The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-02 00:00:00

they ought to be concentrated under the superintendence of
one department, which would be more economical than
now, and tend to an improved style of architecture.

Lord PALMERSTON said that his hon. friend's pro-
position went to a very material change in our system
that was not congenial to our constitution. It was true
that in France and other countries the Government exer-
cised great control over all works, whether public or pri-
vate, but that was not in accordance with the feelings of
this country, or with the general arrangement that pre-
vailed. He could not admit that this country was behind
other countries in architectural development, and he in-
stanced the public and private buildings of Liverpool,
Manchester, and Leeds, or any of the great towns, which
abounded with buildings of the most beautiful description,
erected by persons not under the control of the Govern-
ment, but employed by the municipality, which were an
honour to the country, and equal in beauty to anything
that could be found on the Continent. The hon. gentle-
man proposed that an officer of the Government should con-
trol and direct the action of municipal corporations in the
erection of town-halls.

Mr. CHILDERS said no. Only public buildings con-
nected with the Government.

--Lord PALMERSTON said such were superintended by
the First Commissioner of Works, except such as military
buildings and harbour works, which required special ar-
rangements for their construction.
with the Constitution.
ydthethat the items of all the
In
canongcelmuseinotn,suthgegnesotbelde
t
d that it was consequently
lordcould
sr r.
nwe
opr
.aeb tese dl
lumped
est
Fb
together,
complained
pp:
aha tiai
Lbt
ea
nl
impossible to check them, He wished to know upon what
principle rent was paid for public property ? The system
was vicious, and he should therefore move the reduction of
the vote by £7,000, on account of such rents.
Mr. BRISCOE thought that the item of £25,441 for re-
pairs should be more detailed, and that the charge for water
x,
of4lo3o,ooowoa,sanexcleefsosriveen.gines, pumps, &0., in case of fire, of

Sir M. PETO pointed to the increase which was yearly
growing in the item for rent. Last year it was £24,748, this
year £26,368. In his opinion it would be more economical
and more convenient to build proper offices than to continue
the system of renting houses in different parts of the metro-
lis for the purpose, and he hoped that the right hon. gentle-
man, the First Commissioner, would take the subject into
consideration during the recess.
Mr. COWPER explained that the sum for repairs com-
prised 1,830 separate items, and that it would be trifling
with the house to attempt to detail them all in the vote.
The charge for water for all the public buildings was
£3,000 a year; but he had inquired into the matter, and
found that if they were to buy the water from the compa-
nies it would cost £BOO a year more. In regard to the item
of £4,000 for engines, pumps, &c,, in case of fire, he be-
lieved it would be a wise and eoonomical expenditure. The
Government did not insure, and it was therefore necessary
that proper provision should be made for the accident of fire
It was first contemplated to erect a reservoir on Primrose-
hill, but as the cost of the plan would be £20.000 he had
abandoned the idea. The second plan which was suggested,
and which was eventually adopted, was to make the Ser-
pentine the reservoir. It would be sufficient to cover all the
buildings down to Whitehall, and the intention was to
place in connection with it pipes which would afford them
an abundant supply of water at any moment in case of fire.
In regard to the amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. A.
Smith), he believed it would lead to much confusion, and
hoped it would not be pressed.
Lord J. MANNERS reminded the hon. baronet the
member for Finsbury that the suggestion which he had
thrown out was not altogether new to the house. The idea
had been mooted before, but was abandoned by the house
when it was found that its execution would cost 4000,000.
He admitted that the scheme would belthe most economical
in the end, but he believed that the house would still object
to so large and immediate an outlay. He wished to know
what was to be done with Burlington House.
Mr. CO WPER explained that he was not then prepared
to say what would be done with it,
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the vote
agreed to.
On a vote of £13,879 balance of the estimate for furni-
tare, &c', for the public offices,
Mr. A. .SMITH moved that it be reduced by £4,611,
being the unappropriated balance of last year.
Mr. CO WPER replied that there was no balance now
outstanding, it having been paid into the Exchequer in
March.
Lord J. MANNERS called attention to the item on ac-
count of the South Kensington Museum, and suggested
that the expenditure on account of the institution required
to be carefully revised.
Sir J. SHELLEY maintained that there was no expen-
diture which afforded so:much gratification and information
to a large mars of the people as that on account of the
South Kensington Museum. (Hear, hear.) No man
could object to it.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS urged that it would be ad-
visable to be keep all the votes on account of the Museum
together. Its expense might then be accurately ascer-
tained,
Mr. AYRTON admitted the advantage of the institu-
tion, but contended that it would have been much more
beneficial if it had been erected within the metropolis. The
votes on its account were divided in order to disguise its
expenditure.
After some observations from Mr. CoWPER,
The committee divided—
For the amendment 23
Against it
Majority .................... —43
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was a sum of £97,9s2—part of which
had been already voted on account—to defray the expenses
of the royal parks and pleasure gardens,
Sir H. VERNEY, while recognising the great advantages
that had been gained by the public in the opening of Batter-
sea and Victoria Parks, said it was incumbent on the right
hon. gentleman at the head of the Department of Works to
do still more for the public. For instance, a great conveni-
ence would be afforded by opening a communication from
Cockspur-street to the north side of the Mall in St. James's-
park ; then the southern end of Park-lane was in a very
dangerous condition ; and omnibuses ought to be allowed to
traverse the road by the Serpentine as well as carriages.
Mr. SELWYN called attention to the unfinished con-
dition of the conservatory at Kew Gardens, and asked
whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed
with the work.
Mr. TITS, fully coinciding in the opinion that the gardens
at Kew were are
pity that the wings of the conservatory remained unfinished.
Colonel
lpßEgNca success, thought it was an exceeding
pity
complained of the extravagant ex•
penditu.re on the parks.
Mr. DILLWYN thought they were entitled to demand
more information as to the details of the expenditure on the
parks. No less a sum than £25,000 was asked on account
of St. James's, the Green, and Hyde-parks, exclusive of
Keneington-gardens.
by a sum £7,952. How could a sum of nearly £30,000
acrMese*enC
pinedliesehda,bitehflaotwtheress,utmheopf
required to keep these parka in order ? He had heard,
Colonel BARTTELOT moved that the vote be reduced
be requ
enjoyment to the general public.
sum of £1,500
was actually expended upon the keeping u
riosd ,uoootoi
own as
of
whichspe t Reno
un
luda lal
ffy
rudp
no no
of
this so 'called
park, the grass part of which was devoted the pasturing
oOloXsedridaialeeldinington as a park. A
the notion of designating the few
of
g'r'avel
walks.
sheep, while the children were driven to play on the
gr

