the Land Commission with the view of interfering with the administration of justice, he was certain what answer they would receive. He urged the extreme unfairness of making charges of this kind, and he asked the public to suspend its judgment, and not to be misled by uncorroborated statements in newspapers and private letters. and not by the Government. Supposing he had been a person connected with the ownership of land-not as a tenant, but as a landlord in the district-would not the hon. Member himself have said that he was not a proper person to sit as a Judge there? In fact, it had been repeatedly urged by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in the House that Mr. Bomford, one of the Sub-Commissioners, had been improperly permitted to sit and discharge business in the county of Cavan, with which he was in some way connected. As to Mr. Walpole, everybody who knew Ireland must admit that a more upright gentleman did not exist. The objection raised against Mr. M'Devitt at the time of his appointment was that he was too favourable to the class of tenants. There was, in reality, no more foundation for that allegation than there was for the complaint now made against him. With regard to the charge made against Mr. O'Connor Morris, an able and upright Judge, no Notice had been given of it. When the matter was investigated, no doubt it would be found that that gentleman had good ground for pronouncing the decision complained of. The allegation as to Mr. Headeck was that he was engaged in litigation with his tenants, and that he had treated his tenants badly in Tipperary. If, however, it was a fact that some of his tenants were in the Land Court, it did not at all follow that they and Mr. Headeck were on the bad terms that had been described. It was unfair that statements not founded on facts should be made about a Sub-Commissioner which could only have the effect of prejudicing the community against him. Whatever charge might be brought against the Government, nobody could suppose that they would willingly do anything to bring the Land Act into disrepute. Certainly, the removal of Mr. Rice and the appointment of Mr. Headeck were not made with any such object; and he felt sure that landlords and tenants in the North of Ireland would be calm enough to wait until the charges had been substantiated. It had been insinuated that Mr. Rice had been removed on account of influence exercised by landlords, and particularly by two Noblemen who had been named. He was able to say that this statement was without foundation. If they approached MR. O'DONNELL said, that no one had any idea of attributing suicidal conduct to the Government. The fact remained that events occurred which very much astonished the Government when their attention was directed to them. He was aware that the Government were anxious to appoint Sub-Commissioners who would make the Land Act popular; but it was a fact that gentlemen were appointed Sub-Commissioners who had failed to secure the confidence of the classes for whose benefit they were appointed. The Government did not deprecate newspaper criticism in support of their policy, and they should not altogether disregard unfavourable criticism, particularly from friendly journals. The Cork Examiner was very fair and moderate, and yet it said that there were Sub-Commissioners of whom it would be glad to speak with confidence if it could. These questions could not take the Government by surprise if they were fully informed as to the antecedents of the gentlemen they appointed. But when an objection was raised they required three or four days or weeks to obtain information. He recommended the Government to pay more attention to the opinion of fair and moderate newspapers. He was certain that as time went on it would be seen more and more clearly that the whole object of the Irish Party was to make the Land Act more and not less efficient than it now was. It was already admitted on both sides of the House that the Act needed amendment, and there were many Members of the House who were now of the opinion of the small handful of Irish Irreconcilables of six months ago. With the object of permanently removing the grievances of the tenant, the Members of the Irish Party would support any measure that might be introduced on either side of the House, and if the Government would regard them as the mouthpieces of the vast majority of the cultivators of land in Ireland, it would greatly add to the prospect of peace in that country; but up to the present | tion of throwing Hyde Park Corner open time the Government had set their face to the public; and he thought the Memagainst every kind of counsel pressed bers of the House should have an opporupon them from those Benches. Now tunity of knowing what changes the he asked the Government to turn over a right hon. Gentleman proposed to make. new leaf, and to listen with confidence to One remark he desired to make in referthe demands of the Irish people, instead ence to Hyde Park was this-that the of perpetually thwarting all proposals of whole of Hyde Park and Rotten Row reform. If they did this they would see were devoted to the pleasure and amusethe beginning of a new era. If they ment of the wealthy and aristocratic went a short way towards meeting the classes who could afford to keep their Irish Party, they would find that that carriages, while the humble plebeian was Party would go a long way towards forbidden all access to them if he could meeting them. After the heat and tur- only afford to hire a hansom cab. .If he moil of the present conflict were passed could afford to pay half-a-crown for a history would admit the fact that on the hackney carriage, he was able to enjoy whole the Irish Popular Party had been the drive; but if he could only pay 18. right in their contentions and their for a cab, he was prevented from doing policy. So. If, instead of having only 18., he happened to have a sovereign, he could go where he pleased; and he (Mr. Healy) wished to know upon what principle it was laid down that the man with only 18. must not drive in the park, while the man with 208. might? Why should the Committee be called upon to vote away the public money in order to Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (In the Committee.) CLASS I.-PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILD- give certain privileges to the aristocratic INGS. (1.) £33,361, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces. MR. BIGGAR called attention to the item of £1,300 on page 4 of the Votes for the repair of one of the Palaces. It seemed a very large sum for the repair of one establishment, and he should like to have an explanation of the item. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, the sum certainly was rather larger than usual; but it had arisen on account of the necessity of painting the exterior. Vote agreed to. (2.) £2,178, to complete the sum for Marlborough House. (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £90,921, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens." MR. HEALY wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works with regard to the Royal Parks. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had recently taken some steps in the direc classes who were able to drive their carriages? