SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 4 August 1853)

MR. HUME
said, he must complain of the vast expense of this establishment, and also of the great delay and expense in the printing of the catalogue. The catalogue already consisted of 1,200 folio volumes, and had cost 100,000l. It would, according to the present calculation, take forty years to complete, and would then consist of 13,000 volumes. He regretted he did not see either the noble Lord the Member for London or the Chancellor of the Exchequer present on this occasion, to explain why the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners with regard to the Museum had not been attended to. The Commissioners had recommended, for instance, the abolition of the offices of principal librarian and secretary as they now existed; the establishment of a responsible executive council instead of twenty or thirty irresponsible trustees; the appointment of one person as the responsible head of the whole establishment; and the adoption of an improved mode of keeping the accounts. None of those recommendations had been agreed to, and he wished to know the reason why. He wished the Government would turn their attention to the subject during the recess, and consider what could be done to place the establishment on a better footing than at present. He objected to the ridiculous expenditure of the public money in gilding the iron railing and destroying the English simplicity of the building, Ire also wished to know how there came to be such a balance as 11,000l. allowed to stand over. He would suggest that all purchases should be suspended until additional space was provided. He was unwilling to oppose the grant, but he wanted some responsibility, and hoped the First Commissioner of Works would be able to give the Committee some information on the subject.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
said, the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that none of the recommendations of the Commission had been carried into effect. Immediately after their Report was made, a meeting of the trustees was held, which was attended by the late Sir Robert Peel, for the purpose of considering the various recommendations made, and adopting such of them as fell within the competency of the trustees, and met their approval. He considered the present board of trustees inferior to no fixed board of management which could be appointed. Amongst those 1298 who attended regularly during the past year he found the names of the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Rosse, the Bishop of London, Mr. Macaulay, and Sir David Dundas. As to the floating balance alluded to by the hon. Member, it was lodged not in the hands of the trustees but in those of the Treasury, and was merely nominal in its character, arising from one quarter of the year falling into one account, and another quarter into a different one. He had yet to learn that the authority of the Commissioners was so much superior to that of the trustees as to make it absolutely clear and indisputable that where the two differed in opinion the latter must necessarily be in the wrong. The hon. Member had recommended that no more purchases should be made until those which were already in possession of the trustees should be accommodated. With respect to this question, he had to state, that in the course of the three years which had elapsed since the Commissioners had reported, accommodation had been provided for a large portion of the collection which was before unarranged; but be confessed that there was one great department which was still imperfectly provided for—he referred to that of printed books. So great was the deficiency of accommodation for this department that the trustees had actually been obliged to decline the vote of 10,000l. a year, for which they had formerly asked, and to take 5,000l. instead; and he believed they would even take much less now; for at present they were hardly able to find room for all the books it was their imperative duty to take in, such as copyright books, presents, and the like. The plan which the trustees had urged upon the Government five or six years ago was to expend the sum of 250,000l. in building a new quadrangle to the east of the existing Museum. The Duke of Bedford (the lord of the soil and landlord of the houses there) was willing to make the necessary arrangements with the trustees if the Government would grant them authority to act in the matter; and, as no one could know what the disposition of another Duke of Bedford ten or twenty years hence might be, he thought it extremely important that the transaction should be entered into so long as they had the consent of the Duke. By laying out 50,000l. a year for five years they would obtain all that they desired, and provide, for at least 100 years to come, adequate accommodation both for the printed books and the natural history collection, 1299 besides supplying more adequate reading rooms. But up to this moment the plan had not been adopted. With regard to the vexed question of a catalogue, he begged to say, that no public library in Europe had a catalogue of such extent and variety as the British Museum.

§ SIR W. MOLESWORTH
said, that various plans for providing increased accommodation for the Museum were some time ago referred to the Board of Works, in order that they might report upon them to the Treasury. That Board had lately given in their Report, which was now under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped that before next meeting of Parliament steps would be taken in order to provide increased accommodation for the British Museum.

§ MR. W. BROWN
said, he must express his surprise at the statement which he found in the printed return of the number of persons admitted to the British Museum from Christmas, 1846, to 1852—namely, that while in 1850–51 the number of visitors amounted to 2,527,216, it fell in 1851–52 to 507,973. He thought there must be some mistake.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
said, he believed there had been a great diminution in the number of visitors to other institutions in 1851–52, as compared with 1850–51, the time of the great Exhibition, as well as to the Museum; but he begged to inform the Committee that during the last six months the increase of visitors to the Museum had been very perceptible, as compared with last year.

