§ House in Committee of Supply.
§ The first vote proposed was 117,989l. for the expenses and repairs of various public buildings, and for the repair of royal palaces and gardens.
§ MR. HUMEthought this estimate ought to be brought before the House in a different manner. The expense of the different buildings should be separated, and other means afforded of ascertaining what had been done. Looking at the waste of money in the buildings of the House of Commons, he thought there ought to be some means of checking this class of expenses. There ought to be an annual report, stating what had been done in each case.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the very large sum of 43,000l. in this vote was proposed to be expended on royal palaces. Her Majesty never used one half of those palaces which it was proposed by this vote to keep in repair; and he really thought that in times like these, every expense not absolutely necessary for the comfort and convenience of the Sovereign ought to be dispensed with. Take, for example, Hampton Court Palace: it was filled with members of some of the richest families in the country; and there were some there who, neither through themselves, nor their connexions, had the slightest claim on the people of this country. When the vote last year for 20,000l. was taken in order to be laid out on Buckingham Palace, it was 328 said that the Pavilion at Brighton was to be sold as a set-off. He found, however, that in this very estimate there was a charge for keeping in repair the Pavilion at Brighton and its outbuildings. He hoped that the whole of these charges would be thrown on the Woods and Forests for the future, so that the House might distinctly understand the amount of outlay required for the royal palaces. He would also recommend the Government to concentrate the public offices in the same buildings, and not allow a large portion of those now in use to be occupied by the private residences of the officers attached to them. The sums expended in rent for public bodies which should be provided with public offices was enormous. For example, a house was rented for the ecclesiastical commission at 511l. a year. Why should the public be taxed with that charge for the accommodation of a body with immense funds at their disposal, and why should they pay 3,450l. for the salaries of officers attached to it? The public had nothing to do with such charges, and ought not to pay them. Another heavy charge was for the temporary accommodation of the Railway Committees, which came to 2,100l. a year. He also objected to the public being obliged to pay for the maintenance of the cathedral of Glasgow and for St. Andrew's in Scotland, and hoped the Government would pay some attention to his remarks.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that the House had a perfect right to know the appropriation of the several sums mentioned in respect to palaces; but the fact was, there was a difficulty in ascertaining the precise sum which was required for each palace. He also agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Williams), that it was a wasteful expenditure of public money that so much should be annually consumed in rents of houses fitted for the accommodation of public departments. He feared that that must continue to be so long as the business of the country was of the present vast amount, until there were more large public buildings to accommodate the claims made upon it. The Railway Board, for instance, was constituted last year; and the department of the Woods and Forests was called upon to furnish a place for the transaction of their business. They found it impossible, however, to find a suitable house in the neighbourhood at a rent short of 2,100l. For his own part, he would like to see some of our vacant spaces filled 329 up with suitable buildings, so as to enable them to accommodate the public departments without depending on the present precarious and expensive mode. With respect to Brighton Palace, it had certainly been determined last year that it should be no longer an incumbrance to the nation, but that it should be sold and made to realize as much as possible. Difficulties had, however, arisen as to the title to the ground on which it stood; but he assured the House that very diligent inquiry was being made to bring the matter to a satisfactory termination. Then, with regard to Hampton Court, he felt sure that if the hon. Gentleman reflected on the amount of enjoyment derived from the works of art in that palace, and the really enjoyable gardens there, he would not grudge the sum required to keep that palace and those gardens in a sufficient state of repair.
