§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee of Supply.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum, not exceeding £17,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for cleansing the Serpentine River, Hyde Park, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1860.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that the Vote before the Committee having reference to the Serpentine he would, before making some remarks upon the subject, ask permission to read some extracts from the Report of Mr. Page addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Works, and printed with the Estimates relating to public works and buildings. That Gentleman stated that:—
The Serpentine was fed by the stream called the Bayswater River, which, like the other streams and water courses of the Metropolis, was carefully protected from nuisance under the several commissions of sewers until the close of the last century, when the Metropolitan streams were converted into channels for sewage, a practice which has been acted upon and perpetuated by the Board of Health, and which has at length reduced the Thames itself in the summer season more to the character of a sewer than a river. I have found no records to show that this proceeding of the Commissioners of Sewers was approved by the Crown, but the gradual increase of the nuisance led to the passing of an Act in 1834 empowering 968 the Commissioners of Sewers to construct a weir or tumbling bay across the sewer which discharged into the Serpentine, by which arragement it was (strangely enough) imagined that the principal part of the soil drainage would be diverted from the Serpentine, and passed into a tunnel sewer in the Uxbridge Road.The value of this arrangement may be judged of by the fact, that as soon as the water in the sewer rose to the level of the weir, and a very little rise would be sufficient for that height, all the soil would pass over the weir into the Serpentine; and a case was related to me by Mr. Mann, the Superintendant of Hyde Park, that when his men were employed in clearing the mud from that part of the Serpentine which lies within Kensington Gardens, and had left their work during the dinner hour, a sudden storm of rain brought such a quantity of night soil over the weir that the bed of the river was covered with night soil five inches thick to some distance from the weir.The Serpentine had thus become an abomination and a source of disease, instead of what it ought to be, an ornament to the Park. The question of the purification of the Serpentine had been agitated for years. Eleven years ago the inhabitants of Brompton, Kensington, and the neighbourhood presented petitions upon the subject. Judging by the cost of cleansing the water in St. James's Park, the thorough cleansing of the Serpentine would cost between £40,000 and £50,000. He had no doubt that if the Government asked for that amount to render healthy a place that was visited for health and recreation by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and by none more than the poor, the House would willingly grant it. It certainly was very bad economy to spend £17,000 and only half do the work. At present, on certain occasions, not only did the drainage of the surrounding neighbourhood, but that also from the Kensall Green Cemetery, and the New Cemetery in the Harrow Road, find its way into the Serpentine. This was most disgusting. During the last fifteen years 3,963,689 persons had bathed in the Serpentine, being at the rate of more than 264,000 persons per annum. All the money they might expend upon the Serpentine would be thrown away unless they prevented the Ranelagh sewer from flowing into it at any time and under any circumstances. On the 20th of July a deputation waited upon the Chief Commissioner of Works upon this subject. Upon that deputation there were several medical men, all of whom concurred in the opinion that the water of the Serpentine was detrimental to the public health. The experiment tried in St. James's Park had completely answered, and he appealed to his 969 right hon. Friend to have the moral courage which was shown by the present Lord Llanover in that case, and deal boldly and effectually with this serious nuisance.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as all the Members of the House had not had the happy privilege which had been enjoyed by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Fins-bury (Sir S. M. Peto), of reading Mr. Hawksley's Report, he thought that this Vote ought to be postponed until that document had been printed and circulated. As far as he understood the plan proposed by Mr. Hawksley, which was entirely novel and had come quite suddenly upon them, it was that the water of the Serpentine, after running through the lake, should be pumped up to the top, filtered, and allowed to run through again, the same water being kept continually passing backwards and forwards. He could not at once condemn a plan which was sanctioned by so great an authority as Mr. Hawksley; but he certainly doubted the possibility of finding a filter bed at a sufficient height above the Serpentine, and he was sure that not one but two filters would be needed. The plan pursued in St. James's Park had, he believed, answered completely, and if this job was to be done at all it would be much better to do it properly. The bottom ought to be levelled; and a supply of water might be pumped from St. James's Park through the pipes which used to convey water from the Serpentine for the supply of the fountain in front of Buckingham Palace, and which still remained in the ground. It appeared to him far better to have a fresh supply of water, than that the same water should be pumped from time to time from the lower to the upper part of the Serpentine. Under all the circumstances, and as he was informed he could not move the postponement of the Vote, he should certainly negative it.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that the hon. Member had referred to the privilege which he had had of seeing Mr. Hawks-ley's Report. When the right hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works placed that Report in his hands, he asked him to give an opinion as to the practical working of the plan; and feeling the responsibility of so doing, and knowing that there was a variety of opinions upon the subject, he (Sir S. M. Peto) thought it right to consult the first engineering authority in this country—Mr. Robert Stephenson. Mr. Robert Stephenson devoted two days to the examination of the 970 subject, including the analysis of the water, and he had his authority for stating that he would stake his reputation that the plan proposed by Mr. Hawksley was practical and could be carried out with perfect success. Mr. Hawksley's plan would cost £17,000, while any other that could be proposed would cost at least four times that amount, and as there were good grounds for believing it to be just as efficient, he thought the Committee ought to adopt it. It should be recollected that with regard to depth the Serpentine was very different from the water in St. James's Park—and that a plan which might do very well in one case would be wholly unsuitable in another. He would also state that the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works when carried out would completely remedy the inconvenience caused by the sower.
