HC Deb 31 July 1855 vol 139 cc1564-88

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 100,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1856.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the expenditure under the Vote now before the Committee had not for several years past exceeded 70,000l.; and, considering the abuses which had previously taken place, he felt bound to move that the Vote be reduced by 30,000l. The Vote included 1,200l. for the Scotch Episcopalian clergy—an item which he considered very objectionable, especially as the Episcopal Church of Scotland numbered among its members many of the principal nobility of Scotland. Then there was also an item of 74l. 11s. 8d. for conveying bishops of the Established Church in the West Indies to and from different islands. He should move the omission of those two items, and another of small amount, in addition to the reduction of the entire Vote by 30,000l.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 67,969l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1856.

MR. WISE

said, he wished to call attention to the fees charged in the Estimates on the appointment of the Duke of Newcastle and some other individuals to State offices, and likewise to the fees charged on making knights, and did not see why the country should be called upon to pay those fees. He perceived there was a sum of 6,638l. put down in the Votes as compensation for Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg, the Secretary of Legation, and Consuls and Vice Consuls for their sudden removal from their posts, and he wished to know if that were to be given in consequence of the extreme inconvenience arising from the sudden and compulsory removal, or was the sum given in consideration of the loss of their emoluments, or had their salaries been continued since their removal from St. Petersburg? He would also call attention to a charge of 904l. for defraying the expense of the Commission of Inquiry into the state of the Corporation of London. Was he to understand that that was to be a national charge?

MR. WILSON

said, that with regard to the fees paid on appointments to offices of State, it was customary for the person who was appointed to a patent office to pay for the patent himself; but when he was moved from one patent office to another the charge for the second patent was paid for him. As to the fees charged on the creation of knights the explanation was as follows:—when a person was created a knight, or had an honour conferred upon him for services in the field or elsewhere, it was deemed a fit and proper thing that the value of that honour should not be diminished by having any pecuniary charge attached to it. With respect to the compensation to the British Minister and other officers in Russia, they had been obliged to sell off everything they had at a moment's notice, and with great difficulty had escaped safely through the country. Of course a consul who was appointed to a situation which he expected to be for life had every reason to make his arrangements of a permanent kind; and when, upon the outbreak of war, he was disturbed in the possession of his office, and subjected to enormous sacrifices by the sale of his household furniture, carriages, and other things necessary for his office, the Government thought it was only fair that the person so situated should be reimbursed his losses and extraordinary expenditure. The Commission of Inquiry into the Corporation of London was a Crown Commission, hostile to the Corporation, and the expenses of such Commissions were always borne by the public.

MR. FERGUS

said, he did not think there was a single item in the whole Vote that was open to greater objection than the grant of 1000l. to the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland. Now, in Scotland the Episcopalians were Dissenters, and as such were no more entitled to a Vote of public money than any other religious sect. There was a further objection to the Vote, that although in number they were very few, and their ministers the worst paid, the Scotch Episcopalians were the richest sect in the country, embracing three-fourths of the whole of the landed aristocracy.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he wished to call attention to No. 4 in the Estimates, stating sums paid to Commissions. It appeared to him that that was a very objectionable mode of expending the public money. It afforded facilities for providing for certain Friends of the Treasury.

MR. MULLINGS

said, that he had acted on Commissions, but had never received any portion of sums mentioned in the Votes. He wished that the Secretary for the Treasury would make it generally known that the Commissioners were not paid.

MR. WILSON

said, that the hon. Member for Cirencester was perfectly right, for in the case of all Commissions issued by the Crown the Commissioners were not only not paid, but they incurred considerable expense from having to come up to town to attend those Commissions, the only paid officer of which was the secretary attached to each.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, but he trusted, as there was a strong feeling against the Vote for the Episcopalian Clergy of Scotland, that the Government would take the subject into consideration.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he would give his attention to the subject, with a view of making some other provision for the Episcopalian Clergy of Scotland.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Vote agreed to: as was also

(2.) 10,945l., General Board of Health.

(3.) 3,498l. Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had felt it his duty to object to the Vote in former years, and should on the present occasion take the sense of the Committee against it.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 3,498l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the Expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1856.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 33: Majority 20.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) 12,390l. Charity Commission.

MR. MITCHELL

said, that the sum mentioned in the Vote now before the Committee was almost thrown away, because the Charity Commissioners had not sufficient power to interfere with the nefarious doings of the Court of Chancery with regard to all the charities of the kingdom.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he fully concurred with the hon. Member in thinking that the powers of the Charity Commissioners were not sufficiently extensive. That, however, was not the fault of the Government, for the provisions of the Bill having for its object the extension of the powers of the Commissioners were altered in the other House of Parliament, and the Government were obliged to accept the Bill with those alterations. He believed that until the power which the Court of Chancery posessed over those charities were withdrawn from that Court, and vested in the Charity Commissioners, the charities of the country would never be satisfactorily conducted.

MR. HENLEY

said, he regretted that no provision was made in the Estimates for the salaries of the inspectors of charities, which he thought ought to be paid out of the public taxes, and not thrown upon the funds of the charities.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

differed from the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and thought that the salaries of the inspectors ought not to be paid out of the public taxes.

Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes.

(5.) 1,053l., Professors at Cambridge.

(6.) 22,572l., Patent Law Amendment Act (Expenses).

(7.) 15,480l., Incumbered Estates Commission (Ireland).

(8.) 900l., Brehon Law Commission (Ireland).

(9.) 9,000l., Process Servers (Ireland).

(10.) 2,270l., Joint-Stock Companies Registration.

(11.) 69,115l., Merchant Seamen's Fund.

(12.) 25,500l. Park at Battersea.

MR. MICHELL

said, he was opposed to the system of granting money out of the public taxes for the construction of public parks, which tended greatly to benefit and raise the value of the private property in the neighbourhood. It was owing to the power of the metropolitan Members in that House that those jobs were carried on, and if he had felt assured that he could have induced the Committee to support him, he would have endeavoured, by dividing against the present Vote, to put a stop to this system.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must defend the Vote, and he thought that if the hon. Member had acquainted himself with the facts of the case he would not have made the assertion he had.

MR. WISE

said, he was one of those who thought that the tax-payers of the country were fully justified in complaining of the present Vote. They had to bear their own local burdens, and were asked also to contribute towards a park for the benefit and improvement of the metropolis. He felt that so great a principle was involved in the Vote that he should take the sense of the Committee upon it.

MR. SPOONER

said, he should support the Vote, as he had done on a former occasion, not because he approved its principle, but because he considered that if he were to vote against the completion of the park he should practically entail a greater burden on the country than the sum now required would be.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he considered that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) was not justified in accusing the metropolitan Members of sanctioning or carrying out jobs, as the hon. Member had termed them. It ought to be remembered that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Marylebone, the late President of the Board of Health, sanctioned the principle of levying an exclusive rate on the metropolis for metropolitan works, and if the Bill passed it would carry out the principle which hon. Members were desirous of having enforced.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 25,500l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of forming a Park at Battersea, to the 31st day of March, 1856.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 17: Majority 58.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

(13.) 17,696l., National Gallery.

(14.) 25,000l., Chelsea Embankment.

(15.) 10,700l., Lighthouses.

(16.) 1,811l., Cholera (West Indies).

(17.) 10,300l. Agricultural Statistics.

MR. STAFFORD

said, he wished to inquire whether a portion only of the Agricultural Statistics in England was to be taken, while in Scotland and Ireland they were collected in a complete form.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that when the estimates were framed it was in contemplation to adopt some such course as that followed last year with regard to some parts of the country; that was, that it should be tested whether the system of inspection under the Poor Law might not be made available for the collection of agricultural statistics. That experiment, however, had not been successful, and a Committee of the House of Lords had recommended a plan which would require a legislative enactment in a future Session. Consequently, with regard to England, nothing would be done during the present year, and no expense would be incurred. As to Scotland, the plan resorted to last year had been eminently successful, and it would be continued; and also with regard to Ireland, the existing system, which was satisfactory in its results, would be adhered to.

MR. THORNELY

said, that if the object was to ascertain the amount of corn produced, with a view to judge of the quantity required to be imported, he thought the corn merchants would take care to ascertain it. He did not, however, deny the utility of collecting agricultural statistics.

MR. ALCOCK

said, he observed that in Scotland and Ireland the system adopted for collection of those statistics effected the object, and he thought that it was a disgrace to the country that a perfect system could not be devised for England, especially as in France, the acreage of which country was much larger, the collection of agricultural statistics down to the most minute articles of produce was admirably accomplished.

MR. STAFFORD

said, that one reason why those statistics were so readily collected in Ireland was, that there they had the advantage of the services of the constabulary for the purpose.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he thought that the Estimate was reasonably framed, supposing the course pursued last year were continued. One reason of the collection being made complete in Scotland was, that the farmers themselves had rendered valuable assistance.

Vote agreed to; as was the next Vote

(18.) 2,000l., Trustees of Manufactures (Scotland).

(19.) 14,000l., Fishery Board (Scotland).

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he considered the continuance of the proposed Vote in the Estimates a gross job. The plea upon which it was first brought forward, viz., distress in the Highlands and islands of Scotlands, no longer existed; and how places of commercial importance and wealth like Leith, Glasgow, and Greenock could have the face to come upon the public taxes for money to promote their fisheries he could not understand.

MR. WILSON

said, he must admit that the subject was one that deserved consideration, and he would promise that the attention of the Government should be directed to it. He thought it would not be desirable to withdraw the money altogether from Scotland, but he conceived that it might be applied to a more useful purpose.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he must protest against the doctrine of the Secretary for the Treasury, that if the money was not wanted for the object for which it was originally granted, namely, the promotion of the Scotch fisheries, that it must be necessarily voted and applied to some other purpose for the benefit of Scotland.

MR. DUNCAN

said, he quite admitted that the trade of Scotland should stand on its own footing, and was satisfied that it would not be injured if the Vote was withdrawn.

SIR JAMES ANDERSON

said, he fully agreed that an entire stop ought to be put to the present system. It was discreditable to Scotland to be receiving money in such a form, under the pretext of promoting manufacturies and fisheries.

