SUPPLY. — MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 30 May 1836)

Mr. F. Baring
moved a grant of 64,450l. for public works and public buildings.

Mr. Goulburn
took that opportunity of directing the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the havoc made in Kensington-gardens by the cutting down whole rows of ornamental timber, which had so long served the purpose of an agreeable shade, and to which the public had been accustomed to look with feelings approaching to respectful veneration. It was much to be regretted that those who had the power of doing such extensive mischief were not subjected to some better control before they applied their axe in so indiscriminate and destructive a manner. He very much regretted that persons who had it in their power to commit greater mischief than they could ever repair, were not placed under more efficient control.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that if future generations were to be gratified by the existence of any trees at all in Kensington-gardens, it was indispensably necessary that the decayed and sickly trees should be cut down.

Mr. Goulburn
replied, that a great number of the trees which had been cut down were not at all decayed.

§ Mr. Hume
bore testimony to the judicious nature of the alteration. If the right hon. Gentleman would only look at the trees in question next spring, his objection would, he was quite certain, be removed. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) wished to know on what ground 3,000l. should be voted for the repairs of Marlborough-house, when that building had been settled on the Queen? He also 1156 wished to know whether it was likely that Buckingham Palace would be used for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, the residence of the King?

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not aware that any circumstance had arisen that could justify the supposition that Buckingham Palace was not to be used as the King's residence. At present it required one or two further alterations; but he had the satisfaction of being able to say that it would not be necessary to apply for any more grants for the completion of it. With respect to Marlborough house his hon. Friend laboured under some misapprehension. That building was undoubtedly the jointure-house of the Queen, but it did not become the property of her Majesty until a certain event took place, which he was sure the House and the country would not anticipate. In the mean time, that building was not of more expense to the public than the mere charge for repairing the roof and other parts of it, which they were bound to keep in repair.

§ Mr. Wakley
could not help complaining that the British Museum was shut up in holiday time, when many of the labouring classes were able and anxious to visit it. It had been shut during the whole of the Whitsuntide week. He also wished to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the state of the Re gent's-park on Sundays. He did not object to the Zoological Gardens; on the contrary, he thought that they were of great advantage to the public; but he could not help complaining of the great collection of carriages there on a Sunday; indeed, to such an extent that it became a nuisance. [Hear, hear! from Sir Andrew Agnew.] He perceived the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigtonshire in his place, but he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the park-gates should, be shut to carriages on Sundays. Yesterday the accumulation of carriages was so great, that the passage was stopped for nearly an hour, both to carriages and foot passengers. He thought that it would not be difficult to make some arrangement by which this objection could be obviated.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that he had always felt that it was most expedient and wise that the British Museum should be open during the holidays, and chiefly, because it enabled the junior branches of families, who were 1157 brought home for the holidays, to become acquainted with the valuable contents of that institution. It was necessary that some time should be allowed the attend ants in the Museum, to clean it and to make new arrangements; but he thought other periods than the holidays should be devoted to that purpose. He would pledge himself to bring the subject under the attention of the trustees for the purpose of making an alteration. With respect to the other objection made by the hon. Member, namely, to the crowd that assembled at the Zoological Gardens on Sunday, he would only observe, that it was incidental to the anxiety of the public to visit that place, and above all, in consequence of the peculiar source of attraction at the present moment. He should be extremely sorry to close the Zoological Gardens on Sundays, as he thought that they afforded good means of relaxation and instruction. He went there very often himself on Sunday, and if he was not bettered by it, at any rate he thought that he devoted a part of the Sunday for a perfectly legitimate and proper purpose. Some alteration might, perhaps, be made with respect to arranging the carriages conveying persons to the Zoological Gardens on Sundays.

§ Mr. Wakley
said, that he should not have made a single complaint on the subject if the public participated in the ad vantages of the Zoological Gardens on Sundays. Each proprietor had the right of admission for himself, and also the liberty of introducing; two friends; these persons were generally of the higher orders, and the great bulk of the public, and more especially the poorer classes, were excluded.

§ Sir Andrew Agnew
did not think that it was a proper use of the Sabbath to visit the Zoological Gardens on that day. On the contrary, he considered it a desecration of the Sabbath, and that the Zoological Gardens as well as all other places of amusement for the rich should be closed on that day.

§ Mr. Ridley Colborne
begged to observe, as a trustee of the British Museum, that he entirely concurred with all that had fallen from his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on the subject. He trusted that arrangements would be made to allow that, national institution to be opened in the holidays.

