SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 28 May 1858)

§ MR. WISE
complained that the charges for the maintenance and repair of the several offices were not given in detail. There was a charge of £24,000 a year for a number of small houses all over the town for the use of the Government. This was a most extravagant system, and it would be much more economical to have all these offices concentrated in one place. There was a very large sum for a great variety of small articles, including rates and taxes, coals, soap, &c., and he only referred to them to express the hope that there was some supervision over such outlay, as the charges were year after year gradually increasing.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, it had been thought better to put the charge for the maintenance of the Government offices down in one sum, but the charges for what were not, strictly speaking, Government offices were given in detail, even to as small an amount as £16. No doubt the sum paid in rent was very great, but there was no avoiding it without the expenditure of a large sum of money for the concentration of the offices, and on a scheme of that kind the House was not at present prepared to enter. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that every necessary supervision over the expenditure was exercised.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS
complained that no less than twelve houses, at a rent of £6,381, were occupied by the War Department, and in the next Vote there was an item of £7,073 for furniture for them. He believed it would be much more economical to build now offices. He found in this Vote a number of items for Scotland for repairs of abbeys and churches. The Abbey Church, Haddington, £230; Arbroath Abbey, £95; Dunfermline Abbey, and several others: these were items that ought not to be charged to this country.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, these buildings in Scotland belonged to the country, and, if kept up, must be so at the 1112 country's expense; and he did not think the hon. Gentleman himself would stand up and propose to allow these ancient relics to fall into decay. He assured the Committee that a proper system of supervision over the firing and the like was maintained, and that a saving would be effected by it. As for the War Department, and the expenses attending it, an opportunity would be given the hon. Gentleman of expressing his opinion as to the centralization of that department under one roof.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he must still ask why these Scotch abbeys and cathedrals —Arbroath Abbey, Dunfermline Abbey, Dunblane Cathedral, and others — should be said to belong to the country, and be maintained at the public expense, at the same time that none of the many abbeys and cathedrals of England were chargeable to the country? They belonged to Scotland; let Scotland support them. Why should this country do so?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he begged to remind his hon. Friend that this country had an Episcopalian establishment, but that Scotland had no endowment for the maintenance of cathedrals and abbeys, and that if they were to be maintained, they must appear in the Votes. He rose to make an observation or two upon the sums of money payable as rents for public offices. It was said that this was an extravagant system, and that it would be more economical for the nation to build public offices, so as to render unnecessary the hiring of buildings for temporary purposes. The subject had been considered by Select Committees and by successive Governments, and he trusted that the Government would continue to entertain the plans for building a new Foreign Office, and some others that were more immediately needed. But he should be sorry to see them take steps for clearing a large portion of Westminster, at a cost of a million of money, and then come to that House for double or treble that sum, in order to cover an enormous area with concentrated and centralized public offices. The benefit of such a scheme would be much less than was expected, because many of these public offices had very little connection with each other. They had certain limited duties to perform, and those duties could be as well discharged where they now were as if they were removed to Downing Street, or the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. An enormous outlay would be required for such a central building, and it would be more economical to hire houses for the im- 1113 mediate exigency. Many of these departments had duties to perform for two or three years, when their functions ceased. He trusted that the House would not rush into an enormous centralized system of public offices, under a notion that it would lead to economy. This demand arose partly from those who wished to give a more imposing character to the Civil Service, and partly from others who desired to embellish the metropolis at the public expense, which might be a laudable design, but was one which could not be effected except by a great pecuniary sacrifice, and ought not to be carried out under cover of the economy arising from a centralization of the public offices.

§ MR. BAXTER
said, he must remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) that many of the abbeys and ecclesiastical edifices of Scotland included in this Vote were once private property, and had been handed over to the country on condition that the nation would undertake their maintenance and repair.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, that many of the buildings referred to in the Vote afforded considerable instruction and amusement to the public, and he thought it would be much to be regretted, if from considerations of a small economy they should be allowed to fall into a state of complete decay.

§ MR. WISE
said, he found that there had been voted under that head during the last seven years a sum of £187,000. Now it appeared to him that that was an extravagant charge to incur in the case of an article so durable as furniture.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that every possible care was taken by the present holders of office not to incur, in that matter, any unnecessary expenditure.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was glad to find, at all events, that the sum required under that head for the present year was less by £9000 than that which had been expended last year, although there was generally a large increase when a new Ministry came in.

§ MR. TITE
complained that the items in the Vote were not set out sufficiently in detail. He supposed that the largest portion of the item of £5,705 for Science and Art was required for the Museum at Kensington, but he should like to know how much was for that in Jermyn Street, and for the Female School of Art in Gower 1114 Street. He was moreover perfectly ignorant of the nature of the last institution.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that £5705 certainly would be a large sum if it was entirely for furniture, but the fact was that it included the money paid for cases and other miscellaneous articles at Kensington. The Female School of Art in Gower Street was the only one of the kind in the metropolis. Of course it would be easy to have the items separated, if necessary.

