Lords Sitting of 25 July 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) a Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill; Thames River Steamboat Service Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TORQUAY TRAMWAYS BILL.
Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I have an Amendment which I shall ask your Lordships to insert in this Bill, and I am afraid it will require some few words of explanation. The history of the matter is this. The Corporation of Torquay, being desirous of having tramways in their town, and objecting on the score of amenity to the system of overhead wires, sought for some other system, and, among others, the system of the Dolter Traction Company was brought before them. This appeared to meet the requirements of the case, and a Bill was therefore promoted, with the consent—which, as your Lordships will remember, is an absolute necessity—of the corporation, and one of the terms upon which this consent was given was that the clause which I now move should be inserted in the Bill, the object of it being to protect from electric action the water and gas pipes of which
1002
the corporation are the owners. The original clause as first inserted in the Bill had reference only to the water and gas pipes belonging to the corporation, but when the Bill came before the other House the Committee of that House thought it only right and proper—and I must confess that their action appears to embody substantial justice—that if the pipes belonging to the authority in the town were protected by the clause, the pipes belonging to the gas company should be also protected; and on this understanding, which, as far as I can make out, was mutually agreed to by all parties, the clause was inserted in the other House.
When the Bill came before the Committee of your Lordships' House the matter was again discussed; and finally the chairman of that Committee, my noble friend Lord Hawkesbury, in giving the decision of the Committee, said they were agreed, under the special circumstances of the case, without making it a precedent, to allow this clause, and that he would, on behalf of the Committee, report accordingly to the Lord Chairman. My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees—and I do not wish for one moment to say a word against the propriety or even the justice of the action he has taken—struck out the clause from the Bill, and the Bill was reported and now comes to be read a third time without the clause in it which was agreed upon by the two Committees. I do not intend in the least to disguise from your Lordships the fact that I have against me some very weighty authority, although I have every confidence that I shall be able to show to your Lordships that there is a difference in this case. The first authority against me is the Committee of the two Houses which sat in 1893 under the presidency of my noble friend opposite, Viscount Cross, and of whose decision I am bound to say I speak with the greatest respect, not only on account of the fact that the noble Viscount was Chairman of the Committee, but also, perhaps, because I was one of the members of it myself. The decision of this Committee was to this effect. They considered that it would be against public policy, inasmuch as it would hamper invention and hamper enterprise in electric tramway undertakings if the

1003
promoters were to be subject to any other liability except that of complying with the regulations from time to time laid down and embodied in the model clauses by the Board of Trade.
I feel bound to point out to your Lordships in what way this particular case does not come under the clause which was arranged by that Joint Committee. The important point in this particular case is that the method adopted by the Dolter Company, their method of electric traction, is one which has never yet been tried in this country. It is a new method, and on that account I contend that the Corporation of Torquay were fully justified in asking of the company that they should give a guarantee to them against loss other than that required by the regulations of the Board of Trade, which were not suited to, and not drawn up for, that particular method of traction. It was a natural precaution on their part, and it did not contravene the object that particular method of traction. It was a natural precaution on their part, and it did not contravene the object which the Joint Committee had, because it did not prevent the Dolter Company from continuing the promotion of their undertaking, and, therefore, the agreement which was then made was no bar to electric enterprise. It did not in the least interfere with their promoting that tramway in the town of Torquay. I have already mentioned that the corporation had the full power of stopping any action at all, of preventing the promotion of the Bill had they so thought fit, and that this safeguard which they insisted upon being put in was one of the very prominent reasons which induced them to give their consent to the undertaking being started at all. I have, I know, another very weighty authority against me. I refer to the action of your Lordships' House in the case of the Beckenham Bill. In-that Bill your Lordships were asked to insert a similar clause in protection, I think it was, of the Crystal Palace Gas Company, and in that case, on the advice of the Chairman of Committees, the Earl of Morley, the House came to the conclusion that the clause had better not be inserted. But in that instance the system which it was proposed to work the tramways on was a very well-known one. It was an over head system, and one that had been before the Board of Trade, and to which
1004
the Board of Trade regulations specially referred; and therefore all the arguments which were adduced before the Joint Committee of 1893, and which had led to their recommendation, had full and ample force.
