§ Mr. Spring Rice moved, that a Sum not exceeding 200,000l. be granted to his Majesty to defray the expense under the head of Civil Contingencies, for the one quarter, from 1st January to 31st March, 1832; and for one year, from 1st April 1832, to 31st March, 1833.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he observed that 1,000l. had been paid to Mr. Telford, to defray expenses already incurred in his survey for supplying the metropolis with pure water, and to enable him to proceed with the same. He must object to this item, because, first, he conceived that the expense ought to be defrayed by the Water Companies, and in the next place, because no answer had been obtained from Mr. Telford, as to the ultimate expense of the survey.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that at the first view he had concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Water Companies were the proper persons to pay the money. But it would be recollected, that his hon. friend, the member for Westminster (Sir Francis Burdett) had said, he would be answerable for the expense of the survey, if the Treasury would authorise it to be made, which was consented to. At that time his hon. friend, as well as the Treasury, conceived that the Water Companies would be induced to pay the money. But it 298 now turned out that there was no chance of persuading them to do so. And then the question came before the Treasury in this shape. A Committee of that House had reported its opinion, that measures ought to be taken to procure a better supply of water for the metropolis, and were they not to endeavour to support that opinion? But the right hon. Gentleman thought that this was not an object for which the public ought to pay. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think it should be said, that the public ought to go to no expense at all for so essential an objent as to procure a supply of pure water. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Government was called upon to make the advance.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that some time after that Report had been made, he had refused to grant this money, and the House had approved of his refusal. He had had repeated communications with the Water Companies, and he was enabled to say, that they had never authorized the slightest expectation that they would pay for the survey. He must protest against the Government undertaking the expense. We were not here in the same situation as France was under the Bourbons, who provided for everything in the country. He was convinced that the projected work would never succeed, except as a private speculation. If it did not succeed, why should the Government be at the expense? and if it did succeed, why should not the expense be borne by those who were to benefit by it? He considered it a most dangerous precedent. If it was acceded to he saw no reason why they should not be called on to extend the principle to Liverpool and Manchester, and ascertain how those places could best be supplied with good and pure water. In conclusion, he begged to ask the noble Lord, what the whole expense of the survey would be?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, at the utmost it would not amount to 5,000l., indeed, he believed, that 3,000l. would pay the expense.
An Hon. Membersaid, that he had been one of the Committee on the Bill which was brought in by one of the Water Companies, for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of an Act of Parliament to a project, for rendering the river Colne available to the metropolis for the supply of fresh water, and it was then declared that Mr. Telford was perfectly ready to make a 299 survey for the purpose of ascertaining how best to effect the object of giving a fresh supply of water to London, but that the Water Companies were unwilling to bear the expense, and the public could not be charged with it. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Baronet (the member for Westminster), declared, that as such was the case, he would bear the expense himself. What subsequently passed between his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the hon. Baronet, he did not know, but such was his statement at the time. There was no doubt that Mr. Telford would make a magnificent survey; and he would also put forth, probably, some magnificent plans; but no private Company could take up such plans, and he doubted whether the country would ever be able to do so, and, between the two, the supply of water to London would be left just where it then was; whereas had the Bill been allowed to proceed, and had the parties who were carrying it on not been deterred from so doing by this survey of Mr. Telford, the metropolis at the present moment would, in all likelihood, have been supplied from the sources of the river Colne—a supply which would have obviated all those horrors which attend, as was amply proved by the philosophers and chemists who had written so elaborately on the subject, on the drinkers of Thames water.