Sir Smith O'Brien
concurred in the 1158 opinion that the British Museum should be opened to all classes on Sundays. At that place there was a much more instructive and quite as interesting an exhibition as at the Zoological Gardens. The public also had a right to have admittance there at all times, as it was national property, but they had no right to claim admission on that day to the Zoological Gardens.

§ Sir Andrew Agnew
protested against making the attendants of the British Museum work on Sundays against their consciences, and trusted that such a proposition as that just made by the hon. Gentleman would never receive the sanction of the House. He hoped also that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the opinion which he had that night expressed with respect to visiting the Zoological Gardens on Sundays, and which he (Sir Andrew Agnew) had heard with surprise. Such an opinion was not in conformity with the religious feeling of the great body of the people.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that he did not intend that this sum should be appropriated till the recommendations of the Commissioners were received. He thought that the best course would be, to leave the wishes of the public on subjects of intellectual improvement to develope themselves, and in support of that opinion he referred to the steps recently taken in several provincial towns with the view of establishing institutions for the intellectual culture of the people. The case of the British Museum was, however, an exception to all rules of that description—it was a national museum, and he thought that at least one national museum ought to be maintained at the general cost of the nation. In giving literary and scientific institutions at the public charge to provincial places, there was danger that the wants and wishes of the people would be supplied with more than they required, and, therefore, he recommended that there should be a limitation to the metro polis of grants of that nature. He de sired further to state, that he intended to lay before the House a small supple- 1159 mentary estimate for the purpose of establishing a school of design, with a view generally to the cultivation of the popular taste, and to the practical improvement of our manufactures. He trusted, that the proposed institution would be well suited to serve as a model according to which other schools might be formed in provincial places. There would also be a supplementary estimate for two acquisitions connected with the arts which the Treasury had made for the British Museum. Of these he wished to give the present notice, that hon. Members might not be taken by surprise.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that properly there should be no more money voted for the Museum until a distinct promise was made by the Government that the Museum should be placed under such improved regulations as would enable the whole public to derive advantage from it. At present the Museum was closed precisely at the hour when mechanics and others might have the chance, if it were left open, of going over it; and on the precise days, holidays, when the classes he spoke of were in a situation to devote the whole day to an examination of the Museum, on those precise days was the Museum closed. The Museum was now opened at ten and closed at four; but he could see no reason why these hours should not be altered so as to enable all classes to derive every possible advantage from an institution which they were called upon to sup port at so heavy an expense.

§ Mr. Wakley
saw no reason why the Museum should not be opened on Sundays.

§ Sir Andrew Agnew
protested against such a desecration of the Sabbath.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he certainly thought that it was very desirable to make some changes in the pre sent regulations of the Museum, with reference to the extension of the hours of exhibition, holidays, &c. As to the Museum being open on Sundays, his own individual opinion was not opposed to such a proposition being acted upon to a certain extent, but he did not see how that could be done without interfering with the observance of the Sabbath by the parties employed on the establishment.

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
said, however he might subject himself to the taunts of a portion of the House, he would add his protest to that of the hon. Baronet against any encouragement being given by the 1160 Legislature to such an employment of the Sabbath. If the Museum were to be opened on that day, on the same principle the Legislature would be called upon to throw open the Adelaide Gallery, or other similar exhibitions, and possibly the Theatres.

§ Mr. Hume
said, the hon. Baronets were mistaken if they thought that their views upon these subjects conveyed the moral opinion of the country. As to the Adelaide Gallery, that was a trade; whereas the British Museum was an exhibition maintained at public cost, and which, therefore, ought to be open to the public upon ail possible occasions. For the mechanic to spend his Sunday after noon with his family in the Museum appeared to him (Mr. Hume) a much better disposal of his time than if he were to resort to the public house or the gin pa lace. If the hon. Baronet would but consent to open his mind to the plain testimony of fact, he would find that the soldier and the mechanic of Paris derived a much higher elevation of mind, and a consequent higher tone of morality, from spending their Sunday afternoon in the Louvre than from besotting themselves in a cabaret.

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
believed he was quite as open to conviction as the hon. Member, whose character in the House was precisely that of the extremest obstinacy, and an indisposition to open his mind to the opinions of others.