§ MR. JAMES M'GREGOR
believed the cause of the diminution of visitors to arise from the fact that the doors of the Museum were not left open all the working days of the week. When visitors arrived from the country, one of their first visits was to the British Museum; but knowing nothing of the days when it was open, they often went on days when it was shut, and getting disgusted, they refused to go back. He wished the authorities would arrange that the Museum should be open for six days in the week.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
said, there were two classes of visitors to the Museum—those who came from motives of curiosity, and those who visited it in pursuit of science. The Tuesdays and Thursdays were reserved for scientific visitors and for foreigners of distinction—Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, for the general public—and Saturdays were reserved for cleaning.

§ MR. WISE
said, he wished to have some explanation in regard to this vote. He observed that one of the items of the vote as a charge for fitting up the dining-room a chapel for public service for English visitors and residents at Paris. Now, the fact was, that there were already six or seven Protestant chapels at Paris, where the English people might not only worship according to the faith of the Church of England, but might also improve themselves in the French language. The explanation he wished to have was, what portion of this sum of 5,820l. was proposed to be appropriated for the fitting-up of this chapel? The House was aware that in 1816 the nation had purchased the hotel at Paris from the Princess Borghese for 30,000l., and had since that time allowed annually sums varying from 800l. to 1,100l. for keeping up the building. It appeared to him that a vote of this character implied some malappropriation of the public money, as he was informed that n architect made an annual survey and report, and superintended the work required to be done. He wished to know why so large a sum as 9,000l., of which 5,820l. was to be now voted, should be required? He observed that one of the items of the vote was a charge for fitting up the dining-room as a chapel for public service for English visitors and residents in Paris, and he wished to know what portion of this sum of 5,820l. was proposed to be appropriated for the fitting-up of this chapel. He could not see the necessity for his arrangement, because for several years the service of the Church had been discontinued at the Embassy, and the English ambassador had attended the Episcopal Chapel built by Dr. Luscombe, at a cost of 9,000l., adjacent to the Embassy. There was also the Chapelle de Marbœuf, endowed and erected by the late Mr. Lewis Way, where the service of the Church of England was regularly performed throughout the year. There were also many other Protestant chapels at Paris, such as the 1301 Oratoire, and the chapels where Monod and Coqueral officiated. Since 1815 there had been no chapel at the British Embassy beyond that of the dining or drawing-rooms, which he certainly thought was not desirable; but considering the proposed expenditure was simply to accommodate a few fashionable visitors of the élite, he objected to any outlay for such a purpose.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
explained that the dilapidated condition of the mansion, as reported by Mr. Burton, the architect, confirmed by Mr. Albano, who had been sent to Paris for the especial purpose, rendered these repairs absolutely necessary. The estimates had been formed on the report of the latter gentleman. With regard to the fitting-up of the dining-room as a chapel, he must state that previously to this representation of the condition of the embassy, the ball-room was used and fitted up as a chapel. But it was considered that to appropriate a room in which a ball was held to-night for the performance of divine service to-morrow was most indecent; therefore it was thought proper that the dining-room should be fitted up for religious worship at the British Embassy.