§ MR. HUMEwished to know if any steps had been taken to ascertain the truth of the statement made by the Knights of Windsor? Last year he had had occasion to call the attention of Government to their application. The Dean and Chapter had got possession of the funds of the Poor Knights, and would neither allow them their proper incomes nor keep their houses in repair. He knew it was very difficult to watch the Church, or to get back from them money of which they had once obtained possession, but he hoped Government would attend to this subject.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid, the question related to a very intricate subject of property, with which any one who valued his time or comfort would be rather cautious in interfering. All the papers relating to it had been referred to the law department of the Government, and the claim made by the knights depended on the existence of a document which had not yet been found.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the vote of 150,000l. for defraying the expenses of the works at Buckingham Palace,
§ MR. HUMEobserved, that last year he had made an appeal to the noble Lord on this subject, which like most of his appeals was of little use, or was at least but little attended to. They were laying out the public money very improperly. The House would remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that the buildings should not cost more than 300,000l., but that afterwards they had been called upon to pay 750,000l., which the addition of 330 150,000l. would make nearly a million expended on this ungainly edifice. Such a production was no credit to the Government or to the country, and it would have been much better to have selected another site for a new building. He was satisfied this money would be wasted, and that the effect of the alterations would be to make the square of the palace so close as to render it more unhealthy than before. If there had not been plenty of room elsewhere for the residence of the Royal Family, he would not say anything on the subject; but he did not see why Her Majesty should not put herself to inconvenience as well as other people, when there were other places to go to. He hoped she would live long to occupy the new palace, but thought she might allow time to Government to erect a building which would do them and the country credit. However, he clearly saw there was no stopping this course, and all he hoped was that the noble Lord would take care not to let the House in for another 350,000l. He could not but mention it, to the honour of Mr. Blore, the architect, that he had saved 20,000l. in his estimate of the expenditure in the actual execution of the works.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he quite agreed in the observation of his hon. Friend, that it would have been much better to have spent so much money on another palace, and thought it well founded; but the question the Government had to consider last year was, whether it would be better to spend so much money on Buckingham Palace as would be necessary to make it convenient for Her Majesty's residence—concerning which papers were laid before the House, in order that they might judge for themselves—or whether they should begin a new palace. Undoubtedly it would have been the handsomer plan, as well as that most suited to Her Majesty's convenience, to have begun the new palace; but the question Her Majesty asked the Government was, would they advise the House to incur such a large expense as 800,000l. or 900,000l. for the purpose of building; and he thought it would have been hardly agreeable to the hon. Members for Montrose and Coventry if such a proposition had been made to them. The result of those deliberations among themselves and with the Members of the last Government was, that they had better not commence a building which would involve so large an expenditure. He did not think that the buildings now in progress would prove so un- 331 healthy or such a deformity as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. The plans and elevations made by Mr. Blore were very handsome, and would make a great improvement in the view of the palace now presented to the public, as well as afford great convenience to Her Majesty and the Royal Family. He could not suppose that his hon. Friend would suggest that Her Majesty should not have any residence in London, or that the Royal children should not be located in the same place with herself. He could hardly propose, for instance, that the Queen should live in Buckingham Palace, while the Princes remained at Windsor. Under the circumstances, Government had taken the most economical plan in their power, though he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it would have been more desirable to have had a palace worthy of the Sovereign and the nation.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the vote of 5,500l. to defray the expense of erecting a Palm-house in the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew,
§ DR. BOWRINGexpressed his sense of the great credit which was due to Sir William Hooker for the care he had taken to augment the collection, and his efforts to popularize the gardens, and admit the public to a full participation in the pleasure to be derived from them. That eminent man understood the responsibilities of his situation, and discharged his duties in a manner that must command the approbation of Parliament and the public.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHwas happy to reflect that the collection at Kew excelled anything of a similar kind in any other part of the world. No little of its beauty, comprehensiveness, and utility, was owing to Sir W. Hooker.
§ MR. HUMEagreed entirely in what had fallen from previous speakers, and thought it due at the same time to say that it was much to the credit of the late Mr. Aikin that he should have first opened these gardens to the public. The number of visitors, which in 1841 was 9,174, had gone on increasing to 11,000, 13,000, 15,000, 28,000, and last year there were no fewer than 46,500. He would recommend that the spot belonging to the King of Hanover, including the kitchen garden, should be added to the ground now open to the public, and would suggest to the noble Lord to set on foot a negotiation with that Sovereign to induce him to give up the garden.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHobserved, that the collection left by the late Mr. Clowes, 332 with the collection formerly given by the liberality of the Duke of Bedford, made the botanical repositories at Kew more complete in the department of orchideous plants than any other in the world.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the vote of 17,709 to defray the expense of providing temporary accommodation for the Houses of Parliament,
§ MR. HUMEwished to ask if the noble Lord could tell him when he might expect the accounts called for by the House of the expense incurred for any buildings up to the present time; and also the estimate of the expenses that still remained. When such large sums were being voted year after year on account of temporary accommodations, it became a matter of great importance to know when they were likely to get into their new House, and if they were ever likely to get into it. When the accounts of which he spoke were prepared, it would be his duty to recommend the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the reasons why so long a period had been spent in finishing a building which should have been finished, according to the pledge given, two or three years ago. As matters looked now, he apprehended it would not be finished till they had all gone from the scene.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHcould speak with greater confidence of the time when the accounts were to be produced than of the time at which they were likely to get into the new House. The accounts were very voluminous and searching, and required a little time in the preparation, but not so long a time as the hon. Member expected.