§ MR. TITE
said, he considered the money excellently expended; he only wanted an explanation of the amount of the different items.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that it was very difficult to distinguish what was furniture, in the precise sense of the word, in a museum, and it was therefore thought better to include the fittings and furniture in one item. This however, was the last year those items would appear in the Vote for furniture, to which they did not strictly belong. They would in future appear under the more proper head of "fine arts." With regard to the respective amounts, £500 was required for the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street; £500 for the College of Chemistry; £600 for various articles at South Kensington Museum, and about £4,000 for extraordinary purposes at that establishment.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, as so many thousands of persons resorted, with advantage, to the museum at Kensington, he considered the money laid out upon it very well applied.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, it must be highly satisfactory that the Museum of Science and Art at South Kensington should be restored to by the general public. No man, however uncultivated he might be, could visit it without carrying away some idea of advantage to him intellectually. He feared however, that in discussing the expenditure under the head of furniture they were losing their time; for there was a statement connected with the Vote to the effect that the amounts could not be supplied with accuracy. How that could be the case when the furniture was bought and paid for he could not understand. He must say that the furniture in the public buildings ought to last ten years at least; none of themselves would like their furniture to be worn out in less time than that.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member did not quite understand the real state of the case. The 1115 Estimate for furniture for the year 1857–8 was £36,069. That was the sum voted; but the hon. and gallant Member would find that the amount actually expended was £31,519. The present Estimate was founded on the actual expenditure of last year.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, that observation implied that the furniture of last year would require renewal.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, the expenditure was chiefly on account of wear and tear, not for providing new furniture.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to call attention to the large expenditure for Kew Botanical Gardens, as it had been suggested to him that they might be rendered profitable to some extent by the sale of those plants for which no room could be found. He understood that in the course of a year an enormous number of plants were produced, which would be disposable, and many of them were extremely valuable. The enormous expenditure of £25,000 for St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks was, to him, quite unaccountable. He thought that the money hitherto voted had been sufficient for all alterations hitherto, and that this year a moderate sum only would be required for the current expenditure necessary to keep those parks in good condition.

§ MR. ADAMS ,
said, he would suggest to the First Commissioner of Works the propriety of providing some additional accommodation for the greenhouse plants at the Botanical Gardens at Kew, for want of which, he believed, great loss had already been sustained. He looked upon those gardens as one of the most healthful places of recreation and instruction of which the nation could boast, and their popularity was attested by the fact that during the past year the Botanic Gardens at Kew had been visited by no less than 400,000 persons, while, to their credit be it spoken, not the slightest injury had been done. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he would remind him that Kew Gardens were made available at the present moment for the purpose of stocking the Royal parks, for he believed it was the fact that it had supplied some thousands of young trees to Battersea, Victoria, and other new parks, the whole of which would otherwise have had to be paid for out of the public purse. He thought that 400 acres of ground having been gener- 1116 ously granted by the Royal Family to the people for the establishment of the Botanie Gardens, the least that Parliament could do would be to vote enough to keep them in an effective condition.

§ MR. SLANEY
expressed his opinion that no public money was better spent than that laid out in parks and pleasure-grounds for the people at large, and no one could grudge the money which was required for their maintenance and improvement. He suggested that pleasure-houses should be crected in the Regent's Park and on Primrose Hill, so as to enable generously-disposed people to give treats to schools or poor persons. Such places of shelter would be crected by voluntary subscription, and when built they might be placed entirely under the control of Government. Their erection, he considered, would be a public boon highly appreciated by the working classes. He would also call the attention of the noble Lord to the condition of Victoria Park. He had visited that park lately, and there were very few seats or benches for the accommodation of the people. He was happy to bear testimony to the excellent way in which the late Minister of Public Works had conducted the affairs of his office. He also called attention to the want of additional seats in Victoria Park.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he could confirm the opinion that had been expressed as to the admirable administration of the late Commissioner of Works. He would also observe that for 1857–58 the Vote for the Parks was £24,000, whereas for the forthcoming year it would be only £23,000.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he wished to know whether a vote was to be taken annually for Battersea Park, as he had understood last year that that would be the last occasion on which it would appear in the Estimates. No doubt, it was very desirable that parks should be provided for the people of London, but it must be remembered that the inhabitants of all other large towes either paid for their own parks or were indebted for them to the generosity of some public-spirited neighbour. There was a very general feeling that the House of Commons had been somewhat too lavish in granting away public money for these metropolitan parks.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he was afraid that Battersea Park would, like the other parks, have to be maintained in future by means of an annual Vote. For 1117 the future, all public improvements in the metropolis of this sort would be carried out at the instance of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and would therefore be paid for either by the localities interested or the general metroplitan district; but this park had been commenced before the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and it must be maintained by that body which had authorized its formation in the first instance. As regarded the complaint of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) with respect to the Estimate for St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park, he must remind him that it was much smaller than the amount asked for last year. It must be remembered that the very completion of new works involved an increased outlay in order to keep them in proper condition. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Adams), he would observe that during a visit which he paid to Kew Gardens on the previous day, Sir W. Hooker pointed out to him the site on which he proposed that a new conservatory should be erected; and if he (Lord John Manners) understood that the object had the sanction of the Committee, he should next year, if he were then in office, endeavour to provide for the requirements of the case. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the whole of the arrangements and management of those magnificent gardens.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he highly approved of the proposal to make a new conservatory at Kew, which would become a school of science for botanists, and enable the eight individuals whose names were mentioned in the Report to give the public the result of their scientific researches in all parts of the world.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that since this Vote had been in print it had come to his knowledge that this sum did not entirely cover the estimated cost of these works. Two items of rather a serious amount had been omitted. One was a sum of £4,000 for expenses connected with recasting the bell and fixing it in its proper position; and the other was also a sum of £4,000 for finishing the unfinished face of the lower part of the clock tower. This additional sum of £8,000 would have to be added to that of £160,793; but this, he believed was the last Estimate that 1118 would have to he submitted for completing the unfinished works which had been already commenced.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
begged to ask the noble Lord when it was likely that the works would be finally completed?