Sir J. PARINGTON said these votes were an annual
cause
of astonishment to him, for he could never understand
how the money was spent. (Hear, hear.) Richmond Park
was said
to Cost £7,000 a year, and St. James's, the Green,
and Hyde Parks cost £25,000 a year. Why, any private
proprietor would be ruined if he spent money in such a
way.

Mr. CAVE wished to direct the attention of the right
hon, gentleman to the monolith at the Eastern part of the
erpentine, and which took the place of the spring which
was formerly there. People wondered very much where
that monolith came from, whether it was from Egypt, or
whether it had been brought from Assyria by the Under
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or whether it was from the
Summer Palace at Pekin. He wanted to know where it
came from, how much it cost,. and what had become of the
spring which used to be ther (Laughter.)
Mr. SCLA
—,JOTH denounced the playing of the
band of the commissionaires in the Cambridge Enclosure.
He had the best authority for saying that these musical
performances were regarded as a most serious nuisance by
many of the surroundiag householders, If the band were
removed to the centre of the enclosure they might play
away without being a nuisance to anyone.
Mr. W. EWART could not understand what were the
functions of the deputy-ranger of the park, and why the
public should not have access to the ground occupied by his
residence close to the Serpentine.
Col. SYIiES, r
ng resided for 30 years in the vicinity
of Hyde Park ---"',
was able to afford testimony in favour of the
extraordinary improvement in the condition of the Park,
compared with what it was formerly.
Lord J. MANNER
between the S said no comparison could be insti-
tutedmaintenance of private parks and the
public parks of London; and further, the more like they
made them to gardens, the more expense would they cause.
He regretted that the structure for the use of the band had
been erected in the Regent's Park without a little more pre-
liminary discussion in that house.
Mr. COWPER said that the London parks could not
for a moment be compared with the parks of private
gentlemen. The parka of London were frequented by an
enormous population, who were perpetually doing damage;
and the consequence was,
to be employed to keepthat a staff of 46 constables had
order. With regard to the item of
£13,000, which was the entire cost of the maintenance of the
three parks, it should be kept in mind that there were eight
miles of roads to be maintained, and 25 miles of gravel walks.
The cost of a macadamised road like that of Regent-street
costs about £4,000 a mile, and if they were to apply such a
calculation to the roads
James's, it would in Hyde-park, Green-park, and St.
'aa very large item. But there were
also 25 miles of gravel walks which had to be kept in very
good order. If there were pebbles on the walks the public
complained, and what was worse than complaint they left
the walks and went upon the grass, making a Sahara desert