But in this case as I have pointed out, the system was and entirely new one. There was no evidence that the regulations of the Board of Trade dealt specially with it, and I contend that the Corporation of Torquay were quite justified in making it a condition of their agreement that this clause should be inserted. I have said that I think the action of my noble friend the Acting Chairman of Committees was quite right and proper. As precedents are rather dangerous things, and as in the words of Lord Hawkesbury, which I have quoted, it was evidently the wish of the Committee—in fact, the wish of both Committees—that this should in no way form a precedent for future Bills, it was very right that the decision as to the insertion of this clause should be left to your Lordships' House. I hope, my Lords, that I have successfully demonstrated that the case is one quite different from the cases which have gone before, and that the insertion of this clause need in no way form a precedent for the future. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will see your way to insert the clause which I now move.
Moved, "to insert as a new clause:—'If at any time it be proved that any injury or damage to any mains, pipes, or apparatus of the corporation or of the Torquay Gas Company shall have resulted from the use of electric current on any of the tramways authorised by this Act, nothing in this Act shall relieve the company from liability to make compensation for such injury or damage."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD HAWKESBURY: My Lords, as chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred I should like to say one or two words as to the reasons why we allowed this clause to stand. As my noble friend has explained, it was one of the conditions made by the Corporation of Torquay—who were evidently most anxious to preserve the beauties of that place—when they gave their consent to this Bill being promoted by the Dolter Company, that this clause should be inserted in the Bill,

1005
because, as my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh has so well explained, the Dolter system of surface traction is an entirely new one, and has not hitherto been tried in this country. The invention was made long after the Joint Committee over which the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, presided eleven year ago sat, and therefore there was some doubt as to whether the clauses upon which the Board of Trade regulations were founded would meet the case and provide compensation in the event of damage by electrolysis. That being the case, the Committee entirely agreed with the opinion formed by the Committee of the Lower House, and decided that the clause should stand. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh explained that it was when the Bill was before the Commons Committee that the addition was made to protect the mains of the gas company in the same way that the gas and water mains which were the property of the corporation were protected. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside felt very strongly that though reluctant to go behind formulated clauses, this was an entirely new departure in underground traction, something entirely new in this country, and, therefore, with the expression which now stands in black and white that it should not be considered a precedent, they decided to pass the clause as it stood. I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will accept the Amendment and reinstate the clause in the Bill.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am obliged to advise the House not to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord opposite. I am bound to confess that the Amendment has been placed before the House in a most temperate and reasonable way, but I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that to insert this clause would he destructive of the precedents which have governed this matter for about eleven years, and that my action in refusing to allow the Bill to be read a third time with the clause in it was the only one I could take in conformity with the almost universal course which this House has adopted in regard to the clause in
1006
past Bills. The question is no new one, and the practice has been regarded up to now as pretty well established. The whole question of the injurious affection of the electrolytic action upon gas and water pipes was fully considered by the Joint Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Cross in 1893, and the result of the labours of that Committee was the model clause which appears in this Bill. The question now is whether this company are merely to be obliged to obey the Board of Trade regulations, or whether they are to give an absolute indemnity against this electrolytic action to two specific owners of gas and water pipes. As far as I understand it, the effect of this electrolytic action is the fusion, and consequently the destruction of metal by the escape of electricity which has travelled out of its proper channel.
The first objection I have to the proposal is that it will put these two bodies—the corporation and the gas company—in a specially favoured position. The clause which the noble Lord opposite is now moving to insert has been put into several Bills in past sessions by Committees of the House of Commons. In the last session of Parliament it was called in question in this House in the case of the Beckenham Bill by my noble friend Lord Stanhope, who I do not see in his place to-day, and it was then struck out on the Third Reading of the Bill by the House as a whole. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, not only concurred in that action, but advised the House, in conjunction with Lord Stanhope, to take it; and he said—I have referred to the speech which he made on that occasion—that he regarded this as a question of some importance, and as a matter of principle. There is no evidence whatever that the regulations made by the Board of Trade for the protection of people who might be injured by electrolytic action are in any way ineffectual and if there was, it is in the power of the Board of Trade to alter these regulations and bring them up to date without any Act of Parliament. The matter has been committed to that Board, and they can take action at once the moment any suspicion of damage is brought to their notice. I am assured by representatives of the Board of Trade whom I have consulted that no such case can be made

1007
out, and I have every reason to suppose that the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade in this House will confirm that statement.