MR. JAMES MACGREGOR

said, he must express his feelings of indignation that money should be given to Scotland which could not be fully explained or accounted for.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the Vote was necessary for carrying on the service of the Board, which could not otherwise be continued; but his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury had announced that the subject would receive the attention of Government with a view to a change of system.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he also must protest against the idea expressed by the Secretary of the Treasury, that any vested interest in money on the part of Scotland could be recognised—a notion which had been disclaimed by several of the Scottish representatives to their great honour.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he begged to point out that the application of the Vote, and the distribution of the money, was fully and minutely explained in a Report of great interest, annually presented to the House.

Vote agreed to.

(20.) 5,000l., Commissioners of Highland Roads and Bridges.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, it was absurd to have such a Board. With regard to Highland Roads and Bridges, the Government ought to pledge themselves to consider the Vote, along with the preceding, with a view to its discontinuance.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he did not see why such Votes should be objected for Scotland, when they had similar ones for England, for they had just passed one for Chelsea Bridge. At the same time he wanted to see the whole of them done away.

MR. F. SCULLY

said, if such Votes were granted to Scotland, why were they not granted to Ireland? He should like some explanation on the subject.

MR. WILSON

said that the origin of the Vote was the formation of military and other roads in the Highlands for public purposes. The hon. Member (Mr. Scully) seemed to forget the large sums which had been spent on the road to Holyhead and on the Menai Bridge, to facilitate communication with Ireland. The Vote was for the purpose of maintaining roads in the Highlands, which would not otherwise be kept up, and which were often useful for public purposes. Any new roads were made and kept up by the counties.

Vote agreed to.

(21.) 12,000l., Bounties on Slaves.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

said, a recommendation had been made by the Committee for a strict blockade of Cuba, and the First Lord of the Admiralty had promised fine things; but having obtained a return of the force employed in those waters for the suppression of the Slave Trade, he (Sir G. Pechell) found there were only a few a small steamers sailing about in shallow waters only, and of no practical use in suppressing the traffic in slaves. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state whether the present Captain General of Cuba was as sincere in his desire and as favourable to the suppression of the Slave Trade as reported? He had been informed that a cargo of slaves had been landed at the Moro Port at a time when the Commodore on the station was enjoying the hospitality of the Captain General. Seeing that we had secured the cordial co-operation of the Brazils, and that nothing was wanting but the same co-operation on the part of the Spanish Government, he did hope that the Government would see the necessity for vigorous effort to obtain that consideration. He wished to know whether there was any foundation for the report that great delay took place in handing over the bounty to captors of slavers? He had devoted himself to the subject of those bounties, and his earnest wish was to see them placed on an intelligible and just footing.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in constant communication with the Spanish Government on the subject of the Slave Trade in Cuba, and was exerting all the influence of our own Government with that of Spain to induce them to give the most stringent orders to the Captain General of that Colony for the suppression of that traffic. When he was asked to answer for the sincerity of the Captain General of Cuba, he could not do that. He could only answer for the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government, who were doing all they could to suppress the traffic.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord if that traffic had increased or diminished during the last year?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he thought the traffic of last year, as compared with that which used formerly to be carried on, had greatly diminished. If his right hon. Friend meant to institute a comparison between the last year and the year before, he was scarcely able to speak confidently on that point; he believed there had been a cargo or two more in the last year; but the present traffic in slaves was comparatively very small.

Vote agreed to, as were also the two following.

(22.) 68,500l., Dues under Treaties of Reciprocity.

(23.) 17,850l., Revising Barristers (England and Wales).

(24.) 3,800l., Inspectors of Corn Returns.

MR. WISE

said, every gentleman connected with the provinces must be aware what an immense amount of corn was sold without being included in any Returns. Those Returns as now made were delusive, and of very little advantage to the public, and he wished to ask whether the Board of Trade intended to adopt effective measures to get more correct and extended Returns.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he must admit that the present system of Returns was very unsatisfactory, much corn being sold without being returned, and a good deal being returned twice over. The Report of the House of Lords on the subject of Agricultural Statistics had, as had previously been stated, alluded to the matter, and one of the proposals contained in that Report was for making those returns more complete.

Vote agreed to, as were also the two following.

(25.) 3,600l., Quarantine Arrangements.

(26.) 5,752l., British Consulate Buildings, Constantinople.

(27.) 4,578l., British Ambassador's Residences at Constantinople and Therapia.

MR. WISE

said, he considered that the Vote required some explanation. The balance left after the Estimate last year was only 3,301l., and he wished to know why it had been increased. He understood that it was originally calculated that the expense of the new house would be 30,000l., but after that had been voted and expended various further sums were voted, till it amounted to no less than 86,650l.; and he thought that something approaching 14,000l., had been voted for furniture. However, it seemed useless to oppose that sort of Votes, for they seemed to pass as a matter of course, and he should rest satisfied with protesting, and expressing a hope that the present was the last Vote for the Embassy house at Constantinople. The Committee would remember the description of the disgusting state of the seamen's hospital at Constantinople by the late Lord Dudley Stuart, and he wished to know if it had been improved, and if the merchantmen paid tonnage towards the expense of the hospital?

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that it was in 1839 that the Ambassador's house at Constantinople was burnt down, and every year since there had been some demand of money for that building.

