§ Sir Robert Peelmoved, that the sum of 33,110l. be granted for the British Museum.
§ Mr. Hawessaid, that at present the King's Library in the Museum was occupied only by persons engaged in cataloguing books. He wished to know when that magnificent room would be opened to the public.
§ Sir R. Inglissaid, that when the room was opened to the public it served merely for a passage, and the dust thereby created was found very injurious to the books. The persons who passed through saw only the backs of the books, and were, of course, incapable of appreciating the treasures they contained. No objection was offered to the admission of persons for the purposes of study.
§ Mr. Haweshoped the right hon. Baronet would use his influence to cause the room to be thrown open on the public days.
§ Sir R. Peelwould be glad to see any access given to the British Museum, 87 which could be given consistently with the preservation of the books.
§ Mr. G. Heathcotesaid, there seemed to be a considerable degree of confusion at the British Museum, both with respect to the catalogues, and the arrangement of the books. He had been there lately, and found the Magna Charta—that Palladium of English liberty—placed between two cases containing Esquimaux breeches.
§ Mr. Ewartwished that the trustees would examine into the practicability of throwing open the British Museum in the evening, for the benefit of the working classes. The library of St. Genevieve, at Paris, had been opened in the evening, and lighted with gas, for the use of the working classes, and the arrangement had been found very satisfactory.
§ Mr. Humecomplained of the regulations which excluded children under eight years of age from the Museum. They were admitted into the National Gallery, and no injurious consequences were found to result. But at the Museum, when a mechanic went with his family, containing, perhaps, one child under eight years old, that one was obliged to stay at the door with, perhaps, the mother to take care of it, while the others went round. In such a case the mother either did not see the museum at all, or could only go in when the others had come out. He thought there ought to be a separate catalogue for each department, so that a person wanting a catalogue of the natural history department should not be obliged to buy three or four others. He wanted to see the government of this institution, to which they were going to vote 30,000l. altered. It was now a private institution. He wished to see certain individuals appointed to the management, who would be responsible to the Government. It ought not to be left in the hands of private trustees, who elected each other. He thought the King's Library ought to be open to the public with the Museum. Even if they saw only the backs of the books, it was not without its use. It might lead to something further. Many who visited great libraries on the continent saw only the outsides of the volumes.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Member for Montrose seemed to be insensible to the sarcasm of Pope:—
His study! with what authors is it stored? In books, not authors, Curious is my lord.88 He thought the management was at present in very good hands. There was always some official trustee from whom the Government could obtain any information they wanted; and the other trustees were gentlemen as likely to perform their duties in a manner beneficial to the public as any who could be appointed.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ The next vote was 106,085l. for expenses of the works and repairs of public buildings, furniture for various public departments, &c, and for the maintenance and repairs of the royal palaces.
§ Mr. Humesaid, there ought to be a detailed account of the sum expended on each building. Without the least wish to abridge the comforts of the Sovereign, he did not see that so many palaces were required, some of which her Majesty never used.
Mr. Williamscomplained that so large a number of palaces should be maintained no less than seven. Some of them her Majesty never occupied at all. Kew Palace for example, was not occupied by any Member of the Royal Family in this country. [" An Hon. Member: The King of Hanover."] The King of Hanover was a foreign potentate, and he ought to be content to receive from the industry of the people of England his pension of 21,000l. a-year, instead of expecting likewise an expensive palace and gardens, besides the apartments he reserved to himself in St. James's-palace. The hon. Member also complained of a charge of 800l. a-year for a residence for the Princess Sophia.
§ Mr. Protheroerecommended that a chapel should be attached to Buckingham-palace, in order to prevent the necessity for the Queen proceeding to the chapel of St. James's to attend divine worship; and by which her Majesty had been exposed to the late treasonable attacks.