Last year the clause was actually rejected by the House, or taken out of a Bill in which it had been inserted. I think your Lordships will agree with me that in those circumstances I should have been taking a wrong view of my duty if I had not supported the decision of the House and told the promoters and those who had agreed with them that this clause, whether it was an agreed clause or not, must be inserted in the House itself, and that no Committee, and certainly no Chairman of Committees acting alone, would be entitled to allow the clause, however much agreed, to be put into the Bill. As I have said, it is really for the House itself to decide whether it will overrule and make of no effect the decision which it came to last year in the Beckenham case. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that that precedent has been acted upon in several Bills during the present session, some of which have received the Royal Assent, and I venture to suggest to the House, with all respect, that if, therefore, at this late period of the session it goes back upon the decision which it came to last year, it will by inference inflict considerable hardship upon many of those who, believing the matter to be settled, have accepted Bills for driving tramway cars by electric action without this clause As I have said, the Board of Trade regard their regulations as sufficient, and if necessary they can be altered from time to time.
That brings me, to one point which I admit does differentiate this case from some of the others which have gone before it. This system which is to be applied in Torquay is, I understand, to be a new system called the Dolter Company's system, but there is no evidence brought forward that it is in any way different in this matter from other systems. As I understand it, it is a mere matter of inference and of dread, and I venture to suggest that that is not a sufficient reason for breaking all the precedents which have governed this subject heretofore and thereby of putting the whole matter again into confusion. It is all very well to say this
1008
will not be a precedent. It may not be a precedent for every system of traction, but it will certainly be claimed by those who come to use the Dolter system as a precedent in their case. If you put this clause in in the case of one particular system of traction, you will give that particular system a great advantage over all others, and I think that would be a most unfair and unreasonable thing to do.
It is no use pleading the agreement which has been made between the parties. The agents and those who advised them knew perfectly well—or I am entitled to presume they knew perfectly well—that this clause was contrary to Parliamentary practice, and they ought to have advised their clients that it was not by any means likely that the authorities of the House would allow it to be inserted unless the House itself gave the order. I say that if the House in its wisdom chooses to reverse the decision it came to last year it is acting quite within its right, but if you do that in this case you may just as well abolish the mode clause altogether. The Board of Trade may give Provisional Orders for the working of electric tramways, but they will not insert this or any other similar clause in any of their Orders. Therefore you will have two codes running side by side, one the code which is established when Parliamentary powers, are sought, and the other the code of the Board of Trade under the Provisional Order system. The model clause which is in this Bill is general in its application. It applies to anybody who owns pipes or wires underground near those which are used for electric traction. It may be the case that in Torquay it may comprise all owners of pipes and wires, but, as a matter of fact, it is a protective clause for special petitioners; and on that ground, as well as the other grounds that I have stated, I hope the House will not go back on the decision of last year.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Board of Trade I am anxious to associate myself with the remarks that have just fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. There are two forms of procedure in your Lordships' House. Promoters can either proceed by a Private Bill as in this case, which is subject to the authority of the Chairman, of Committees, or they may proceed by

1009
Provisional Order, which is subject to the consent of the Board of Trade. If this scheme had been by Provisional Order, I should have adopted the same arguments that have been so well and forcibly used by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. In order to assure the House, I may inform your Lordships that I have received a letter from the electrical adviser of the Board of Trade to the effect that he is familiar with the Dolter system, and is of opinion that the usual protective regulations of the Board of Trade are quite applicable and will be effective, as they are in regard to a similar system which has been for some time in use at Wolverhampton, and the electric conditions of which resemble those of the Dolter system. I therefore hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, as chairman of the Joint Committee who had to consider this matter, I may say that we went very carefully into the whole question, and with considerable difficulty framed the model clause which has been more than once alluded to in the course of the discussion this evening. We believed that that clause, as drawn, would afford ample protection to all concerned, and I trust your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as it has not infrequently happened to me that in my capacity as Chairman of Private Bill Committees I have had to decide this question, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two in support of the course proposed by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. Nothing is more common, when Bills of this kind are being considered by a Committee, than for the representatives of gas companies to appear, and in heartbroken accents and with tears in their eyes, to point out that unless they get special protection against what is called electrolysis, serious consequences might ensue, though I never knew anybody who could explain exactly what electrolysis was, or the precise injury which it could inflict. The Corporation of Torquay, I presume, have found themselves in the fortunate position of being able to squeeze the promoters of this Bill, and to obtain this particular clause, and the gas company of Torquay, naturally
1010
wishing to obtain the same advantages, went before the Committee, and the Committee, out of generous sympathy for them, gave them the same privilege. Well, in my own case I have always resisted these appeals, because, as has been pointed out, this creates an entirely new precedent, and because it is fairly obvious that gas companies have complete protection from the Board of Trade. I would only venture to add that in my humble opinion it is extremely desirable that in questions of this kind there should be uniformity of procedure on the part of Private Bill Committees. I confess that I have not sufficient confidence in my own judgment to assume that I should be invariably correct in any decision I might give, and I therefore prefer to be guided by a model clause such as in this Bill. I hope this view will commend itself to the House generally.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of an explanation. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said there was no evidence adduced with regard to this particular system. I wish to point out that that was naturally so because the clause came up as one which was agreed. The corporation had a doubt as to what danger they were running, and the promoters agreed to insure them against any such danger. While bowing to the opinion of the House as to the inadvisability of not following a fixed plan, I can only respectfully submit that this case was one which was somewhat different from all the others, and that the Corporation of Torquay were justified in endeavouring to protect themselves against a danger which was very possible, if not absolutely certain.