§ MR. CONINGHAMventured to remind the Committee that the proposed improvement in the Serpentine would not separate the rain water from the sewage, which would still continue to find its way into and pollute that river, He was prepared to admit that the plan might be a palliative, but it would never be a remedy until the sewage matter was otherwise disposed of.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it seemed to him that the main point with the two hon. Baronets who had addressed the House, was to get a vote for a larger sum of public money; but if any money at all were voted for this object, he strongly approved of the plan of the Government, especially as one of the most eminent engineers of the day (Mr. Hawksley) had reported in favour of it.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, the course which it was proposed to adopt with regard to the Serpentine was exactly the reverse of what any hon. Member would do in the case of ornamental water in his own grounds. There the first thing that would be thought of was, in case there was a sewer, to cut off the foul water and to increase the supply of pure water. Here, however, the sewer was to continue flowing into the Serpentine for years. It seemed strange to suppose that a sufficiency of pure water could not be obtained by pumping to obviate this disagreeable necessity.
§ MR. ALCOCKfelt that it was the duty of the Government to make a good and complete job of this matter, and thoroughly to cleanse the Serpentine, the water of 971 which was at this moment perfectly pestiferous. It would be a disgrace to Parliament, when it voted such large sums for public offices, if it grudged the small sum required for the health of 200,000 bathers. If the Chief Commissioner failed to make a good job of it, and cholera or fever broke out, he would have to fly the country for failing to do that which common sense and common justice should have dictated long ago. What had been done in St. James's Park was well done, and answered thoroughly; and he should be ashamed of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the Government, and of the House of Commons, if a proper plan were not adopted.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that the arguments of certain hon. Members certainly appeared somewhat strange; for if the water of the Serpentine was in the pestiferous condition in which some hon. Members represented it to be, it was strange that they should refuse to adopt a plan which was proposed for purifying the water. He believed the plan of the Government was calculated to remedy the evil in the shortest possible time, and it had received the sanction of one of the most eminent engineers of the day. He had endeavoured to explain at a morning sitting, that the method of purification which had proved so successful in St. James's Park would be attended with very considerable difficulty when applied on so large a scale as a water surface of forty-two acres. It was not merely the time which must elapse in cleaning out so large an area which had to be considered, but the noxious exhalations which must arise from the mud when exposed to atmospheric influence, and the difficulty which would afterwards be experienced in obtaining a fresh supply of water. Mr. Hawksley, in one of his Reports, pronounced it to be almost impossible to refill the Serpentine, and expressed a very strong opinion against the policy of emptying a lake containing upwards of 60,000,000 gallons of water, which was incapable of being replaced except by constant pumping for a period of at least six months, and with the assistance of the water companies, or else by very expensive and tedious processes. In another Report, Mr. Hawksley stated that to obtain such a supply as would continue in any sensible stream the water of the Serpentine, after it had been once drained off, appeared to him, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, almost impossible. Any water in the vicinity, from having been corrupted by passing 972 into sewers, or from being required and used for the purposes of canal companies, would be unsuitable for the ornamental water of the Serpentine; and the Thames, even if it were suitable for such a purpose, was at a lower level of fifty feet; and the water of the Thames was, as they knew by experience, in a very foul state. A well sunk in the tertiary or chalk formation would yield but a very small supply. Mr. Hawksley believed that the lake could not be replenished from any of these sources in a manner which would prevent its being filled with organic matter in warm weather. These reports would be sufficient to show the House that the point had not been overlooked. With regard to the sewer which was in the vicinity of the Serpentine, some misapprehension appeared to exist. Hon. Members argued as though the sewer was constantly discharging its contents into the Serpentine. But this was not so. There were two other sewers at the head of the Serpentine, which carried off all the contents of the Ranelagh sewer, excepting when there was an unusually great flood of water, which happened on an average about twice each year, and against which, until the new drainage scheme of the Board of Works was completed, there could be no effectual way of guarding. The very offensive discharge which took place on one occasion, and which had been referred to in the course of the debate, was altogether an exceptional occurrence. It was well known that prutrescent matter of the foulest nature can be neutralized and destroyed by passing through preparations of iron, or other chemical substances. Effectual remedies for purifying this water, under any circumstances, might therefore easily be devised. He had shown the deputation which waited on him some of the river water which had simply been passed through blotting paper, and they thought it had been distilled; it was therefore hardly a fair account to give of the occurrence to state that the water appeared to be "in tolerably good condition." He did not believe he should be justified in putting the country to £60,000 or £70,000 expense when he had had submitted to him a plan which high authorities had declared would be attended with most satisfactory results, and which would cost but one-fourth of the money. Having no professional knowledge himself, he was compelled to depend on the most eminent 973 opinions that he could avail himself of; and, relying on these, he asked the House to sanction the plan now before it, which he hoped would be completed by next spring, and which he had every confidence would make the Serpentine as bright and beautiful a lake as anybody could desire.