SUPPLY — MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 1 July 1831)

Mr. Spring
Rice moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

Mr. Hume
took that opportunity of complaining of the appointment of a Committee, it having been appointed at a late hour that morning, on the Militia Estimates, without any previous notice having been given. This was against the usual practice of the House; for without such notice it was impossible that Members could be prepared to meet discussions.

§ Sir H. Hardinge
said, that the Committee was a matter of form. The Committee were only to examine the Estimates as they might be proposed to them.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that it would be in the recollection of the Members of the last Parliament, that two votes were moved and carried in the Committee of the last Session. He would put these into the hands of the Chairman in the first instance.

Mr. Hume
said, he should have been glad to have seen the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, in order to hear from him what were the specific reductions which he had made, pursuant to his promise and assurance before the recess, in the Diplomatic and Consular departments. By this plan of the noble Lord, it would seem as if the country would be benefited to the extent of nearly 40,000l. a-year. As to the system of the North American States, it was far preferable and much cheaper than ours, the Consuls being taken from the resident merchants of that nation in the different maritime ports of Europe, and elsewhere.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, he had postponed, for the purpose of affording the noble Lord an opportunity to explain them more explicitly, these very Estimates relative to our Consuls abroad.

Mr. Hume
was glad of it, for the out- 604 cry of every one was, that this department should be reformed.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, he would now move the Miscellaneous Estimates under the head No. 1, and on this part he had but few observations to make. The alterations in the Civil List made it difficult to make any comparison between the votes of this year and the last. As some of the items had not come before Parliament hitherto, he could only take an Estimate of the average expense for the last three years. Under some heads it would appear that an increase had taken place, whereas in fact, there had been a decrease. This was owing to the transfer of several heads of expenditure from the Civil List to the present Estimates. Thus, for instance, under the head of "public buildings," there would appear an increase of 40,500l., whereas, in fact, there was a decrease of 3,500l., The cause of the difference was, the introduction of the sums for repairs of palaces which were formerly placed in the Civil List. As they were not acquainted with this expenditure, which had not been brought under the notice of Parliament before, the only Estimate they could make was, as he had said, by taking an average of the three preceding years. He had now to move, that a sum not exceeding 73,800l. be granted for defraying the expense of public works, and repairs of public buildings.

§ Mr. Ridley Colborne
hoped that, as the country had gone to some expense in the acquisition of some very valuable paintings of the best masters, and had been assisted in the formation of that collection, called the National Gallery, Pall-mall, by the munificence of several private persons, who were great patrons of Art, the Government would not adopt the mistaken economy of allowing them to remain, at great hazard, in a house which must come down, by articles of agreement, shortly; and the security of which was already endangered by the improvements carrying on in the rear of the house in Pall-mall. That property was estimated at above the value of 100,000l.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that no intimation of the house being in a state of danger had reached the Treasury. But, if well-founded apprehensions were entertained, he would take care, that property so valuable should be removed to a place of greater safety.

Mr. Hume
said, the printed Estimates before the House were such as could afford no adequate information to a person desirous of knowing what in reality they were, or to what objects the totals were applicable in detail. This was in violation of a promise given to the House by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had understood that all votes for sums, not strictly for the use of his Majesty, should come before that House for its consideration and decision, being an amount of nearly 500,000l. yearly. Many of the items of expenditure comprised in these Estimates, he considered highly objectionable. Amongst other items, there was one for Windsor Castle, and the repairs of other palaces, amounting to 39,000l. Now, he would ask, was such a large expenditure necessary, in addition to the enormous expenses already incurred on these buildings?

§ Lord Althorp
said, he should have no objection to make a more detailed and specific statement, if the Committee thought it necessary. The Board of Works, however, was a Board which attended minutely to its duty, and it was responsible for the application of these sums required for the repairs of those public and national buildings.

Mr. Herries
observed, the vote had only reference to the ordinary works and repairs under the control of that Board.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, his hon. friend was confounding the public works and the repairs of palaces, which were quite different.