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, this was one of the consequences of the interference of Government in private matters. Such interference was equally unjustifiable, as well towards the public as towards the private water companies, which companies, at the period alluded to by the hon. Member who spoke last, were preparing additional means for the supply of pure water to the metropolis, and would have provided them, probably, by this time, had not Government stepped in between them and their object, by encouraging, as was truly said, the proposal of magnificent plans, which would not and could not be carried into execution. He felt it, therefore, to be his duty to move, that the present vote be reduced by the sum of 1,000l.; and, in order to justify this Motion on his part, he would trouble the House with a reference to certain Treasury minutes relating to this survey. The first of them was dated the 15th of March, 1831, and was consequent upon a letter, in which Sir Francis Burdett informed the Treasury, on the 25th 300 of January, 1831, that Mr. Telford was ready to make the survey. Mr. Stuart, the Secretary to the Treasury was ordered to write to Mr. Telford, to direct the survey to be made, and to Sir F. Burdett, informing him that the survey was undertaken on the condition proposed by Sir F. Burdett himself—namely, that he would bear the whole charge of it. Subsequently Mr. Telford referred to the Treasury, to know by whom the expense was to be defrayed. Mr. Stuart was then ordered by the Lords Commissioners to inform him that Sir Francis Burdett had undertaken that the public should be secured against any part of the expense of the survey; and Mr. Stuart was also directed to inform Sir Francis Burdett, that such a communication had been made to Mr. Telford. These minutes would sufficiently establish the fact, that Sir F. Burdett, and not the public, ought to be charged with this expense, and it was with that object directly in view that his Motion was made. He begged, therefore, to move, that the sum now proposed to be voted be reduced by the sum of 1,000l.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he did not know whether to call this conduct on the part of Government assurance or impudence. It was, in his opinion, nothing less than a most impudent attempt to impose on the House of Commons, in the very teeth of one of their own Treasury minutes; and it was nothing less than voting idly away so much bread and beer out of the mouths of the Lancashire weavers. He recollected well, at the time this offer of the hon. member for Westminster was made, that it was said of him he had found a cheap way of getting returned again for Westminster; and who was it brought forward the scheme, but one Wright, one of that hon. Member's constituents. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would persevere in his motion, for, if not, he would take it up.
§ Mr. Spring Ricepressed for a postponement of the item at present, in order that the hon. Baronet implicated, who was absent, might, at an early opportunity, give that explanation which all who heard him could not but feel thoroughly convinced in their hearts he would be most happy and most able to give. He wished the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to be undeceived on one point—namely, that Government undertook to furnish the supply of pure water itself; all it wished to do was, to lay such information before the 301 public as was in its power to procure, and not to assume that position, which despotic Governments alone could take, of regulating that supply themselves. With this view it had employed Mr. Telford, and all he could do at present was, to beg to be allowed to withdraw the charge from the estimate, until some explanation could be given on the subject.
Sir Robert Peelreadily acquiesced in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope of being afforded full and early information on the subject.
Sir Robert Heronrose, and said, that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) who formed so conspicuous a feature in this discussion, was so constant an attendant at the House, as seldom to be liable to the charge of inattention to his duties there: he, however, was absent on that night, and his absence was caused by indisposition—an excuse which he hoped the House would readily admit as a reason for not prosecuting the discussion.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he would at once take upon him, in the absence of his hon. colleague, to say, that he would stand by any engagement to which he was bound. There was, however, a short story to be told about this same item of 1,000l. Since the year 1825 there had been several Committees on the subject of the supply of water to the metropolis, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) who was then in the Administration, had always declared that Government would not interfere, because he had a strong opinion that it was much better to leave the supply to competition. There was, however, a difference of opinion on this point between the right hon. Baronet and many other hon. Members; for they were of opinion, that unless Government stepped in and interfered between the public and the Water Companies, the public would get no pure water; and now, because 1,000l. for surveyors was charged, in furtherance of the views of these dissentients to the right hon. Baronet's opinions, the House was to be told it was an overcharge. The fact was simply this: when the Report on the Water Companies' Bill was before the House, the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) was told, that a survey would be made, but that there was some difficulty as to advancing the money; he immediately replied that he would advance it out of his own pocket. Upon which he himself (Sir John Hobhouse) rejoined, "they 302 had better take the offer." He was confident the hon. Baronet bad not for one instant contemplated any infringement of his engagement, and that if a claim were made upon him, he would be ready to meet it. As for what had fallen from the hon member for Preston, with respect to this offer of his hon. colleague being looked upon as an easy way of getting his return for Westminster again, he was content to regard all the hon. Member had said as an impassioned observation of the moment, and, as such, to take small heed of anything which escaped during those moments.