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that though he should have preferred the thing being thoroughly done even at a greater cost; yet, on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread, he would accept the plan of the Chief Commissioner, hoping that it might turn out successful.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the Government plan had come upon him by surprise, and he thought that they should have more materials for forming an opinion before they voted the money. They were asked to vote the money upon the name of Mr. Hawksley without even seeing his opinion or consulting any other engineer. He thought the Vote should be postponed until the production of Mr. Hawksley's Report. Under these circumstances he should oppose the Vote.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMESconsidered that the Chief Commissioner was a little unfairly dealt with in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had consulted an eminent hydraulic engineer and had taken the best advice, and there was no reason for supposing that the scheme proposed would not be effectual. If it were postponed until the House were agreed as to the plan, considering the conflict of opinion that prevailed, the Serpentine would never be purified. He thought the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Chief Commissioner.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHunderstood that Mr. Hawksley proposed to take the water from the lower end of the Serpentine and pump it up to the upper end, filtering it in its progress; but the right hon. Gentleman assumed that the sewage could be treated in the same manner, and with the same result, which he (Mr. Griffith) did not think Mr. Hawksley contemplated.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 12: Majority 85.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for the purpose of restoring, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1860, the Crinan Canal, which was destroyed by the failure of one of the Embankments, caused by the
974
tempestuous weather in January and February, 1859.
§ COLONEL FRENCHobjected to the Vote. A good many people did not know what or where the Crinan Canal was. The Crinan Canal was a private speculation of the Campbell family; and in 1815 the then Duke of Argyll applied to the Treasury for £18,000 to complete the canal, and also for a further sum of £5,800 to pay off a debt then due on it. The Treasury sent an engineer down to examine the canal, who reported favourably; and these two sums of money were then advanced by the Treasury to the Duke of Argyll, on the condition that the profits should go to pay the interest of the money advanced. However, the concern had never yielded anything back to the Exchequer—in fact, had never paid it3 expenses; and considering we had spent £24,000 and £12,000 more were now required, would it not be better to hand it over to private parties; that was to say, if they could get anybody to take it. At the same time, he would not now oppose the Vote.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSthought it was high time to make a stand against grants for the repair of this canal. The receipts of the work had for several years been less than the sum expended in repairing it. Last year, however, there had been a gain on it of £88 5s. 8d. The Caledonian Canal and the Crinan Canal had cost this country £1,400,000. The Caledonian Canal had been a still greater failure than the Crinan. Last year the receipts fell short of the expense of maintaining it by £1,800.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, that an extraordinary flood had carried away the works of the canal, and the late Government, believing the restoration of those works to be urgently needed, allowed a sum of £12,000 for the purpose. A proposal had been made that the canal should be increased in size and adapted for large ships at an outlay of £80,000; but the Government thought that this would involve too large an expenditure of public money, and refused to sanction it.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEregretted that the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) was not in his place, for he was fond of repeating that Scotland never got any of the public money; but this was a Vote exclusively for her benefit, and if, as the hon. Member had argued, the Thames ought to be purified by a rate on the metropolis, the cost of repairing the Crinan 975 Canal ought equally to be defrayed by a rate on Scotland.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he could not understand on what principle this Vote was demanded. Why should the Government continue an undertaking which was likely to continue a losing one, and from which the public as a whole derived no benefit?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the principle on which the Vote was founded was simple. He could understand that hon. Gentlemen might criticise the practice of annual payments, which the House was called on to make, and be anxious to get some of these burdens off the public. But that was not the question now. The Crinan Canal did not require an annual Vote, but the present Vote was for the purpose of repairing the effect of a sudden accident; and the question was, whether the House would allow the traffic of the canal to be stopped, and the canal itself to go to ruin, for want of timely reparation. That would be irrational. The late Government would have been inexcusable if they had not ordered the repairs. It was true they had done so without the authority of the House, and very properly, for the case was one which did not admit of delay.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, that the best reason for objecting to the Vote was to be found in the following lines of the Report of the engineer:—"It has been impossible to trace the failure to any more immediate cause than the original imperfection of the embankment. "The money now asked for might, therefore, be as well thrown into the canal at once.