§ Mr. Hawesdeprecated any arrangement that should discourage the frequent appearance of the Queen among her subjects. None of the Royal family resided at Kew, and if the. palace was kept up for the King of Hanover it was an abuse. He complained that Kew-gardens were only open certain days and certain months and contended that free-admission into Richmond park should be given to all carriages except public ones.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that more 89 than half the expense bestowed upon the palaces, particularly Hampton-court, was for the benefit of the public rather than of the Sovereign or of the occupants. The charge of 800l. for a residence for the Princess Sophia was an exceedingly economical one, as her royal Highnesse's apartments at Kensington had become so dilapidated that it would take 10,000l. or 12.000l. to repair them. With regard to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Halifax, relative to the building of a chapel within the precincts of Buckingham-palace, such an arrangement had actually been in progress before the attacks alluded to by the hon. Member. He, however, must say, that the reason suggested as to the safety of her Majesty would have been no inducement for entering into such an arrangement, for he should not be taking too great a liberty with the royal name in saying that no sentiment of fear could have the effect of inducing her Majesty to withhold herself from her subjects, or from performing her customary devotions. The arrangement with regard to the building of a chapel at Buckingham-palace was this. There were with large conservatories attached to the palace, and the House would recollect that last year a large sum was voted for the improvement of those conservatories. Her Majesty with that desire which she always had of saving unnecessary expense, had suggested that the sum granted for the fitting up of the conservatories should be applied to the building of a chapel adjoining Buckingham-palace. Under these circumstances, and considering that the money had been voted for the purpose of merely ornamenting the conservatories, he thought that neither the hon. Member for Montrose nor any other Member would object to its being applied to a more useful purpose. He begged to state that this arrangement had been made at the desire of the Queen in order that her Majesty might be able to attend divine worship at all times, and in all weathers; and he begged also to state that it had been made previous to the attacks recently made on her Majesty. With regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for Dumfries, as to the opening of Richmond-park, he thought that one would have inferred from the observations of that hon. Member, that foot-passengers were not allowed to enter the park. But this was not the case; and with regard to cariages 90 and persons on horseback, great falciities were afforded. If any arrangement could be made to give additional facilities in this respect, he would be most happy to give it his utmost attention. With regard to Kew-park, he could not use the same language. He begged the House to consider that every Royal park had been, one after another, opened to the public; and the hon. Member for Dumfries ought to bear in mind that Kew, in the time of George 3rd, was used as a Royal nursery. Under the probability of its being again appropriated to this purpose, he thought that the hon. Member would not be of opinion that the Government were asking too much when they required that the present limitations should still be continued, the park still continuing open to the public for two days in the week. Under these circumstances, he could not accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman for the opening Kew-park on every day of the week.
§ Mr. Ewartsaid, he wished to make an observation with reference to Regent's-park. Last year it was thrown open to the public, and it was then proposed that a path should be made in a direct line through the park, and that it should be continued across the canal to Primrose-hill. He hoped the noble Lord would not let the subject escape his notice.
§ Mr. Humewished to know why the people were excluded from the ground on the west side of Kensington-palace. He was sorry to observe that it was to Jet for the building of villas. He wished to know why, with the sordid view of getting a few hundred pounds, this ground was to be given up in order to be let out in building lots, and he wished particularly to know who was to get the money.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that the arrangements for letting out the old kitchen garden, at Kensington, for building lots arose from an act of Parliament, which was passed on this subject during the short Session of last year, when the hon. Member for Montrose was not a Member of the House. He could assure him that that bill was fully discussed at the time by many hon. Members opposite. With regard to the proceeds it was intended to apply them towards the expences of the new gardens at Kew.
§ Vote agreed to.
91§ 105,000l. to defray the expenses of the works of the new Houses of Parliament.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he wished to know when, at the rate at which they were going on, it was likely that the works would be completed; and he also hoped that in another year the Government would state the whole amount that had been expended.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that he had asked the architect when he thought the works would be completed; but he answered that it was impossible to say until he knew what sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer could afford towards carrying on the works. At the present rate at which the works were carried on, he thought there was every probability that the Session of 1845 would be held in the new Houses. The whole of the buildings would not be completed at that period, and he believed that it would be seven or eight years before the Victoria tower and other portions of the works were completed.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had always objected to the site of the new Houses. It had been the cause of their burying 150,000l., and a more extravagant waste of the public money had never, in his opinion, taken place. He thought, and he was supported in his opinion by one of the commissioners, that the building would never do for the House of Commons.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had made inquiry as to the sum required to carry on the works for this year, and the amount proposed was that which was considered necessary.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 19,326l. for the completion and fittings of the model prison.