§ SIR R. INGLIShoped that he should succeed in obtaining the sanction of the Government to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the Cause of the delay in the completion of the new Houses of Parliament. It appeared to him, that unless the House of Commons took some active steps in the matter, they would never be introduced into the House which was intended for their reception. They were put off from year to year by some fresh excuse. It was no exaggeration to say that, at that moment the architect was two years behind the time at which he promised to have the House finished. [Mr. HUME: Five years.] It was necessary for the House to interfere to compel the architect to get on with his work. The rapidity with which other great works were executed in London, put to shame the dilatory proceedings at the Houses of Parliament. 333 There could be no doubt, that if the persons engaged in building the Houses had a personal interest in the expenditure of the money, the result would be very different. In consequence of the delay in the completion of the building, it had been necessary to expend 200,000l. in providing temporary accommodation in connexion with the present Houses of Parliament.
§ DR. BOWRINGwished much to know by what mysterious influence the Lords had succeeded in getting into their apartment. The noble Lord said he could give that House no hopes, though they might get the accounts. He could not see that the preparations for the new House of Commons made any progress whatever from year to year; neither roof nor floor was there, or anything beyond the bare walls. He would ask if the Upper House was to be lodged in all its splendour, whilst the House of Commons was looking on? Very active influence, it was said, had been used on behalf of the Lords, which had succeeded in introducing them to their most splendid apartment—his hon. Friend said gorgeous, and everybody would admit that it was so. They could not learn on whom the matter depended, and he wished to know if there was any prospect of their being able to get in soon.
§ MR. GOULBURNthought there was a very obvious reason why the other House should get into their own apartment first. His hon. Friend would recollect that when the fire occurred, the House of Lords gave up their own chamber, in order to occupy one that was very confined and uncomfortable, in which that House discharged their functions very inconveniently during the time they occupied it. Whatever splendour there might be about their present chamber, no one would deny that it was, at least, more comfortable than the last, and he therefore did not think it expedient to urge the Government to too great hurry.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSremarked that, on inquiring as to the delay which had taken place with the new House, he was told that the architect was employed in executing some ten or twelve places in different parts of the country for noblemen and gentlemen. He thought it hardly fair that this great work should be suspended in order to enable their eminent architect to carry on his operations in various parts of the country at once. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir. R. Inglis) that, unless the House interfered, it was quite 334 uncertain whether they would have to wait five or ten years longer.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken in the observations he had made relative to the employment of the architect. He believed, if it was the wish of that House that extraordinary speed should be used in the construction of the new building, so that the House of Commons might be enabled soon to occupy their House, and if they were ready to grant the money for that purpose, the architect would not have the smallest objection to having the work finished in the shortest possible time within which it could be completed. He was very much of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Lords naturally wished to get into their House as soon as possible, on account of the great inconveniences to which they were subjected in their former place of meeting. He did not feel that there was such great inconvenience in the present House of Commons; on the contrary, he thought it very convenient; and though he had no doubt that the architect would proceed with the building, he did not see any reason for extraordinary hurry.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ The next vote proposed was 150,000l. for the expense of the works on the new Houses of Parliament, beyond what has been already provided for by votes.