MR. WILSON

said, he well remembered Lord Dudley Stuart's account of the Hospital at Constantinople, and the readiness with which the Committee voted the money for a new one. An arrangement was made that before the Treasury acted the Foreign Office should arrange that all merchant shipping, foreign as well as British, should pay tonnage at Constantinople towards the support of the hospital. Since that time it had been represented, that the hospital was too small and an additional story was required, which accounted for the increase in the estimate.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to inquire how it was that the ambassador had two residences, when he used only to have one?

MR. STAFFORD

said, that the summer residence had been given by the father of the present Sultan to the British embassy.

MR. WILSON

said, he believed that this would be the last Vote of the same kind for the embassy houses. One of the houses had been burned down twice within a few years; and now it was thought fit, as a matter of prudence and economy, to engage workmen, whose special business it was to protect the building from fire.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

(28.) 1,550l., Building Courts of Law, Isle of Man.

(29.) 9,000l., Public Records Repository, Iron Doors.

(30.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 90,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, for the Purchase of a Site, and for the erection of a new Office for the Department of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1856.

MR. BELL

said, the proposed Vote was the first instalment of a sum of 585,000l. which appeared to be the total estimated cost of the contemplated new offices in Downing-street and Fludyer-street. He wished to know if the Government considered themselves bound by the plan adopted at the first short sitting of the Committee appointed to consider the matter, and before any detailed plan had been laid before them?

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he also wished to ask if the Government had considered a plan submitted to them by an independent architect? If adopted, it would require an increased outlay of fifty per cent., but it would give considerably more than double the amount of accommodation provided by the plan which had been adopted.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that, in consequence of the very dilapidated state of the buildings in Downing Street, he had considered it his duty to request the architect to examine into the state of the public offices situated there. Acting upon the opinion of the architect, the Government had come to the conclusion that it was expedient to rebuild the whole of Downing Street, and plans had been prepared in the Office of the Board of Works for that purpose. The Foreign Office was at present in a very dilapidated and dangerous state, and required to be propped up in every direction. The plan which had been adopted was a general scheme for rebuilding the whole of Downing Street, and for providing new offices for the various public departments. The scheme referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt) was a scheme of a much larger description, and would cost a much larger sum than the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, without more completely answering the purpose of providing adequate accommodation for the public offices. He might state that the Committee to which reference had already been made had not pledged themselves to the plan laid before them, but had merely considered the quantity of land which it would be requisite to take for the purpose of rebuilding Downing Street.

MR. BANKES

said, he thought that 90,000l. was a larger sum than ought to be voted by the Committee, under existing circumstances, for such a purpose. It was true that the buildings occupied as the Foreign Office were in a very dilapidated condition, but they might be placed in tenantable repair for a far less amount than was now required. He was aware that the demand was made with reference to an extensive scheme for the erection of new official buildings, under which it was intended to provide magnificent apartments for the Cabinet Ministers, in which they might entertain foreign visitors and their friends. It was well known that Cabinet Ministers had generally very handsome houses of their own, which were thrown open most generously for the reception of their friends and of foreigners of distinction, and he thought it was desirable that that custom should be continued, instead of following the example of some Foreign States, and allotting to ministers magnificent apartments in the Public Offices.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he would not object to that part of the Vote which was necessary to secure the ground, for he believed it would be requisite hereafter to erect considerable buildings which it was advisable should be on that spot. But though he did not object to the grant for the land, yet he had the strongest objection to grant the amount required for the buildings for the current year. He did not quite understand whether they were to be committed to the plan or not, but it was quite clear that if they began to build, it must be upon some plan, and they could not shift it afterwards. He also did not agree in the necessity for these State apartments. He had met many foreigners who thought that we ought to be proud of the simple manner in which we carried on the State business, and he had an old-fashioned notion of the same kind himself. He saw that there were to be additional buildings for the Board of Trade, but he thought that if the Council Office were looked sharper into, they might find rooms which were not constantly in use, and which might be appropriated by the Board of Trade. He was not much in favour of official houses, but he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and more particularly, the Minister of War, should have one, as telegraphic messages were coming every hour. He should like to have the plans adopted by the Government, and a Committee of that House to inquire into the necessity and expediency of the scheme. They were asked for 500,000l., but he suspected it would be nearer 1,000,000l. before they were done with it. All he asked was, that the building should be postponed until they should have an opportunity to examine and express an opinion upon the matter. He thought that they had a right to complain that the Estimates were delivered only on the 27th July, and they were called on so soon to vote them. If the hon. Gentleman would say that a Vote of 30,000l. was necessary to obtain the land, he would not object to that amount, but he proposed to the Committee not to grant the additional 60,000l.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the building in which the business of the Foreign Office was at present conducted consisted of four small old houses in the worst possible condition. The floors were propped up, the houses were really in a very dangerous state, it was necessary to keep in the kitchens and cellars books which ought to be accessible in the upper rooms, and very great inconvenience was experienced every day in consequence of the dilapidated condition of the building. It was, therefore, a matter of emergency, that suitable accommodation should be provided for the Foreign Office. He believed also, that better accommodation was required by several other Public Offices. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) seemed to imagine that one object of the plan adopted by the Government was to provide magnificent State apartments for the Cabinet Ministers. No such plan was contemplated, but it was proposed that two rooms of considerable size should be built, which might be available when it was necessary for the Minister for Foreign Affairs or other Ministers, to entertain large parties at dinner. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that Ministers could find room enough for these purposes in their own houses, but any one acquainted with the average size of London houses must know that few of them afforded accommodation for the reception of such a number of guests as must be entertained on the occasions to which he referred. Those rooms, it must be remembered, would also be available for other purposes connected with the transaction of public business. There was a good deal of weight in what the right hon. Member had said respecting the necessity for a full consideration of the plans to be adopted. He thought the plan proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) was a good one, and would be substantially adopted; but, at the same time, when plans of considerable magnitude were to be carried out, it was right, and would be for the advantage of the Government to accept Parliamentary Partnership, and themselves have limited liability on account of those plans. He was ready to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, with a slight modification—namely, that, in addition to the 30,000l. for the purchase of the land, a sum of 10,000l. should be voted to provide for such incidental repairs to the existing buildings as might be absolutely necessary. When Parliament met again a Committee could be appointed to whom the general plans would be submitted, and the Government would then have the benefit of sharing their responsibility with the House, both upon matters of taste and matters of expense. He would therefore propose to reduce the Vote to 40,000l.

