens and of students from there which have enabled the authorities in India to fight this terrible scourge which kills more people than war or pestilence. For that reason, though I would put economy before everything, owing to the benefit which results from this, I could not support an Amendment to cut it out.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Labour party does not appreciate what this problem means. It is not a problem about children of rich or poor getting to work at six o'clock. Wales is not the only place in the United Kingdom where it is necessary to start at six o'clock. In Scotland children go twice the distances at early hours in the morning. That is beside the question altogether. These students are young 315 men and women of twenty-one and twenty-three, and probably a larger percentage of botanical and scientific students generally belong to what might be called the better-off classes, though all of us would like to see facilities given to the working classes to increase the numbers of their children taking part in these studies. What is happening to-day is that my right hon. Friend is taking £3,800 out of £7,100. The remainder of that will come up again next year, and you may be as sure as that you are sitting here that there will be a revised Estimate for that, just as there is a revised Estimate to-day, and that the £7,100 will be increased by another £2,900, or something like that. My right hon. Friend is attempting in the last days of the financial year to launch a proposal which ought to be discussed on the ordinary Estimates. If you give him the £3,800 to-day, he cannot spend it in the month of March. There is not a single word about building in the Estimate, and it does not say whether the premises are to be in Kew Gardens or outside, or what it is going to cost, They are bluffing this Committee into giving them the money today, so that next year they may come back with the revised Estimate for some £10,000 or £15,000 for an ill-digested scheme. If we mean all the things we say outside about economy, here is a case in point. There is no necessity why this Estimate should not be considered on the 1st of April, a much more appropriate date, and there is every reason why we should assert our authority to prevent this money being spent now.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYIt seems to the Minister in charge to be a very small matter, but in point of fact a great point of principle is involved, and before I make up my mind on the subject I wish to have answers to one or two questions. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) asked why it was necessary to make this change now, and no reply has been given to that. The hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) said, would it not be possible to adapt the old Palace of Kew for the purpose for which this money is now to be expended, and until the right hon. Gentleman has answered these questions I am unable to say how I shall vote.
§ Sir A. MONDThe proposal is to purchase an existing house close to Kew 316 and to adapt it, and that is the reason why I am bringing this forward on a supplementary estimate and not waiting for a final estimate. There is a house in the market now which can be obtained on reasonable terms and which we are very anxious not to lose, because, as hon. Members must be aware, accommodation in Kew, as in other districts, and even more so in Kew, has become an almost impossible question. It is just the intensity of the difficulty which has promoted this scheme. I am asked what did the students do before. We had not got all these housing accommodation difficulties before the War, and Kew is in a particularly difficult situation, because large Government Departments have been out-housed there, and the result is that a large staff lives out there and has made the housing question practically impossible.
§ Sir A. MONDYou cannot clear them out, because there is work that every Member of this House has insisted should be done. Obviously, if there were no difficulty in finding lodgings at Kew, this scheme would not have been brought forward. This hostel is not merely a place in which these students are going to be housed, but it is going to be adapted for lectures and for laboratories as well. There are sixty students, and they are all men. We are anxious to be able to buy at once, and we are afraid that if we wait prices will rise against us. Therefore, there is no object in delay. I can assure hon. Members that there is nothing to be gained in economy now by refusing to use the opportunity of obtaining premises which are available on favourable terms in order to bring the matter up later, when probably we shall have to buy those premises and similar premises for more money. With regard to the point raised about Kew Palace, there is no sanitation in Kew Palace. It has not been lived in for a hundred years, and I would not like to undertake to say what it would cost to make it a habitable dwelling place for sixty students. It would cost a great deal more than £3,800; and if you put another nought at the end of that sum it would probably be nearer the mark. I hope the Committee will now give me the Estimate, as I think I have established that the proposal is practical, businesslike, useful, and that it is really an educational 317 facility which is very much required by the Kew authorities. We have already discussed the point for some little time.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe have not discussed this for very long, but I would point out that any time that has been wasted has been entirely the right hon. Gentleman's own fault, and if he had put his Estimates in such a form that the Committee could understand them we should then have known what we know now. It now appears that this is a new proposal altogether, that you should buy a house, not for the gardening staff or for the children of the working people, but for young men and women of twenty-two or twenty-three, mostly the sons and daughters of well-to-do people, and that in this house you should start a laboratory and a lecture room That is a very different thing from the acquisition of premises for a hostel for the gardening staff. As there are such a large number of Government Departments round about Kew they have taken up every available accommodation. If we had known all this at the beginning we could have discussed the matter at very much shorter length, but I maintained that what my hon. Friend the Member for East Grin-stead (Mr. Cautley) said is really the only thing which is to the point. I hope that very shortly these large Government staffs will disappear and be demobilised and that then there will be room for these students. If these students have up to the present been able to find accommodation, why not go on as they are now? They must be living somewhere now, and though I do not doubt it would be very much nicer and pleasanter for them to live in this hostel and to have the laboratories and lecture rooms, I say that we ought to be content with what we have put up with for the last twenty or thirty years and that this is not the time to come forward and propose this large expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said it is only £7,100, but that argument could be used for every item, and until we say we will not spend the money, however good the object may be, we shall never succeed in reducing the expenditure of the country and bringing the finances of the country, which are in a very bad state, into a proper position.
