ADMISSION-FEES TO BLENHEIM.
TILE -wrangle between the Duke of Marlborough and those who claimed admission to his house and grounds on cheap terms, is, like all wrangles before the public, humiliating to both sides. A cry has been raised against the Duke for the misconduct of his servants ; for whatever he may have done, his servants have mis- conducted themselves. Thepublic, it seems, desires to look over the Duke's house and. grounds ; but it used to find the price very extravagant, and it grumbled accordingly. There was nominally a low price for admission, but the person who opens the gate for exit demanded a fee of five shillings ; so that although ingress was not expensive, egress from the house and grounds proved to be very costly. There was a species of dodge in this arrangement most discreditable to the servants ; and their case is not improved by the statement which the master thinks fit to make in the co- lumns of the Times.
" I will not deny," says the Duke of Marlborough, " that I have repeat- edly heard that complaints have been made against my domestics for de- manding excessive fees for their trouble in exhibiting the palace and its valuable collection of paintings. I have done all in my power to check this practice, both within and without ; but it would appear from the complaints still preferred that my efforts have been unsuccessful."
However, taking up a hint in a London paper, the Duke has adopted the regulations of Studley Park, under which a fee of one shilling is charged for each .person, to cover the expenses caused by the public. " Oxoniensis ' explains the working of this system. Twopence is charged for the public gardens, one shilling for a ticket which admits the bearer to the public rooms— "It enabled me to see all the down-stairs rooms, some of which are specially laid down with druggets on the show-days, (Monday, Wednes- day, and Friday,) in the centre ; being fenced with rails on either side. It Was evident that many of them were in daily use by the family, who retire to the up-stair apartments, which are not to be seen of course when the family are resident."
There is something in this intrusion altogether inconsistent with the English idea that "every man's house is his castle," and with the sacred privacy of the family circle. The only thing which could in any degree reconcile the admission of the public to good. taste would be an open welcome.
The public, indeed, has an idea that it possesses a right to en- joy Blenheim, because Blenheim was given to the first Duke of Marlborough, and constitutes a national monument to commemo- rate the military virtues of that remarkable person. Strathfield- saye was given to a more recent Duke, but he was not one to let the public into his premises uninvited. The fact that there are interesting pictures in the palace of Blenheim, which the public would like to see, constitutes no right for the said public ; and if there was a stipulation in the original title for the exhibi- tion at convenient periods, there is something almost as mean in a sight-seeing enforcement of the right as in the refusal of it. If, indeed, the proprietor of Blenheim were a person who fully appre- ciated the national tribute to his ancestor, he would desire to show that he reciprocates that handsome acknowledgment; he would take a pride in letting the public of the present day see what the public of a former day gave to the hero of that day. Such a man would feel that the sons of the country which had endowed his ancestor would have a right to some share in the perpetual enjoyment of the property. But in this case the right possessed by the public would consist entirely in the feeling of the proprietor. If the owner has not that generous feeling—if he is not able to control his servants, or to come handsomely before the public in petty peennisry matters—it is a chase altogether unworthy of the pub- lic to hunt him down ; and the chase becomes more humiliating for those who share in it, when they hunt down not only the Duke but the members of his family.
Previous page