§ Mr. Hume
had not intended to affront the hon. Baronet, but he was certainly indisposed to be dictated to by the hon. Baronet, however much the hon. Baronet might wish to force every body to be of his way of thinking. As to the hon. Baronet's charging him with obstinacy, it was quite a question whether it was his obstinacy or the right hon. Baronet's dullness which had most to do in the matter.

§ Mr. Ewart
submitted to the consideration of the Committee the propriety of not allowing the Royal Academy to occupy the wing of the new National Gallery. He objected to one-third of the building being devoted to the Royal Academy, and the reason he did so was, be cause it was a private institution, except 1161 so far as it had a Royal Charter. It had no right to claim a preference over other private societies, and, least of all, to have a part of a gallery which was built at the expense of the nation for national purposes.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that they did nothing for the Royal Academy but give them Room for their Exhibitions. Except the occupation of the rooms at Somerset-House, they had no exclusive privileges; and be it recollected, that they were in the occupation of the rooms at the present moment. Suppose the amendment of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, what would be its effect? It would not take away from the Royal Academy the rooms they had; on the contrary, it would leave them in undisturbed possession of them. They were held under the grant of the Crown. The only question was, whether it was most for the public convenience that the Royal Academy should have a place of exhibition at Charing-cross or at Somerset House. Now the Government thought it better to wholly appropriate Somerset-house to the business of Government, and it appeared to him to be more convenient to bring the works of art together, so that the public might have the opportunity of comparing readily the works of British art with the great productions of the ancient artists. Having seen the way in which the Royal Academy administered their funds, he must say, with reference to this question, that he believed it would be wrong in the House to withhold from the arts the very small encouragement which in this country was afforded them.

§ Mr. Hume
said, he for one did not object to the Royal Academy having the room, provided it was not wanted for other purposes, but he could not but think that they had a monopoly which was injurious to the arts. They had the power of granting honours and excluding per sons from participating in them, who might be fairly entitled to do so.

§ Mr. Warburton
expressed it as his belief, that if it were once known that house-room was provided for the reception of works of art, donations of valuable pictures would be sent in to a very considerable extent, and thus a fine collection of pictures would be formed without its costing a shilling of the public money.

§ Mr. R. Colborne
corroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Bridport, as to the effect of a national gallery being 1162 erected. He said there had been donations already sent in to the amount of 60,000l. His Majesty had lately presented six pictures to the Gallery.

§ Mr. Hume
said, he had frequently questioned the propriety of keeping up this establishment, which he considered to have completely failed in its object. He was opposed to the principal of the establishment, and thought they ought not to sanction any new disbursement for its repairs. The management of the institution was in the hands of Commissioners, who were in reality irresponsible. The place ought to be under the direction of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gladstone
called the attention of the hon. Member for Middlesex to the fact, that the charge was not for the repairs only, part of it was to provide accommodation for military prisoners.

§ Lord J. Russell
said, it was true a portion of the expense was to adapt a building for the reception of soldiers, that they might not be kept longer in county gaols, which had been found very objectionable. Though the management of the institution was vested in Commissioners, they referred to the Secretary of State when questions arose, and the opinion he gave was generally acted upon by the Commissioners. The management of the Penitentiary was much more under the Secretary of State now than it was formerly.

§ Mr. Hawes
expressed a hope that as imprisonment for debt would soon be abolished, the country would be spared a considerable expense for the maintenance of prisons. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the Report which had recently been made to Government on the state of Newgate, and said, that it reflected the greatest discredit and disgrace on the magistrates of the city, to allow that prison to remain in so shameful a condition. Indeed, he knew not, even if those magistrates were to be removed, from their situations, the duties of which they so grossly neglected, that the punishment would be more than the offence deserved.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that with respect to the abolition of imprisonment for debt, nobody would rejoice more than he should, if he could say, that he believed it would speedily take place; but he was afraid there was not much chance of it. Judging from what he had heard else where, he was not very sanguine that there would be a speedy abolition of the existing system. With respect to the observations which the hon. Gentleman had made in reference to the state of the gaol of New gate, he begged to say, that the inspectors had bestowed great attention in the inspection of Newgate prison, to which he had especially directed their notice immediately after their appointment. The opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman with respect to that prison, certainly did not differ from the character given of it in the report of the inspectors. At the same time, as there was one present who, in an especial manner, represented the Corporation of the City of London, it was but fair to say, that he had lately made inquiry of the Lord Mayor as to the state of Newgate, and his Lordship had in formed him (Lord John Russell) that a Committee had been appointed by the Corporation to investigate the subject. He ought also to state, that the gaoler and officers of the prison had given certain explanations to the inspectors, which they complained had not been fairly set forth by the inspectors in their Report, and which ought to be seen by the public before a final opinion was formed upon the subject. He, therefore, hoped hon. Gentlemen would suspend their judgments until they had seen the statement of the gaoler and officers, and also any report which the Committee appointed by the Corporation might make.