§ MR. WILLIAMSobjected to the enormous and extravagant expense of 40,000l. which had been incurred for the interior fitting-up the gaudy room in which the Lords sat. Mr. Barry cared nothing for the public purse; his only object was to glorify himself. He had understood, also, that fees were demanded from the public for visiting the House. ["No, no!"] He believed it was so; and if the public were called upon to pay at such a rate for the building, they ought at least, to be admitted to see it without the slightest charge.
§ MR. PROTHEROEthought Mr. Barry did not deserve the treatment he had received from the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams). Mr. Barry had only carried out in the best manner the design approved by the parties in whose hands was placed the selection. He (Mr. Protheroe) thought it an unfortunate selection, and the style adopted the most inconvenient for the purpose, at the same time that it was the most expensive. He thought no one who looked at the range of magnificent fretwork which the exterior exhibited 335 could doubt its expensive character; and for himself, notwithstanding its beauty, he should have preferred something more simple—something in the Italian style. He believed, however, that the present style was in accordance with the taste of the nation, and that no objection would be made to the expense. Mr. Barry had had no other object, he was quite sure, than that of carrying out the views of those who had adopted his designs.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, Mr. Barry pledged himself to keep within the original estimate of 750,000l.; but the first plan had been departed from, and for this he blamed the different heads of the department of Woods and Forests, who had the controlling power; one of the Chief Commissioners signed some of the altered plans, under the belief that they were the original designs. None of these officers seemed to have been able to exercise any power over the architect; and the whole must be considered the exclusive work of Mr. Barry. It was not the expense he (Mr. Hume) lamented so much as the failure of the building to secure the objects for which it was intended. It would be a failure internally and externally. There was only one part of it where the sun could enter from June to December, the south-west, and there an immense tower was to be built, as if for the purpose of keeping the sun out; the House would never be either dry or comfortable. He wished to know in whose hands the warming and ventilation were placed. The Committee was called on to vote 42,000l. on account; he must ask if Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid had agreed as to the plans? The noble Lord only hoped they might agree; but were the public to be kept at bay in this manner? It appeared to him that Mr. Barry bad treated the heads of the Woods and Forests like a parcel of children; none of them had dared say nay to him. It was time to change this system; and he advised the noble Lord to take some steps to have the matter settled. He understood that Dr. Reid's plans had been altered; if that was the case, whose plan had been taken?
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid, the original estimate of Mr. Barry was understood to refer only to the carcase of the building, not to the interior. He must also state that the department of Woods and Forests had never been invested by the House with any discretion or judgment as to the works; it had only the power of checking the accounts. With respect to the dispute be- 336 tween Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid, shortly after he came into office he perceived that if left to themselves they were not likely to come to any satisfactory mode of proceeding; he had therefore desired Dr. Reid to make out his plans in detail; they had just been completed, and were now submitted to Mr. Barry, and he hoped he would be able to carry them into effect without further dispute. He thought it an unfortunate arrangement to have originally given a concurrent authority to two persons, and he had done his best to obviate the inconvenience of it.
§ MR. B. ESCOTTthought the delay arose, in a great measure, from the highly ornamented style of the building; if consistently with its character this excess of ornament could be avoided in the rest of the fabric, a large part of the public would be better satisfied. He thought the style adopted, the Perpendicular Gothic, the worst that could have been fixed on. The Old English style would have been preferable; but if the former must be continued throughout the building, he hoped the architect, in finishing the House of Commons, would dispense with that enormous quantity of painting and gilding that disfigured the House of Lords.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHmust observe, that as the House of Lords was the place of meeting of the Three Estates of the Realm, it had been decorated with more splendour than it was intended to employ in the House of Commons; that would be fitted up in a much plainer style; he believed gilding would be abstained from altogether; and, in short, the decorations would be such as to suit better with their simpler and severer taste.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the vote 1,140,000l. on account of constructing harbours of refuge,