Mr. Robert Gordon
could not see how 39,000l. should be required for ordinary repairs of palaces, independent of the improvements of Windsor-palace.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, the Estimate was made on the average of the last three years: it was only an estimate. If any surplus remained, it would go, of course, to the credit of the next year. When his hon. friend expressed surprise at the amount of the vote, he should recollect that it included the ordinary repairs of ten palaces.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
could not see why so large a sum should be required for repairs at Holyrood-house. He did not know for what this expense was, except for an ex-monarch whom we did not want there. He would say, we did not want these persons amongst us. They had no business here. He should not be surprised if we should also be called on to pay the ex- 606 penses of the Duke of Braganza, at the Clarendon Hotel. We did not want these persons as a burthen to us, and we ought not to encourage them, as it was probable we might have some more of the same description coming amongst us.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, the hon. Gentleman might make his mind easy as to the subject of expense on these grounds. The country had been put to no expense by the individuals to whom he alluded. As to his unfortunate anticipations, he would say nothing, but he had always understood that it was the pride of England that her shores were open as an asylum to the unfortunate of all countries; and he hoped that asylum would never be closed against expatriated gentlemen, because they were of a high rank, and could ill brook hardships. As to the expense of Holyrood-house, the hon. Gentleman might make himself easy; none of it was incurred for the parties to whom he referred.

§ Mr. John Martin
said, as they were on the subject of public works, he could not but call the attention of Government to the present state of Westminster Hall. He supposed that was included in the public buildings, and he could not see why it should be left in its present disgraceful state. It was one of the finest Halls in Europe, and yet for years it had been left in a state at which any foreigners who visited it were astonished. It had for a long time been made a sort of lumber store for the records of the Courts of Law; and now, when those were partly removed, he saw no attempt made to repair it. In fact, it was now in the same state in which it was left at the removal of the two Courts at the upper end of the Hall. Surely, it was unworthy of a country like this, which made so large an outlay upon public buildings, that this admirable structure should be allowed to go thus to ruin. He did hope that Government would pay attention to this subject.

§ Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
concurred jn what had fallen from the hon. Member as to the state of Westminster Hall. One of the finest Halls in Europe was a disgrace to the country in the eyes of a stranger.

Mr. Goulburn
said, that half the records had now been removed from the Hall. He supposed the other part would be removed for no improvement could take place till the whole were taken away.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that it was the in- 607 tention of Government to put the Hall into proper repair. Part of the records were already removed, and the others would soon be taken away. The Master of the Rolls, with his usual liberality, had offered his house in Chancery-lane for the reception of the records, until some proper place should be provided for them.

Mr. Hume
did not think the remark of the hon. member for Cricklade (Mr. R. Gordon) had been answered. It was said that we had ten palaces to repair—what did we want them for? If we did not use them for public purposes, why not pull them down or dispose of them, and save the public any farther expense about them? They were now, and he would mention Hampton-court Palace as an instance, a kind of barrack for the accommodation of titled paupers. He repeated they were a kind of workhouse, kept up at the public expense, for the reception of that class of paupers whose friends ought to support them if they could not support themselves. At all events, the public ought not to be saddled with the burthen of keeping them in palaces. Gentlemen might cry "Oh," but what he said was the truth, though it might be very disagreeable to some of those who heard him. He did not want to make any comparison between the republican form of government and that under which we lived, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that the whole civil government of Washington did not amount to as much as we paid for these palaces, which were of no other use but to receive titled paupers. He could call them nothing else; the poor pauper did not pay for his lodging in the workhouse, and these, higher paupers were kept in lodgings at the public expense. But see how this operated. This expense was paid by taxes, and how were they raised? Look at the number of distresses issued to collect them; 3,000 beds were taken from 3,000 poor families to raise the assessed taxes—families, many of whom were only just raised above the poor rate themselves. But the getting rid of the expense of keeping up useless palaces would render this amount of individual suffering unnecessary. This was the true way to look at the question; yet when this plain truth was told, hon. Gentlemen cried out, "Oh, oh, oh." He had seen in one of the public papers that his Majesty had stated that he wanted only two houses—a town-house and a 608 country-house. Why, then, should all these palaces be kept up? Depend on it the country could not go on while such extravagant expenditure was continued.