On Question, Amendment disagreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LEEDS CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Return, showing the population, valuation, the average assessment levied under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, for the three years, 1900–1901 to 1902–1903, in each parish, and the total raised from each local government district, together with calculations showing the amounts which would be raised from each parish if the total assessment so raised from each local government district were imposed as a district rate upon parishes on the basis of (1) valuation alone, and (2) half on valuation and half on population; and calculations showing the amounts which would be raised from each parish if the charge in respect of interest on and repayment of loans were borne by the respective parishes instead of the district as a whole.
  TRADE REPORTS
    I. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
    No. 617. Railway Systems of Brazil.

    II. ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 3230. France (Marseilles).
    No. 3231. China (Pakhoi).
    No. 3232. Russia (Odessa).
    No. 3233. Austria-Hungary (Trieste and Lissa).
    No. 3234. Spain (Canary Islands).
    No. 3235. Turkey (Bagdad).
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PILOTAGE.
    Abstract of Returns relating to pilots and pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 33, of session 1904), as furnished by the various pilotage authorities. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    THE DECORATION OF THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
    LORD STANMORErose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House, and their approaches.
    1012
    He said: My Lords, at this period of the session, and in the absence of many of those who would have supported my Motion but who have already left London, I may as well at once say that should the Government oppose the appointment of the Committee for which I am now moving, as I fear they will do, it is not my intention to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing. On the other hand, should the Government agree to the Motion I fear that even in that case there could be no practical result, because no Committee could sit with any effect during the short remainder of the session.
    As I do not intend to press the Motion to a division, and as I feel that even if it were allowed by the Government there would be no practical result this session, I may very naturally be asked, Why do you bring it forward at all? Well, I do so for two reasons—first, because I wish to keep this question alive, to bring it again to the notice of the Government and of your Lordships' House; and, secondly, because until I hear to the contrary I am, of course, bound to hope that the Government will be convinced by what I consider the convincing arguments which I can bring forward. I shall, therefore, briefly move my Motion I do not know why the Government should oppose the appointment of a. Select Committee. By doing so they seem to imply that to grant the Motion for a Committee would be equivalent to giving a species of sanction to some large outlay of expenditure. Not at all. You cannot tell what the Report of that Committee may be. The Government would have a large share in the appointment of the Committee, and its Report might not recommend any expenditure at all.
    But there is a question which, I think, does require some consideration, and upon which a Committee could very properly give advice to your Lordships and to the Government. The original scheme of decoration which was intended by the architect of this great Palace, the original scheme for the internal decoration, was an architectural one. That was subsequently overruled, and, after much deliberation, it was determined that the internal decoration of this Palace should not be of an architectural character, but of a pictorial character, and should consist chiefly of paintings and mosaics.

    1013
    That second course was pursued for a considerable number of years. It was pursued with less vigour after the death of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, but it was still pursued for some years, until a most unfortunate clamour was raised with regard to what was, I think, the last of any large works going on in this House. I refer to the most unfair, most unjust, and utterly unfounded accusation which was brought against the then Chief Commissioner of Works, Sir Henry Layard, that he was interested in the mosaic works ordered here, a charge utterly baseless, but which made some disturbance at the time.
