MR. SHAW LEFEVRE stated that the actual spot to which the reservoir was to be removed was not quite decided; but the new site would be in Hyde Park, on higher ground, somewhere north of the Serpentine.

remarks with the object of removing all | Government offices with water. The doubts and misapprehensions on the sub- question was where the reservoir was ject. From the policy which had re- now to be placed; and until the House cently been adopted with regard to tele- knew that, it would be sanctioning a phone enterprize, he did not think there Vote of which it did not know the meanwas the smallest chance that the Govern- ing. He believed it was intended to ment would ever have to purchase any place it in Hyde Park, where, for a long Telephone Company's undertaking; and time to come, until it was covered by he thought that the investors who had trees, it would necessarily be a most unspeculated in them with the idea that sightly object. some day they would get favourable terms from the Government should at once know the truth. The Department were going to allow free competitioncompetition not only among the Telephone Companies themselves, but between the Companies and the Post Office. When that competition had gone on for some time the public would be able to judge who did the telephone business best. If it were done better by the Private Companies than by the Post Office, the Department would be delighted to have the whole telephone business of the country conducted by private enterprize. If, on the other hand, it was proved that the business was better done by the Government than by the private Companies, the Government would have beaten the Companies in the fair open field of competition, and they could occupy the ground without any question of purchase or compensation arising. He trusted the House would excuse him for having entered into the question at such length; but he thought it was important that investors should at once know the intentions of the Government.

As

LORD ELCHO: That was exactly the fault that he found with the proceedings of the Government. The whole plan should have been settled and explained to the House before the Vote was asked for; but, as things were, the House was called upon to sanction a plan without an opportunity of considering it. far as he could judge, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would fail to diminish the plethora of traffic at Hyde Park Corner, would disfigure, rather than embellish, that part of the Metropolis, and, if it did not succeed, would do irremediable damage. The stoppages in the traffic were at Hamilton Terrace and at Hyde Park Corner. The plan of the First Commissioner left the width of Piccadilly from Park Lane to the Corner the same as now, therefore the congestion would not be relieved at all. But after he had gone to the expense of a model and of plans, and had got the promise of £20,000 from the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of £3,000 from the Duke of Westminster, he amended his plan. When he had done all, he did not meet the block that had to be dealt with. He had to go to the Board of Works to ask them to widen his plan, thus confessing an oversight on the most important point. The Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects had considered the First Commissioner's model and plan, and they pointed out that there was no indication of an increase of width at Hamilton Place. Although he had since proposed to widen Piccadilly, the extra width would only be that of a footpath, and this was quite inadequate. But even his amended plan would not meet the difficulty. This might be illustrated by the case of a man with a contracted mouth and a stricture

aid the Institute of Architects, and had claimed that they had condemned the official plan. It was true that some days ago the Council of that Institute came as a deputation to him and presented to him an alternative plan prepared by their Secretary. They told him, however, that they were not united on the subject; and he had no difficulty

lutely necessary, if the scheme in its | He was confident it could not be carried general features was to be carried out, out. The noble Lord had called to his that the Arch should be removed. The noble Lord had not, however, contented himself with criticizing the scheme put forward by the Government, but had proposed an alternative scheme, and that enabled him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to put himself in the position of a critic. He would venture to say, having given to the matter a very careful consideration, and without any prejudice what-in proving to them that there were more ever, that the scheme which the noble Lord proposed was not one that had given satisfaction to those who had gone into it; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was quite sure of this-that if his scheme were out of the way, there would not be the remotest chance of that of the noble Lord being accepted. The noble Lord objected to moving one arch; but his plan proposed to move three arches, the beautiful erection of Mr. Burton, the present position of which could not be improved. The noble Lord also proposed that the entrance to Hyde Park should be removed from its present position and placed at right angles to where it now was; and he also proposed not only to cut off the corner of the Green Park, but also the corner of Hyde Park. The general effect of the noble Lord's scheme would be to take no less than three acres of land from the Park and give it up for the purpose of making roads; whereas the Government scheme only took something like one acre. He further ventured to say that, if the noble Lord's scheme were accepted, it would not remove the block or the congestion of traffic, for the real block was at Hyde Park Corner, and not at Hamilton Place; while the scheme of the noble Lord seemed only to deal with the block at Hamilton Place.