§ Mr. William E. Gladstone
said, he wished on that occasion to notice the dismissal of Mr. Hay, and the reduction of an office which he considered equivalent in importance and efficiency to an Under Secretaryship. Unpopular as it might be to find fault with any economical change, he did not hesitate to express his regret at that reduction; because he was convinced that if the business to be done were 1164 properly allotted in the office, there was abundant employment for three Under secretaries. He did not insinuate that any deficiency had been found to exist in consequence of the alteration; for he was aware of the energy of his hon. Friend opposite, and of the remarkable talents, and still more remarkable industry of Mr. Stephen, who had been advanced to the post lately occupied by Mr. Hay. But the arrangements of every office ought to be calculated with reference to average abilities, and if they were to be governed by reference to the extraordinary resources of Mr. Stephen, the reduction might have been carried still further, and perhaps the salary of the Chief Secretary himself saved to the public. At the time of Mr. Hay's dismissal, The Globe newspaper stated 1,000l. a-year had been saved to the public by the new arrangement, and that Mr. Hay had retired upon a pension secured to him by the late Government, the Government of Sir Robert Peel. He was not precisely cognizant of the pecuniary stale of the question, and the words of the present vote did not enable him to ascertain it; but before the change, he believed, the expenses were—Mr. Lack's salary at the Board of Trade, 1,500l.; Mr. Hay's, at the Colonial Office, 2,000l.; Mr. Stephen's, at the Colonial Office and Board of Trade, 1,500l.; in all 5,000l. Now, the salary of Mr. Lack's successor, M. Le Marchant, was 1,500l.; the re tiring pension of Mr. Lack, 1,500l.; Mr. Stephen's salary, 1,500l.; Mr. Hay's pension, 1,000l.; total 5,500l.: so that the public, instead of gaining 1,000l., appeared to lose 500l. annually. Mr. Hay, a gentleman in the prime of life, was here represented as retiring upon his pension, and thus entailing a charge on the public; whereas, in fact, his removal would be more correctly described by any other name, and was an absolute dismissal. The public then paid 500l. a-year, and lost the services of an officer, against whose efficiency no charge whatever had been advanced. As Mr. Stephen offered to go to the Board of Trade, it was perfectly competent to the Government, sup posing them to prefer considerations of economy before everything else, to have continued Mr. Hay in his office, and appointed a successor to Mr. Stephen in the Colonial Office.

§ Sir George Grey
said, Mr. Hay was requested to retire because the duty could 1165 be done without him. The establishment was too large with three Under-Secretaries, the removal caused a reduction of 1,000l. a-year, and it was unjust to state, that there had been no saving effected in the Colonial Department.

§ Mr. Poulett Thomson
wished to state, that Mr. Lack had served thirty years and had a right to retire. It was his duty to inquire how the business of his office might be best carried on. Mr. Lack, in consequence of an increase of duty, found it impossible to render those services at the Board of Trade, which he was anxious to render. It was thought proper therefore to unite the office held by Mr. Stephen with that held by Mr. Lack, which effected a saving to the public of 500l. a-year.

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
thought, that the public had lost an efficient officer in Mr. Hay, and had to sustain an increased charge; there had been a saving in the Colonial Department to the amount of 400l., but the expense of the whole establishment, including the Board of Trade and Privy Council, was 2,500l. more than the estimates of the last year.

§ Mr. Poulett Thomson
was surprised at the observation which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, because, from the official station he had held, he might have known the reason why there appeared to be an increased charge for the office of President of the Board of Trade. The Treasurership of the Navy which was held in connexion with it, had been removed, and the 2,000l. salary which was formerly charged upon another item, now appeared as an increase of the expense of that office, so that there was no real increase, but there had been a decrease of expenses in the Colonial Department.