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would in future give instructions that the parks should be as freely open to people using hackney carriages and hansom cabs as they were to the more aristocratic owners of private carriages. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he had urged the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the last 15 years, and he had divided the Committee upon it; but he had certainly never found himself in a majority. It was monstrous, he thought, that the public, who paid for the parks, should not be allowed to use them, and that the money voted for their maintenance should be practically devoted to the exclusive use of wealthy persons who possessed carriages. There was not a single other park in the whole of Europe in which this exclusive right existed. The great value of a park was that it was a place where the rich and the poor might meet together. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that the traffic would not permit of the admission of other vehicles; but if that were the case, then he (Mr. Labouchere) would suggest that there should be one day on which cabs should be excluded, and an other day on which private carriages | Commissioner of Works would favourshould be excluded. He remembered ably entertain the proposition for largely the Predecessor of the right hon. Gen- increasing the number of free seats in tleman in the Office of Works, 15 years the parks to which he (Mr. Broadhurst) ago, telling him that poor people de- had referred. rived a special pleasure from looking at the wealthy classes driving along the parks in their carriages. They might, if they liked, look at the wealthy people driving by; but if they desired to take a drive themselves in hired cabs, they were prevented from entering the parks. He claimed that the general public had as perfect a right to the full enjoyment of the parks as the wealthy classes. MR. BROADHURST said, he hoped that there would be a more liberal distribution of free seats in the Green Park and St. James's Park. Twelve months ago an assurance was given that a larger distribution would be made of free seats; but, so far from the promise having been carried out, there had been no addition whatever to the free seats, except it was in Hyde Park only. What he desired to point out was that it was not in Hyde Park that a larger supply of free seats was required, but in the Green Park, St. James's Park, Battersea Park, and Victoria Park. Those were the parks to which the working classes went for pleasure and pastime; and in them it was most difficult to find a seat without being pounced upon by the proprietor's agent with a demand for 1d. or 2d. The Green Park and St. James's Park were the rendezvous of the workpeople of Westminster, Lambeth, Soho, and those living in the neighbourhood of the Strand; and these persons were charged 1d. or 2d., according to the size of the chair they occupied. [Laughter, and cries of "No!"] He believed the charge was 1d. for a single chair, and 2d. for an armchair. [An hon. MEMBER: No; only 1d. in each case.] He was glad to hear that there had been an improvement in that respect. He knew that it was so formerly. At any rate, the moment a person sat down in one of these chairs up went the agent of the proprietor, as though he had sprung from beneath it in some way or other, so rapid was he in the collection of the money. He thought that the collection of money for the use of seats in a public park ought to be entirely done away with; but if they could not do away with the payment for seats altogether, then he hoped the First MR. W. H. JAMES said, he would support the request for more free seats in the parks. He was also anxious for further information in regard to the contemplated changes at Hyde Park Corner. He did not propose, however, to discuss the merits of those changes at the present moment; but he simply wished to elicit a statement from his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner as to what his intentions were. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH asked whether, in regard to the contemplated improvements at Hyde Park Corner, it was proposed to take any money in the present Estimates? He presumed that if the necessary sum were proposed to be voted in a Supplementary Estimate the Vote would be laid in due course before the House, and would afford the proper opportunity for a discussion. He should like to know, in the meantime, how much money it was intended to vote now? MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, that it was his intention to take a Vote, probably not exceeding £3,000, in respect of the Hyde Park Corner improvements. That sum was necessary, not so much for the improvement itself, as for the removal of a reservoir which was rendered necessary by the scheme, and which it was also desirable to remove for other reasons. When the Treasury were asked to advance the money for the Hyde Park improvements he was bound to say that his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was of opinion that the improvements were more of a Metropolitan than of an Imperial character, and expressed a doubt whether the House of Commons would feel justified in voting the money necessary to carry them out. His noble Friend, however, considered that he would be justified in asking for a Vote for the removal of the reservoir just mentioned; but that otherwise the whole expense of the improvement should be provided by the Metropolitan Board of Works or by the owners of private property. A Supplementary Vote would be laid before the House later in the Session. With regard to the question as to the seats in the parks raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst), he might say that last year he had expended a considerable sum of money in providing additional seats in Hyde Park; and he had been under the impression that the same course had been taken in regard to St. James's Park. If he should prove to be wrong in that impression, he would undertake this year that an ample provision should be made for seats. No doubt, both St. James's Park and the Green Park were more used by the working classes than Hyde Park; and he should be very sorry that there should be any want of accommodation for them. In regard to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he had to say that the complaint they had made in respect of the nonadmission of hackney cabs in Hyde Park was one of long standing. In early times hackney cabs were permitted in Hyde Park and in the other parks, and the fact was recorded in the Memoirs of Pepys. The writer of that interesting diary frequently spoke of driving in Hyde Park in a hackney carriage; but at a subsequent period, when he was able to keep a carriage of his own, he appeared to be highly scandalized at the large number of hackney coaches that were to be seen there. At a later date, hackney coaches were altogether prohibited in the Parks, and the prohibition had been maintained because it was considered undesirable that the Parks should be converted into a mere thoroughfare for the use of people driving in cabs from one station to another. The prohibition had only been maintained in that