§ Mr. S. Rice
said, they altered the Civil List that all such votes as this might be excluded from it.

§ Mr. Trant
said, mention had been made of America, but no comparison could be fairly drawn between the two countries as to expenditure on this head. At the same time he thought we should expend no more than was absolutely necessary, and that a time should be fixed when the grants for these buildings should cease.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that this was the first year in which these votes separated from the Civil List, had been debated, and he thought that the discussion which had taken place upon them that night proved the benefit of having extracted them from the Civil List.

Mr. Hume
expressed his regret, that the buildings had not been completed at once instead of being starved, as they were now, by spreading the grant over two or three years, and leaving the property of the Museum unprotected. He was sure the public desired to see the works completed, and he hoped they would be so completed in the next year.

Mr. Hume
objected to the expense of keeping two or three engineers in constant employment when one would be sufficient.

§ Mr. G. Dawson
agreed with the hon. Member in condemning this expense; and observed, that during the time he was connected with the Treasury, he had the pleasure of reducing the expenses connected with the Holyhead-road by many thousand pounds.

§ Sir Henry Parnell
defended the conduct of the Commissioners, and the economy of their expenditure. Public works such as the Men Bridge and the Howth Harbour, required the constant attention of an engineer. At Howth, where a pier was erected in the open sea, unless an engineer was present to direct repairs after a storm, the whole work might be destroyed; and he was sure no one grudged 609 200l. a year for taking care of the Men-Bridge. He was prepared to prove, that the Commissioners for the Holyhead-road had saved the country upwards of 150,000l. a year, and he courted inquiry.

Mr. Goulburn
bore testimony to the meritorious exertions of the right hon. Baronet and the Commissioners. He had, at all times, thought the improvement of the communication between England and Ireland a matter of great importance; and differed from his right hon. friend (Mr. Dawson) on the propriety of lowering the expenditure. Not seeing any vote for the purpose of improving the landing-pier at Milford Haven, he wished to ask if that object had been abandoned?

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that no vote had been proposed for that purpose, because there was at present money enough in hand to carry it on.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that as the next grant to be proposed involved a question of principle, he begged leave to trouble the House with a few observations upon it. In 1825, complaints having been made of the inadequacy of the Revenue-buildings at Liverpool, a person was sent down to inspect them, who reported, that it was essential to the public interests that there should be new buildings, and that the old ones should be enlarged. An agreement was in consequence made between the Treasury and the Corporation of Liverpool that the former should expend 150,000l. on that object, provided, the Corporation would contribute 25,000l. more, and enter into a guarantee that they would defray any excess over the amount of the Estimate, or 175,000l. The mode in which this sum of 150,000l. was to be paid by the Treasury was highly objectionable; for it was proposed that it should come out of the proceeds of the revenue department in their way to the Exchequer. He had, therefore, been instructed by his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to communicate to the corporation of Liverpool, that although his Majesty's present Government felt no difficulty in carrying into effect the agreement in question, yet that they could not consent to do so unless by a vote in Parliament. Feeling, therefore, that that was the most satisfactory and constitutional mode of proceeding, he should move as a Resolution, to grant to his Majesty the sum of 25,000l. being one year's expenditure, for the im- 610 provement of the Revenue-buildings in Liverpool.

Mr. Robert Gordon
entirely agreed in opinion with his hon. friend, and thought the principle which he had laid down an excellent one. It would form an admirable precedent for any future Ministry which might hereafter enter into engagements for the erection of public buildings. There had been several cases in which large sums, among the rest 100,000l. for the new Post-office, had been improperly paid out of the revenue, instead of having been submitted as votes to Parliament.