MR. BANKES

said, he wished to explain that in the Estimates there was an item for State apartments for the use of all the Ministers on the first story, and the cost was put down at 95,000l. The noble Lord was the only Minister who could require such accommodation, for no one had so many friends, but the Committee was well aware that no rooms were better filled or better provided than the ample space afforded by the noble Lord's own house.

Motion made, and Question put, and agreed to. That a sum, not exceeding 40,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, for the Purchase of a Site, and for the Erection of a new Office for the Department of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1856.

The following Vote was then agreed to.

(31.) 9,000l., Census Expenses (Ireland).

(32.) 52,500l., Army and Navy Medals.

MR. STAFFORD

said, he hoped that arrangements would be made for a speedy distribution of medals among the soldiers returned from the Crimea. He knew many cases in which soldiers had been obliged to return to their homes without receiving their medals. He would also ask how it could be that the 72,000 medals were charged in the estimate at 10s. each, when the intrinsic value of the silver in those medals did not exceed 4s. 6d. or 5s.

MR. WILSON

said, he had no doubt the figures were correct, but would make inquiry.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he would make inquiries into the best means for a speedy distribution of medals.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he found some medals charged for were for the Kafir war, now ended three years since. He thought it was a great pity that the grant of medals should be delayed so long that the boon lost its value. He also found 1,000 medals for distinguished services, which he assumed were connected with the new Order of Merit.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, the particular medals referred to were granted to soldiers and sailors for distinguished services.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—

(33.) 68,131l., United States Claimants.

(34.) 54,218l., Townley's Escheat.

(35.) 17,000l., British Seamen Abroad.

(36.) 3,000l., National Gallery (Ireland).

(37.) 9,927l., Metropolis Interment Acts.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he felt bound to complain of the manner in which the Act had been carried out, whereby a large number of grave-yards in the east of London had been closed, while only seven new burial-grounds had been opened. The consequence was, that those in crowded districts which had not been closed had become literally gorged. He thought some explanation was required on this point.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he wished to know why it was that the country was called upon to pay for the working of an Act affecting the metropolis alone?

MR. WILSON

said, that the object of the Government had been to close crowded metropolitan burial-grounds and provide the means of opening others. For that purpose rates were originally intended to be levied, but they had been given up, and now the Government were obliged from time to time to come to Parliament for the money which had been expended under the Act.

In reply to a question from Mr. I. BUTT,

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the inspectors whose salaries formed a portion of the Vote examined and reported upon the state of burial-grounds recommended to be closed, and also as to the applicability of such new ground as it was proposed should be devoted to the purposes of interment.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to point out that, though beneficial to the health of the neighbourhood, the closing of the burial-grounds was not always pecuniarily of advantage to parishes.

SIR JAMES ANDERSON

said, he also must object to the whole country being taxed for expenses required in the improvement of a locality. What advantage was it to Scotland that a burial-ground in London should be closed?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he would remind the hon. Member that the locality itself was put to great expense to provide a new burial-ground. No doubt Scotch burial-grounds would have to be inspected before they were closed, and then the services of the inspectors would be apparent.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(38.) 5,000l., Galleries of Art (Edinburgh).