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
There was nothing on the face of these accounts to show that an item was charged here which did not appear in the Estimates of the last year. He was, however, satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Hume
The hon. Member for New ark complained of the dismissal of Mr. Hay. The ground-work of the dismissal of this gentleman was laid by the Government of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, who gave him the power of retiring whenever he pleased; which was as much as to say, "We will provide for our own friend." Having been made independent by the Government who appointed him, it was highly proper that the 1166 succeeding Government should dismiss him.

Mr. Goulburn
The argument of the hon. Member for Middlesex was, that because Mr. Hay was rendered independent, he was, therefore, unable to discharge his duty; but he had not heard that Mr. Hay ever violated his duty. Whether dependent, or independent, he would always discharge his duty honourably and faith fully, to the utmost extent of his ability. Mr. Hay accepted office on the express condition that he should receive the pension—the bestowing of which the hon. Member for Middlesex condemned; but it did not at all follow, that, having secured this point, he should retire from office for the purpose of enjoying it. If such had been his intention, he might have quitted office before his removal from it; but he preferred rendering his services to his country for the money he received.

Mr. Francis Baring
said, that there was a certain class of officers of the State not politically connected with the Government for the time being, but whose situations were permanent, and who stayed in office during changes in the Administration; and to them the Superannuation Act granted retiring allowances when their services were closed. There was another class of officers politically connected with the Ministry by whom they were appointed; they came into office with them, and with them they went out; for these the House of Commons had thought proper to provide pensions, not suffering them to depend upon the will of their opponents, without which security, perhaps, few or no efficient men could be found ready to take such office. Of the former class was Mr. Hay, and he was surprised Mr. Hay did not apply for his superannuation if he wished to retire from office.

The Lord Mayor
took this opportunity of replying to some observations which had been made when he was not in his place, finding fault with the conduct of the Magistrates of the city of London, in respect to the gaol of Newgate. He had to complain more especially of the course pursued by the Prison Inspectors, both in the manner they had proceeded in their inquiries, and in the Report they had made on the subject, and which he i declared had been got up entirely upon 1167 ex-parte statements. For himself, he begged to state, that when the Prison Inspectors entered upon their duties he (the Lord Mayor) told them that he should always be ready to give them every assistance or information in his power, but that he had never been applied to by them until the business of inquiry was nearly brought to a close; and when he took the opportunity of putting two questions, and two questions only, to Mr. Cope, the Governor of Newgate, which, with their answers, he would state to the House. The first question was, as to the nature and mode of the evidence taken by the Inspectors, in reply to which Mr. Cope stated the circumstance, that when he was asked by the Inspectors whether he took care to visit the prison every twenty-four hours, he replied, "I cannot, for these reasons;" upon which the Inspectors interrupted him, observing, "We don't want to hear your reasons; you have answered our question, and that is sufficient for our purpose." Now he put it to the House, whether this was a fair way of taking evidence on a great public question. The next question which he caused to be put to Mr. Cope was, "Have you any means of ascertaining, or any sort of record of the names of the prisoners who in the Report are designated as A, B, C, D, &c., &c." To which Mr. Cope replied, that he had no authentic information by which to individualize them all, but he believed that every one of them were then on their way to Botany Bay. He (the Lord Mayor) hoped that there would be a rigid inquiry into the circumstances connected with this Report, and that the Prison Inspectors should be in attendance at the inquiry; and he would ask the country to suspend their judgment upon the subject till the result of that inquiry was known. With respect to the management of the prison of Newgate, he would ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the case of that gaol was one which could be taken in comparison with any other prison in the kingdom? Newgate was almost entirely a prison of transit; in other gaols there were only two gaol deliveries in the year; in Newgate there were twelve. This was in consequence of the vast number of charges for the county of Middlesex, which were received into Newgate, and which the city authorities would gladly rid themselves of if they could, The pri- 1168 soners from the city of London would scarcely amount to two or three hundred in the year, but by the addition of the Middlesex county cases, the number of prisoners was increased to 3,000. These prisoners passed through so rapidly, being received into the walls on a Thursday perhaps, and tried on Friday, that it be came impossible to observe any of those regulations for the classification and discipline of the prisoners which might be practised with advantage in other gaols.

§ Lord John Russell
had no hesitation in concurring in the observation made by the Lord Mayor, that the gaol of Newgate was of that peculiar character which rendered it a matter of very great difficulty to enforce within it any system of prison discipline. With respect to the Prison Inspectors, he was inclined to believe that if they had fallen into any error on the subject it was not with the intention of misrepresenting the facts which had be come known to them.