§ MR. WISE
With reference to the fitting up of the dining-room as a chapel, he could not see that it was more decent to use that room than a ball-room. There was an English church close to the Embassy which met the wants of the public.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who had been the inspecting architect in Paris, on whose reports to the Board of Works the sum annually required to be voted in the estimates was granted? He also begged to ask, whether any new architect had been appointed to make those annual reports, and whether any special report had been made that the former architect had generally neglected his duty? If an annual report was made, it must have been either a fabrication, or have been made without any proper inquiry as to the state of the building, and what vote was necessary for its repair.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, that the gentleman who was now appointed the architect was Mr. Albano, and upon whose second report this estimate was founded. The person who was the architect in Paris, and who had made the reports, was Mr. Burton.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, that some of 1302 those reports were made to him when he was at the head of the Board of Works, and some of them to the noble Lord who preceded him in that office. He thought there ought to be an inquiry made by the Government, whether those reports were false or not. All that the person who was at the head of the Board of Works could do was to send a competent person to make a detailed report to him as to the state of the building; and, having received that report, he proceeded to prepare his estimate. Of course, if the report was entirely wrong, the architect who made it ought to be visited with the censure of the House.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, the report made to the noble Lord was made by Mr. Burton. A representation having been made to the Board of Works from another quarter, Mr. Albano was sent to Paris, and it was on the report of that gentleman that the present vote was framed.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he considered this be an important matter. He perfectly recollected the circumstances under which this case was brought before the Treasury during the last Administration. A representation was made to the Government as the state of the British Ambassador's residence at Paris. The representation was, fact, made by no other person than Lord Cowley himself. The expressions in the letter of Lord Cowley were, that such was the state of the residence of the English Ambassador at Paris that it would require to be immediately looked into. It was under this state of circumstances that his noble Friend then at the head of the Board of Works (Lord J. Manners), called his attention to the subject, and the then Government thought it their duty to send a professional gentleman—he believed Mr. Albano—to make a report on the matter. But no report was ever received by the late Government from that gentleman. The late Government certainly objected to the great expenses which were considered requisite for the Ambassador's residence at Paris; at the same time it was not for them to say that the expenses were not necessary. But he must say that Ministerial responsibility appeared, in this case, to be very seriously involved. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (of course he was not bringing this against the right hon. Gentleman himself as a charge) his unprecedented state of a public building, which be was sure could not be equal- 1303 led in any capital in Europe or in the world, had been brought about in consequence of a false expenditure of the public money; for a series of years there had been an estimate made by a professional man—not an English professional man—on the faith of whose estimate the House of Commons had annually voted a sum of money, in order to support and maintain the residence of the English Ambassador at Paris. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated to the Committee that for a series of years the sum so voted had never been expended; and that the consequence of that neglect had been such a state of a public structure as he did not suppose had ever been paralleled in the experience of man. Now, what he wanted to know was, who was living in the house at that time? Was the representative of Her Majesty living in the house during that series of years? Did he permit year after year a sum of money to be voted by the House of Commons for maintaining that structure, and yet suffer it to fall into an unprecedented state of dilapidation? That was the first thing he wanted to know. The second was, what was their security against such laches in future? Last year the House withheld a similar vote with regard to the residence of the Ambassador at Constantinople. The item was far from inconsiderable; but what was the case of Constantinople, and what the consequences of that item as compared with the present? This scene of outrage had taken place, not at Constantinople, but in a city which could be visited in less than twenty-four hours, and that at the house occupied by the English Ambassador. What he wanted was, for the satisfaction of the Committee, a security for the better management of this department of the public service. How had it happened, that during all these years, when an adequate sum of money had been voted for the maintenance of the residence of her Majesty's representative at Paris, the Ambassador resident in that house had permitted the sums of money so voted not to be expended for the public service?

MR. HUME
said, he thought the character of that House required that more money should not be granted until some account was given of the money which had already been voted. The better course, therefore, would be to postpone the vote.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, the Treasury was responsible for the Vote. He must admit that the whole matter was involved in con- 1304 siderable mystery; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that inquiry was absolutely necessary. The Committee would be acting quite right in requiring the report of Mr. Albano to be laid upon the table; and to that he (Mr. Wilson) had no objection. At the same time no good end would be answered by postponing the Vote, inasmuch as the money had already been expended—expended under circumstances which he was sure the Committee would concur in saying had justified the Government in ordering it to be done. The papers should be laid on the table, if possible, to-morrow.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought they ought to be furnished not merely with the Report of Mr. Albano, but also with the Reports which had been made in past years.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he thought it unnecessary to postpone the Vote; but he was of opinion that the Committee should not only be furnished with the Report of Mr. Albano, but with the previous Reports of Mr. Burton, that they might see whether he had stated the house to be then in a good state of repair. They should also have a return of the sums which had been expended on this building for the last eight or ten years, and they would then be in possession of the whole facts of the case, and would be able to guard against the recurrence of what had taken place.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he did not see any necessity for postponing the Vote, but thought that they should be furnished not only with the reports of the architects in past years, but also with a detailed statement of the manner in which the money voted was said to have been expended.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, there was a clerk of the works at Paris in charge of the mansion, and an English architect was sent over once a year to inspect the building, and report what repairs were necessary.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, it appeared that a sum had been annually voted for the repair of this building, and that it had never been expended upon it. He wished, therefore, to know whether the money had been spent at all, or to whom it had been paid? The case was not merely one of flagrant neglect, but it was also involved in much mystery. He did not think the Committee would be furnished with the information required unless the Vote was postponed.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, he must oppose 1305 the postponement of the Vote. Mr. Albano had reported that, in order to put the mansion in good repair, an expenditure of 9,913l. would be requisite. Out of this, in reply to a question from the Treasury, he had stated that it was necessary that 5,820l., the amount asked for by the present vote, should be expended in the present year. The Treasury had therefore authorised the expenditure of that sum during the present financial year; and, in fact, part of it had already been laid out. The remainder of the sum requisite for the completion of the repairs would come before the House next year, when they would have an opportunity to call for further inquiry if they were not satisfied with the explanation contained in the papers that would be laid on the table.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, he wished to know the scale on which these rewards were to be paid. It seemed strange to have this Vote at all, as there was a special provision to pay for slaves liberated on the Coast under an Act of Parliament. By what authority, might he ask, was the money voted? Did the Admiral on the station come in for any share in the case of the slaves rescued by the Alert on shore? He hoped the officers and seamen would have all the benefit of the rewards.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he did not think they could extirpate slavery as long as they encouraged slave-grown sugar. Was there any prospect of putting an end to it? He thought not. He believed the old slaveowners were much kinder to their slaves than we were to the natives for whom we exerted ourselves.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, the circumstances to which the Vote referred took place in the years 1848, 1849, and 1850, when Captain Dunlop, having discovered that certain slavedealers belonging to Sierra Leone had a number of slaves in the interior of the country, succeeded in liberating a large number of them. He liberated 700 slaves, and saved from mas- 1306 sacre 200 more, and he (Mr. Wilson) thought the Committee would feel that for services of that kind a reward should be given.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he begged it to be understood that he did not object to the reward, but quite the contrary.