LORD ELCHO said, he had contended that there were two blocks one at Hamilton Place and one at Hyde Park Corner.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, that, if that were so, the noble Lord made no provision whatever for widening the top of Grosvenor Place, and thus relieving the traffic at Hyde Park Corner. All he could say was that, while this scheme of the noble Lord involved the maximum of alteration, it ended in the minimum of accommodation to the public, and would not at all deal with the difficulty of the block at Hyde Park Corner.

Mr. Shaw Lefevre

serious objections to the plan of their Secretary, and they left him under the impression that the majority of them were convinced. They subsequently sent a deputation to the Metropolitan Board with another plan; but this, again, was open to other objections, and the Board unanimously declined to adopt it. The noble Lord seemed to think it a serious matter that the Institute of Architects should express an opinion. He could not, however, accept their Council as an arbiter in such matters. Till the present time the Institute had never undertaken to advise the Government or the public in such questions. Their present President was a gentleman to whom the public of London was indebted for the monument known as the Griffin. When, last year, he endeavoured to disestablish the creature, and so remove the obstruction which it caused to traffic in front of the new Law Courts, he received no assistance from the Institute of Architects. But, though he had not consulted the Institute of Architects in its collective capacity, he did not adopt this scheme without taking advice from a great number of persons well qualified to give opinion. He did not hesitate to say that it had been approved of by the great bulk of persons who were qualified-by such men as the late Mr. Street, Mr. Waterhouse, Mr. Fergusson, the well-known writer on architecture, Mr. Holford, and numerous others. It had been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and had been received with favour on both sides. It had received the approval of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, who had been graciously pleased to give up a small part of the garden of Buckingham Palace for the public wants; and the Board of Works had almost unanimously adopted the plan, and had voted £20,000 towards its being carried out. The scheme, having been some months before the public, had been almost

unanimously approved by the Press. | been solved in the only way in which a He therefore ventured to hope the House solution could be arrived at by the bodily would not support the noble Lord in removal of the Arch. Anyone who had his desire to postpone the scheme. It observed the traffic on the spot must was his conviction that if this plan were admit that the plan would afford relief postponed no other alternative would be where it was most required, at Hyde more fortunate or more acceptable, and Park Corner and Hamilton Place. As the only result would be that the diffi- to the aesthetic view of the question, he culty would remain for an indefinite was at a loss to know how anyone could period unsolved and without a remedy. contend that the Arch was in a satisfactory position. Standing in the road, and looking through the Arch, one would find it led to nothing, but was a monstrous object placed in a false position. The plan of the Chief Commissioner would take the Arch to a position removed from other architectural features, and leave it free to the observer under the best circumstances. At the end of a straightened Constitution Hill it would afford the fitting approach to a Royal Palace. From every point of view the change would be a vast improvement, and he hoped the Chief Commissioner would set about the work without hesitation and delay.

MR. CRAIG was of opinion that the plan proposed by the Chief Commissioner of Works would produce a much better effect than that proposed by the noble Lord. It was a position of great prominence, and it should be made as beautiful as possible. He considered the plan of the Chief Commissioner of Works would combine utility with beauty in an essential degree.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE said, he had given a good deal of attention to this question, and had carefully considered the plans; and the result he had arrived at was that, so far as relieving the congestion of the traffic was concerned, the plan of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) was the better of the two. His chief objection to the Chief Commissioner's plan was that the place which it would create would be cut up into too many small plots and gardens. The plan, however, might, by some modifications, be made much more acceptable.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK agreed in the main with the remarks of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), and on the question of convenience certainly thought he had the best of the argument. But what he had been unable to gather was what objections there really were to the scheme proposed by the InMR. J. G. HUBBARD said, he had stitute of British Architects. In the watched Hyde Park Corner for some matter of gradients there certainly was years, and he felt greatly relieved when no objection. As to the artistic or æsthetic the plan for improving it was placed in point of view, he differed altogether from the Tea Room. With regard to the those who thought any advantage would statue of our great Commander, which be gained from placing the Arch askew. was at present at the Corner, if it could He did not pretend to be a man of taste not stay where it was, he saw no reason himself, and he thought that taste was why it should not be placed on a suit-matter of opinion not to be referred to able pedestal in front of Apsley House, where it could be seen by the people of England. The plan of the Chief Commissioner seemed to combine every requisite with boldness of conception and completeness in treatment; and, therefore, he gave it his hearty and grateful support.