Mr. Goulburn
observed, with reference to the agreement that had been made with the Corporation of Liverpool, that although he had no personal concern with it, yet being satisfied of its propriety he had no objection to stand forth as the vindicator of those who had entered into the agreement, in 1825, with the Corporation of Liverpool. If it came to a question, however, who ought to defend the transaction, certainly the right hon. Gentlemen opposite should do so, some of whom were then in office. The point complained of was the manner in which the expenses of the buildings were to be defrayed; now he was not aware that any arrangements had been made that would prevent the matter from being brought before the House, and therefore he could not think there was any thing improper in the transaction, as his hon. friend seemed to suppose.

Mr. Hume
wished to know when the buildings were begun?

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, he believed last year, or the year before; at all events nearly 75,000l. had already been expended on the work.

Mr. Hume
strongly condemned the mode in which it had been intended to carry the agreement into effect, without, in the first place, submitting it for the approbation of that House. He looked forward to Parliamentary Reform as calculated to give a check to such practices, If any Government should after that presume to undertake such works without the consent of Parliament, it would certainly receive such a lesson as would teach others to be more cautious for the future. In his opinion, it was a great dereliction of duty to commence expensive works without first obtaining the consent of Parliament. Here collected some years ago a question was put as to what part the public was to bear in the erection of 611 these buildings, and he had a clear impression on his mind, that the answer given was, that the whole expense was to be borne by the Corporation. It was a great and important question whether any Minister was authorised to involve the country in such expenses. He thought the excuse offered by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) was no excuse at all. It was immaterial whether the right hon. Gentleman was the originator of the measure or not, it was his duty, on coming into office immediately after the work had been begun, as he did, to bring the matter under the consideration of Parliament before any expense was incurred.

§ Lord Althorp
believed the right hon. Gentleman could not be made responsible on the present occasion, because he was not the Minister who originally proposed the expense, but he entirely agreed with his hon. friend that the practice of entering into these kind of engagements ought to be discontinued. It was impossible that the House could have a clue control over the public money without being a party to the original contract. In the present instance, the House was placed in this situation—if they disapproved of the arrangement made by the Treasury, it would be impossible to depart from it without giving the Corporation of Liverpool ground for complaining that the Government had been guilty of a breach of faith.

Mr. Goulburn
said, that no other course could have been pursued, than that which had been adopted in the present instance. And he apprehended it was usual, when Government contemplated any such improvement as the one in question, to take upon itself the responsibility of making the previous arrangements. Could the Government come down to the Mouse of Commons, and ask its opinion as to whether it should enter into an agreement with the corporation of Liverpool? It was usual for the Treasury to enter into arrangements with parties, on the understanding that it depended on the House of Commons to grant or refuse the sums which were necessary to carry those arrangements into effect. With respect to this particular transaction, if he recollected rightly, a question was asked in the House relative to the terms of the bargain made with the Corporation of Liverpool, and the answer given was shortly what now appeared in detail on the face of the Estimates.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that the proper 612 time to call upon the House to ratify or reject an arrangement of this description was, before a stone of the building was laid. The servants of the Crown, undoubtedly, made contracts upon their own responsibility, but then before a shilling was laid out, the assent of Parliament ought to be obtained. If the House should now reject the arrangement, would not the Corporation of Liverpool have a right to complain that they had been induced to expend several thousand pounds on false pretences?

Mr. Goulburn
said, that the Corporation of Liverpool did not hesitate to become parties to the arrangement, because they thought it was so reasonable that Parliament would acquiesce in it. He did not know any other way in which a question of this kind could have been brought under the consideration of the House.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
admitted, that Parliament could not assume the executive power, but it ought, in his opinion, to have complete control over the public money. The Treasury Minute of the arrangement contained nothing which made the arrangement contingent on the sanction of Parliament. On the contrary, the notion of parliamentary control appeared to be completely abandoned by the Minute. He admitted, that a question had been asked in the House on the subject some time ago, but that was not the way to obtain the assent of the Commons of England to an undertaking which involved the expenditure of 150,000l. He thought it was not sufficient to warrant any Government to enter into a contract on the faith of which individuals were induced to give up their land and expend their money, that it supposed merely the assent of the Commons might be obtained. Ministers might not always command majorities in that House.