MR. HUME
said, the only instance of a similar Vote was in the case of Captain Denman, when he burned some barracoons on the Coast. The law gave to every sailor and to every man a premium for taking slaves afloat, but on shore there was no law to justify the seizure of slaves. He saw by the public papers that Major Hill, the Governor of the Gold Coast, had presided at a court-martial which resulted in the execution of two chiefs of the Fantees within the British lines. He thought that the circumstances attending the execution of those chiefs were highly disgraceful to the country. A letter had been written by Mr. Cruikshank, the Acting Governor, to the Duke of Newcastle, on the subject; and the Duke in his reply expressed a hope that there would be no repetition of those scenes. He wished the production of the papers connected with the whole subject, because it seemed to him that naval men were inclined to go out of their way for the purpose of entering upon duties that did not properly come within their province. Captain Dunlop went thirty miles into the country to capture slaves. He protested against this system of making war upon native chiefs. He wished to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the legality of this proceeding, and he would, therefore, move that the Vote be postponed until that opinion be laid before them.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, that if his hon. Friend would move that the papers should be laid on the table, he should have great pleasure in laying them before the House.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, the Act of Parliament directed that the compensation should be given for services rendered afloat, and the Vote now proposed was contrary to the course usually adopted. Nothing could be more disadvantageous than to reward men for going on marauding expeditions, many of which were of no service either to the negroes or to the country.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, the Vote had been printed with the others, and had been before the House for three months, and it was quite competent for any Gentleman who required further information, to ask 1307 to have the papers laid upon the table; but he objected to the postponement of the Vote at that period of the Session.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he must protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman. The practice was when a new Vote was proposed to give information at the same time in respect to it.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, that all he asked was to be informed under what authority this money was paid to the officers and crew of the ship in question?

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, it was stated that the payment, if made, would not be legal, and no answer had been given to that statement. If it were not shown to be a legal payment, the House of Commons could scarcely be asked to vote the money.