§ MR. HANKEY
said, he would bee, to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the hands of the new clock. It was rather a trifling subject, perhaps; but if it was intended that the clock should be visible at a great distance, he thought the present hands would not accomplish that object. Perhaps the way in which they were painted made all the difference.

§ MR. TITE
said, it was satisfactory to know that this was the last Vote which would be required for the houses of Parliament. He thought, however, that something should be done to give a finish to the unsightly arch of brickwork that was visible in Palace Yard, as it seemed to suggest that the works ought to go further. That eyesore should be removed. He also thought that the beautiful outside decorations and sculptures of the building were likely to be very much injured by the smoke from the two kitchen chimneys, and he thought they might be furnished with apparatus for consuming their own smoke. It added also, in all probability, to the corrosion of the roofs. He should also like to know when the works were likely to be completed?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he thought he had better not say positively when they would be completed, but he believed that every single item of expenditure was included in this Vote. The works were progressing most rapidly, and no one was more anxious than Sir C. Barry himself that they should be completed in the shortest practicable period. The official residences included in the present Estimate were in a state of great forwardness, and he had every reason to hope that in a comparatively very short time the new Palace would be completely finished.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he wished to call attention to the very large sum expended for the repairs of a building not yet finished. He believed that since the commencement of the works no less a sum than £6,890 had been spent in repairing the completed portions. There was an item especially £1,500 for covering the iron roof with anti-oxide composition, which appeared to him a very large sum. Whatever the noble Lord might be led to believe, he (Mr. Spooner) must express his 1119 doubt whether we had yet seen the last of the bill for the construction of the Houses of Parliament. As long as they had the architects about them they might rest assured that occasion would be found to make alterations and additions.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he would remind the hon. Member that much of the sum expended in repairs had been devoted to the effective maintenance of the Committee-rooms, which had been much used, and also the House itself. Of course, in an enormous building like the new Palace of Westminster, a large sum must be annually spent in repairs. Some time ago it was discovered that the iron roof had got very much out of repair, and at a comparatively small cost—namely, £1,500—it had been made permanently secure.

§ COLONEL SYKES
asked whether any arrangements had been made for the consumption of smoke in the New Houses of Parliament?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he believed that none had been made, but the attention of Sir C. Barry should be directed to the matter.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he wished to ask whether any specification for work to be done had been sent in by Sir C. Barry to the noble Lord? He understood that it had been sent in, and as everything must depend upon the nature of that specification, he thought it would be advisable that it should be laid on the table as soon as possible. He should be glad to know whether the noble Lord had been advised that the specification comprised all the work to be executed, and whether it was in sufficient detail to enable the noble Lord to test whether the money now required would be all that would be necessary for the completion of the building. When in office, he (Sir B. Hall) was told no more would be required, and the same thing was told to his predecessor (the late Sir W. Molesworth).

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he would now lay the specification on the table, and he regretted he could not do so before the recess. He had been advised that the specification was the usual professional one, and showed everything which was required to be done and the cost of the same.

§ MR. WISE
said, he wished to ask the noble Lord to lay before the House an account of all the sums expended upon the Houses of Parliament up to this time. It would be also desirable to know what 1120 amount had been expended for furniture and other things.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that there would be no objection to place an account on the table of all the expenditure since the last return in 1854.

§ MR. HANKEY
said, the Embassy at Madrid was in want of repair, and he did not find any Estimate on the paper.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he had thought it better to have some conversation with Lord Howden, who was on his return home, before any sum was asked for.

§ MR. BAXTER
said, there existed out of doors a wish that the House of Commons would look more closely into the question of the utility of those harbours. He should like to know what the works at Dovor bad already cost, and what further sum they were likely to cost. As to the £60,000 for the harbour at Alderney, he was told that that harbour would never be of any great advantage to the commerce of this country. He wished to elicit the views of the Government as to harbours of refuge, for he had heard a great deal said as to the extravagance of which the House of Commons had been guilty in reference to this matter. Beyond this he had heard it stated that there was a great deal of jobbery in reference to the subject, and that schemes were being hatched which it would become them to keep a jealous eye on. He thought that it would ill become them at this time to sanction any new Vote on this subject, which would involve considerable expenditure, and which expenditure he thought would be attended with no commensurate benefit. He had heard it said that it would be a great thing to have harbours of refuge on the north coast of England, the north-east coast of Ireland, and also on the coast of Scotland, but what he wished to call attention to was this, that it was doubtful whether the advantages would be so great as to justify 1121 their expending a million, or a half, or a quarter of a million on these harbours. A Committee was now sitting upon this subject and should they take any course committing the country to begin other works as extensive as those at Dovor, Holyhead, Portland, and Alderney, it would be the duty of the House of Commons to step in and prevent what he thought would be a profuse and wasteful expenditure of the public money. He admitted that when the finances were in an easy condition the taxes might be legitimately applied to improving commercial harbours, but he believed that it would be better to grant small sums in aid of harbours already in existence, and which might be converted into harbours of refuge for all practicable purposes, instead of expending half or a quarter of a million in one particular place. Half-a-dozen grants of £10,000 or £20,000 would more promote commerce than the expenditure of an enormous sum of money at one particular place.