    Sir Henry Layard was succeeded in the office of Chief Commissioner by a gentleman who, whatever other merits distinguished him, certainly was not distinguished by any knowledge or love of art; he rather had a contempt and absolute dislike for it. Under his rule, works were suspended, and from that time very little was done in the way of the prosecution of that second scheme. We have got so accustomed to what we see daily that the actual state of things does not very forcibly present itself to our minds. That state of things is this, that the second scheme for the completion of the Palace has been practically suspended, though not put all end to, and the question arises whether that second scheme is, however slowly and with whatever intervals, to be still pursued, or whether it is to be altogether abandoned, and, if abandoned, whether we should return to the original scheme of architectural decoration for the interior of the Palace, or abandon any attempt to go further, and leave things in the state which may now be called provisional, but which then would become permanent.
    I know the objections that will probably be urged against the appointment of this Committee. First of all, there will be objections on the assumption that the Committee are going to recommend large works to be undertaken. There will be the statement that these great decorative works are things which may be undertaken by a powerful despotic Government, but are not in harmony with the democratic tendencies of the day. To that assumption I would give a most unqualified denial, and anyone
    1014
    who has been at Washington and knows the sums that have bean expended on the adornment of the Capitol will agree with me. Canada, too, has a self governing and democratic Parliament, and yet the Government buildings there are the finest gothic edifices to be found in North America. Then we may be told that this is a matter which this House must not undertake, and that the House of Commons must be consulted. That is perfectly true when you come to a scheme dealing with the whole of the Palace, but this House is fully entitled to consider by way of a Committee what should be done with the rooms appropriated to its own service, and it has a common right with the House of Commons with regard to the approaches.
    I quite admit, supposing the Committee were to recommend any considerable expenditure, and the House and the Government were to adopt the views of the Committee, that it would then probably be desirable to move for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the matter further. But all I am now asking the House and the Government to do is to appoint a Committee to consider first of all the actual condition in which the buildings, has been left for many years past, with manifestly provisional arrangements everywhere; and, secondly, whether the provisional arrangements, which, I confess, seem to me to constitute somewhat of a scandal, should be allowed to continue for ever as permanent arrangements, whether we should proceed with the scheme which was devised some years ago, or revert to the original scheme of the architect. That is the scope which I should propose for this Committee, and that is what I am desirous of pressing on His Majesty's Government, whether a Committee is appointed or not.
    The greatest reason that will be brought against the appointment of this Committee will be the assumption that expense will be recommended, and that the great expense which would be involved in finishing all the decoration of the Palace of Westminster, as intended under the scheme of the Royal Commission, is too vast to be entertained. Now, I think that is really more of a bugbear than a reality. It is quite true that if anyone were to ask that the whole of

    1015
    the decoration of the Palace should be undertaken at once the expense would be enormous and not to be looked at under the present circumstances. But that is not what I am asking. That is not what the Royal Commission originally intended. The course that I am asking His Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of pursuing is this—that they should go on as before, gently, slowly, but consistently and permanently, with the carrying out of the scheme of decoration which is already laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission, and which they will have little difficulty in following.
    I do not think we fully appreciate, seeing it every day as we do, how the building looks to a stranger. It has been my fate not infrequently to conduct foreigners over this building, and I have seen them much puzzled and surprised over what they have seen. I am not going to take your Lordships on a pilgrimage through the House, but I will mention one or two instances where wonder is excited. After the visitors have admired Westminster Hall to the full, they come between two empty niches reserved forty years ago for he statues of Marlborough and Wellington, but which are still vacant. They then enter St. Stephen's Hall, and they see there a large number of panels of paper—paper encased in heavy, massive, elaborate, mouldings of stone. A more grotesque conjunction could hardly be imagined. They naturally ask what this means, and are told that these are places for pictures which have never been put there. And in connection with those panels I must tell your Lordships what has been the result of my humble efforts to get them attended to. My noble friend the Chief Commissioner of Works was kind enough to accompany me last year on a pilgrimage to St. Stephen's Hall. We looked at the paper—the dark red paper that then filled these panels; and I pointed out to him the cracks, of which he took most sympathetic notice and the deep abysses of darkness full of cobwebs which were behind them knowing the noble Lord's excellent judgment and taste in all matters of art, I felt rejoiced, and I saw from his evident sympathy that the First Commissioner would do something. I anticipated that
    1016
    we should see the beginning of mosaic work. But, alas! for the vanity of human wishes and hopes! A few months later I passed through that hall again, and I saw a number of workmen employed busily replacing that red flock paper, that dirty red flock paper, by a clean green one: that was all. As regards its being clean instead of dirty, it is a decided improvement; but as regards anything else, it is, in my view, decidedly the reverse, because it seems to show that the idea of a paper panel is now stereotyped as a thing intended to continue there for ever.