SIR EDWARD REED expressed the satisfaction he felt when he heard the plan which the Chief Commissioner had decided upon. He had, under a previous Chief Commissioner, carefully examined plans put forward for an improvement; but the objection to every plan was that it involved the retention of the Arch. The problem had now

any abstract idea. But they could learn from observation of the works of great architects of the Greco and Roman era, from the great Italian masters of the 16th century, and from the works of their own architects, Sir Christopher Wren, Inigo Jones, and others of the 17th century, and their taste might be accepted as standards of comparison. Uniformity was the great feature of ancient architecture, and hence it was that the Institute of British Architects objected to the proposed scheme, as it would destroy a well-balanced architectural group. At present the Ionic screen and the Arch formed that well-balanced group, and that it was proposed to de

stroy. The authority of Mr. Street had
been put forward in support of the Chief
Commissioner's scheme. Now, he was
not disposed to accept the authority of
the late Mr. Street, and anyone who had
read the books of Mr. Street-for in-
stance, his North of Italy-knew that if
ever there was an enemy to architectural
uniformity it was Mr. Street. Mr. Street,
at the time of his death, was President
of the Institute of British Architects,
and the opinion of the Institute and its
present President was known.
The new
President was Mr, Horace Jones. True,
he designed the "Griffin" Memorial,
and it must be admitted he failed there;
but still the Griffin was better than many
monuments in London, and, indeed, there
were persons who thought it the finest
thing in the Metropolis. But the Insti-
tute of which he was President had on
several occasions been consulted in pro-
posed alterations, and had done good
service in preventing such monstrous
acts as the destruction of the Portico of
St. Martin's Church, and their opinion
was worth consideration. Imagine a
proposal to pull down the Arc de
Triomphe, at Paris, and set it askew.
Why, all Paris would rise in semi-revo-
lution against such a proposal. From
the point of view of convenience, as
well as æstheticism, the scheme of his
noble Friend was preferable to that of
the Chief Commissioner.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR expressed the obligations which the people of Scotland were under to the Lord Advocate in bringing in this Bill to improve the Fishery Board. It was a question that had long occupied the minds of the Scottish people, and especially of the fishing part of the population. He would, however, submit to his right hon. and learned Friend whether it would not be wiser, having got so far with the Bill, to allow the present Fishery Board to go on for a few months longer. The gentleman who was at its head was well qualified to carry on the business, which was of such a character as would render its operation for a few months more a SIR WILFRID LAWSON observed, matter of perfect ease, and no inconvethat very much had been said about re-nience would be suffered. Considering lieving the traffic; but he hoped that Constitution Hill would be opened to the public.

the opposition which might arise, particularly on the money part of the question, he would advise the Lord MR. WARTON expressed his objec- Advocate not to go on with the Bill. tion to the proposed plan, and disputed The delay would be useful by allowing the authority of Mr. Street, condemning time for improving the clauses relating his new Law Courts as an incongruous to the duties of this improved Fishery mixture of ideas without convenience, Board. To leave these duties to be deand which had not a Court in the build- | fined by the experience of the past would ing equal to the old Court of Exchequer. He appealed to the Chief Commissioner to let a little more time pass before commencing the work.

Resolution agreed to.
Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

BILL.

Resolution [August 11] reported.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Mr. Cavendish Bentinck

be to make these duties depend on a half-dead body, which performed the functions relating to the fisheries in a very unsatisfactory manner. The fisheries off the Coast of Scotland were capable of being made into a vast industry; but to effect this the rules defining the Board's duties must be set forth in the Act. Another reason for putting off the Bill was this — that the present Bill had excited some alarm in the minds of the proprietors of certain salmon rivers in Scotland, and time should be given to enable proprietors of

Committee report Progress; to sit figures into percentage, we have 87 per again upon Monday next.

Bill read a second time, and committed the hon. and learned Member for Bridfor Monday next.