§ MR. BLACKowned that an extravagant sum had been laid out upon the Caledonian Canal, but that was before the reformed Parliament, when in return for their support of the Government a number of jobs were carried through by the Scotch Members, which now they were unable to perpetrate. If, however, hon. Gentlemen would compare in the present Estimates what was given to Scotland with the amount of public money voted to England and Ireland, they would see that Scotland would not get nearly an equal proportion. With regard to this canal, the Committee must remember that it was not the property of Scotland, but of the whole nation:—it was a public work. Would they, then be so foolish as to let it go to rack and ruin for want of the necessary repairs?
§ MR. LAINGsaid, that the embankment 976 referred to in the report was that of the reservoir and not of the canal. Mr. Walker, the engineer, stated that £12,000 would restore the reservoir and the canal as it was before The canal was a great convenience for a large district of Scotland; and although it was only adapted for small steamers, yet if it could be enlarged so as to admit the passage of large steamers, it would be a still greater convenience.
§ MR. FINLAYsaid, the canal was not only useful as a passage but as a harbour of refuge for small vessels, which would otherwise have to go round the Mull of Galloway, which was the uttermost point of Scotland.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMEShoped the House would not agree to the Vote. There was no analogy between this Vote and that for the Serpentine, which latter was a national object free to the enjoyment of the nation; whereas the Crinan Canal was neither more nor less than a public highway, the trustees of which had the power of levying and did levy high tolls on every ship and person passing through. These over-ruling accidents like the one on which the present Vote was sought, would be constantly occurring if companies were to look to public grants to repair them. The canal was a water highway which shortened the distance between Loch Fine and the Caledonian Canal, and you never heard of any Commissioners of Highways coming to the House for public grant.
§ MR. SMOLLETT, as Member for a neighbouring county to that represented by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, although generally agreeing with him in opposing public expenditure, should vote for this grant.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 40: Majority 47.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £135,000, Submarine Cable between England and Gibraltar.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would take this occasion to state the position in reference to the Vote which the present Government occupied. When the present Government assumed the reins of office they had found that arrangements had been entered into by their predecessors with a house in London for the manufacture of a cable 1,200 miles long, which was estimated to be sufficient to extend from Falmouth to Gibraltar. The actual cost of the cable was contracted for at £115,000; so that the Committee would 977 see that the great bulk of the sum which was asked for the purpose in question was to meet a charge which had been incurred in the case of a contract which had been concluded before they came into office. He had touched upon the question when he proposed the nomination of the Committee on Packet and Telegraphic Contracts, and he was of opinion it was, upon the whole, convenient that it should be dealt with as a portion of that subject. As this contract had been entered into it was the obvious duty of Government to take the measures requisite to secure that the article now being manufactured was good, and likewise in order to prepare the way to make future use of it. For that purpose he asked for £20,000 at present, reckoning that that sum would defray any charge which would arise between the present time and the next meeting of Parliament; when, if necessary, he would have the opportunity of making another application. He proposed to apply the money, in the first instance, to make experiments with regard to the peculiar construction which had been recommended to the Government for the envelope of the cable. The Committee was aware of the difficulties in laying deep sea cables, and how much depended on the weight, and therefore on the materials of which the envelope was composed. Experiments would require to be made and the Government also desired to lay out a certain sum of money with a view to the protection of the cable, that the whole winter might not pass without commencing making the envelope. The Committee would understand two things; first, that in asking for this Vote there was no wish to keep the matter out of the jurisdiction of the Committee which had been appointed to consider all these questions, and secondly, that it was in no degree intended to foreclose the question whether it was more expedient to proceed to lay down cables by the agency of the Government on its own account, or to make arrangements with some competent and responsible company to undertake it. For his own part, he did not hesitate to say that he had the strongest prepossession against the operation being undertaken by Government, and in favour of others doing it. On the whole, he thought it would be found a very useful and important national enterprise, and he hoped the Committee would see that the field of discussion was not a very wide one, and would vote the sum which he now asked.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSremarked that £135,000 was not a very small sum.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER£115,000 has already been contracted for.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, this was a reason why the whole question should be left to the Committee. He asked whether the Government and the House were responsible for the contract. He thought the Vote should be withdrawn till the Report of the Committee had been arrived at; and if the Government did not withdraw it he hoped the House would place on it their negative.