§ VISCOCNT PALMERSTON
said, he presumed these slaves were slaves on shore, in a barracoon belonging to some slave merchant, the rest of the cargo being on board ship. As rewards were given as inducements for the capture of slaves, they should adopt a liberal principle, and give the same bounty for slaves rescued from slave merchants on shore as for slaves rescued from slave ships afloat.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that by treaties with civilised nations they acquired the right to take ships and liberate slaves, and by Act of Parliament rewards were given after certain proofs of the fact. Did the noble Lord mean to say it was the same thing when men from the Queen's ships interfered with savage tribes on the coast of Africa—war, slavery, and plunder being their natural condition—and when they broke up barracoons and created as many disorders as they professed to repress? If they once admitted the principle, it would be easy to get up cases of the kind and come every year for Votes of that House. Let them settle the matter by Act of Parliament, and then the Votes would be taken on a recognised principle. But he really thought the noble Lord had in this instance presumed on the credulity of the Committee to induce them to pass this Vote.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, there were two kinds of treaties—the one class was with civilised nations, by which they established mixed Commissions and Courts of adjudicature; the other was with Native Chiefs of Africa, giving officers of Her Majesty's Navy the right of entering and seizing any slaves in their territories. The policy of the Government had been to 1308 multiply those treaties with Native Chiefs, and they now extended through the whole west coast of Africa. He had no doubt, though he had no knowledge on the subject, there was such a treaty in this case.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, with regard to the execution of the two chiefs, the facts were, the King of Ashantee marched a large army into the territory of a chief under our protection. The natives organised themselves for their own defence, and the Ashantees were anxious to precipitate a collision, and it was entirely owing to the tact and judgment of Major Hill that a war was avoided. The two chiefs who were executed were tried by the chiefs in their own territory, and no British officer was present; and Major Hill only was there, at the request of the chiefs themselves, to see justice done.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he did not wish to find fault with the Estimate, but he desired to ascertain what precautions were taken against undue charges under this head. There had been five or six Commissions—Hull, Cambridge, Canterbury, Barnstaple, and Tynemouth. It was found in the case of revising barristers that they were in the habit of spinning out the number of days when paid by the day. If they were about to pay these Commissioners by the day, he was apprehensive, unless there was some check, these charges would run up to a considerable amount. What he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, whether any instructions had been given to these Commissioners at the time of their appointment as to the way in which they were to be paid—whether they were to be paid by the day, or a certain sum for the duties which they had to discharge? There was another circumstance to which he wished to call the noble Lord's attention. He mentioned neither names nor places, but he had reason to apprehend that in one case at any rate an immense number of witnesses had already been examined; and, as he had been informed, a similar number was likely still to be examined; whereas if the inquiry had been prosecuted by examining One or two persons, to prove a vast class of cases, he would not say dozens but hundreds of witnessess need not have been called. He 1309 hoped the Government would turn its attention to this subject.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, a more gross and wasteful expenditure could not be conceived than those Commissions. He had always set his face against Commissions. The Commissions that had already been issued, and were still to be issued, were nothing less than gross jobs and gross frauds on the public. A Commission was issued to put an end to corrupt practices. He had yet to learn what corrupt practices were. Whatever might have been done in the City of London—and what was done was wrapt up in mystery—he defied the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to prove that bribery or corruption had taken place in the constituency he (Colonel Sibthorp) represented. These Commissions were established for party purposes to give employment to hangers-on. They were to give employment to briefless barristers until those barristers could find a client to entrust them with their affairs. The Government had projected five or six Commissions which had done nothing, or nothing that was of any real public value. Five or six more Commissions were to be appointed, and they would also do nothing. What were those Commissions for? They were not really to put an end to corrupt practices, they were only to give employment to hangers-on. Were they to go on for ever in such a course? If he were to move the suspension of this Vote, he should be told the money was paid, therefore it would be useless to do so. He wanted to know what had really been done? Bills of all sorts were projected. A Bill was to be brought in by one hon. Member, and then they were told that the noble Lord was at work, and another Bill might be expected. This Bill manufactory appeared to be at work as vigorously as the chicken-hatching establishment in Leicester-square. He hoped the Committee would see an end of this wasteful and useless expenditure of public money.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he would not say anything on the subject of remuneration, but with respect to the manner the Commissioners performed their duties he would offer a few remarks, The Committee were aware that the selection was left to the persons who moved for those Commissions. They chose lawyers because their character and ability best fitted them for the duty. These lawyers were circuit-going lawyers, and the Committee could hardly call upon them to forego their pro- 1310 fessional pursuits for the purpose of attending to the duties of a temporary Commission without giving remuneration. These lawyers had been required to pursue these inquiries without intermission, except where an adjournment was necessary in order to complete the requirements of the law of evidence; and as this was so, it was right the parties should be paid.

§ MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH
said, that no allegation of corruption had been made against Irish constituencies. These expenses, therefore, and no part of them, could be charged to the account of Ireland. It was perfectly true that the Commissioners had been appointed by the Chairman of the Committee before which the case had been heard; but he would ask whether there was a single man prepared to say that the greatest injustice had not been done to individuals in the present Session by Election Committees? In six cases out of seven, he was convinced that their decisions ought to be reversed; for he could put his hand upon some where gentlemen had been unseated without the shadow of a cause. These cases could not, probably, now be remedied; but there ought to be some security against a repetition of such decisions, for really no man's scat was secure under such a system.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he could not believe there was any justice in the accusation which the hon. Gentleman made against the Select Committees of that House appointed to try Election Petitions. They were appointed under an Act of Parliament—the Chairman, especially; were appointed by a selected number of Members; generally they were eminent for their experience; and many of them possessed great knowledge of the law. He believed they had conscientiously discharged their duties, and that the House had every reason to be satisfied with the conduct of their Committees. At all events, having made these Committees judicial bodies, it was not becoming in that House, without very grave proof indeed, to attempt to disparage their authority. As to the particular question put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), he had only a few words to say. He must be well aware, although the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) appeared not to be, that the Commissioners were appointed according to Act of Parliament, and upon the nomination of persons of various political opinions. He believed, too, that the gentlemen appointed had been persons of various political 1311 opinions, and that they had been chosen not from any particular political bias or from party objects. There was, he readily agreed, some danger that the expenses of the Commissioners might be excessive. It would therefore be the duty of the Home Office to watch the conduct of the Commissioners; and, if they found the mode of remuneration proposed likely to lead to abuse, to alter that mode, and to endeavour to incur no further charges than were absolutely necessary for the purpose, for it was certainly desirable to place a check upon expenditure as far as possible.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, the noble Lord talked about Acts of Parliament as if he believed that Acts of Parliament had never done anything unjust. He believed they had very often; and, for one, he should be very sorry to have his property secured to him only by the justice to be found in Acts of Parliament.

§ MR. WALPOLE
begged to explain that in his previous observations he had implied no doubt upon the impartiality or the honour of the Commissioners. He had simply called attention to the fact of there being a danger of the expenses becoming excessive, and suggested that they should be paid a certain fixed amount, instead of by a given sum per diem.

§ MR. APSLEY PELLATT
said, he hoped the Committee would call for an explanation of the various items in this Vote. The fees paid to the law officers of the Crown were stated at 12,000l. a year, while the expenses of the patent offices, where the business, was really done, did not amount to more than 4,000l.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that the fees payable to the law officers had been reduced one-half since the passing of the Patent Law Amendment Act. They were now under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, who were empowered to reduce them whenever they thought proper. It was fair to recollect that a very large amount of work and very great responsibility now attached to the law officers of the Crown in connexion with the patent business of the country. The rate before the Committee was really a nominal amount, and not a charge upon the country, inasmuch as it 1312 was much exceeded by the revenue derivable from the sale of patents.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he wished to know whether the 12,000l. a year paid to the law officers of the Crown was based upon any calculation of their receipts in preceding years? There was a very general impression abroad that these Gentlemen were extravagantly paid for the services they rendered to the Government and the country. Sir John Jervis stated before the Committee on Official Salaries, that the emoluments of the Attorney General amounted to 10,000l., and those of the Solicitor General to 7,000l. per annum. Now, as the law officers of the Crown carried on their own private professional business, in addition to their public duties, he did not suppose they could give their whole time to the Government, even for the large sum they received in the shape of fees. He had no doubt, moreover, that most of the business connected with patents was done, not by the Attorney or Solicitor General, but by subordinate officials.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, the 12,000l. included in the vote was founded upon a computation of what the fees would amount to according to the new scale of rates as fixed by the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. The charge, owing to the reduction which had been made in the fees, was 5,000l. less than what it used to be.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that, in considering this Vote, the Committee would bear in mind that the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General were devoid of salary, the only emoluments attached to them being the fees derived from patents. When it was thought desirable to alter the patent law, and to reduce the fees payable from patents, the law officers of the Crown at once placed themselves in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls; but before the Amendment Act was passed they went out of office, and the new scale of fees was fixed, not during the time he had the honour to hold office, but while the late Government was in power. Since then two reductions had been made in the fees, owing to the increase of business under the Amendment Act, the first being a reduction of one-quarter, and the other of one-half of the scale formerly in use. At the same time a great change had taken place in another respect; for whereas under the old system the law officers of the Crown received the fees from patents in lieu of salary, for 1313 really doing nothing but signing their names, under the new law they had to perform a large amount of very responsible and arduous work, the result of which was a considerable accession to the public revenue. But the whole thing was in a state of transition, and it must not be supposed that the patent business would continue to increase as it did immediately after the passing of the Amendment Act. If it aid continue, and if the fees of the law officers of the Crown should increase in the same proportion, and become larger than they fairly ought to be entitled to—they were in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, who were empowered to deal with them as they might think fit.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he hoped the Committee would adopt the rcommendation of the Committee on Official Salaries, and resolve to remunerate the law officers of the Crown by a fixed salary out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of the present fluctuating and precarious system—precarious, he meant, as regarded the public—of payment by fees.

