SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 16 June 1851 vol 117 cc787-842

Order for going into Committee of Supply read.

House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 97,747l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1852, the Expense of Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings, for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same, for the Rents of Houses taken for the occasional and temporary accommodation of the Public Service, for the Purchase and Repair of Furniture required in the various Public Departments, and for Services connected with the Lighting, Watching, and general protection of the Public Offices.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

objected to the Vote. He had given notice to the Woods and Forests so to prepare the Vote that the Committee might know what amounts were expended upon the palaces, and he had also given notice to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner (Lord Seymour) that he (Mr. W, Williams) should propose to defer the Vote. He hoped there would be no objection to that course, for the expenditure upon these Royal Palaces had been extravagant and wasteful, and some check ought to be put upon it by the Committee. It was monstrous to find that since the reign of George III. millions of money had been expended upon these palaces, and yet that the expenses were still going on year after year. There were no fewer than nine palaces maintained at the public expense, among which was Claremont, which was kept for the King of the Belgians. If the noble Lord would not consent to defer this Vote, he should divide the Committee on the question of a postponement of it until a statement of the particulars was made.

The CHAIRMAN

said, it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman to move a postponement. He might move the negative to the Vote.

MR. HUME

wished to put a question to the Government. Several petitions had been presented to that House, complaining of the interference with Kensington Gardens by the formation of a ride in them, and there was reason to complain of the inattention of a public officer to the request of many thousand persons. On a former occasion he had himself presented several petitions from the inhabitants of places near and round the Gardens, and of the parishes of Marylebone and Padding-ton, complaining of the interference of the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests (Lord Seymour) who without consulting any one on the subject, and entirely at his own will and pleasure, had made a horse-ride through Kensington Gardens. During the many years he (Mr. Hume) had been in Parliament, he had never before known so utter a disregard of a strong expression of public wishes and feelings as had been exhibited by the noble Lord and the Government on this matter. On a former occasion, he (Mr. Hume) had bowed to the decision of the House; but he now begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of these petitioners, whether the interruption which had taken place in Kensington Gardens would cease with the termination of the Great Exhibition, or whether there was to be a perpetual horse-ride through those Gardens? It was, he thought, but reasonable that an answer should be given to that question.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that, as far as it had gone, the accommodation was temporary, and was only to last during the time the Exhibition prevented persons riding in that part of the park which they had been accustomed to use; but he did not mean to imply that the same thing would not be done if a similar occasion should arise.

