HC Deb 23 February 1882 vol 266 cc1411-7

(1.) £2,094, Royal Palaces.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

objected to the mode of rewarding services to the Crown and country by granting residences to families at Hampton Court and other Royal Palaces, and expressed a hope that the Government would bring the present system to an end. Every year there was a charge for repairs and extensive alterations to be found in the Votes, and almost every year there was a Supplementary Estimate for the same purpose. He thought it would be far better for the House of Commons to come to an agreement with the Crown that a certain sum of money should be placed at the disposal of the Crown for the purpose of rewarding the families of public servants, and allowing them to find suitable accommodation for themselves. The present mode was not only costly to the country, but it was a mode of rewarding public services which was unsuitable to the persons rewarded themselves. At present many families were occupying apartments in Hampton Court and other Royal Palaces who ought to be able to mix with the people and live with them. He had often complained of this Vote, and had more than once brought it under the attention of the House. If rumour were true, there was about to be a demand upon the public purse for another Member of the Royal Family. He had always supported the claim of the Royal Family to be provided for; but he thought that the attempt to get every kind of expenditure connected with the Royal Palaces charged on the House of Commons was injurious to the Royal Family themselves, and he hoped the Government would try to do away with the present system of occupying apartments in the Royal Palaces. He was quite willing that the nation should perform the duty of providing for any Kings and Princes who might come upon a visit to this country. But at present there was no Palace whatever for these illustrious personages—at any rate, there was no Palace in which they could be adequately received and have fair and courteous treatment done to them. Whenever a Royal Potentate visited this country he was either obliged to go to some hotel, or some Members of the Royal Family had to take him into the Palace set apart for their own special accommodation. That was the arrangement which had been made on other occasions, and it was a most unsatisfactory one. He held distinctly that the nation had a duty to perform in finding accommodation for Royalty when it came over here, and that there should be Royal Palaces in which to lodge any Crowned Head or Royal Prince if necessary. In the case of the Shah of Persia, when he came over here, he occupied one of the Royal Palaces set apart especially for the Queen. He (Sir George Bal-four) knew perfectly well that he should meet with no support from the Government, and it would be undignified for him to divide the House of Commons upon a matter of this kind; but if the Government would not receive the remonstrance of an hon. Member like himself, and would continue to neglect their duty, he could not help it. At all events, he had urged his objection to the system which now prevailed. He might mention that on one occasion he had obtained leave from the Chief Commissioner of the late Government to move for a Return of the names of all all persons occupying apartments in the Royal Palaces; but, on consideration, he thought that, perhaps, the Return might give unnecessary pain to the individuals occupying apartments in the Palaces and who had accepted the Royal bounty. He had not, therefore, pressed for the production of the Return. Of course, there were means of ascertaining who these persons were, and he thought it would be much better to give them an allowance—say £200 or £500, or even £1,000 a-year, if necessary, to find apartments for themselves, so as to enable them not only to mix with the people, but to occupy residences suitable to their condition in life.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the items to which the hon. and gallant Member called attention were rendered necessary by the repair of certain apartments. He did not think that the Committee would expect him to go, on the present occasion, into the very wide subject which had been raised by his hon and gallant Friend. It was true that for many years Hampton Court and Kensington Palaces had been devoted to purposes other than Royal residence, most of the apartments having been occupied by the widows of persons who had rendered public service. Most of these apartments were totally unfit for any other purpose, and were certainly not suitable for receiving Royalty, as his hon. and gallant Friend suggested. He did not admit that expense had been occasioned by alterations in them to suit the convenience of the occupiers.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that what he asked for was information. He had visited these Palaces himself, and he knew that extensive changes had been made—especially at Kensington Palace—in order to make the Palaces more suitable for the persons required to live in them. Not only £1,000, but many thousands of pounds, had been expended in that manner, and he thought it would be much, better to make the Palaces suitable for the accommodation of Royalty, or pull them down altogether. He had inquired why the changes were being made, and he was told that they were to provide suitable accommodation for the persons who wanted to use them. He, therefore, considered that it was his duty to bring the matter before the House. He knew perfectly well that nothing he could say would induce the Government to do that which he asked. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman thought the Government were acting rightly; but he (Sir George Balfour) would leave it to the Committee to judge whether that was so or not.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £800, Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds.