§ Mr. W. Williamssaid, that this item would make up the sum of 69,000l. for the building of the model prison. He thought the system proposed would not answer in this country, and he thought that a reference to one of the items in the present estimates would convince the House of this. He found an item of 6,300l. for maintaining 250 convicts for three quarters of a year. This was at the rate of 13s. a week each, and this, too, in a country where the wages of a man who worked fourteen hours a day were as low as 3s. a week. Why had not these convicts been transported? He had been informed that the persons confined in the prison of Sing Sing, in the United States, 92 were not only capable of defraying their own expenses by their labour, but also the expenses of the prison. The prison was built by the convicts themselves; and he saw no reason why the same plan should not be adopted in the present case. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would take this point into his consideration.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, that the works were too far advanced when the Government came into office for them to be arrested. The experiment which they were to try was an important one, but at the same time he would not wish it to be tried upon a larger scale than that at present proposed. With reference to the probable expense, the hon. Member would observe that, as accommodation in the present case was to be provided for 520 persons, the expense would be proportionally reduced by applying it to a more extended system. He thought that the discontinuance of transportation would not be politic. It was, he believed, an advantageous form of punishment for the community here, and, under proper regulations, beneficial to the penal settlements themselves. The model prison was intended to be subsidiary to the punishment of transportation. It frequently happened, that to carry out the sentence of transportation immediately after it was pronounced was cruel towards the prisoner; but the aid of the model prison might be called in in such cases, and by confining the offender there for some time—say eighteen months or two years—he might be instructed in some species of useful and skilful employment, so as when he should be sent to the penal colony, he would have an opportunity of gaining an honest and comfortable livelihood.
§ Mr. Humeconcurred in the observations of the right hon. Baronet upon the subject of transportation, but be thought that if they spent more money in building schools they would have to spend less in building prisons. He thought, too, that some provision should be made for offenders, particularly juvenile offenders, after their liberation from prison, to prevent them, if possible, from relapsing into vice. He had made inquiry of the governors of no less than seven prisons, and they had stated that great numbers of the persons under their care soon returned after liberation, as they were obliged to 93 have recourse again to thieving, from being without the means of earning an honest livelihood.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the motion that 8,654l. be appropriated for the use of the Parkhurst Prison in the Isle of Wight.
§ Sir James Grahamstated, that the sys tern of discipline pursued at Parkhurst had been found in general to be satisfactory in its results. The Government had thought it right in some cases, where the system had been found to produce extremely beneficial effects, to grant free pardons in the cases of these individuals and to send them out free to New Zealand, where they might gain an honest subsistence. In other cases, offenders had been sent to Van Diemen's Land with a contingent pardon depending upon their future behaviour. An additional amount was this year required for this prison, in order to make arrangements for the accommodation of juvenile female delinquents. Since he had been called upon to superintend the working of the criminal law, he had experienced great difficulty in making arrangements with respect to female convicts of tender years under sentence of transportation. It was not possible to send such persons to a penal colony, and it bad therefore been deemed right to form an establishment at Parkhurst for their reception.
§ Mr. Humeremarked upon the hardship of sending out free, and with a pardon, to New Zealand, convicted prisoners, while numerous honest people were unable to emigrate there and to other colonies for want of means. He begged to call the serious attention of Government to this subject.
§ Sir James Grahamreplied they were sent pardoned.
Mr. Vernon Smith:Yes, but with the notoriety of crime still attaching to them, they would find it most difficult to regain their characters, and obtain honest employment.
Lord Stanleystated, that no persons were sent out except those committed for comparatively trifling offences. The cases were few in number, and the persons were so far reformed that there was every hope of their being again fitted to enter into society, and the great object was to remove them to a distance from the scene 94 of their former crimes. He deprecated any continuance of discussion upon this subject.
§ Mr. Aglionbywished to know upon what fund the expense of these persons being sent was to fall.
§ Sir James Grahamhad no doubt as to the policy of immediately granting the vote. Young female convicts could not well be transported to a penal settlement, and therefore it was of great importance that something should be done for their reformation at home.
§ Mr. Roebuckwas in favour of transportation with respect to all classes of convicts. The cry against transportation was unwise and unfounded.
Mr. V. Smiththought the system of juvenile offenders being sent to New Zealand, with a free pardon, was a premium upon crime, and an act of hardship to poor but honest men. He repeated the question as to the fund from which they were sent.