MR. WILSON
was surprised that his hon. Friend had taken this opportunity of saying what he had said, when he knew that there was a Committee still sitting, and on the eve of making a Report, which would be on the table in a few days. He was surprised that his hon. Friend should endeavour to prejudge that question when the Committee upstairs had been sitting so long, and without seeing the evidence which had been laid before them. He thought it a most unfair mode of proceeding, and he would not follow the example of his hon. Friend by discussing the matter. He was convinced that the evidence would disclose a state of things which could not be allowed to continue. He was quite aware that hon. Gentlemen who had in their minds particular localities, or a particular class of works, might wish to forestall the Report of the Committee; but that was one of the inconveniences which must attend a matter of this kind. He could only say that he believed it was the intention of the Committee to report in a very few days, and, as at present advised, he had no doubt that a Motion would be submitted to the House during the present Session based on that Report. His hon. Friend would have ample opportunity, with full materials, for judging of the Report on that occasion. He might, however, remark that these were harbours for defence, not for commerce. He now wished to ask the hon. 1122 Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury for some explanation regarding the details of this Vote. The present Vote was for £170,000, which showed a decrease on the Vote of last year of £54,000, and it was stated that "this sum, with the balance remaining unissued of last year's Vote, will be sufficient for the service of 1858–9." The Vote, therefore, did not represent the expenditure of the year. A mere reduction of the amount of the Vote would not lead to reduced expenditure, and he wished to know how much the expenditure for the ensuing year would be.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, if the hon. Gentleman supposed that the information conveyed to the House by this Vote, as it appeared in page 9, was all the information which they could obtain on the subject, it was not to be wondered at that he should ask for further details. But the hon. Gentleman would see at the foot of the Vote a reference made to a Parliamentary paper, a copy of which he (Mr. Hamilton) then held in his hand. By referring to that paper, the hon. Gentleman would find set forth the progress of the works, the sums already voted, the sums already expended on them, and the sum to be expended on them. The first column of the paper stated that the whole of the original Estimates amounted to £650,000. The total amount of the Votes come to up to the present time was £346,000. The Vote for 1858–59 was £34,000, and the subsequent Votes required amounted to £208,000. In the first page the hon. Member would find all the particulars fully stated, the number of men employed, seven of one class, seventeen of another, a millwright and so on. In reference to those three harbours of refuge, it was thought more convenient to present those details separately. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend, he had to inform him that the sum appropriated last year on the works of Dover was £34,000, the sum expended was £34,000, and the sum necessary for the next year was £34,000. For Alderney the sum authorised was £100,000, the sum expended was only £87,000, and the sum required for the ensuing year was estimated at £67,000. For Portland the sum authorised was £90,000, the sum expended £88,000, and the sum to be proposed £76,000; and a further sum, if required, might be expended upon these works.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, perhaps it would have been better for his hon. 1123 Friend to have waited for the harbour of refuge Report; but for his part he wanted to advert to the harbour at Dovor. He never had been able to find out the use of it. In 1842 and 1843 he had resisted the Vote, and showed that to take Dovor as the site for such a work would be totally and entirely useless for trading vessels going from east to west, for they could not get into the harbour. He thought that the sooner a stop was put to the matter the better, for the cost was just so much money thrown away. This was on the supposition that the harbour was for commercial purposes, but if the Government would show that it was for the defence of the country, he, for one, would vote any amount they liked. As to the Alderney harbour, would any hon. Gentleman tell him the use of it as a harbour of refuge? It would be indeed useful for French vessels, but not for English. Even if it was for defence, what was the use of it? Originally the use of Alderney was that you could from thence look into Cherbourg, but now you could not do so. In the present condition of the French army and navy he thought that Portland, which was situate opposite to Cherbourg, should be kept in a proper state of defence. The other night he had called attention to the defences of this country, and he trusted that no delay would occur in nominating the Commission he had moved for. He did not think that the Government should lose a single day about it.

§ MR. DUFF
remarked, that he really did not know any way in which the money of the country could be better expended than in making a few national deep water harbours of refuge for the commercial navy, and also for defence. He hoped, however, that the Government would not neglect the suggestion of the host. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) as to expending small sums on other harbours.

§ MR. MONSELL
observed, that he did not think that the papers referred to by the hon. Secretary for the Treasury were calculated to decrease their desire to know a little more as to the harbour at Alderney. The statement of the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) was that the harbour would be of no use.—[Sir C. NAPIER: Hear, hear!]—and what was to be the cost of it? Why, something more than £1,300,000. There had been expended already £600,000 odd, and there remained to be expended £700,000, though the original Estimate was only £600,000. It 1124 appeared to him to be not too late to inquire whether they could not limit their expenditure to the original plan, that which was to have cost £600,000.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he wished to inquire whether thirty-eight feet represented the entire progress made with the pier at Dovor by means of an outlay of £34,000.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
explained that the thirty-eight feet was the work done in a single quarter.