MR. HUME
said, that before agreeing to this Vote, he would like to have an account of all the money which had already been expended upon the Houses of Parliament, and an estimate of what more would be required to complete the works. He thought the time had now arrived when that House should come to some determination as to what additional sum was to be expended. Upwards of two years ago he asked for an estimate of the work which then remained to be done, and was told that such an estimate could not be prepared. Five years ago he declared that as long as the present system continued—as long as Sir Charles Barry lived—the new houses of Parliament would never be finished. He was convinced that there would be constant alterations going on, not for any beneficial purpose, but merely to please some middle-aged taste. Why, the very locks and bolts on the doors appeared as if they belonged to the age of Tubal Cain. They were proceeding, in short, in a very reckless way, and the affair altogether was most discreditable to the parties concerned.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, that the sums voted by Parliament since 1835, exclusive of the 70,000l. now asked 1314 for, amounted to 1,539,000l. He could not at present produce an estimate of what further sum would be required to complete the works, but would endeavour to procure one without unnecessary delay. He might state that, in future, the Votes would be founded upon an estimate of the works to be completed within the year for which they were required, and at the same time plans would be produced of the works to be done in each financial year.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, the original estimate for the new Houses of Parliament was 700,000l., while some time since, when he obtained some returns for which he had moved, the expenditure had reached nearly 1,500,000. In 1850 the question was, what sum would be requisite to finish those Houses of Parliament? Sir Charles Barry was examined on that point, and was pressed very much as to what would be the final outlay on those works. His answer was that it was impossible to say. Since that time an enormous sum had been expended upon them, irrespective of the present Vote. The truth, he believed, was, that the Government knew nothing whatever of the expenditure that was being incurred; and the question for the Committee now to consider was, how Parliament was to effect some control over it for the future? What they wanted to know was, in whom was vested the power of incurring all this expenditure? He firmly believed that the expenditure would be more than 2,000,000l. in the end, and he wanted to know from the Chief Commissioner of Works what check he imposed on the running up of future debts?

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, he must explain that there had been a large amount of outstanding accounts for works which had not been measured and valued, and the Votes for the Houses of 'Parliament had hitherto been based on the probable amount of expenditure, and not upon the amount of works executed in the financial year. The Votes, therefore, had been less than the cost of the works which had been executed in the financial year. Similar errors, however, could not happen again, because the arrears of measurement had been got rid of, and in future the Votes for the Houses of Parliament would be based on an estimate of the expenditure in the financial year.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said it would be in the highest degree desirable to obtain from Sir Charles Barry an account of the total 1315 sum required to carry out his fancies in connexion with the Houses of Parliament, and to divide that sum over a certain number of years. Unless they could bring Sir Charles Barry to make some statement of that kind, be (Mr. Macartney) could see no end to the expenditure. He also should like to know the amount of the existing contracts in the hands of Messrs. Grissell and Peto, Mr. Jay, and others. Again, the lighting of the House was a matter to which he wished to refer. In the course of it debate the other night he had the curiosity to go up to the top of the building to inspect the mode of lighting now in use, and perhaps hon. Members would scarcely believe that the atmosphere between the roof of the building and the transparent ceiling ranged from 132 to 140 degrees; and two individuals were obliged to live in that atmosphere constantly, whilst the House was sitting at night, to see that the building was not set on fire. If anything, should occur to prevent the surveillance of those two persons, at any moment of time the whole feline might be destroyed by fire.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, it was satisfactory to hear from the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) that there were hereafter to be no unmeasured works to pay for, that there were no balances left, and no liabilities for the future. The Committee would in future have an estimate laid before it of what was to be done, and would thus have it in its power to question such expenditure before it was incurred. There was one point which remained fur consideration, and that was—the remuneration of the architect. He wished to know if anything had been clone by the Government to settle the amount of that remuneration.

The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER
said, the question of the remuneration of the architect was brought before him during the month of May, and it had been quite impossible for him in the state of legislation in that House to undertake the settlement of that question; but he agreed with his noble Friend that a much longer time had elapsed than was desirable with respect to the matter, and he hoped to be able to proceed with it immediately after the termination of the Session. He confessed he sympathised with many of the complaints made with regard to the expenditure for those Houses; but his hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) had made every exertion that man could make 1316 to bring this difficult and complicated mater into a satisfactory state; and he could assure the Committee that the Government would use their best endeavours in the course of the recess to procure a bonâ fide reliable estimate of the entire expense of the works remaining to be executed.