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, this was not an item of estimate, but of account. They were called upon to vote 200,000l. for five quarters for the civil contingencies, and, at the same time, there was an account produced showing what part of this money had been actually expended last year. In point of fact, the House had granted a certain sum of money to the Ministers in confidence, and out of that money 1,000l. had been actually paid to Mr. Telford. He did not see how his right hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice) could, by reducing the sum of 200,000l. to 199,000l., alter the expenditure, the money having been already paid. But they had wasted rather too much time upon this item of 1,000l.; there were other charges to which the attention of the House ought to be called. The whole of these estimates had better have been referred to a Select Committee. Of all subjects that required to be submitted to such Committees, none were so necessary as the expenditure under the head of Civil Contingencies. He observed there was a sum of 800l. for removing the Records of the Court of Common Pleas from Westminster Hall to the King's Mews, Charing Cross. Again, there was a sum of 2,000l. paid to Mr. Babbage, for constructing a machine for the calculation and correction of various tables. Next came a sum of 6,623l. 12s. 6d. for defraying the expenses incurred in England and Scotland relative to the boundaries of the counties and boroughs as required by the Reform Bill. He would now allude to some items which related to Ireland: first, came an item of 923l. 1s. 6d. granted to Lord Plunkett for an outfit when he became Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The occasion of this outfit arose from the usual practice of appointing English Barristers to judicial situations in Ireland, and, with a view to evince the 303 hospitality of the new Judge, he was allowed a sum to enable him to give dinners and other entertainments at a considerable expense. Ever since the Union, the practice had been, to give this outfit to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but the Lord Chancellor of England did not appear to have any outfit. He had looked in vain in these accounts for any charge on his account; but yet he understood there was some source from which an outfit to the Lord Chancellor of England was provided. He maintained, however, that in the situation of Lord Plunkett, who was removed from the appointment of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland, to the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland, that was, from one Judgeship to another, in the same country, there was no possible pretence, whatever, for an outfit to be given to him. He had no wish to push this matter further, but had made these observations to show the necessity of having these items investigated by a Select Committee.
§ Mr. Spring Riceremarked, that his hon. friend, perhaps, feeling that his talent did not lie in panegyric, had forborne to speak about the diplomatic expenditure. If he had, he could hardly have failed to give the present Ministers some credit for putting an end to diplomatic presents, and thus saving the country about 7,000l. per annum, which was previously expended in snuff-boxes. The Earl of Aberdeen had previously made a reduction in the diplomatic department to the amount of 11,000l. The present Government hoped to extend this reduction next year to 15,000l. The first objection, however, made by his hon. friend was, that charge relating to the removal of the Records of the Court of Common Pleas. Had this charge been for their removal only, undoubtedly it would have been open to animadversion, but besides the charge of removal, that account covered all the expenses necessary to provide for their safe custody, and had been made after the Government had been urged, during the last Session, to remove the Records which encumbered Westminster Hall. The work had been done by contract, and if the House pleased, the Estimate should be laid before it. In reference to the sum paid Mr. Babbage, he begged to say, that it was a purchase of one of the finest specimens of mechanism in the world, and of which the public had now become possessed, and that on the payment, not of any remunera- 304 tion to the talented inventor, but merely of the actual expense of its manufacture. The next objection of his hon. friend rather surprised him, coming from a Reformer and a supporter of the measure which had passed the House last Session, and which objection was to an expenditure made for the purpose of laying before the House the information necessary to enable it to legislate on the subject, and which, if not afforded, would have raised an opposition to it. He could not think the House would say, that the expense had been too great. The last point to which his hon. friend had referred, was the item for the outfit of Lord Plunkett, as Chancellor of Ireland. He begged to deny the statement of the hon. Member, that the outfit had never been made in the cases of English Chancellors. It had been made, in 1827, to Lord Lyndhurst, to the amount of 2,000l., while the outfit to Lord Plunkett was 1,000l. Last year it had been granted to Lord Brougham; in 1828, a grant for outfit was made to Sir Anthony Hart, on his assuming the Seals in Ireland, and, in 1831, to Lord Plunkett. Mr. Ponsonby had also received a similar grant. The hon. Gentleman's argument was, that because Lord Plunkett, from being Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, was translated to the Court of Chancery in the same country, he was not entitled to any outfit. Lord Plunkett's elevation was not the first instance in which the outfit had been granted, for in 1801, Lord Eldon, on his promotion to the Great Seal, had received the usual grant. How, then, could the Government be justified in refusing the expense of outfit to Lord Plunkett, more particularly when it was remembered that his salary had been reduced from 10,000l. to 8,000l. per annum. He, however, begged to say, that, with respect to these items, the Government were perfectly ready to produce any documents or information that the House might require.