§ MR. HANKEYsaid, that every Member must recollect the extreme anxiety which prevailed in the last Parliament to have a telegraphic communication with Gibraltar. Considering our peculiar situation in the Mediterranean, and that it was of the utmost national importance in the event of a war with France, and considering that as a commercial speculation it never could pay, although he was unwilling to sanction any anticipation of the decision of the House with regard to the expenditure of money, he thought that if ever an exception could be made out it was in this case. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £10,000, Expenses of a Coinage of Copper mixed with other Metal.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid it would be necessary for him to make a short statement to the Committee on the subject, but it was one which he had great confidence would be satisfactory. He had the greatest pleasure in proposing this Vote, which he ought to tell the Committee would be £10,000 instead of £50,000. It was immaterial which sum it was, as the profit to be derived would more than cover the expense, and there was no real charge connected with it. The estimate was reduced, because at first it was thought that in order to carry on operations with energy and rapidity it was desirable to purchase presses and supply them to the contractors, which, on further inquiry, was found not to be necessary. The Committee had, without doubt, observed when they had occasion to handle the copper coin of the country that a great deal of it was in a very bad condition, and disfigured by advertising inscriptions stamped upon it. He had a specimen of one of Her Majesty's pennies, and there appeared round the edges "Lloyd's Weekly 979 Newspaper, post free," and on the other side some equally interesting announcement. A great deal of the copper coinage had been investigated, and the result was that a large portion of it was found to be very old. Rather more than one-fifth was of dates between 1797 and 1805. It varied in weight, and although the practical inconvenience was not great, because the public were familiar with it, yet if an old and a new penny were shown to persons unacquainted with them, no one would ever dream that they represented the same value. The old penny was worth nearly half as much again as the new one. The old penny was coined at the rate of sixteen to the pound, and the lightest of the new was twenty-six to the pound. Only 15 per cent of the copper coinage had been issued since 1852. The whole value of the copper coinage was £800,000, and the quantity of copper used in it was 3,530 tons. Taking the copper at £107 10s. per ton, the actual value was only £379,000; so that the copper coin was a pure token, the intrinsic value being less than one-half the nominal or apparent value. It was therefore evidently useless to speak of its value, and all that need be considered was the public convenience. In order to ascertain the state of the copper coinage a considerable quantity had been examined in the large towns. It was found that copper coinage of towns was better than that of the country, probably because old coins always lingered longer in the rural districts. The result of the investigation in London, Birmingham, and other large towns showed that about one-third of the whole was below its legal state, and ought to be withdrawn. A part of it was counterfeit, another part foreign coins, and another injured, battered, and inscribed, according to the fancy of individuals, as he had stated. The result was that one-third required renewal. If it were renewed such as it now was he should be obliged to ask for a Vote of £40,000, and that Vote would not be replaced, but would be an expenditure out and out. It would, of course, be submitted to cheerfully enough if the copper coinage did not admit of any improvement; but he believed it was capable of great improvement. It was exceedingly heavy and cumbersome, not durable, and the metal was not very agreeable handling; it communicated a smell. It was very easy to substitute a metal more convenient and agreeable. It would be an admirable practice to follow in the beat of our continental neighbours. 980 Gentlemen would recollect what was the state of the old copper coinage of France. It was much the same as our own. The coins had almost lost all signs of any effigy, and were rudely shaped lumps of metal. Within the last few years it had been called in, and a bronze metal substituted. He held in his hand a French penny, which was very little larger than an English halfpenny. It was very convenient, very nice in appearance, and a most agreeable coin to handle; it was in every respect a much more desirable coin than ours; and the result of the operation, as he was informed, had been that the French had paid for the expense of converting the coin, and realized from the reduction of weight a profit not far short of £500,000. No such profit could be expected in this country, the quantity of copper coinage not being so great, but relative to its extent there was no reason why the operation should not leave a profit analogous to that obtained in France. The new copper coinage would not affect any question of the currency or computation; it would leave all such matters exactly as they were; nor would it have anything to do with the decimal system. The object to be gained by the substitution he proposed was to exchange for the present ugly and inconvenient coins pieces harder, more convenient, and more agreeable, and he did not doubt the public would have equal confidence in them. The effect of improving the copper coinage will be to produce a largely increased demand for it. In Paris the increase in the demand after the new coins were issued was 50 per cent. This experience was very encouraging, as a larger demand would be attended by increased profit. The metal proposed to be used for the new coins was bronze; it contained four parts of tin and one part of zinc to ninety-five parts of copper, which was increased in hardness by the alloy. In reference to this point he should mention that there was a Sill passing through the House, extending the penalties for forging the copper coinage to forging coins of the mixed metal. There was some doubt whether they were incurred by the offence, and as a precaution it had been thought better to introduce the Bill. The new coins would be much lighter than those in present use; the change of metal would enable them to be made much thinner in proportion to their superficies, and their intrinsic value would not be more than half that of the present coins. The quantity of copper now coined into twenty-six of the 981 old pennies would make forty-five of the new ones. If the 3,500 tons of the old copper were called in and recoined, the profit would be about £92,000; but if there was an increased demand for the new coin, to the amount of 25 or 30 per cent, that would still leave a considerable profit on the operation. One great advantage of the new coin would be its superior durability. The use of bronze was not new to the Mint; the metal had been tried for coinage in Canada and Nova Scotia, and the new issue here would resemble the small coinage adopted in those colonies. The present Master of the Mint was perfectly acquainted with the whole subject, which he had explained in a very clear manner, which could not fail to be satisfactory to the Committee. He hoped the Committee would make no difficulty in agreeing to the Vote of the reduced sum required for the preliminary expenses of the change.