sense; and there was no prohibition, even at the present moment, against the use of hackney carriages hired from a livery stable. The prohibition only applied to cabs hired in the streets. He thought it was for the interests of the public generally that the Royal Parks should not be made the mere medium of traffic from one part of London to another. MR. LABOUCHERE said, there was another point upon which he was anxious to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner in reference to the trees in Kew Garders. He was given to understand that a good many trees had been cut down by the order of the Curator. The Curator pleaded, as his reason, not that the trees were objec tionable, as trees, but that a good deal of flirtation went on beneath them. He thought it was hardly the business of the Curator to destroy the trees or to interfere in flirtations; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard of the action of the Curator, and whether he intended to take notice of it in any way? He had, however, risen for another object-namely, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,680, that being the cost of Battersea Park, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park. He did not understand upon what grounds the cost of all the new parks that were made in London was thrown upon the Public Treasury. It appeared to him that it ought to be paid by the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and that it should not fall upon the taxpayers of the country generally. Those parks had been bought at very great expenditure and by the public money. He believed that Victoria Park was a Royal Park; but he did not know whether the others were or not. He thought the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to take them over, and that it ought to be distinctly stated in the House of Commons that they were not prepared, year by year, to vote large sums of the public money for the maintenance of the parks in the Metropolis. With every desire that these open spaces should continue to exist in the Metropolis, he could not forget that it was a very wealthy Metropolis, and that it ought to pay for the health and enjoyment of its inhabitants. He certainly failed to see why there was any more reason why the public generally should pay for the maintenance of the parks in the Metropolis than that the people of London should pay for keep. ing up the parks in other parts of the country. He, therefore, begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,680; and he hoped that the Amendment would be taken as a hint that a stop must be put to the present habit of throwing upon the Public Exchequer expenses which ought to be borne by the localities. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £73,241, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."-(Mr. Labouchere.) tropolis, notwithstanding that he was warned that such an item did appear upon the Estimates. With his usual confi MR. W. H. JAMES asked if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in referring to a past debate in the House? MR. A. PEASE wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if he could hold out any hope that Constitution Hill, from Buck-dence, the right hon. and learned Geningham Palace to Hyde Park Corner, tleman ridiculed the idea, and seemed would be thrown open to the public? It to take it for granted that it was imposwould be a great convenience to the sible he could be wrong. public going by way of Pall Mall and St. James's Street to Hyde Park Corner to have this road thrown open. At present it was necessary that they should go round by a very circuitous route. There was no desire to interfere with the comfort or privacy of the Royal Family in the occupation of Buckingham Palace; but he believed that the route which would be taken would rather add to the privacy of the Palace than otherwise. He believed that the throwing open of the road would be most acceptable to the public; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to making the suggested alteration. MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON said, that, only an hour or two ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) positively stated to him, in answer to a Question, that there was no item in the Votes for constables employed in London on special services, such as gate-keepers in the parks, or at the House of Commons, or in the public gardens. Remembering the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave him earlier in the evening, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would explain what was the meaning of the sum of £7,000 which appeared in the Votes for Metropolitan constables, paid specially for their services as constables and as gate-keepers in the parks. The payments, he understood, were for special and extraordinary services performed in the Metropolis. The complaint he had to make was that when similar services were performed in other localities, the cost was thrown upon the local ratepayers. When he put his Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary at an earlier period of the evening, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the most absolute and barefaced manner, if he might say 80-["Oh!" Well, then, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the strongest and most emphatic manner, denied that this was the case in the Me THE CHAIRMAN said, that if the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was referring to the debate which had taken place that night he was out of Order. MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON said, he was only asking for information. He was much obliged to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) for putting him right; but he merely wished to know why a charge appeared in the Estimates for the special services of constables in London, whereas charges for similar services were thrown on the ratepayers in the country. He thought that the whole of these charges, instead of being included in the Civil Service Estimates, ought to be paid for by the Metropolis itself. He again asked for some explanation whether it actually was the case that special services on the part of constables were inserted in the Estimates when they were rendered in the Metropolis, while similar services in the country were paid for out of the local rates? MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, he thought the hon. Member was wrong in the statement he had attributed to the Home Secretary. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF rose to Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in alluding to a past debate? MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, that if there was any objection he would not continue the subject. The item referred to was for the services of police in the parks; and, personally, he thought it was a charge that ought to be borne by the local authorities, and not by the public generally. With regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), it was a question which had been discussed in the House in previous years—namely, whether the cost of some of the parksVictoria, Battersea, and Kenningtonshould not be borne by the ratepayers? That was a question which might be fairly |