MR. HUME

said, the amount of the present Miscellaneous Estimates was 3,955,000l., inclusive of 100,000l. for Civil Contingencies. If the Government were anxious that the public should believe them to be sincere in their professed purpose of economising the money of the country, they would submit these Estimates every year to a Select Committee, before laying them before the House to be voted. These Estimates had increased from year to year to an enormous extent, and a large portion of them ought not to be made a charge on the public. He now wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the large amount, 97,000l. and more, for the maintenance and repair of royal palaces. Why, an economical Government would consider if it were not possible to reduce a considerable number of these buildings. Last year he had objected to the vote for the building of stables for the young Prince of Wales, which he called a most improper vote, and he had next objected to the extravagant grant to the Duke of Cambridge. But the vote for stables for the young Prince was the ne plus ultra of extravagance. There was a charge of 2,615l. for Frogmore; now they were informed that Frogmore had been given to the Duchess of Kent, in addition to her large income from the public, and it appeared that there was a charge for some alterations there, and additions to luxury and enjoyment. He did not think the people ought to be taxed for such purposes, after so liberal an allowance had been granted to the Duchess of Kent; and when he said this, he must add, that there was no member of the Royal Family whose means or comforts he would less willingly circumscribe; but when a liberal income had been granted, he must object to after charges for alterations and improvements. This was a matter within the discretion of the Treasury, and therefore the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was the culprit, and not the persons who asked for the expenditure. Therefore he complained, the Duchess of Kent having an allowance, that the people of England were taxed for such things as he saw in this Vote. There was a charge for alterations of forcing-houses, for example, and other means for the luxurious enjoyment of the vegetable creation. He also objected to the people being charged with keeping up the buildings at Hampton Court and Kensington Palaces. At Hampton Court, indeed, there were public gardens, and no man was more sensible of the enjoyment the people had received from the opening of these gardens, and it was the last place concerning which he should be disposed to find fault; but when he saw a cost of 6,000l. for merely stables and outhouses, he could not refrain from directing public attention to such abuses. A Select Committee ought to be appointed to go through all these items, and see what charges were right, such as the reparation of the palace building, as distinguished from those charges which were for the private accommodation of the persons who were inmates. He appealed to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the public money was to be charged with the expense of the alterations desirable for the personal convenience of the inmates of Hampton Court. He must also notice the expenses at Kew, and wished to know what part of the expenses was really for the museum, and what was for private parties. Then there was the sum of 520l. for the houses of the Knights of Windsor. Why, an estate had been left to maintain the houses of the Knights of Windsor, but the Chapter of St. George's had got hold of the money. It was his wish that the Committee should inquire into the matter; and four years ago, the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty undertook to have an examination, because 3,000l. had been charged for alterations in the house of the knights. He repeated that these revenues had been absorbed by the clergy of the Chapter of St. George's, Windsor, and it was, therefore, a robbery upon the public to charge this sum upon them. He must also complain of the dilatory unwillingness displayed by the Government to inquire into any questions of this kind, if they affected the Church, or any part of the Royal Family. There being a leaning that way, all that he asked was, that a Committee should sit annually, and stand between the Government and the public, in order that proper economy should be observed. He objected to this 520l., and a variety of other charges, which he would not weary the patience of the Committee in going through. Whilst they were appointing a Committee in order to effect reductions in the judicial and official salaries, they were voting away a sum of 97,000l. for parks and gardens. It was a mockery to strike off small sums from salaries, and continue thus to waste the public money. He did not find any estimate set down on account of Richmond Park, and he wished to know whether any restrictions had lately been placed on the admission and enjoyment of strangers there? There was a charge for Greenwich Park, which had lately been put in order, very much to the credit of the present Ranger, and the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests. Every one must have known the disgraceful condition in which that park was formerly allowed to remain, although sums of public money had been regularly voted towards its repair. He had some time ago presented a petition to that House on the subject, but had not found it necessary to call attention to it, seeing that he had obtained a promise that the requisite improvements would be made. In reference to the charge for the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrews, he would have wished to know in what the repairs consisted—whether the money was expended on the buildings devoted to the purposes of public education, or on those set apart for the professors? There was also a strange item of 840l. for lighting and water rates for the house of the British Ambassador at Paris. He trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would grant a Committee for the purpose of going over these details before the sums were voted next Session.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had for many years complained that so much money was voted for the purposes of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, while the objects of science and education obtained so little of the grants of the House. Now, when a change had been made, and when a large sum had been devoted every year to educational and scientific establishments, and to parks and gardens for the recreation of the public, the hon. Member came down and complained of the items. Any hon. Member, on looking at these Miscellaneous Estimates, would find that although there was set down about 130,000l., which had not formerly come under that head, there was a diminution of the sum total to the extent of 117,000l. as compared with last year. This was a considerable reduction. The hon. Member had alluded to the sum of 2,615l., for Royal gardens at Frogmore, and had said it was unnecessary that so much expense should be incurred on account of the Duchess of Kent's residence. But this expenditure was not for the Duchess of Kent, it was for the garden that supplied the Royal table, which was likewise situated at Frogmore. If the hon. Member had paid attention to this matter, he would have known that a few years ago the Royal table had been furnished by several gardens distant from each other, and causing the outlay of considerable expense, which was to a great extent useless. His (Lord J. Russell's) late lamented Friend Lord Bessborough, when at the head of the Woods and Forests, had proposed that these various kitchen gardens should be given up, and that in place thereof one largo and complete kitchen garden should be made on the best principles at Frogmore. This had appeared to him to be a very economical plan; it had been adopted, and hence the expense. He did not think that it would serve any good purpose for a Committee to go through such items. What would the hon. Member think if the gardener should, in coming before such a Committee, state that there was not a sufficient quantity of early potatoes or strawberries, and that there were too few peaches and melons—would he contradict the assertion of the gardener, or give way to the additional expense? The hon. Member had expressed himself desirous to pay the greatest personal respect to the Duchess of Kent, and therefore he certainly ought not to have charged Her Royal Highness with the responsibility of an expense which was not incurred for her at all. The whole expense incurred on Her Royal Highness's account for Frogmore was 657l. for keeping in repair the residence. For a Committee to inquire into all these details every year, would not, he thought, be desirable. The Committee was fully aware of the principle on which the Estimates were made up. He must, however, beg the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) to observe that of late years additional provisions had been made for the public, and that considerable expense had been incurred on Hampton Court and other gardens. He would mention one item, for the hon. Member was willing to refer to all with which he could possibly find fault, although he forgot to notice where improvements had been effected. Considerable sums had been expended on the gardens at Kew; but that expense had been well repaid in the increased numbers which had flocked to visit the gardens, and in the care which was taken of the grounds. It appeared that in 1841 the number of visitors to the gardens had been 9,174, while in 1850 they had increased to 179,000, so that during last year 170,000 more persons had had the enjoyment, and, he hoped, many of them the instruction, of going to these gardens and getting away from the atmosphere of the metropolis. With respect to the other items to which reference had been made, he did not think it necessary that he should enter on them. With respect to Richmond Park he had to say that, generally speaking, the admission was much freer at present than it had been several years ago. Some years since (he did not recollect the precise year) an order had been made for the free admission of the public to the park; but a restriction had been placed on it, the object of which had been to prevent children from riding in the park on donkeys, this practice having prevailed to a considerable extent. He did think that such restrictions were unnecessary, and he understood that the present ranger, the Duchess of Gloucester, had given orders that this restriction should be done away with. As far as he knew, there was freer access to the enjoyments of the park than at any time heretofore.