MR. GLYNthought they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought the question forward. There could be no doubt that the copper coinage was in a very bad state. An increase in the supply of copper coins was called for, and he hoped facilities would be given for extending the new coinage into every district in the kingdom. He believed that the profit realized would be even greater than that mentiened by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. HANKEYwished to know whether the new coinage would be struck at the Mint or by private contractors. It might be more advisable to have it made at Birmingham than at the Mint. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the matter up.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was proposed to execute a certain portion of the work at the Mint, because the Government had there establishments, presses, and power. The great bulk of it, however, would be executed out of the Mint by contract, and he presumed a large share of it would be done at Birmingham.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked whether the proposed arrangement implied the abandonment of any attempt to introduce a decimal coinage?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas of opinion that little life remained in the scheme of a decimal coinage after the operation which had been performed upon it by Lord Overstone, But 982 his proposal did not interfere in the slightest degree with that question. The new penny would have precisely the same place in the coinage as the present penny, and the Legislature would be just as competent, if it so willed, to decimalize the coinage. It could be done as well with the new as with the present penny.
§ MR. HUBBARDsaid, that if a new copper coinage were substituted for the old, and a decimal system were hereafter introduced, the whole of that copper must again be called in and passed through the Mint; and he did not think there were any possible means of avoiding that except resorting to the very awkward plan of stamping the coin by its new designation. If the House and the Government accepted the new copper coinage, they would in fact be accepting the entire condemnation of the decimal system, at all events during the existence of the present generation.
§ MR. AYRTONthought that, on the other hand, a lighter penny would facilitate the adoption of the decimal system: if it were otherwise he should exceedingly object to the change. He hoped that the size of the farthing would not be reduced below what it was at present, or it would be a great inconvenience to the people.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £174,000, Harbours of Refuge.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that if the larger plan recommended by the Commission of 1845 for the works at Dovor were carried out at the rate at which they were now going on, the cost to the country would be upwards of £6,000,000 sterling. A smaller plan, recommended by Mr. Walker, was now being carried out, and he would not object to the Vote, if the money was required for completing the existing contract. As far as the works had gone they were certainly useful to the public, and particularly for the landing and departure of passengers between France and England. He trusted that the Government, when they had finished off the pier, would not think of going on with the gigantic scheme of the Commission; for if they did they might rely upon it that the harbour of refuge would never be of value at all equivalent to the sum expended upon it. He wished to know if they meant Aldemey to be an harbour of refuge or a harbour of defence? Environed as it was with rocks and shoals, he contended that as a harbour of refuge it would be utterly worthless, whilst as a place of defence it was 983 the opinion of military men that in the event of war we could not hold it with a less force than from 5,000 to 8,000 men. Well, what had Alderney been costing us? If we had gone on with the original plan it would have cost the country £2,500,000 before it could be completed: but he believed that that plan had been materially curtailed, and that it was now intended to limit the total expenditure to about £1,500,000. To expend that sum, however, upon the place as a harbour of refuge would be sheer waste of public money. Again, if it would require 8,000 men to hold Alderney, the consideration arose whether those 8,000 men would not be of more value somewhere else. He wished to know, then, what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the works at Dovor, and to what extent they meant to go in the expenditure of money at Alderney.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, that with regard to Dovor, all that was contemplated was to complete the contract which was now going on for the Admiralty pier. There was not the least idea of constructing a harbour of refuge there at the present time; and if hereafter such an idea were entertained—which he did not anticipate—nothing would be done without giving the House of Commons the opportunity of first pronouncing an opinion. In reference to Alderney he could not pretend to give an opinion upon it, so far as the military part of the question was concerned. The real state of facts was that the harbour was more for the purpose of defence than a harbour of refuge with reference to commercial purposes. The estimate for constructing it was £1,300,000, and the amount already expended was £800,000.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the late Duke of Wellington considered Alderney as of the highest value in a military point of view; and it was the opinion of competent military authorities that 2,500 men would be sufficient for its defence.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it had come to his knowledge that the plan of the works at Alderney had been altered no less than five times since the original contract was entered into, and the consequence was that the shape of the harbour next the sea, instead of being convex, was concave. There were rocks also so situated at its mouth that if a ship on attempting to enter made too much lee way she was sure to drift upon them.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the alterations referred to were simply for ex- 984 tending the pier and increasing the size of the harbour.
§ CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, that the great value of Alderney was not so much as a harbour of refuge as a great military outwork that commanded naval motions at Cherbourg, where it was scarcely possible for a gun to be fired without its smoke being seen at Alderney. From what he had heard Sir John Burgoyne say, he could corroborate the statements of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) with regard to the number of men that would be sufficient for the garrison of Alderney. 2,500 men could garrison it completely, and when the works were finished it would be as difficult to take Alderney as Gibraltar itself.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £50,000, Civil Contingencies, (to complete the sum of £100,000 of which £50,000 was voted on account last Session).
§ MR. WISEsupposed that this money was "loose cash" in the pockets of the Treasury. He wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury if there was any prospect of the sum advanced to the Monte Videan Government being repaid, and also whether there was any chance of the £2,000 advanced in 1857 for the chapel at Paris being reimbursed. He complained of the large sums that were laid out upon diplomatic expenses and outfits. He saw the sum of £2,200 put down for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Mission to the Ionian Islands. The Committee ought to have some explanation as to the necessity for that Mission. At any rate he trusted some good had or would result from it. There was a sum put down for expenses connected with the settlement of the differences between Turkey and Persia, though similar charges had been made before. The truth was, the sums payable for these Civil Contingencies could not be understood unless the expenses for several years were collated. He saw £9,000 put down as the charge for Sir Henry Bulwer's mission to the Danubian Principalities, of the result of which the House had never been informed.
§ MR. HUTTcalled upon the Attorney General to explain the necessity of expending £2,300 in ascertaining the claims for compensation under the Act for the Abolition of the Ecclesiastical Court.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wise) for having noticed the expenditure for the late mission to the 985 Ionian Islands. As to the amount charged he was not cognizant of all the particulars. All that had passed through his hands in connection with that mission, and defrayed all the expenses with which he was connected was £1,300. He was not cognizant of any other expenditure. The hon. Gentleman had said very kindly that he hoped good would result from that mission. As far as he was concerned, his great desire was to lay before the House all the information in his power with regard to the reasons that induced the late Government to send him on that mission and with regard to its operation. It would be a very welcome day to him when the reports that he transmitted to the Government could be printed and laid on the table of the House, because then he thought the whole nature of the transaction would be explained. But it had been the opinion of the present Lord High Commissioner that it was not for the public interest in the Ionian Islands that those reports should be published at present. No doubt they would be published as soon as the Lord High Commissioner thought they might be published without disadvantage to the public interests, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be very contented to rest his defence on those reports. But in the meantime, if it was not too great presumption, he felt that his thanks were due to the Members both of the present and of the late Parliament for the very great forbearance they had exhibited with regard to the whole subject. The mission had been commented upon a great deal out of doors in a sense much more unfavourable than favourable, and he thought the silence of the House on the subject was a rare example of that indulgence and generosity for which the House of Commons was on all occasions so conspicuous. He trusted that his reports when published would show that the very kind indulgence of the House was de-served
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he heartily wished that he could give information to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) as to the item for ascertaining those claims for compensation to which he had referred. The rules with regard to those claims were precisely laid down in the Act for the Abolition of the Ecclesiastical Court, and all that was required to be done by that Act was to obtain a return showing the amount of compensation that ought to be awarded. The Government of Lord Derby issued an unpaid Commission for the 986 purpose of inquiring into that return, but he could not pretend to say what was done by that Commission. He had no more information on the subject than any Member of the House. He supposed that some of the agents and officers connected with the Commission had been paid salaries.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that although he was one of the three Commissioners, he was afraid he could not give the hon. Member for Gateshead very minute details as to the expenditure referred to. He must correct the hon. and learned Attorney General on one point. It was not the fact that the Commissioners were unpaid. Two of the three Commissioners—namely, Mr. Follettand himself, were paid. He was not a member of the House at the time of his appointment by the late Government. When his right hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray) undertook this inquiry he (Sir Stafford Northcote) was called from abroad to assist him. He certainly could not have undertaken that very laborious office, which involved remaining in town for several months and very close attendance, without receiving some compensation for his services. He could assure the hon. and learned Attorney General that far from being a simple matter, it was a most laborious operation, involving considerable research and occupying much time. It was far more than the mere simple process of referring to the returns of the Income Tax Commissioners. They had to separate the profits which both proctors and solicitors earned in the Ecclesiastical Court from those that they earned, for instance, in the Admiralty Court; and they had also to calculate the capital employed, and to separate the interest on that capital from the profits for which alone the claimants ought to be compensated. This was very far from being an easy work. It would have been if they had adopted the usual Treasury mode of doing the work—that is, to take the statements of the claimants, and to see that they in some tolerable degree corresponded with the evidence produced in support of them. Had the Commissioners taken that course, he had no hesitation in saying that the sum voted for compensation would have been half as much again as it was. As one instance of the manner in which they proceeded, he might state that a gentleman who claimed £3500 a year for compensation, went away satisfied that he ought only to receive £1500. He wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the 987 circumstance that many items included in this vote, were continually appearing year after year, and did not properly partake of the character of civil contingencies—namely, expenses that occurred unexpectedly.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that he had been induced to look upon the task of the Commisioners as a simple one, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House that reference would be made to the income tax returns.