(3.) £1,800, Public Buildings, Great Britain.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said he wished to call attention to the large increase in this Vote. The original Estimate was £3,515, and the additional sum required £1,800. This was stated to be necessary 'in consequence of the acceleration of the progress of the Survey of the United Kingdom;" but that acceleration was resolved on long before the original Estimate was prepared, and in the Supplementary Estimate of last year an addition of £1,500 was included in consequence of that acceleration. He thought that, in these circumstances, the original Estimate should have been framed so as to include a large portion of what now appeared in the Supplementary Estimate.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that the House had been asked for an additional sum in the previous year over and above that which was required this year; and the expenditure was rendered necessary in consequence of a very largely-increased number of persons being employed in the completion of the Survey. In consequence of this increased number of persons, it was necessary that additional buildings should be provided for their accommodation. He might also point out that it was intended to ask for another additional sum of £20,000 in order to enable the Survey to be accelerated, and the sum asked for in this Vote was to meet the anticipated increase next year.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £1,000, Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he thought the Vote contained a grave accusation against the Commissioners of Supply, Scotland, in delaying to send in the accounts of the outlay on the Sheriff Courts. The Commissioners were generally very regular in all they did; and he would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to tell the Committee what part of Scotland had been so negligent in delaying to send in its accounts? He believed that if the name of the county were given to the public the same delay would not occur again.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the claim was for repayment of half the cost of building certain works. The payment was supposed to be made when the works were completed, and in the course of a very short time they would be completed. In preparing the Estimate, of course, the Government could only be guided by the accounts sent in. They had to pay the claim when it was made upon them. He believed that this particular claim was in respect of Aberdeenshire. The sum the Government were called upon to pay was £1,000. The expenditure had been extended over three years and three-quarters, and the account was only sent in last year.

Voteagreed to.

(5.) £1,096, Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he was sure he should receive the support of the Government, and especially that of the First Commissioner of Works, in opposing this Vote. He maintained that to add to the works at Dover without giving the House of Commons previous notice, was a breach of the agreement already entered into in regard to a cessation of expenditure at Dover Bay. It would be borne in mind that some years ago there was an inquiry into a proposed large expenditure on Dover, the object of which was to prevent loose Estimates of this nature being introduced, and an expenditure entered into which might, in the end, involve the country in an outlay of several millions sterling. That inquiry was successful; the late Government at once stopped the intended outlay. But here they had, at the fag end of the Session, a new charge made for Dover Harbour, which, as was well known, was in contravention of the agreement already made. So far as he could remember, there was not a single particle of information in existence which showed that this charge for moorings had been incurred on the part of the Government; and if hon. Members would support him he would divide the Committee against it, for the purpose of showing how objectionable it was to have these small bills asked for additional works at Dover Harbour. He knew very well that there was a strong desire to get a fine harbour at Dover. [Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH dissented.] The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) shook his head; but they all knew that such an idea existed, and in a very influential quarter, and he now hoped the noble Lord would be able to explain why this unexpected expenditure had been incurred, and why it had not been inserted in the regular Estimates, instead of being kept for a Supplemental one.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that this sum had nothing to do with any extension of Dover Harbour. His own feeling with regard to that question was exactly that of his hon. and gallant Friend; but this item had nothing whatever to do with any new works or extension of Dover Harbour. The simple fact was that Dover Harbour was in the hands of the Government. A proposal was made last year to vest it in the local authorities; but, owing to local difficulties, that proposal could not be carried out, and Dover Harbour still remained in the hands of the Government. In that harbour it was found that certain moorings, which had been there for more than 30 years, had become absolutely unsafe. Now, he did not think that his hon. and gallant Friend would be of opinion that ships should be fastened to moorings which were known to be in a dangerous state. The Vote had nothing to do with any works, but was simply for the purpose of replacing old moorings by providing new ones.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he did not think there was any ob- jection to the charge if it was simply for moorings of the nature described by the noble Lord, and for pilot boats, he presumed. At the same time, he did not see why the Government should be called upon to provide moorings for ships or boats without levying fees. Of course, it was a very small sum, and it was hardly worth while to object to it, except on principle. If the old moorings were bad, of course they ought to be replaced. But this ought to have been foreseen when the regular Estimates were prepared. But he strongly suspected that the duty of replacing them really rested with the town of Dover. The noble Lord knew very well the interest he took in Dover; but, in the present instance, he would be content with reserving any objection he might have to offer until after Easter, when the Estimates for Harbours would come regularly before the House.

Voteagreed to.

(6.) £527, Hates on Government Property.

MR. BIGGAR

asked for an explanation of this Vote. He wanted to know what it really meant. He understood that it was for rates and contributions in lieu of rates in Ireland. What connection had the Government with rates and contributions in lieu of rates in Ireland? In what way did they become responsible for these rates?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the hon. Member knew that the Queen's College in Belfast was the property of the Government, and for that property the Government were liable to contribute towards the rates.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £3,000, Shannon Navigation.

MR. BIGGAR

asked if he was to understand that the work was to be finished during the financial year, and that this sum of £3,000 was the whole of the money that would be asked for?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the work would not be completed during the present year; but the sum of £3,000 would be spent during the year.

Vote agreed to.