MR. FITZROYbegged to call the attention of the House to a subject of the greatest importance, namely, the defenceless state of the south coast of England; in proof of which he need scarcely do more than refer the House to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty, by whom it was fully admitted. There were two points, however, to which he would beg the attention of the House: firstly, the immense amount of property and large numbers of inhabitants in towns and villages on the sea shore now exposed to danger from invasion by a foreign foe and from the inclemency of the weather; and, secondly, that Newhaven 337 was the best and most available point at which protection could be given, and that too at a smaller cost than at any other point. In reference to the first statement, it appeared, contrasting the houses and inhabitants on the coast in 1841, when the last returns were made, with what they were in 1811, that in both respects the increase had been fourfold at least. Newhaven had many peculiar advantages, both as a harbour of refuge, and as a point at which a war steamer might be stationed. Great loss of time would also be saved to the mercantile navy, and great loss of property avoided, as there was no place on the coast at which to put in, either to escape danger from bad weather or an enemy. The roads might be deepened and kept clear at a very small expense, so as to admit large vessels. It was easy to be seen in working up the Channel, having near it, as a guide, a remarkable and well-known headland; and it was a place from whence there was an admirable look-out to seaward. It had been said, by the highest possible authority, that the greatest danger from an enemy might be apprehended from the peculiar fitness of this very coast for the landing of cavalry and artillery, the open country around supplying forage for the horses. Newhaven was, moreover, but thirty-six hours march from London; and therefore on that account ought to be placed in a state of defence. Being now but a journey of an hour and a half by rail from the metropolis, it was also an admirable depôt for coal for the war-steamers, the supply inland being so quick and certain. In reference to the cost, he stated that the debt on the harbour had been reduced from 13,800l. to 4,900l.; and that when they had discharged this private obligation they were willing to place the surplus at the disposal of Government. Several high authorities had recommended Newhaven as a harbour of refuge; and it was now better than ever in consequence of the improvements projected, and in course of execution by the railway company. He therefore did not think he was asking too much, if he asked the appropriation of a small sum to be applied to the deepening of the harbour, so as to admit war-steamers. The opinion of Captain Washington, Mr. Walker, Sir John Rennie, and the other gentlemen of great scientific attainments who had examined the harbour, had borne witness to its value as a harbour of refuge. The reports of the Commissioners who had been appoint- 338 ed on two different occasions, unanimously agreed that the harbour of Newhaven was the most important on the south coast. The expense, according to the estimate of Mr. Walker, would not exceed 150,000l., to be extended over a period of three years. He did not call upon them at this moment to vote any large sum; but he considered that a grant of 40,000l. at present would recognise the principle, and at the same time go far towards the establishment of not only a harbour of safety, but a harbour of defence also at Newhaven. While pressing upon them the necessity and expediency of expending a sum for a purpose not hitherto authorized by Parliament, he could not lose sight of the more powerful argument, that the expense entailed upon us by a war would far exceed any sum which we could expend upon such a purpose. He would not propose a vote for the purpose in the regular way, but he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not lose sight of the suggestion; and that if he were not prepared at this moment to adopt the suggestion, he would at least give a promise to consider the matter next Session, and thus assert the principle of protecting the property along our coast, and defending our shores from foreign invasion.
§ MR. H. CURTEISwas not disposed to withhold from the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Captain Fitzroy) the credit to which he was justly entitled for advocating so ably the claims of Newhaven harbour to a Government grant; but, although he had paid great attention to his speech, he had not heard a single word said about the desirability of voting a sum of public money to improve the harbour of Rye, in which he (Mr. Curteis) was interested. He did not wish to be understood as opposing any grant of the public money towards improving the harbour of Newhaven, but merely wished to direct the attention of the Government to the case of Rye harbour, which was well worthy of notice.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was true that the Government had thought it their duty to improve the defences of the coast of this country; but it must be remembered that the Commissioners, in their report, spoke of Dover as being the most important to be attended to; and Seaforth came after that, and before Newhaven. It would be better to act upon that report, and take the harbours in some sort of order, than to adopt the suggestion 339 of any hon. Member as to a particular harbour; for if they did not, they would have other hon. Members rising up, and each advocating the necessity of making a grant to any harbour with which he might happen to be connected.
§ DR. BOWRINGbegged to inquire whether, among the various and multitudinous subjects which claimed the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his attention had been directed to the harbour of Douglas?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that many representations had been made to him as to the necessity of fortifying the harbours along the coast, in case of the possibility—he would not say the probability—of invasion by a foreign enemy; but that the impression was, that the south coast was the most important.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.