(39.) 40,000l., Cape of Good Hope.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he objected to the Vote on the ground that the colonists ought to be left to take care of their own affairs.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he was willing to admit that the Vote was an experiment for the purpose of trying whether by the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money annually we might not be able to put an end to the Kafir wars and the great military expenditure in South Africa. He estimated that our military expenditure in that country amounted to between 400,000l. and 500,000l. a year; and, in addition to that, every now and then a Kafir war broke put which cost, upon the average of the last war, about 1,000,000l. a year. Sir G. Grey, who had recommended the proposed plan, had formerly been Governor of New Zealand, where he had displayed great skill, tact, and ability, in dealing with the native tribes. He had been extremely successful there in inducing the natives to abandon their warlike pursuits, and to adopt habits of peaceful industry; and, having been appointed to the Governorship of the Cape of Good Hope, it was hoped that he might display equal skill in the management of the Kafir tribes, and might induce them also to abandon their warlike habits in favour of more peaceful occupations. Sir G. Grey had proceeded to the Eastern frontier of the Cape of Good Hope, where he had studied the habits of the Kafir tribes, and, after making himself acquainted with their habits, tastes, and feelings, he had sketched out the following plan. Sir G. Grey said in one of his despatches— The plan I propose to pursue with a view to the general adjustment of these questions is to attempt to gain an influence over all the tribes included between the present north-eastern boundary of this colony and Natal, by employing them upon public works which will tend to open up their country; by establishing institutions for the education of their children and the relief of their sick; by introducing among them institutions of a civil character suited to their present condition; and by these and other like means to attempt gradually to win them to civilisation and Christianity, and thus to change by degrees our at present unconquered, and apparently irreclaimable, foes into friends who may have common interests with ourselves. He also added— To accomplish this will require a considerable immediate expenditure of money and some lengthened period of time; but I feel little doubt that, within eight or ten years from the present date, the work might be so far accomplished that no further assistance would be required from any extraneous source, and that Great Britain might look to be relieved shortly, to a great extent, from all further care and expense connected with this colony. In the meantime it is to the British Parliament alone that assistance can be looked for to carry out such a plan. Its cost, I estimate, will be for the present 45,000l. per annum, of which 40,000l. would require to be furnished by Great Britain. When it was remembered that 40,000l. was only 4 per cent upon the expenditure of a single year of Kafir war, and that it was but one-tenth of what we had to pay every year for the military expenses of the Cape of Good Hope, he thought that the Committee ought to agree to the proposed Vote. After the most careful and deliberate consideration which he could give to the subject, he believed this to be an experiment which was well worth trying.

MR. HINDLEY

said, he had no objection to test the experiment, but he had no hope of its success, unless Englishmen in that part of the country would be honest. It was vain to talk of bringing the Kafirs to civilisation and Christianity when we allowed our colonists to take possession of the land of the natives.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he was afraid that the proposed Vote would be but the commencement of a perpetual annual charge.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that the Vote now under consideration was not the commencement of a new system, for, unfortunately, we had long been engaged in protecting the country against the Kafirs.

MR. R. PHILLIMORE

said, he regarded the proposition as a wise, safe, and Christianlike experiment. If he thought that he was binding himself to vote 40,00l. a year, he might think twice before he gave his consent; but he was persuaded, after the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that it was a reasonable Vote.

MR. HINDLEY

said, he wished to know whether the colonists were to be protected if they went into the Kafir country and took possession of the natives' land?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

Certainly not; because, if they go into the Kafir country and take possession of the natives' land, they would be out of the British territory.

MR. ALCOCK

said, he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, in a most able speech which he made about seven years ago, advocated the principle of the Colonies being self-supporting, and he much regretted that the first step taken by that right hon. Gentleman, after accepting his present position, should be to propose a Vote like the present.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that the cost of our American colonies previous to the declaration of independence had been only 64,000l. per annum, and he saw no reason why the colonists at the Cape should not he called upon to pay the expenses connected with their own maintenance.

MR. OTWAY

said, he rose to move that the Chairman report progress, in order that he might have an opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee to a point which concerned every hon. Member who was anxious to take part in the discussion upon the Estimates. A Vote had been proposed having reference to the National Gallery, and had been postponed. It had been his intention to make some observations with regard to that Vote, and he had communicated that intention to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, and not for the first time, but certainly for the last, he had been deceived by the statement of that hon. Gentleman as to the course which he intended to pursue. He had that morning told the Secretary to the Treasury that it was his intention to object to a certain sum of money in the Vote for the National Gallery, and that hon. Gentleman then informed him that that Vote would be brought forward the first thing in the evening, and in consequence of that statement he had left the House, and then the Vote had been quietly smuggled through. He had thus for the time been deprived of the opportunity of making the remarks which he had intended to make, and, therefore, he was compelled to defer them until the Report was brought up; but he thought that it was necessary to make these remarks, in order that no other hon. Member might be deceived, as he had been, by the statements of the Secretary of the Treasury.

MR. WILSON

said, that the hon. Member had, as was not seldom the case, been somewhat rash in bringing forward a charge against him. It was perfectly true that he had told the hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to bring on the Vote connected with the National Gallery the first thing at the evening sitting, and that Vote had been brought forward at six o'clock when the hon. Member might have objected to it if he had been in his place.

MR. OTWAY

could only say that he had entered the House at a few minutes after six o'clock, and had not quitted his place; and that Vote must have been proposed in so quiet a tone that no one had heard it.

MR. WILSON

said, that, on the contrary, the Vote had attracted particular attention, and one or two hon. Members had risen in their places and asked what Vote was being taken, and he himself had answered their inquiries.

Motion withdrawn; Vote agreed to, as was also—

(40.) 5,800l., Pall Mall to Green Park Continuation.