MR. ELLICE

said, that he had been one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Royal gardens at the commencement of the present reign; and it was with him and his brother Commissioners that the recommendation had originated that the various gardens, at that time cultivated with but little advantage to, the Crown, should be consolidated and converted into one great garden at Frogmore; and that the gardens at Kew should be thrown open to the public. The kitchen garden at Kew had accordingly been given up—as also had the gardens at Hampton Court, so far, at least, as the supply of fruit to the Royal table was concerned, and improvements had been undertaken at Frogmore, in a style which gave great gratification to the public. The Commissioners examined several persons on the subject, among whom he might mention Sir William Hooker, and other eminent horticulturists, and it was under their advice that the present improved arrangements had been introduced. More had been done for the recreation and convenience of the public of late years in the Royal parks and gardens, than had ever been attempted before.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, he would thank the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, to inform him who were the Committee of taste who had given directions for erecting in front of Buckingham Palace, those two comical monsters, which were, he believed, designed to represent a lion and a unicorn? He had overheard two foreigners descanting on the hind-quarters of those eccentric creatures, and they appeared to derive infinite amusement from the contemplation of them. He begged leave respectfully to suggest, that the creatures should be removed from their present abode, and that they should be erected in the immediate vicinity of the stone statue of Britannia, which surmounted the east entrance of the National Gallery, and which, from its proximity to St. Martin's Church, was familiarly known as Betty Martin. There would then be a group of monstrosities, and every thing would be in keeping.

LORD SEYMOUR

could only say, that the heraldic ornaments referred to were made by the same person who had made many similar connected with the New Houses of Parliament; and, knowing that they had been entrusted to a person of so much experience, he (Lord Seymour) did not think it necessary to interfere in respect to the form in which the artist might deem it right to represent those animals.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

hoped there would be no objection to postpone this Vote until the return he had moved for was printed. The noble Lord had said that there was a reduction of 117,000l. on these estimates, as compared with last year. Now, he wished to direct attention to the amount of the Miscellaneous Estimates during the four Governments who held office prior to the present one. During the Duke of Wellington's Administration, in 1830, the expenditure under the head of Miscellaneous Estimates for that year was 1,950,000l.; in 1833, under Earl Grey's Administration, 2,007,000l.; in 1834, under Lord Melbourne's Administration, 2,061,000l.; and in 1835, under Sir Robert Peel's Administration, 2,144,000l. The amount for the same Estimates, under the economical Government of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was no loss than 3,948,000l. That was actually double the amount of the average of the four preceding Governments. He thought they had a right to inquire why these Miscellaneous Estimates were so far beyond those of previous Governments. The noble Lord had alluded to some of the items. He (Mr. W. Williams) would feel indebted if the noble Lord could justify such items as those for Dunfermline Abbey, Arbroath Abbey, Elgin Cathedral, Dundrennan Abbey, Dunblane Abbey, and St. Andrew's Cathedral. These were establishments which ought to be supported out of the ecclesiastical revenue, and have no business to be put down among the Miscellaneous Estimates. To the expenses set down for the Ecclesiastical Commission he had always taken exception. He wished to know why the country should be taxed for it, and why the expenditure should not he defrayed out of the revenues of the Church. Under one batch they had a charge of 69l. 9s. 2d. for the Ecclesiastical Commission, and under another an item for the same Commission of 511l. He would like to know why the public were burdened with this charge, and also why it was put down in two different places? He also objected to the item of 41,829l. for the parks and gardens. He again appealed to the noble Lord to postpone the vote.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the hon. Member had been absent for some time from the House, and did not appear to have acquired any information of what had been going on while he was away. The difficulty which presented itself to the hon. Member was susceptible of an easy and natural explanation, the fact being that, in strict compliance with the often-expressed desire of the House to that effect, various items which heretofore had been charged to the account of the Civil Service, and of the Land Revenue, were this year transferred to the account of the Miscellaneous Estimates. The hon. Gentleman, when he complained of the increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates, should recollect that a large expense was placed on them which formerly they used not to bear. The 300,000l. for Education constituted a new vote; and there was also to be taken into account 300,000l. or 400,000l. for Criminal Prosecutions, and some charges in reference to the Poor Law, he making altogether an amount of about 2,000,000l. of new charges put on the Miscellaneous Estimates by the wish and concurrence of the House. The 41,829l. for Public Parks and Gardens, which the hon. Member had represented as consisting of perfectly new items, was, in point of fact, composed of old charges, which heretofore had been defrayed out of the Land Revenue, but which wore now transferred to the Miscellaneous Estimates, in order that they might come regularly under the cognisance of Parliament.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