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he still observed in the Estimates that the presents of snuff-boxes were charged, and until they disappeared from the items, he could not go the length of giving the Government that credit which the right hon. Gentleman claimed as their due. As to the wonderful machine which his right hon. friend praised so highly, he had no doubt it was most ingenious, but it did not appear to be of much use to the public at present; perhaps, however, hereafter, its powers might go so far as to perform the duties 305 of his right hon. friend's office, and it would be certainly a saving to have the duties of a Secretary of the Treasury performed by steam. As to the outfit paid to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, his hon. friend justified the payment on account of the reduction of salary, but such a charge had never been taken into account by the Committee which recommended that reduction, and he was, therefore, somewhat surprised that it should have been allowed, particularly under the circumstances of Lord Plunkett having removed only from one Court to another. He was bound to believe his hon. friend, when he asserted that Lord Chancellor Brougham had received an outfit also, but he had been led into the error by the noble and learned Lord himself, who had stated before the Committee, that he had up to that time received only 400l. on account of his office.
§ Colonel Sibthorpconsidered the Government had no right whatever to pay upwards of 6,000l. for ascertaining the boundaries of counties; that expenditure ought not to have been incurred without the authority of Parliament. As to the sum paid to Mr. Telford he would object to it, let the account be brought forward when it might.
§ Mr. Courtenaysaid, that a sum of 500l. appeared on the Estimate to a Mr. Marshall for a set of statistical tables. That Gentleman seemed to be a coadjutor of the hon. member for Middlesex, and probably assisted him in his calculations. He should be glad of an explanation of this item.
Mr. Humesaid, this might be almost styled one of his jobs. He looked upon correct statistical tables to be of the greatest utility and advantage to the country. Mr. Marshall had been for years actively employed in such inquiries, and his inquiries had been productive of so much benefit, that he deemed it necessary, for the public good, to make them universally known. It was a compilation of all the public documents of that House, and contained tables of the income and expenditure of the country, in every possible point of view, for the last thirty years. This country was the only one without such condensed and valuable information. It was on these grounds, therefore, that he had recommended the work to the Government, and the item which appeared on the account was his recommendation.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he had never expected to turn the tables upon the hon. member for Middlesex, and question him as to the items of public expenditure; but he really wished to know from the hon. Member whether this vote was to be the total of the expenditure to be incurred by the public for this work.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he believed that no additional expense would be incurred on account of the tables.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellbegged to ask the hon. member for Middlesex, whether these wonderful tables contained any means of supplying, in conjunction with the still more wonderful machine of Mr. Babbage, the deficiencies of a failing revenue.
Mr. Humedeclined replying to the jokes of the hon. and learned Member. A deficient revenue was too serious a matter to be trifled with, and could only be met by a decreased expenditure. He was ready to allow, that the present Estimates were the least objectionable he had ever seen, but still there were points which demanded explanation. First, then, with regard to the outfit of the Lord Chancellor, he objected to it wholly; but, if under any possible circumstances it could be tolerated, it should be placed among the items on the Civil List. Next, there was a large sum of 14,000l. for Reports from the Commissioners of Inquiry at Mauritius and Ceylon; he hoped this was the last item of that kind. Thirdly, there was a sum of 3,600l. charged for some Commission to inquire into the allowances of the retired Welch Judges, and for other purposes of a similar nature, but he understood some of these persons had been otherwise provided for, and, therefore, had no claim to retired allowances. There was a fourth charge of 570l. for fees occasioned by the honour received by Sir James Saumerez, and other fees of a similar nature for Irish Peerages. He did not by any means object to his Majesty having conferred these honours, but he did think it was out of character for the public to pay such a charge for fees on account of it. There was a charge o. the sum of 12,000l. for pensions to Spanish refugees, he had heard, he knew not if the statement were true, that some of these pensioners had other sources of subsistence. Lastly, he wished to know what was the amount of the charge for publishing the average price of sugar in the London Gazette, which was a profitable concern.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the fees which were paid on account of newly-created Peers went into an office fund, from whence they returned into the public purse. With respect to the Commission of Inquiry into the Courts of Justice, it was formed in order to ascertain what compensation was due to the Welch Judges when they were called upon to retire. The expense of the Reports of the Commissioners of Colonial Inquiry was now concluded: the item would not appear again. With respect to the Spanish refugees, great vigilance had been exercised to prevent abuse. The highest sum paid to any individual was 25s. a-week. As to the publication of the Sugar Returns, the greater portion of the vote went to defray the expense of officers and clerks in preparing the accounts.