Lord Stanleyreplied, that they were not sent out from any colonial fund. The expenses formed a moderate charge upon the money appropriated to criminal jurisprudence. He thought it advisable that prisoners, after having been detained a certain time, and to a greater or less extent reformed, should be sent from the country pardoned, upon the condition of their not returning to it. The funds which were applied to defray the expenses would have otherwise been applied to the cost either of transportation, or of fulfilling their originally destined period of imprisonment; and the result was an actual saving to the public.
§ Mr. Hawesprotested against the doctrines of the hon. Member for Bath with respect to transportation. There was, he thought, with respect to criminal law, a tendency to fall back to old practices which had been proved ineffectual. He thought the difference between transportation and confinement and labour in this country was one between an expensive punishment three thousand miles away and a cheap one at home.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the question that the sum of 62,300l. be granted for payment of the salaries and expenses of the two Houses of Parliament,
§ Mr. Humeobjected that no items were furnished for the sum of 21,000l.,required 95 for the House of Lords. No public money ought to be voted without the particulars being known to the House of Commons.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained, that formerly the salaries and expenses of the House of Lords were paid by address from the Peers to the Crown, but of late years, the sum had been included in the estimates.
§ Mr. Humepersisted in his objection, and divided the committee on an amendment, that 40,5001.. be granted from the vote:—Ayes 23; Noes 90: Majority 67.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Napier, Sir C. |
| Aldam, W. | O'Brien, J. |
| Bannerman, A. | O'Connell, D. |
| Berkeley, hon. Capt. | O'Connor, Don |
| Bernal, R. | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Brotherton, J. | Smith, rt. hon. R. V. |
| Busfeild, W. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Clements, Visct. | Thornely, 'T'. |
| Cobden, R. | William, W. |
| Curteis, H. B. | Wood, B. |
| Duncan, G. | TELLERS. |
| Ferrand, W. B. | Hume, J. |
| Hawes, B. | Bowring, Dr. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Allix, J. P. | Gladstone, T. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Glynne, Sir S. R. |
| Arkwright, G. | Gordon, hon. Capt. |
| Bailey, J. | Gore, M. |
| Baird, W. | Goulburn, rt. hon. H. |
| Baring, hon. W. B. | Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. |
| Baskerville, T. B. M. | Grogan, E. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | Harcourt, G. G. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. |
| Browne, hon. W. | Hardy, J. |
| Campbell, A. | Henley, J. W. |
| Chelsea, Visct. | Hervey, Lord A. |
| Chetwode, Sir J. | Hindu, J. H. |
| Christopher, R. A. | Hodgson, R. |
| Clayton, R. R. | Hope, hon. C. |
| Clerk, Sir G. | Hornby, J. |
| Cochrane, A. | Howard, P. H. |
| Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. | Hughes, W. B. |
| Cresswell, B. | Hussey, T. |
| Cripps, W. | Jermyn, Earl |
| Denison, E. B. | Jones, Capt. |
| D'Israeli, B. | Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E |
| Douglas, Sir H. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Eaton, R. J. | Lockhart, W. |
| Eliot, Lord | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Escott, B. | Mackenzie, T. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Mackenzie, W. F. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Mainwaring, T. |
| Fitzroy, Capt. | Masterman, J. |
| Fleming, J. W. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Ffolliott, | Neville, R. |
| Forbes, W. | Nicholl, rt. hon. J. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Northland, Visct. |
| Gaskell, J. Miles | O'Brien, A. S. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. | Packe, C. W. |
| Pakington, J. S. | Trench, Sir F. W. |
| Patten, J. W. | Trotter, J. |
| Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. | Turner, C. |
| Peel, J. | Vernon, G. H. |
| Plumptre, J. P. | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Pringle, A. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Sibthorp, Col. | Yorke, hon. E. T. |
| Smith, A. | Young, J. |
| Somerset, Lord G. | |
| Stanley, Lord | TELLERS. |
| Sutton, hon. H. M. | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| Taylor, J. A. | Baring, H. |
§ The original grant being again proposed,
§ Mr. Hawestoo, contended, that this was a mode of taxing the people without any account rendered. Hereafter the sum required might be much larger, and the House of Commons would have no control.