§ MR. BOWYER
said, he had great fault to find with the lighting and ventilation of the House. He was sure any hon. Member who had come into the House just before the morning sitting, when it was empty, must have felt that the place was like a vault; and the reason was that the free air of heaven never blew through it. His notion of ventilating the House was, that the windows, which were ornamented with those strange beasts—he did not know for what reason—should be made to open, so as to admit the air to blow thoroughly through the House. If that were so, there would not be, as now, a residium of foul air in the chamber in which they sat. The windows might be handsome enough as specimens of medieval art; but no one would pretend that, with those beasts daubed over them, they admitted light; and they certainly did not admit air, because they did not open. So far as ventilation was concerned, they had better close them up together, both to the light and the air, and use gaslight all the year round.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that the Committee would feel some satisfaction at what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting this huge job. His (Mr. Bright's) objection to the architect of that House was, that he always overlooked the question of expense, and while earning a name for himself, he was destroying their credit as guardians of the national finances. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see to the preparation of a plan as well as of estimates, and that Sir Charles Barry should not be allowed to go beyond it.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, that even in the chamber in which they were then sitting there was not an existing arrangement that formed part of the original plan. Everything had been changed and altered, and he believed that the cost of the alterations could not be less than 15,000l. [An Hon. MEMBER: And a great deal more than that.] Very likely so; and that was the thing he wished to have explained. Would the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, lay before the House all estimate of the expenses which had been incurred in 1317 this chamber alone, for the alterations which had been rendered imperatively necessary by the extreme want of foresight of the persons who made the original plan? In asking this question, it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman to say, that if all his predecessors at the Board of Works had shown the same zeal and determination that he had clone in checking such expenses, a question like this would have been altogether superfluous.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
believed it was impossible to furnish an estimate of the sort.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to say whether it was possible to have a worse ventilated building than that in which they were then assembled. He had been informed by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney that by the expenditure of a very few hundreds of pounds he could make the ventilation of that House as complete as the one in which they formerly sat, and no one could desire a better ventilated room than that was. He wished to know if Mr. Gurney's opinion had been taken upon the subject?

MR. HUME
said, on a former occasion a Committee was appointed to attend to the ventilation and lighting of the House, and upon it were Mr. Locke, Mr. Stephenson, and other Gentlemen. He understood, however, that that Committee had never yet been consulted. He wished to know, therefore, now that Dr. Reid was dismissed, who had charge of the ventilation of the House?

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, that the recent alteration in the lighting of the House had been effected under the direction of Mr. Gurney, after consultation with Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Locke, and that nothing had been done in that respect without the approval of those Gentlemen.

§ MR. E. BALL
said, that he had lately visited the lower regions, for the purpose of seeing how the ventilation of the House was managed, and he had found a large fan there worked by two steam engines, which pumped up the air through the floor. The exhalations from the river hung in a cloud about the towers of the House, and he believed that these were brought down with the soot and smoke into the House by the working of the fan, which occasioned a vacuum.

§ MR. BOWYER
wished to know whether the Chief Commissioner of Works was prepared to open the windows; and if he was 1318 not, he should wish to ask Mr. Speaker whether hon. Members would be guilty of any breach of the rules if they broke the windows, and destroyed the extraordinary beasts which disfigured them and astonished naturalists?

§ MR. MALINS
said, he believed from his own experience that a better ventilated or more comfortable room than that House could not be found anywhere.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he conceived that no subject could be more interesting than the present, inasmuch as it concerned the health and the comfort of those who, night after night, were obliged to sit in the same impure atmosphere. The Chief Commissioner of Works must have been mistaken when he said that nothing had been done without consulting the Lighting Committee, because Members of the Committee had informed him (Mr. Osborne) that thirty-four lights had been placed behind the back benches contrary to their opinion, and without consulting the Committee. It was impossible that those lights should not greatly alter the ventilation. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) had also told him that the intensity of the lights, and the extreme heat they produced, would absolutely char the roof of the House in a very short period. He (Mr. Osborne) was convinced that unless the ventilation and lighting of the House were put upon a better footing, the lives of many valuable Members would be sacrificed.

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, that the lights below the gallery had been placed there at the express wish of Mr. Speaker, who could not see hon. Members on the back benches when they required to be called to order, which, he regretted to say was the case occasionally.