Mr. Goulburn
said, he did not deny, that, the House of Commons should have complete and absolute control over the public expenditure; but if the right hon. Gentleman opposite was anxious to read a lecture on the subject, he begged that he would read it to Lord Goderich, who was the author of the arrangement when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1825. He did not! mention the circumstance from any feeling: of hostility to the noble Lord, who, he was: sure, had no idea of superseding the just authority of Parliament. All engagements with the Treasury were made on the under- 613 standing, that if the House would not grant the necessary funds, the engagements were to be at an end. In ordinary oases, parties advanced their money knowing the decision of Parliament was not yet obtained. The only occasion on which the House could express its opinion with respect to the propriety of public works was, when they were called upon to vote money for carrying them into execution. If the observations of the hon. Gentleman implied a censure on any one, it was not on him, but on the noble Lord to whom he had alluded.

Mr. Robert Gordon
said, his right hon. friend who had just sat down had stated the case too generally. It was a mere mockery to say, that the House could fairly express its opinion with respect to any arrangement, after it had been partly carried into execution, as in the present case. It was then impossible for the House to withhold its assent. Now, what were the terms of the agreement in this instance? No reservation whatever, respecting the control of Parliament, was made in the Treasury Minute, which was in the following terms:—"In consideration of the Corporation of Liverpool advancing 25,000l., this Board undertakes to pay the sum of 150,000l." There was not the slightest reference to Parliament. He confessed, the speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice) from that side of the House, was to him most satisfactory, for had he not actually seen him, he should have imagined he was still on the other side of the House, from whence he had so often heard him with delight, and where for fourteen or fifteen years he had the pleasure of acting with him.

Mr. Ewart
said; that the works were begun in 1829, and all the Estimates connected with them were laid before the Finance Committee. He cordially approved of the sentiments expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman who sat near him; and if he thought any attempt could be made to remove this grant from the control of Parliament, he, as a member for Liverpool, would not forget his duty as a Member of that House.

§ Mr. Briscoe
was one of those who sincerely hoped and trusted that a new line of conduct was about to be pursued by the Ministry in reference to the expenditure of the public money, and he was quite sure the public would receive with great 614 pleasure the statements made by the noble Lord and the hon. Secretary to the Treasury. He hailed the manner in which the vote had been proposed, as an additional pledge on the part of the Ministry, and as an additional proof that they meant to keep the promises they had made previous to their accession to office and also as a proof that they were determined to restore to the House that constitutional control over the national expenditure which it ought to possess.

Mr. Hume
expressed a wish, that in future the Estimate should contain some details respecting the distribution of this sum. It was a complete specimen of the manner of making up accounts so as to prevent their being understood.

Sir J. Bourke
participated in the desire entertained by the hon. member for Middlesex.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that hereafter the vote should be accompanied with as much detail as possible.

Mr. Paget
complained of the confused manner in which the Estimates were drawn up generally. He had taken some pains to understand them, but he found it impossible to make any thing of them.

Mr. Hume
referred to the expenses of the examinations on the East Retford Bill—expenses which he thought very great, but which he did not grudge under the circumstances, as he thought that the conduct of the Government on that subject had produced the present Reform Bill. He wished to know how much of the sum was actually expended for the witnesses?

§ Mr. Spring Rice
answered, about 8,000l..

§ Colonel Sibthorp
thought, if that were the case, that those who brought the matter forward, ought to be content to pay the expense out of their own pockets.

§ Mr. George Robinson
asked, if the recommendations of the Committee respect- 615 ing the management of the Colonies, had been attended to, and whether any arrangements were in progress for reducing their expenses?

§ Lord Howick
said, there could be no doubt that some abuses existed in the colonial system. Many of the colonies were taxed higher than they ought to be, but it was felt that it would be harsh and unjust suddenly to attempt to reduce the emoluments of those who had given up their pursuits and professions in this country, for the purpose of going to distant and unhealthy climates. The late report made by the Colonial Commissioners did not point out any immediate reduction that could be made. It simply recommended certain reductions, without assigning any reasons, therefore it could not be acted upon by those who were responsible for the state of these accounts. The report of the Committee gave no clue to the manner in which its recommendations were to be acted upon, though it was the earnest desire of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, to carry the recommendation of the Committee into effect. As a proof of this, he might mention, that in filling up a lately vacant Government the noble Lord had effected a reduction of 1,000l. in a salary of 2,5002.