§ Mr. Huttsaid, that the Clerk in Parliament of the House of Lords received 4,000l. a-year for absolutely doing nothing. Another clerk was paid 3,500l. a-year, and of two clerks at the Table, one had 2,000l. a-year, and the other 1,5001. One Serjeant-at-Arms had a salary of 3,000l., and the general establishment was much larger and more expensive than that of the House of Commons. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, at least, make some inquiry as to the items.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that that was just the course which had been taken. This was the only instance in which the House of Lords exercised any control over the public money, and he thought, that any investigation by the House of Commons would be viewed with jealousy.
§ Mr. Hawesremarked, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the inquiry, it was fit that this House should be informed of the particulars.
§ Mr. Humerepeated, that the subject ought not to be taxed without the knowledge of the House of Commons. He should move to postpone the vote to a future day.
Mr. V. Smithobserved, that the sum was a comparatively small one, and the only amount of the kind which the House of Lords was allowed to deal with.
The Chancellor of Exchequeradded, that from time immemorial until the change, the House of Lords had exercised the privilege of addressing the Crown for the payment gas expenses.
§ Amendment withdrawn, and original vote agreed to.
97§ On the question that 112,470l. to defray the expenses of consul-generals, consuls, vice-consuls, and superintendents of trade in China, be granted to her Majesty.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid their duties were to superintend trade; and, at the same time, they had some diplomatic duties to attend to.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, it was evident that consuls by law had nothing to do. Almost every instruction which they received from the Foreign Office was contrary to law. They were called on to make returns respecting the trade of the country where they resided; but they had no authority to demand those papers without which it was not in their power to give any accurate information. It was also their duty to see that every British ship was navigated according, to law but they had no power to call on the captain for the production of the ship's papers. Before Mr. Canning's act for the regulation of consuls, they had the power to make the captain produce his papers; but in his act Mr. Canning purposely omitted this power, with a view of remodelling the system altogether, which he had afterward, not done, and the administration and the legislation of the country, on this subject, were in direct contradiction with each other. The British consuls were the only consuls who could not arbitrate between a master and his crew.
§ Sir Charles Napiersaid, he did not know what the consular law was, but he had had a good deal of experience of the practice, which was perfectly different to what had been described by the hon. Gentleman, and he believed, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. It was impossible for a captain to receive consular protection without producing his papers. But he did not think that sufficient attention was paid to the appointment of consuls. They ought to collect at the places where they resided information that might be of use to the country in time of war.
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the chief duties devolving on consuls were those of protecting the interests of British commerce and shipping. The real question was whether those duties were of sufficient importance to warrant the expenses of a consular establishment. He believed that they were. He himself had increased the 98 number of consuls, and in every case he had been induced to do so in consequence of applications from persons interested in the trade of the places at which they wished for consuls to be appointed. As to what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had stated with reference to the intentions of Mr. Canning to make a change in the consular establishment, he believed that the only change which was made was abolishing the system of paying consuls by means of fees proportionate to the tonnage of vessels for which they had transacted business, and remunerating them by means of fixed salaries. This was they only change, he believed, which was contemplated by Mr. Canning. It was true as the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that consuls had no legal power of adjudication, but they had a power of arbitration inasmuch as such a power might be created by the contending parties them selves by mutual consent, and the most important duties of a consul frequently consisted in arbitrating between captains of ships and their crews. It was also true that the consul had no legal claim for the production of ships' papers; but the question of the propriety of investing them with that power had not escaped the consideration of the late Government. On consulting the Board of Trade, however, it was represented that the investiture of consuls with such powers would not be advantageous to commerce. In fact, when merchants and captains of ships require the aid of the consul to bring them through any difficulty into which they might have fallen with the local authorities, they were required to furnish him with their papers before the end in view could be attained. On the whole, he believed that the duties of consuls were officially discharged.
§ Mr. Humewished to know on what grounds an addition had been made to the estimates by the appointment of a consul-general of Syria.
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that that appointment was not by any means a new one, for there had formerly been a consul-general at Damascus. In the present state of Syria, it was considered important that there should be an officer invested with that power over the local consuls which belonged to the office of consul-general, the appointment had been attended by advantageous results.
§ Mr. Humethought that as there was 99 a consul-general at Constantinople, and that as Syria was now part of the Turkish empire, that that functionary might discharge the duties of consul-general for the whole Ottoman empire.
§ Vote agreed to, as were several others.
§ House resumed. Committee to sit again.