(41.) 3,000l. Inverness Bridge.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (in reply to Mr. W. Williams)

said, that some years ago the old bridge at Inverness was destroyed by an extraordinary flood, which was supposed to have been caused by works at a lock for which the Government were considered partly responsible. The matter was fully considered at the time, and the result was that an agreement was come to that one-half the expense of building a new bridge should be borne by the public, and one-half by the counties in the neighbourhood of Inverness. A Bill was introduced into Parliament giving effect to that agreement, and the necessary money was voted. In consequence, however, of unforeseen difficulties in the construction of the bridge, the estimate had been exceeded, and it would be only fair that half the excess of 6,000l. should be borne by the public.

MR. F. SCULLY

said, he was surprised that the Committee could go on voting money year after year for roads and bridges in Scotland, while in England and Ireland the counties were called on to pay for such works. He should certainly move that the Vote be disallowed.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he did not defend the Vote, except on the consideration that it was only carrying out an arrangement which had been entered into some time since. He should not originally have been in favour of that expenditure.

MR. I. BUTT

said, it was not right to say they had never had national assistance in Ireland towards making roads. If the hon. Member divided the Committee, he should feel bound to support the Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought the Committee ought to take into consideration the peculiar difficulty of maintaining roads in a mountainous country. For instance, the local resources of the Alps would be entirely insufficient to support a road over the Simplon, and it required all the resources of the French Empire to make and maintain one. He would also remind the Committee that the population of the Highlands of Scotland being very thin, and the surface of the country very unequal, it came to this, that bridges, costing a great deal of money, had to be erected in very poor districts; some extraneous assistance, therefore, was not unnaturally required for the purpose.

MR. OTWAY

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. F. Scully) would not divide the Committee on the Vote, but that the Government would consent to devote a portion of the 14,000l. which had been asked for for Scotch fisheries to the completion of the bridge. Before he sat down he wished to state, in reference to what had passed that evening that the observations which he had made had been founded upon erroneous information, and he was therefore anxious to withdraw them. At the same time, be might say that he had taken his seat in the House at half-past six o'clock, and that, as he had never moved from his place during the evening, it appeared to him unaccountable how the Vote could have passed without his knowledge.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he objected to the Vote, and wished the Committee to compare the present application from Scotland with the case of South Wales, where, last winter, some eighty or ninety bridges had been washed away by the floods, and yet not a single sixpence had been asked of the country at large to defray the expense of their restoration. He thought the Committee ought to set its face against all grants for local purposes.

MR. WILSON

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee. The Committee ought to think themselves well off in not having to pay the whole of the expense of the bridge instead of a part, inasmuch as the accident had been caused by certain works executed by the Government.

MR. DUNCAN

said, it was a question whether, if the case had gone into a Court of Law, the Government would not have had to pay every shilling of the expense for rebuilding the bridge.

MR. F. SCULLY

said, that after what had taken place, he would not divide the Committee upon the Vote.

Vote agreed to.

(42.) 11,000l., Buckingham House, Pall Mall.

MR. BANKES

said, that Buckingham House stood upon one of the best sites in the metropolis, and he considered that it was incurring a very great expense and a consequent loss to the public to select such a situation for a Public Office. He wished to know in what manner it was proposed to adapt Buckingham House to the public service, and whether it was intended to be permanently used as a Public Office?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that several of the Ordnance Departments had recently been brought under the immediate direction of the Secretary of State for War. Every one would admit that business was much more efficiently and rapidly conducted when the different departments, under the control of the same chief, were brought under his immediate observation, and it was with the view of concentrating the departments that the remaining term of the lease of Buckingham House had been purchased. He was not quite certain what branches of the Ordnance Department might be transferred to Buckingham House, but he knew that great inconvenience had resulted from some important branches of that department having been continued at Woolwich, in consequence of the impossibility of providing accommodation for them in London. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that Buckingham House, which was to be converted into Public Offices, occupied a situation where private residences were in great request, and that a building for such Offices might have been obtained at less expense in some other part of London; but it must be recollected that nothing was more conducive to the efficiency of the public service than that the branches of the various departments should be in the closest possible proximity to the chiefs of those departments, and that Buckingham House was within a short distance of the Ordnance Office.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, as Buckingham House was Crown property, he wished to know what was the amount of ground-rent paid, and what period of the lease was unexpired?

MR. WILSON

said, he believed that thirty years of the Crown lease were yet unexpired, but was not aware what was the amount of the ground-rent.

In reply to Colonel DUNNE,

MR. MONSELL

said, that one of the departments which it was intended to remove from Woolwich was that of the Director General of Artillery.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, it was his opinion that the Director General of Artillery ought to remain at Woolwich.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(43.) 3,718l., Windsor Improvements.

(44.) 10,000l., Arctic Discoveries (Rewards.)