§ MR. DISRAELIwished to remind the Committee that when he introduced this subject to the House on a former occasion, he estimated, from the highest authority he could obtain on the question, that the country must be prepared to pay in the way of compensation the sum of £150,000; but, through the supervision of his hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Treasury (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the other Commissioners, that sum had been reduced to £120,000. He thought the Committee would admit that those could not be idle or superficial exertions that produced such a result. He felt it his duty to bear his testimony to the arduous labour which his hon. Friend and his colleagues had undergone; and he believed that there had been no occasion when men devoted themselves more assiduously to their duties, whether paid or unpaid.
§ MR. HUTTexpressed himself perfectly satisfied with the explanations offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, there was a good deal in the suggestion of his hon. predecessor (Sir Stafford Northcote), that many of the sums included in the Civil Contingencies were of annual recurrence, and ought to appear as estimates. He would see that that and the other suggestions thrown out in the course of the discussion were duly attended to if he should have any share in preparing the next Estimates.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the continued appearance for several years of a charge—£2,000 this year—for settlement of disputes between Turkey and Persia, a matter in which we had no interest. Other items, too, were out of place in this Vote; such as a charge for fitting up St. James's Palace and Chapel on the occasion of the Princess Royal's marriage. The charge should have been included among the expenses of Royal Palaces. He saw a sum of £1,220 for the Commission appointed for the University of Cambridge, which he thought ought to be defrayed out of the 988 income of the University and colleges. Then, fees were charged payable upon conferring their dignities upon the following Knights of the Garter:—The King of Portugal, £439; the Prince of Wales, £731; and Prince Frederick William of Prussia, £439. Why should fees be paid by the public under such circumstances? Then he saw a payment of £22 18s. 6d. for the pardon of Rudio; he did not know what this country had to do with that. There was a payment of £60, the cost of gold watches to two French officers who accompanied a gun presented to Her Majesty by the Emperor of the French. He saw Her Majesty's liberality extolled in the newspapers on this occasion, and he therefore never expected to see this item in the Votes. Another item was of £2,850 for cost of provisions supplied to the inhabitants of Madeira during the distress and destitution consequent upon the cholera epidemic. Madeira was a Portuguese colony, and he did not see what we had to do with such an outlay. Another item was £666 paid to Dr. Barth for fifty copies of the two remaining volumes of his work on Central Africa. He doubted whether the people of this country derived any advantage from that Vote. There was an item for expenses of the Royal Household not provided for in the Civil List, which was only £3,957 the year before last, but which amounted to £8,250 last year. This item seemed to be surreptitiously introduced—why was it not included in the usual Estimates? There were many other items in this vote which he considered most objectionable, but as the money had been paid there was no redress.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, these were not Estimates for the ensuing year, but details of a sum of £100,000 actually expended before the present Government came into office, and which it was not, therefore, for him to explain. Whilst he (Mr. Laing) advocated economy quite as much as the hon. Gentleman, still he felt that there must always be a number of petty items such as these, which would be always occurring in the expenditure of a great nation. The outfit for Foreign Ministers had been considered for many years fair and equitable, and a great nation could hardly avoid defraying these and similar little expenses in a liberal way. The hon. Gentleman asked why the expenses of the Royal Household, not provided for in the Civil List, had not been put into the usual Estimates. Well, take the case of the ex- 989 penses incurred in fitting up the Chapel Royal, St. James's, for the celebration of the marriage of the Princess Royal. Was such an event to be deferred until Parliament met, and until an estimate could be laid before it?
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would let the hon. Member off for this time, as the money was not of his spending; but he gave him warning that if his own Contingency Estimates were not in better order next year, he should hear more about them.
§ Mr. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, there was an item of £421 for fees on conferring the title of Baron of the United Kingdom upon Sir Colin Campbell. He thought that these titles of honour ought not to be the means of extorting money out of the pockets of the officers who had won such honourable distinctions.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to observe, that as these Votes extended over a period of twelve months, during the first ten of which he was unconnected with the office, he was in a worse situation than the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) with regard to explaining them.
§ MR. WILSONsaid, that as many items as possible had been taken out of the Civil Contingencies and made matter of Estimate. If the House insisted on having unascertained charges placed in the Estimates, it would always be necessary to take a Vote large enough to cover the highest calculation of them; and the result would be that the House would never get any account. The present was the only mode in which such charges could be brought under the surveillance of the House.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEcould not but think, however, that some sort of an average of this branch of expenditure might be carried out.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSwas strongly of the same opinion.
§ Vote agreed to, as was also,
§ (7.) £462,350, Disembodied Militia.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.