§ MR. BAXTER
said, that they had elicited some important information that night, namely, that these were not harbours of refuge, but of defence. He should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the Vote for Alderney works be reduced by the sum of £30,000.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
asked, whether any part of the Vote for Alderney was intended for works of national defence.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that Alderney was important both as a harbour of refuge and defence. He could not say what portion of the expenditure on that harbour appertained to the purpose of defence and what to that of refuge, but they were essentially and necessarily connected. The Votes on the Army Estimates appertained more particularly to the purposes of defence, and those at present before the Committee related especially to those of defence.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he wished to suggest to the Secretary of the Treasury to calculate the cost of the pier at Dovor. At the rate at which it was now progressing—120 feet per annum — it would cost £6,000,000 of money instead of £600,000, and would not be finished in the present generation.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that from the first he had had doubts as to the propriety of the expenditure at Alderney; but after so very large a sum had been expended it naturally suggested itself to his mind that it might not be wise to begin the work and not to complete it. He wanted to know, however, from the hon. Member for Montrose what he meant by the precise amount of the reduction which he proposed? If it were intended merely as an expression of an adverse opinion to the expenditure which was going on, he 1125 Would vote with him. He knew well why the works were undertaken. They were not intended as a harbour of refuge for merchant vessels, and were not for anything else than a place where vessels of war might rendezvous. He believed that the harbour and fortifications of Alderney would be a source of weakness to England, for they would serve to keep large bodies of troops there, who would be better employed in taking care of the coasts of this country. Before sitting down he would make a remark to his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) who was chairman of the Committee on harbours of refuge. It appeared that evidence had been admitted from various private quarters on the subject; and he wished to suggest that, if that was so, evidence from all who were interested should be admitted, so that the Committee should be impartial. He for one did not object to spending public money on harbours of refuge. if it were made out that they were useful for the public interests, he thought that the expenditure of public money was a good one.

SIR JOHN PARINGTON
hoped that, after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), the hon. Member for Montrose would not divide the Committee upon his Amendment. The harbour at Alderney could not be looked upon as strictly a harbour of refuge. The works there had, beyond all doubt, a millitary object. And for a long period it had been the opinion of high military authorities, including the Duke of Wellington, that it was important to construct a harbour at Alderney for the reception of Her Majesty's ships. Upon that opinion many successive Governments had acted, and large sums had been laid out. There were several plans for the completion of the harbour of Alderney varying very much in scale. But the sum included in the Vote for the present year would be required, whatever plan might be carried out. It would be expended in the construction of the mole, the foundations of which were laid. By voting this money to be expended during the present year, the House would not be committed on the ultimate expenditure, or as to the ultimate size of the harbour. They would only be voting the sum required to complete what was already begun. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. 1126 Before the Government came to the House for a Vote next year they would be prepared to announce a definite opinion as to the course which should be adopted at Alderney, and as to the scale upon which the works there should be carried out.

MR. RIDLEY
said, he concurred in the recommendation to the hon. Member for Montrose not to divide the Committee upon this Vote.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, that if the hon. Member for Montrose divided he should certainly support the Amendment. This was called a harbour of defence; but, as he understood that it would require 5,000 troops to protect the fortifications, he was convinced that it would be a source of weakness rather than of strength.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he would rather suggest the expediency of withdrawing the Amendment, in consequence of the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

§ MR. BAXTER
said, his object in moving the reduction was simply to give the Government a hint that the House of Commons was tired of the expenditure at Alderney; but after the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty he could not press the Amendment.

GENERAL CODRINGTON
said, he hoped it would not go forth to the world that England was unable to defend its Channel Islands. The late Duke of Wellington asked, with reference to this very point, where would this nation find allies if she could not defend her own frontiers?

§ MR. SLANEY
called attention to the state of the western coast, which he said was unprovided with a single harbour of refuge.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he wished to ask when the new packet pier at Holyhead would be commenced. Would it be completed so as to be ready for the accommodation of the new and larger packets about to be placed on the station, and to run between Holyhead and Dublin?

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
stated, that it would be completed in a year and a half, in ample time to be ready for the accommodation of the new and larger packets which were about to be placed on the station.

MR. GLYN
suggested, that it was worth while to consider the possibility of rendering Holyhead available for the accommo- 1127 dation of the American traffic. Time would be saved both in the conveyance of the mails and passengers if they could be landed there instead of being carried on to Liverpool.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said the feared that in the present state of the harbour of Holyhead it would not be possible to land the American mails there. He would, however, cause inquiry to be made into the subject.

MR. WILSON
remarked, that the works now going on at Holyhead were being carried out with a view of making the harbour available for the landing of the American mails, so as to save as much time as possible in the conveyance of the mails and passengers intended for the metropolis and the south of England. He wished to know, as the amount of the present vote was so small, whether there was any balance applicable to the works at Holyhead.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
replied, that there was a considerable sum applicable to Holyhead, in addition to the Vote before the Committee.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that the original Estimate for this harbour was £600,000, and now the total Estimate was put at £1,920,000. He had no doubt but that the harbour would be a work of great national importance; but these original Estimates were perfect delusions.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that there could be no doubt that the work when completed would cost more than the amount originally estimated by Mr. Rendell; but Mr. Hawkshaw had examined the harbour last year, and made calculations which there was every reason to believe would not be exceeded.

MR. WILSON
said, that in justice to Mr. Rendell, it should be mentioned that the original Estimate of that gentleman was for a much more limited undertaking than that to which those works at Holyhead had spread to. Repeated extensions had taken place while the works had been going on, in consequence of it becoming manifest that greater harbour accommodation would be required.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken. The Estimate was made by Mr. Rendell at £628,000 for the same plan which Mr. Rennie and other engineers estimated at £1,700,000.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
observed, that 1128 fourteen years ago an assurance was given to the House that no further sum would be required for this harbour. The superintendent, who, he understood, had nothing to do, received a salary of £120, and he was also informed that it was contemplated to bring a railway to the harbour, which, after an immense expenditure made on it, would not be of any use.