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, as a Member of the Committee which had recommended the Vote, he wished to say they were unanimously of opinion that the greatest skill and zeal had been displayed by Captain M'Clure, and that the officers; and crew under his command deserved the highest credit for the courage and fortitude with which they had faced the dangers and endured the privations they had had to encounter. The Committee had recommended that 5,000l. should be granted to Captain M'Clure, and that 5,000l. should be distributed among the officers and crew of the ship under his command. He wished, also, to express the sympathy and condolence of the Committee with those whose relatives and friends had been lost in the expedition under the command of the high-souled Sir John Franklyn. The Committee entertained a very high opinion of the manner in which all the officers and men had discharged their duties during a service of great danger and severe privation, and they had recommended that a medal should be granted to each officer and man engaged in the expeditions. He regretted that no estimate was proposed for that purpose, and wished to know why the recommendation of the Committee had not been adopted?

MR. OTWAY

said, he would suggest, in order to make the matter clear, that the Vote should be taken in the following form:—5,000l. to Captain M'Clure, and 5,000l. more to be distributed by the Board of Admiralty among the other officers and the crew of Her Majesty's ship Investigator.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, it might be asked why so large a sum was awarded by the Committee to Captain M'Clure. It should be remembered, however, that that distinguished officer had exhibited the highest qualities, not amid the temporary excitement of a battle-field, but throughout the whole four years during which he and his companions were in the ice. By his indomitable bravery and consummate seamanship in penetrating as far as Percy Bay, he had achieved one of the most extraordinary enterprises that could ever be attempted in the Arctic Seas; and the people of England would not grudge him the reward that was now to be offered to him for his eminent exertions, He had felt that the services of Captain Collinson and Captain Kellett were beyond all praise; but had the Committee entered upon their claims, it would have been impossible to know where to stop, as there were many others whose services were almost equally entitled to recognition. The Committee, therefore, had decided upon recommending a reward only in the case of the actual discoverer of the north-west passage.

MR. I. BUTT

said, that the Committee had unanimously decided that Captain M'Clure was deserving of the proposed reward, because to him belonged the distinguished honour of discovering the northwest passage. It was impossible to eulogise too highly the heroic daring, the extraordinary skill, and the undaunted resolution shown by that gallant officer in taking up the enterprise at the point where Sir Edward Parry and other explorers had left it, and in bringing it to a successful completion. His wonderful efforts in navigating his ship round the western coast of Behring's-land, and in braving the dangers of a rocky ironbound coast on the one hand, and the fearful perils of the ice on the other, were altogether unparalleled; and nothing had ever more impressed his (Mr. Butt's) imagination or riveted his interest than the details of that remarkble achievement. On entering Parry's Sound, Captain M'Clure came to the conclusion that the land lying to the westward was an island, and by resolutely acting upon that opinion, and sailing round that island, he ultimately set at rest that long uncertain question—the existence of a north-west passage.

MR. F. SCULLY

said, he wished to inquire why Captain M'Clure was not to receive the sum of 20,000l. originally offered for the discovery of a north-west passage, instead of only 5,000l.?

MR. I. BUTT

said, that the sum of 20,000l. was offered before any part of this passage was discovered, and the persons entitled to it were not only required to discover the passage, but to bring a ship through. Captain M'Clure had not brought his vessel through, but he had demonstrated that the passage was impracticable. The sum of 5,000l. was not intended as an adequate recompense for his services, but merely as some acknowledgment by the nation of their value.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, he wished to explain that 5,000l. had been voted to Sir Edward Parry, and 5,000l. to Sir John Ross; and the present Vote of l0,000l. therefore, exhausted the entire 20,000l. which had been alluded to.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, he would take that opportunity of asking why a grant of 1,000l. to the Royal Society for scientific objects had been recently withdrawn by the Government?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

replied, that a few years ago the grant was asked for by the Royal Society as a temporary assistance for a specific purpose. Those who applied for it represented that it was wanted for a particular year, and that, if l,000l. were advanced, probably the whole of that amount would not be required, in which case the remainder would be returned. An advance of 1,000l. was accordingly made from a fund not strictly applicable for such an object, but intended for a charitable purpose. The grant was, however, given a second time, and in the third year the Society applied for another l,000l.., "as usual." He felt obliged to reply that he did not consider it a proper application of the fund in question, and that he must decline to continue it. No doubt, however, a grant of that sort for scientific purposes would be a very fitting one for Parliament to take into its consideration.

Vote agreed to.

(45.) 800l., Monument to Sir John Franklyn.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that the proposed Vote was one of a very melancholy description. It was unnecessary for him to say anything in praise of the exertions of Sir John Franklyn in the cause of Arctic discovery, and now that his fate and that of his brave companions had become, unfortunately, too certain, there was nothing left for the country to do but to testify its sense of their services by erecting some suitable monument to their memory. After consultation with Lord Ellesmere, and others, it had been determined to intrust the execution of it to Mr. Westmacott, but, as that gentleman had been absent in Paris, it was only within the last few days that his design had been received. It was proposed that the monument should be erected at Greenwich, where already there was a memorial erected to the memory of the gallant Lieutenant Bellot, who had met with an early death in the same cause. It was there, too—and this had weighed very much with the Government in selecting the site—that another great Arctic discoverer, Sir Edward Parry, had resided as Lieutenant Governor of the Hospital until very lately, when he had fallen a victim to a disease contracted in the course of his numerous and lengthened voyages. It was proposed that on the monument to be erected should be inscribed the names of Sir Edward Parry, and of all the officers and men who had fallen victims in that service.

Vote agreed to