BUCKINGHAM PALACE. (Hansard, 17 January 1832)

§ Mr. Cresset Pelham
said, he rose to protest against expending 75,000l. towards completing this palace. He entertained very serious doubts whether that sum would be sufficient for the purpose, after the experience they had had of the excess of the sums required beyond the estimates furnished, and the equivocal statement that a further sum would be wanted for the providing state apartments. It was, therefore, upon general principles, as well as from local knowledge, that he objected to this proposed outlay, as a wasteful expenditure of the public money, upon a building, the extent and taste of which he might afterwards have reason to condemn. He thought it would be more satisfactory to leave this building as it was, until some ulterior measure might be adopted, by which the whole case would be fully before them.

Mr. Hume
wished to know, whether the sum of 75,00l., which the House was now called upon to vote for this building, would be sufficient for its final completion, and if not, whether the Commissioners would be at liberty to advance a further sum, as the vote had expressly stated this sum was for the completion of Buckingham Palace. If, therefore, it was not sufficient for that purpose, not one shilling ought to be expended, until the House had been supplied with full information, that no deception, might be practised as to the amount that would finally complete the building.

§ Lord Duncannon
said, that, according to the estimate which had been laid before the House, this sum would be sufficient to complete the palace, independent of the state apartments. The present estimate had been formed in compliance with the plan which had been submitted to the Committee, and the greatest care had been taken to have as accurate a calculation as the subject would admit of. He was fully persuaded the sum would be found sufficient for the purpose intended.

Mr. Hume
would like to know upon what authority the pledge of the noble Lord was given. They had, on a former occasion, a pledge given to them on this subject by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, which turned 575 out to be worth nothing. There was scarcely any part of the plan for the repair of the building which had not been repeatedly altered. The expenditure for building and repairing palaces had much occupied public attention, and great indignation had been manifested at the apparently wasteful expenditure. Before this sum was voted, and the bill was passed, he hoped, therefore, that the public would be satisfied.

§ Lord Duncannon
said, that he could only answer the question according to the estimate which had been prepared. According to the plan which had been laid before the Committee, he could assure the House that no further sum would be demanded from the public for this purpose.

Mr. Hume
wished to know, whether the completion of the building had been contracted for, so that the public might rest satisfied that this sum would be sufficient?

§ Lord Duncannon
replied that it had been contracted for as far as it was possible to do so.

§ Mr. Briscoe
said, he had serious doubts whether the sum of 75,000l. would be sufficient to complete this building. He, however, was glad to find this sum was not to come directly out of the pocket of the public, but out of the produce of the sale of Crown lands. He wished to have the whole sum stated specifically which it would take to render the palace habitable as a residence, because the architect, Mr. Blore, had stated in his report last summer, that if this object were to be accomplished, it would require some houses to be bought up in the neighbourhood, "of unascertained extent and value." This alarmed him, particularly when he recollected that the first estimate for the repair of the palace was 252,000l. In the following year it was stated that 331,000l. would be required for that purpose, the third estimate amounted to 432,000l., and the fourth to 496,000l. and he believed, if the case was fully investigated, that the actual sum already expended on this building exceeded 600,000l. He was aware that the proposed outlay was to be made, in conformity with the report of a Select Committee, to save any further expense in respect of St. James's Palace, but as Buckingham Palace had no state apartments connected with it, a large additional sum would be required for the erection of such rooms and a still further and larger sum would be wanted for fixtures, decorations, and furniture. He wished, therefore, to have a full statement of the whole amount that would be ne- 576 cessary to complete all these objects before they proceeded further. The public had a right to know all the probable cost for such matters, or they might be led gradually to an interminable and endless expense.

§ Lord Duncannon
remarked, that Mr. Blore had made two reports—the first, as to the estimate necessary to complete this building, and to fit it up as a royal residence: and he had distinctly stated, that 75,000l. would be a sufficient sum for that purpose. The second report referred to the probable cost of state apartments, and that gentleman had therein stated that his attention had not been particularly directed to that subject, but that, if such a plan was in contemplation, it would be necessary to purchase a number of houses in the vicinity of the Palace, the value of which he had no means of ascertaining. With reference to furniture, he begged leave to observe, that there was a large quantity in store, which it was proposed to place in the new Palace.

§ Mr. Hunt
saw little reason for the hon. member for Surrey to congratulate himself and the country on the saving to the public, by the mode Government proposed to raise the money to finish this building. Was it not the same if the property of the public in Crown lands was sold, and the public revenue thereby diminished, as if it were taken away by direct taxation? By taxation, of course, they must supply the deficiency in the usual annual receipt of Crown land revenue.

Lord Athorp
said, that this was the estimate of the architect for the building: Mr. Blore was that architect; and from what he knew of him, he believed that the building would be completed for the amount given in the estimate: undoubtedly, the fixtures and furniture were not included, but as his noble friend had already explained, he hoped there would not be a very heavy charge on those accounts, from the quantity of furniture now in hand. It was quite true that the Crown lands were under the control of Parliament, and no difference could be made between them and other public property, but it was considered the present was the most convenient way of meeting the expense.

Mr. Goulburn
objected to the principle of taking the Crown lands to defray the expense, and he hoped the Committee 577 would not sanction the adoption of such a measure.

Mr. Hume
thought, the right hon. Gentleman was the last person who ought to have made such an objection, as the building of the Palace had been carried on by the late Government, and a certain portion of the expense had been provided for by the sale of Crown lands, during the time he had been in office.

§ Mr. Courtenay
observed, that it might not be convenient to defray this cost out of the taxes, but certainly the Crown lands ought not to be alienated for the purpose. It would be better, in his opinion, to make them chargeable for the amount for a certain number of years.

Sir Robert Inglis
regretted to hear the hon. member for Surrey promulgate a doctrine which was, in effect, saying, that the property of the Crown was the property of the public, whereas that property was as much the individual property of the Sovereign on his coming to the Throne, as was the estate of any gentleman on his duly arriving at the possession of it. It was, however, a matter of arrangement between the Sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament, whether he would change it for another species of revenue of adequate value. Another observation of the hon. Member was still more important—he seemed to look to the Crown lands as the source from which the Palace was to be completed, not considering that every alienation of them must be made up to the Sovereign from some other fund on a future occasion.

§ Mr. Briscoe
said, the Bill could not pass into a law without the consent of the Crown itself, and that was, of course, an answer to the hon. Baronet's objection.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, the public knew full well that the charges for the Civil List came out of the produce of the taxes, and therefore they would have no objection to see these Crown lands alienated, instead of the produce of them given to the favourite Minister of the day.

§ Lord Althorp
begged to remark, in reply to the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that he was fully aware that the Crown lands could only be considered as belonging to the public during the life of the Sovereign with whom the bargain had been made for the exchange of Such lands against the grant of the Civil List.

§ Mr. Courtenay
said, the objection to the Bill was, that it would be found a wasteful means of providing for the expense. A total alienation of the lands ought not to 578 be tolerated, although it might be advisable to charge them with the expense for a term of years.