§ Colonel Sibthorpsaid, if the public knew they would have to pay fees amounting to 570l. upon every Peer created, they would not be so clamorous for 100 or 200 to be made to pass the Reform Bill.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman were satisfactory, but he (Sir R. Peel) most objected to that vote which the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to, because he supposed the hon. member for Middlesex had taken it under his especial care; he meant the sum of 500l. for certain statistical accounts. If, as the hon. member for Middlesex stated, these tables were so exceedingly valuable, Mr. Marshall might be left to receive a recompense from their sale. There were various other works equally deserving of public patronage; but for the Treasury to assist individuals in this way was open to very great objection. The hon. member for Middlesex might have derived great aid from these tables, but that was no reason why the public should pay for them.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the tables were considered to be of very great importance to the public interests, and Government had granted this sum in consideration of receiving a certain number of copies for the public offices.
§ Mr. Hunthad been in no small degree surprised by the conversations which passed between the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the hon. member for Middlesex. He remembered well the admiration with which he used to read that Gentleman's speeches, storming the House and cutting down the Estimates. From the 308 slightness of the opposition which that hon. Member was now giving to the Estimates, he felt very much disposed to press upon the House the measure proposed by the hon. member for Cricklade—that is, that the Estimates be referred to a Committee. He should like to know what became of the 32,000l. which was charged under the head of Rewards for the Apprehension and Conviction of Incendiaries? He had been applied to by many persons, who complained that they had not been adequately rewarded. Again, there was above 900l. charged as paid to Doctor Bowring for his improvements in keeping public accounts. He did not know whether the Ministers had profited by his method, but most certainly nobody else had. He did not see why he, as a Member of that House, doing a public duty, should allow the public money to be voted away without expressing his opinion about the purpose to which it was applied, lest he should be accused of being personal—especially when the person to whom he should allude had not been at all nice in speaking of him, not only in his absence, but when he was in prison. That person was now certainly not in prison, but in the House of Lords; and as he and his family were receiving from the public so much as 30,000l. a-year, he (Mr. Hunt) felt himself called on to protest against the allowance of 900l. for that learned nobleman's outfit. He had merely passed from one Court to another, and surely he could afford to equip himself for the journey out of the large sums which he drew from the Treasury.
§ Mr. Spring Rice,in reply to the question of the hon. member for Preston, explained that the convicts with reference to whom the rewards had been given, were 577 in number, and the rewards were distributed amongst 1,887 persons. The sums paid to those persons amounted to 28,220l. 12s., and the expenses of the Commissions added to that, made up the sum of 32,000l. charged in the Estimates. He believed that the sums charged were rightly distributed, and rightly applied, and that the House would not object to the item.
§ Mr. Huntbelieved, that much of the money was stopped on its way to the persons for whom it was intended. Many of the persons had not received so much as they were entitled to.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, all these accounts 309 had passed through the Audit office, and there were stamp receipts for the amount of money paid to each individual.
§ Mr. Benettbore testimony to the propriety of the distribution; he knew Mr. Mawle had been at infinite pains to divide the money properly.
Resolution agreed to, deducting the sum of 1,000l., the vote on account of Mr. Telford's survey being deferred.
§ The House resumed.