    The foreigners whom I am conducting over the building go through the Central Hall into the hall out of which the great staircase ascends to the upper regions. Now, in that hall there is a very fine fireplace and chimneypiece. Those are the sort of things that the architect of this Palace did perhaps better than anything else; and it is a fine bit of architecture, But what do we find? We find this fine chimneypiece, or half of it, hidden from the world by a refreshment buffet covered with sandwiches and ginger beer bottles. On ascending the stairs we find ourselves in the hall which was called when it was built the Hall of Poets, and my friends look amazed when they see the name of Shakespeare in large gold letters on the wall, and below them a rather dingy sheet of red paper. They ask in their wonder, "How does this red sheet represent Shakespeare?" Then they see the names of Scott, Byron, and others with similar sheets of paper underneath, and they inquire how these pieces of paper typify these poets. Then it is explained that behind those sheets of paper are entombed frescoes which once adorned these walls, and which contain painted scenes out of the celebrated English poets from Chaucer down to Scott and Byron.
    The noble Lord, the First Commissioner of Works, was kind enough to have these screens removed, and I saw the disentombed frescoes. All of them, with two exceptions, are utterly destroyed. About one, the Shakespeare one, there is a difference of opinion. In my opinion, I must say it appeared to be reparable; that is to say, all except one head was fresh and clear and vivid. One head was gone, but I believe that the head

    1017
    could be restored by cutting out the fresco and putting in fresh material. But whether that be so or not, what I protest against is the retrogade movement here displayed. If you cannot go on with the work, however slowly, at least do not go back. Do not in a hall which you have already devoted t works of art change those works of art for mere upholstery, and upholstery of a mean and poor description. If these works of art have perished they should have been replaced by other works of art, and other artists, if those who painted them are dead, should have been commissioned to paint scenes from the poets which that hall was intended to commemorate and honour. With the exception of this Chamber and the library, there is no part of the House which is finished. There are great vacant places everywhere, and I cannot see myself that any large sum of money would be necessary to resume the carrying on of the second scheme of decoration. A sum of £1,000 or £2,000 per annum would be enough, proceeding slowly year after year.
    I cannot but again call the attention of the Government to the example set them by the City of London. The cloister of the Royal Exchange, like St. Stephen's Hall, is fitted with panels meant for paintings. They proceed just on the slow process that I am recommending, and every year you see another picture added to those in the cloister of the Royal Exchange. Some of them an indifferent some are good, and there are two or three which are really excellent pictures. They go on in that slow way every year, and the Royal Exchange will be finished, I am afraid, long before even the Central Hall of this Palace has its remaining mosaics put up. Why the nation cannot do for the Palace in which its Legislature assembles that which the merchants of the City of London do for their meeting place, the Royal Exchange, I own I cannot see. I do think this subject is one that merits more attention than it has received. We should not merely go on as we have done because we are accustomed to see the unfinished state of things around us, but consider whether the Palace is to be left permanently unfininshed, to be finished in the way intended in the second scheme, or in the way first intended by its architect.
    Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House, and their approaches.—(Lord Stanmore.)
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give a reply to the noble Lord on the Cross Benches essentially different from that which I gave at the close of last session on a somewhat similar Motion. I hope the noble Lord will not think that I do not sympathise with a very great deal of what we has said on the subject of the decoration of the Palace of Westminster. It would no doubt be extremely desirable if we could cover the walls of our chief public buildings, where so designed to be covered, with splendid mural paintings and appropriate decorations; but very large sums of money are now being spent upon Government buildings and necessary works, and the necessity for economy in our public expenditure is so well known to the House and to the noble Lord that I do not feel able to press upon the Treasury at this particular time the importance of taking up works which have unfortunately come to a standstill, and which, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, must necessarily involve a considerable expenditure of money.
    LORD STANMORE: Annual.