§ Mr. George Robinson
understood that the Committee had been appointed to investigate the whole of the Colonial establishments which ought to undergo a thorough revision. His Majesty's Ministers, he thought, could find no fairer field to carry their plans of retrenchment and economy into effect. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department would make every possible reduction.

Mr. Hume
would undertake to say, no reductions would be made until the Colonies were allowed to tax themselves. He was satisfied the noble Lord was quite sincere, but no effectual improvement could take place until the purse of England was closed to the Colonies, and they were taught to depend on their own resources. Look at Newfoundland, if, instead of governing it from Downing Street, it had a Legislative Assembly, and was allowed to tax itself, it would be no expense, and we should not have to provide Governors and other establishments. He begged to inquire what had been done respecting the office of Governor of Gibraltar?

§ Lord Howick
answered, that Lord Chatham, the Governor, was still alive.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that he wished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a most formidable coalition, of which the newspapers had lately made frequent mention. He was accused of having entered into a coalition, but that coalition had cost the country nothing, and never would cost the country a farthing. The coalition he spoke of, however, was very different, at least, if the newspapers were to be believed. He wished to know whether their statements were true, and therefore he brought the matter under the consideration of the House. He wished to give the noble Lord opposite the opportunity of contradicting the report, which he hoped, and he might even say he believed, to be untrue. It was this—that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had entered into a coalition with the members of his family, whom he had placed upon the country at an annual expense of 68,000l. He wished to know if this was true?

§ Lord Althorp
rose and said, that from what the hon. Member had just uttered, he really thought the hon. Member could not understand the meaning of the word "coalition." He felt anxious to say one word upon the subject thus introduced. He knew that his noble friend had been attacked in some newspapers for placing his family in different situations. If those persons so placed were unfit for the situations they occupied, it was right to attack him. But if they were not unfit for those situations, then the attacks ought not in justice to be made. As to the statement about 68,000l., he could only say, that it was an absurdity. He would" now declare his opinion of his noble friend, that no man had ever been less actuated by motives of mere private interest. His noble friend had always sacrificed his private interest to his public duty, for if he had not done so, every one must be aware that he need not have been absent from office nearly his whole life.

§ Lord Howick
felt grateful, most grateful, for the observations just made by the noble Lord, but at the same time he could not but regret that the noble Lord should have noticed such an attack, proceeding from such a quarter, which ought only to be treated with silent and utter contempt.

§ Mr. Hunt
hoped, that the public would hear of that answer.

Mr. Goulburn
regretted to break in upon a discussion which had caused so much amusement, and which had become so very animated. The noble Lord opposite (Howick), threw out some insinuations that the Committee did not fully state the reasons on which it had founded its recommendations. But the fact was, that the Committee had entered into a very arduous examination of documents, and had pursued its labour with the greatest desire to ascertain the course to be taken. The noble Lord must be aware that it was not possible for the head of a department to make reductions, although he had the strongest desire to do so.

§ Lord Howick
observed, that all he had said was, that no such reasons for carrying these reductions into effect were assigned, as to enable those who were responsible to act on the recommendation. They were obliged to make the examination over again, so that, in fact, the labour of the Committee had to be gone through by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. George Robinson
hoped, the noble Lord at the head of the Department would proceed with the inquiry, otherwise, as the labours of the Committee had ceased, the House could not be made acquainted with the state of the Colonial accounts, and it was most important, that, at least, an abstract of them should be laid before the House.

Mr. Warburton
believed it would be most beneficial, if the House could have the whole colonial expenditure before it, in order that it might really know what was the state of our accounts; and he begged to ask whether the present Government intended to do what the late Government had promised; namely—give the House a regular debtor and creditor account of the expenses of the Colonies?