§ MR. MONSELL
inquired, whether it was proposed to have a covered way from the terminus of the Dublin and Kingstown railway to the pier from which the Kingstown and Holyhead boats started.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
replied, that it was intended to bring the railway down to the new pier.

§ MR. WISE
said, that with that portion of the Vote which related to the House of Commons he was entirely satisfied, for there were two pages of detailed information given, and no one could say that any of the officers of that House were overpaid. But with reference to the House of Lords, the amount required in aid of the fee-fund was £18,000 in the present year, while in the last year it was £15,000; and he should like to know why the same detailed information was not given with reference to the House of Lords as was given in the case of the House of Commons?

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he was not aware of any objection to the production of the information, if it should be thought desirable. He believed, however, that the Estimate had always been drawn up in the present form. He would, however, make inquiry as to whether the details asked for could be obtained.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the hon. Gentleman had made a very imprudent promise; for there was more difficulty in the way than the hon. Gentleman was aware of. The matter stood thus:— The House of Lords was in the habit of sending to the Treasury every year the amount of the expenditure of the preceding year; but for the current year they only sent a general Estimate, and the Treasury had no power to require the House of Lords to give information on the subject, and the Treasury could only lay the statement before the House of Com- 1129 mons in the form in which it was received. If the House of Commons wished to have the details of the Estimate which the House of Lords would require next year, there was no means of obtaining that information except by a Motion being made to that effect, and a message sent to the House of Lords asking them to give the information.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that the attention of the House had often been called to this matter, and the late Mr. Hume proposed to divide the House against any Vote for the House of Lords unless a proper Estimate should be furnished.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
inquired, why the Vote in the present year was increased by upwards of £9,000.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
replied, that there was a deficiency last year in consequence of the increased number of Queen's messengers and extra couriers whom the Foreign Office were obliged to employ. The amount paid by the Government for telegrams was so large as £8,000, in consequence of the many messages which had passed between this country and India.

§ MR. WISE
said, that having given notice of a Motion with reference to this office, it would be inconsistent in him if he were not now to make one or two remarks upon the subject. In 1850 a Select Committee of this House was appointed to consider the question of official salaries, and they recommended that provision should be made for transferring the duties of this office to some other department of the Government, and that the salary should be discontinued. A great deal of evidence was taken, which tended to show that the office was useless and ought to be abolished. It had been said that the post was of great antiquity as well as dignity; but the same argument might be used respecting the Master of the Hawks or of the Buckhounds. The office seemed, indeed, to be "a great sham." It had been held by absentees, by Lord Lieutenants of Ire- 1130 land, by Lord Durham while ambassador at St. Petersburgh, and by Lord Minto when he went on his roving commission through Italy. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) stated to the Committee— The Lord Privy Seal has no great duties belonging to his department. He is employed on various matters which arise from time to time and attending Committees of the House of Lords. Lord Minto, observed:— The duties connected with the office are extremely slight—I may say next to nothing. They are merely ministerial, in applying the seal once or twice a week to a number of patents. They are such as to occupy no time at all. I have no doubt that arrangements might be made by which all the ministerial duties of the office would be just as well performed in other hands. It could be held in commision, or it could, as far as regards the duties of the office, probably be combined with another office of slight labour, and entirely dispensed with as a separate office. Being asked whether the office was not a sinecure, he replied:— I should say as completely a sinecure as an office can be which has certain ministerial duties of a very trifling description. The Lord Privy Seal is responsible that the seal is not attached to any instrument improperly, but that is practically a very slight responsibility. It was not (he added) an office in which a man was likely to be worn out in the service; there was no labour of any sort. Evidence to the same effect was given by Lord Durham. He (Mr. Wise) stated this in order to show that the office was of no use. In the spring, when he gave his notice of Motion, he did so as an administrative reformer, and as the present Government professed to be administrative reformers he wished them to be assured that he was not making a double-shotted Motion; but he hoped that if the Government found that the duties of the office could be transferred to souse other department they would make some arrangement with that view, and consider whether it would not be more creditable to our governing system if they had persons in the Cabinet out of office, but as Privy Councillors, with salaries from £2,000 to £3,000 a year, and not continue a sham office like this, which must be given to a Peer. He did not make these observations simply as an economist, but because he thought that sinecures of all kinds ought to be abolished. [Cries of "Move."] Several hon. Members said, "Move," but looking to the state of the House he did not know whether he should be justified in moving the omission of the Vote. He considered the 1131 office useless, and if he was supported he was bound to move the rejection of the Vote, and if it was rejected the Government could, out of the civil contingencies in their hands, pay the salary due to the noble Lord who now held the office. He begged to move the rejection or he Vote.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he rose to complain of the unsatisfactory manner in which that department was managed. As a proof that such was the case, he might mention that from papers which had some time ago been laid on the table of the House, it appeared that, although several architects had been induced to compete in furnishing a design for the erection of public offices, yet the whole scheme had subsequently been set aside by the overruling authority of the Treasury.