    LORD WINDSOR: Yes, I know the noble Lord suggests that the annual expenditure need not be a very large one, and that it might in the process of time enable us to complete to a considerable extent the decorations. With regard to the Motion which the noble Lord has moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, at this period of the session it is impossible for such a Committee to get to work, and in the circumstances I do not think the Government would feel inclined to consent to the proposal, especially when there was little probability of their being able to support the Committee by recommending that the suggestions which they might make should be carried out. Personally, I hope that there may be an opportunity of taking this matter up again, but I cannot tell

    1019
    the noble Lord that at this moment the Government are in a position to consent to such a Committee being appointed. The noble Lord has made some reference to the cleaning operations which have taken place in the Palace during the past year. I would remind him that they were merely in the nature of ordinary cleaning operations, and the substitution of the green paper in St. Stephen's Hall for the very dirty and cracked red paper which was there before was not intended in any way to set a permanent seal of approval upon that as the form of decoration which was ultimately to remain there.
    The noble Lord referred to the refreshment bar at the bottom of the main staircase. I should very much like to see more convenient and more appropriate places for the refreshment bars throughout both Houses than are to be found at this moment, but I very much fear that the number of people who come to the Houses of Parliament has now so much increased that the accommodation which the building provides is really inadequate to enable proper provision to be made for many of these services. I am afraid I can hold out no hope to the noble Lord that that refreshment bar can be accommodated elsewhere. I wish it could. One word as regards the frescoes upstairs. Professor Church, who was called in to advise the Office of Works and the Government on the subject, has repotted that the condition of these frescoes is really so bad that it would be useless to think of spending money in restoring them. I fear that unless this fresco work, this pictorial wall decoration, can be started afresh, it is no use thinking that the frescoes can any longer see the light of day. I regret that I am unable to give a more satisfactory answer to my noble friend. I certainly do not blame him in any way for having brought the subject before the House, and I sincerely trust that at some future time we may see our way to proceed with the decoration of the Palace.
    EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on this subject. I always feel great sympathy with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches when he brings this matter forward, and I do not wish him to suppose that he is alone in this House in feeling strongly on this
    1020
    matter. I have often thought that the way in which matters connected with pictures and art generally are dealt with in this country is a great reproach. It is only quite lately, although it has been pressed on successive Governments for many years, that an attempt has been made to find a building adequate for the magnificent collection at South Kensington, in which are comprised as fine works of art as are to be found in any museum in the country. In regard to the Palace of Westminster, it does seem a great misfortune that we cannot annually spend a small sum in endeavouring to carry out the pictorial decoration of this House as originally intended. Surely this great country ought to be able to afford some outlay in encouraging art of the best kind in its public buildings, just as much as corporations do in their municipal buildings. At the same time I quite understand that it is impossible at this late period of the session to grant this Committee, and I therefore readily appreciate what was said by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works in that respect. I would suggest to my noble friend that if a Committee is to inquire into this subject it ought to be a Joint Committee of both Houses rather than a Committee of your Lordships' House alone. Lord Stanmore referred to the frescoes of the poets, and the First Commissioner of Works, in replying, stated that the best authorities held that they could not be restored. I quite agree with the noble Lord that instead of being obliterated hey should be repainted. I cannot believe that art has so deteriorated in England at the present day that some material cannot be found on which frescoes can be painted. I have ventured to say these few words in sympathy with the noble Lord, whom I do not like to see always alone in pressing these matters before the attention of your Lordships; and I trust that at an earlier period of next session the Government may themselves possibly see their way to take some action in this matter.
    LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I do not intend to press my Motion to a division, but I wish to thank my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said in support of the Motion,

    1021
    and to ask leave to mention to the House one detail which I omitted, and which is, I think, rather instructive. Of the frescoes in the Hall of Poets one, and one only, has survived. It is not one of the best, as by the irony of fate is usually the case, but it might as well have disappeared with the others, for the Office of Works, or whoever is responsible in the matter, has thought fit to put up in front of it a huge and hideous erection, something like a sentry box and something like a sedan chair, which is meant for a telephone station. There is a place for everything, but I submit that the place for a telephone station is not in front of the only surviving fresco that remains in the Hall of Poets. I am sure my noble friend (Lord Windsor) whose taste is excellent will agree with me when I say that it is easy to conceive, if You look at that hall, how a telephone station might be so arranged as to be not only not a disfigurement but an ornament to the place.
    On Question, resolved in the negative.

    DEAN FOREST BILL.
    The Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

    SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.