The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-20 00:00:00

shunter, of the parks in common with her Majority, but he
claimed for the public the freest acmes to all these ;thieve
far which so mash of their money was paid. Ho wislied
to tall the right boo gentleman's attention to the fact that
• SUM of 100.0001. received from the crown
revenues was not accounted Inc in any way.
lle would not press this, however, -as the
right bun. baronet had come so recently into office
that he could hardly be expected to know much about it ;
end more (specially after the honest and straightforward
course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of paying
the whose of the revenue into the Exchequer, soil voting '
the charges,so that they might come directly under the con-
trol of the house. lie should be glad to hear from the
right hon. baronet that it was intended to proceed with
Battersea park forthwith, and that there was no intention
of acceptinz an offer which it was said had bee. made by
an eminent speculator to purchase the land from the peers-
ment at the price which had been paid for it.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said it was true • proposal had
been made by Mr. Cubitt to take the land which had been
purchased fur Battersea Park oil the hands of the gov(rn-
ment at the price they gave for it, but that proposal had
not been seceded en, nor was there any intention of acceding
to it. (Cheers) Witlt regard to the appropriation of the
land revenues, it was not a matter within his department;
he believed, however, that since 1851 the receipts had re-
gularly been accounted foe.
Sir It INGLIS, as use of the commissioners for metro-
politan improvements, was aware that Mr. Cubitt hail
offered to purchase the land appropriated for Battersea
Park, and to pay thi, whole expense the government had in-
' marred. That offer was a most liberal one, but
the government had felt it their duty to decline it.
The hon. gentleman then urged that the arrangement by
which the crown revenues were exchanged for the civil list
was far more advantageous to the people than the mown,
and that that fact would appear from returns on the sub-
ject.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that with reference to the offer
of Mr. Cohitt, he meant no reflection on that gentleman' as
he had been very liberal in coming forward as he did. As
to the loss to the crown by the exchange of its revenues fur
the civil list, the returns to which the hon. gentleman al-
luded were meet fallacious. At the same time he had
always said that, if the crown ues hail been properly
managed, they would have been equal to the civil list.
Mr. BROTHERTON agreed an the propriety of eats-
blishing paths in London; but at the same time, consider-
ing that this was the richest city in the world, he should be
glad to see the rich put their hands in their pockets for
that purpose. In the provinces subscriptions were entered
into for the purpose, and in Mancheeter 30.0001. had been
contributed in that way for the establishment of parks.
Sir DE L. EVANS called attention to the unfinished
stene of the Nelson monument in Trafalgar-square; the

condition of which was very discreditable to thii couStry
Nine yeas ago Sir It. Peel's government undertook to have
it finished, and he did hope the First Commissioner of
Works ...odd see that it was completed without delay.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH believed that a sum had been
voted for finishing the monument. He world make inquiry
into the subject.
Mr. EWA RT inquired whether some improvement could
not he made in Rcoten-row, Hyde park, which was now
very much crowded, by eontiouing the ride to the west side '
of the pa-k, which could be done by sorely filling up the
sunk fence at a place which was very little frequented.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said he proposed to double the
width e( Rotten-row. (liter, hear.) The plan suggested
by his hon. friend had been brought under his considera-
tion, but he did not propose to take a vote for it this year,
' as he intended to inquire into the matter, and probably take
a vote for it next yes..
Sir J. SHELLEY had been requested to make a sugges-
tion to the right hon. gentleman. Owing to the influx of
passengers from the Great Western Railway, the end of
Park-lane in Ozford-street wee injured as a thorsghfare.
The parishes adjoining suggested that if they got a sub-
scription for the purpose, perhaps the right hon. gentle-
man would allow the iron railing to be thrown back.
• Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that might be a good plan,
and if a subscription was raised, and the hon. gentleman
could let him know the amount subscribed, he would give
him au answer. . _

Mr. A. HASTIE aid that people in the proyinceeviewed
with jealousy the votes for parks in the metropolis, and
thought they should be kept up in the manner mentioned
by the hon. member fur Salford. In Glasgow a sum of
80,0001. had been raised for parks, and when that town
asked for an alteration in the money order otflee, which
would have been • great public convenience, at a cost of
only 4,0001 it was 'erased.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that sums bad been voted by
parliament for parks in the provinces. He observed two
sums of 2,104/. and 2,7401. fur charges in the ranger's de-
partment of Richmond Park. What was the salary of the
ranger I
Lord J. RUSSELL—The ranger was the Duchess of
Olouoester, who had no salary or only a nominal one. The
expenses in question were for keeping up the park.
The vote was then agreed to.