MR. WILSON
said, that to the House of Commons, and not to the Treasury, the blame of that proceeding attached, inasmuch as, although the right hon. Baronet the late First Commissioner of Works had introduced a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he had been obliged to withdraw it in deference to the wishes of the Members of that House.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
observed, that the Bill in question related to the general scheme for building public offices upon a large scale, and that, although that measure had not been sanctioned by the House, yet ample powers had been given for the purchase of ground for the erection of a Foreign Office, the proposal for the construction of which had been arbitrarily set aside by the Treasury in favour of a plan which had beca produced by the Government architect of a former Administration and rejected.

MR. WILSON
denied that the House had sanctioned the purchase of any ground whatever, and maintained that when Par- 1132 liament refused to purchase the ground required for the selected plans, it was obviously the duty of the Treasury to revert to a plan which had been originally approved of by Sir W. Molesworth, but when had been kept in abeyance, abiding the decision of Parliament upon the plans selected from among those sent in for competition.

§ MR. TITE
said, he believed the question of the construction of those offices would require more consideration than it had yet received. He did not understand that the Government was committed by any pledge or understanding to employ the successful architect in the construction of the building; but he believed the present Chief Commissioner of Works was disposed to grant a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and he hoped the hon. Member for Maidstone would make that Motion. With respect to the Vote before the House, it was, he considered, a moderate one, for he found that the office was right well officered.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he would in proper time move for the appointment of the Committee as suggested by the hon. Member for Bath.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
complained that the salary of the Private Secretary to the Chief Commissioner had been raised from £150 to £313, and the reason assigned was, that the Chief Commissioner was a Cabinet Minister. He could not understand how that made any difference. There was the solicitor, Mr. Gardiner, who had a salary of £1,800, and it appeared he had also a salary from the office of Woods and Forests, though there was another solicitor there with a salary of £1,000 a year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
explained, that there was nothing new in the principle of the increase of the Private Secretary's salary. The duties of a Secretary to a Cabinet Minister were always more varied and extensive than those of a secretary to a Minister who was not in the Cabinet, and his salary was always fixed at £300 a year.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he must repeat his objections. The duties of a Private Secretary, he contended, must be confined to the department, and had therefore nothing to do with the question whether his chief was or was not in the Cabinet.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that was not so. A Commission appointed by the Treasury some years ago, to inquire into all official salaries, laid down the rule to which his 1133 right hon. Friend alluded, and on that ground he stated that the Private Secretary of a Cabinet Minister should always have £300 a year. As to the solicitor, he believe that arrangement was made at the express instance of Lord Seymour when he was in the department, on the ground of Mr. Gardiner's familiarity with the details of the office of Woods and Forests.

MR. MACMAHON
said, he should propose to reduce this vote by £30,000, the item included in it for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of Poor Law unions. He reminded the Committee that on the repeal of the Corn Laws the charge, among others, for the salaries of that class of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses was transferred, at the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, from the local rates to the Consolidated Fund, with the view to enable the agricultural interest to adapt itself the more readily to the altered state of things; but, inasmuch as the result of the repeal had been beneficial rather than detrimental to that interest and to the whole community, he thought it but fair that the charge should be again borne by the local rates. The case was peculiarly hard as respected Ireland, where the people had not only to bear their own local rates, which were exceedingly high, and where an additional tax had been recently imposed upon the sale of spirits, but to contribute, in common with England, to the fund out of which that £30,000, from which they derived no benefit, was defrayed.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
supported the Amendment, and cited other instances of expense borne by the local rates in Ireland, but paid out of the general charges in England. When these differences were made he admitted the taxation of Ireland was not equal to that of England, but as so much had been done of late to equalize 1134 the taxation between the two countries he thought the exemptions ought to be equalized too.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he would submit to the Committee that it would be dangerous interfere with the settlement made in l846, because the same arrangement exonerated Ireland to a great extent from the maintenance of the constabulary force.

MR. MACMAHON
said, the Irish people would be prepared to take on themselves the burden of maintaining their police if they were given, as in England, the control over that force, but not so long as their constabulary was placed on the footing of an army and employed by the Government in the collection of the Excise duties.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he should oppose the reduction of the vote, as he believed the £30,000 for the Poor Law schoolmasters and mistresses was well spent.

MR. WHITE
contended that the poor would not suffer from the transfer of the sum in question from the Consolidated Fund to the English ratepayers, and he would support the reduction.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, no money was better laid out than that sum of £30,000 for schoolmasters and mistresses, and it was a mistake of the hon. Member (Mr. White) to suppose that the education given to the poor would be equal to what it now was if the expense were to be borne by the ratepayers. In most districts there was a desire to obtain the services of the children so educated, and thus they disappeared from the class of paupers.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he should not support the Motion as he thought the education of pauper children should be a national, and not a local burden.

§ MR. BUTT
suggested that it would be better to raise the question not on the ground of the salary of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, but on the item of £100,000 for the salaries, of medical officers. He thought that, as a general principle, local expenditure ought to be met by local rates.

MR. MACMAHON
said, he should acquiesce in that suggestion, and should withdraw his Amendment.