§ Mr. SPENCERI am very pleased that my hon. Friend (Mr. Griffiths) has indicated that the Labour party are going 318 to vote with the Government on this question. There seems to me to be an element of unreality altogether about this discussion. I cannot conceive of even the right hon. Baronet opposing this Vote had it been a Vote of the same amount for the extension of some barracks rather than for the provision of educational institutions. I am very much surprised indeed that the Mover of the Amendment has taken the view that he has in relation to this question. Let us look at the opposition that has been offered to the spending of this money. It is based upon a continuity of what has been done in the past, whether or not the past has been good. That is the basis of the whole of the opposition—what has been done in the past. Whether it has been good or not in the past, whether or not it has been satisfactory in the past, that is not asked. Whatever the past has been, whether good, bad, or indifferent, the proposal has been to continue that. I think it has been indicated by the Minister in charge that so far as the provisions are concerned they are totally inadequate.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhat the hon. Member says is exactly what I have been trying to do. I have been trying to get the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Estimates to do what he has done in the past.
§ Mr. SPENCERAnd my point against that is this, you are offering that objection where the past has been efficient, good, or bad. Now the Minister comes down and says, he is proposing this because the past has not been good enough, and the present is being made worse because there is no accommodation for the students. Here is an institution that will last longer, I hope, than any Member in this House—an institution that will probably be there for the next 100, or probably 500, years. Is it not far better to establish a hostel of an educational character rather than that the students should come to London from, probably, all parts of the country not knowing where they are going. Hon. Members who live in London do not really know the difficulty of people who live out of London, and have to send their sons to London to be educated. My son happens to be in London, and I have had the utmost difficulty in finding him accommodation to follow his studies here. Other people have the 319 same difficulties, and I cannot conceive that any sane man would be in favour of supporting a state of affairs which makes it essential for students to travel 20 miles in the morning and 20 miles at night. It must mean a great loss of time, which might be spent in the pursuit of study, and because of the provision which is being made for the housing of students near the place where the practical side of their studies is being carried on, I hope the party to which I belong will support the Government.
§ Sir W. BULLIn justification of the question I put, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered Kew Palace as a hostel for students? Here is a valuable, old-fashioned, picturesque building which has not been inhabited, according to the hon. Gentleman, for 100 years, although I think it is 60 or 70 years. Here is a large
§ building lying empty, doing nothing; it is a splendid building with a good roof, and I would therefore, ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the suitability of this building for the purpose?
§ Sir A. MONDI understand that Kew Palace has been considered, and the conclusion come to was that it would be very-much more costly in any case to adapt this old building than the proposal I have now placed before the Committee, and I think very little consideration will show that to be the case. It is an old building with no sanitary arrangements and no drainage, and everybody knows that once you begin on that you will spend a very large sum of money.
§ Question put, "That Item E [New Works, Alterations and Additions] be omitted from the proposed Vote."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 269.
321| Division No. 28.] | AYES. | [5.35 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes) | Hayday, Arthur | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest |
| Briant, Frank | Hills, Major John Waller | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham) | Hinds, John | Perring, William George |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W. |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Johnstone, Joseph | Redmond, Captain William Archer |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | Kenyon, Barnet | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E. V |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lort-Williams, J. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Glanville, Harold James | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Gould, James C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Morrison, Hugh | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Hogge and Mr. Marriott. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith. | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Bowyer Captain G. E. W. | Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Breese, Major Charles E. | Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Bromfield, William | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | burdon, Colonel Rowland | Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Butcher, Sir John George | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick) | Cairns, John | Denison-Pender, John C. |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Campbell, J. D. G. | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Cape, Thomas | Donald, Thompson |
| Barrand, A. R. | Carr, W. Theodore | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Duncannon, Viscount |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Casey, T. W. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin | Edwards, John K. (Glam., Neath) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. |
| Bennett, Thomas Jewell | Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. |
| Blgland, Alfred | Clough, Robert | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Coats, Sir Stuart | Foreman, Henry |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Forrest, Walter |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Foxcroit, Captain Charles Talbot |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. | Cope, Major Wm. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Sexton, James |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Lindsay, William Arthur | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Lloyd, George Butter | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Glyh, Major Ralph | Lorden, John William | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Goff, Sir H. Park | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Simm, M. T. |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Lunn, William | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Grant, James A. | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Spencer, George A. |
| Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Spoor, B. G. |
| Greig, Colonel James William | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J. | Stanler, Captain Sir Beville |
| Griggs, Sir Peter | Magnus, Sir Philip | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Mason, Robert | Stevens, Marshall |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Hallwood, Augustine | Mitchell, William Lane | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Hallas, Eldred | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Sugden, w. H. |
| Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Hancock, John George | Morison, Thomas Brash | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Morrison-Bell, Major A. E. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Myers, Thomas | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Hartshorn, Vernon | Neal, Arthur | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Haslam, Lewis | Nelson, R. F. W. R. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Tootill, Robert |
| Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Nield, Sir Herbert | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Turton, E. R. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | Waddington, R. |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. | Wallace, J. |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Parker, James | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Hood, Joseph | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington) | Pearce, Sir William | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Peel, Lieut.-Col- R. F. (Woodbridge) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Howard, Major S. G. | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) | White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Whitla, Sir William |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson |
| Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Wignall, James |
| Irving, Dan | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Pulley, Charles Thornton | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Purchase, H. G. | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Jellett, William Morgan | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Jesson, C. | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Jodrell, Neville Paul | Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East) | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Keliaway, Frederick George | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Kidd, James | Rodger, A. K. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| King, Commander Henry Douglas | Rose, Frank H. | Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Rothschild, Lionel de | Younger, Sir George |
| Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) | Rounded, Colonel R. F. | |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Royce, William Stapleton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) | Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest. |
| Lawson, John J. | Seager, Sir William |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs this the Vote for the Houses of Parliament Buildings? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
§ The CHAIRMANThis is the Vote we have been on for a couple of hours, and I wish to dispose of it.