MR. MACMAHON
then moved that the sum be reduced by £100,000, the sum charged for one-half of the salaries of the medical officers of poor law unions in England. The objection raised to the reduc- 1135 tion of the educational Vote did not apply to this; and he did not see why England should not bear on her local rates the same expense which was so borne by Ireland. With regard to the police, if they had the control in Ireland of the police and had to use them only for police and not for revenue purposes, they could maintain them for one-sixth of the present cost.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he objected to dealing with this question in a piecemeal way. The Vote included part of the arrangement made by Sir R. Peel on the repeal of the Corn Laws, and a question so important ought not to be raised on a single item of this nature. He did not think they could take one item without going into the whole of them. With regard to the medical officers there was great complaint that their remuneration was too small. If this Amendment were agreed to it would probably be less. There was some force in the argument that the landed interest had not suffered so much from the Repeal of the Corn Laws as was anticipated, but, on the contrary, had gained by it, and the question might arise how far they were entitled to the compensation then granted them, or any compensation. He thought it would be highly objectionable, however, to deal with the question in the partial way now proposed, and he should like to hear the views of the Government on the subject.

MR. MILES
denied that Sir Robert Peel had taken off the local charges referred to as a compensation for the Repeal of the Corn Laws. These local charges were taken off because the landed interest bore much heavier burdens than the rest of the community, and many of them were removed before the Corn Laws were repealed. Before hon. Members took up these questions hap-hazard it would be well if they would reflect how the agricultural interest had been burdened in proportion to the other interests of the country. The prognostications of ruin to the agricultural interest from the repeal of the Corn Laws had not been borne out, but during the first three or four years after that event many thousand respectable, but poor farmers had either been converted into labourers or into poor settlers in other countries. Let the House consider the question of local burdens if it would, but not upon an isolated Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he could not see any distinction between the charges for medical 1136 officers and the charges for schoolmasters, and he was not aware of any reason why the medical officer, any more than the schoolmaster, should depend for his remuneration upon the liberality of the poor-law guardians. With regard to the other and most important point, it was not reasonable to suppose that the transfer of these trifling charges to the Consolidated Fund had been proposed by the late Sir Robert Peel as a compensation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, but, complaints having been made of the unequal manner in which such burdens had been borne, that was deemed to be the equitable moment for a fairer distribution of those burdens. If, however, these remissions were offered and accepted, as some believed, in the light of compensation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, it would be most unwise for Parliament suddenly to disturb a settlement of so serious a character. The experience of the Corn Laws had been extensive, but did not spread over so wide a period as to justify the House in coming to the conclusion that the transfer of these charges to the Consolidated Fund was unnecessary. If a period of sharp distress overtook the agricultural community, would not the House be in an awkward position if they represented that when the Corn Laws were repealed certain arrangements were made for the relief of the agricultural interest, but that after they had enjoyed a short period of prosperity the House of Commons broke the contract? There might come such a period of distress. If it prevailed in Ireland the House would hear of it, and they would be in a false position if they took advantage of what might turn out to be a transient prosperity in order to recede from a solemn compact. It was impossible to deal piecemeal with the arrangements of 1846. It must come before the House in its entirety, and it was only by a general and dispassionate review of all the facts that justice could be done. He must, therefore, resist the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. WILSON
said, he thought that there was some ground for the impression which prevailed that the contract into which Sir Robert Peel entered with regard to Ireland had not been carried out. Sir Robert Peel was desirous to do something to mitigate the evils which were thought likely to attend the repeal of the Corn Laws, although the measures which he proposed could not be considered as 1137 amounting to compensation. He (Mr. Wilson) did not think that the question should be raised in the present form, and he should therefore not support the hon. and learned Member.

§ MR. BUTT
said, that he had not heard a word in justification of the course which was pursued towards Ireland. It was neither just nor honest to call upon the people of Ireland to pay one-fourth of the expenses of medical officers in England, and at the same time to pay the whole of those expenses in Ireland. The question they really had to determine was, whether, having adopted a certain mode of payment with regard to England, they should not apply the same rule to Ireland. The alteration of taxation in Ireland justified them in saying it ought to be done; and unless the Government were prepared to give them a pledge for placing Ireland on the same footing as England, he should vote for the Motion.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, that the number of constabulary in Ireland was fixed by the Irish Government. If the counties required any more they must pay for it.

MR. ARYTON
was glad to hear Irish Members say that they were prepared to submit to equal taxation with England, but he was afraid that they only adopted this high ground for the purposes of this particular question. He was disposed to support any proposition for transferring local burdens to the general taxation of the country, because there was a feeling on the part of the rich to escape from taxation, and to throw the burden on the poor.

MR. MACMAHON
said, he deemed the vote so unjustifiable that he must mark his sense of it by dividing the Committee.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, there was no reason in the world why this Commission should be permanent. The local authorities might be intrusted to carry out the provisions of the law without this supervision. Lord Althorp had given a solemn pledge when first the Commission was established, that when its original purpose was served it should not be continued. It was only by striking at Commissions of this sort that the expenses 1138 of the Civil Service of the country would be reduced.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
complained of the largeness of the amount required for Civil Contingencies this year. The usual Vote for that purpose was £100,000, and he wished to know whether £128,000 had been really spent last year. If it had, several items of expenditure, which appeared in the paper just published, ought to have been brought specifically before the money was spent.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the excess of this year was caused by exceptional circumstances. There had been a great many special missions and diplomatic expenses of various kinds. For instance, there was the mission of Lord Elgin, and the expenses of the Paris Conferences. There was no money in the Treasury to meet this expenditure, and he therefore hoped that the Committee would allow a Vote on account to be taken.

§ MR. NICOLL
said, he must object to the growing practice of taking large sums on account, and move that the Chairman should report progress.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly reasonable and usual. Hon. Gentlemen would have a full opportunity of discussing the items when the remainder of the Vote came to be proposed towards the end of the Session.