And it is so stated in a printed note at the foot of the Estimate page.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Just so. In order to prevent misapprehension, I directed that that note should be appended. It is certainly a little discouraging, that when we endeavour to carry out the wishes of the House, and do every thing in our power to make thing clear, we should be subject to charges which, I am sure, the hon. Member must himself admit, are not just.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that the remarks of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had completely established the necessity which existed for the production of the return prior to the vote; for if the return had been presented, he could not have fallen into any error on the subject.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, he was the cause of this Vote being entered on the Miscellaneous Estimates. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) would find that this sum of 41,829l. was not additional expenditure; but that such sums had hitherto been defrayed from the Land Revenue. He regretted that the other expenses of the Woods and Forests had not also been placed under the Miscellaneous Estimates; and 'when the Woods and Forests, &c. Bill came before the House, he would embrace the opportunity of referring more particularly to the matter. As a practical illustration of the benefit of placing these matters under the control of that House, he might state that this item of 41,829l. was less by 18 per cent than the amount for the same purpose during last year, and 30 per cent less than the sum for the year 1848.

MR. BRIGHT

wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the items of 840l. for lighting and water rates to the house of the British Ambassador at Paris. The Official Salaries Committee, last year, while discussing the subject of the French Embassy, had thought that it should be reduced from an embassy, and that the salary of the Minister, instead of being 10,000l. per annum, should be reduced to 5,000l. One argument against this arrangement was, that the house was so very large and costly, that it required something like 2,000l. per annum to defray the ordinary and inevitable expenses. He (Mr. Bright) was given to understand that the British Ambassador's house at Paris had cost about 40,000l., and that, with the expenditure which had from time to time been made on it, the total cost of it to the country was about 120,000l. There could be no doubt that the house was very much larger than was necessary, and in order to enable them to bring down the expenditure, the house ought to be sold, and a smaller one procured. If this were done, they might save as much every year as would defray these expenses, and prevent them being brought into the Miscellaneous Estimates.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

was aware that the hon. Member for Manchester regarded diplomatic establishments of any kind with very little favour, and would probably wish that there was none at all; but he (Viscount Palmerston) could not bring himself to believe that it would conduce to the honour or advantage of the country that they should be dispensed with. The Official Salaries Committee were of opinion that no diplomatic salary should exceed 5,000l. a year; but it was thought that it was not desirable that that principle should be applied to the Embassy at Paris. This decision appeared to him a very proper one, for it was not reasonable to expect that the representative of England in such a capital as Paris should live in a style suitable to his position on so small a salary as 5,000l. a year. The salary, however, was reduced irom 10,000l. to 8,000l., and thus a saving of 2,000l. a year was effected to the public. It had been suggested whether it might not be possible to lessen the expense of the embassy by selling the present residence of the British Ambassador, and purchasing another house of more moderate proportions; but he did not believe that that experiment would be found to answer the purpose. A house of that description would sell for next to nothing in Paris, for it was not the description of residence that would suit the generality of French gentlemen. He was pursuaded that, to sell the present house, and to hire or purchase another adequate to the purposes of the embassy, would be a losing transaction. The house was not larger or better than those occupied by the representatives of other nations; and he certainly did not think it was befitting that the British Ambassador should have an inferior dwelling. He could assure the hon. Member, that it was a very great mistake to suppose that the recent change in the form of government in Franco had diminished the expense or reduced the style of living in Paris. The very reverse was the fact. Several French gentlemen who had recently come to this country to visit the Exhibition, and for other purposes, had assured him, that there never was a winter in which the style of living in the French capital was more expensive than last winter. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy, had not materially interfered with the social habits of the country. On the contrary, there never was a period when what the French called luxe was more prevalent in Paris.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that in the Official Salaries Committee, last year, there had been a difference of opinion as to the sum which should be paid to the British Ambassador at Paris. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) had been in favour of 10,000l.; others were for 5,000l. Another proposal was, that it should be 8,000l. The reason why 8,000l. had not been at once consented to was, that it was thought impossible for the Ambassador to live in the present house on less than 10,000l., such was its magnitude. The Committee thought it would be the wiser course to sell the house, and procure one in accordance with the proposed salary. The noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary had proposed to maintain the embassy at 8,000l., and keep the present house, so that, he supposed, they were to have votes adding to the expense. For some years the establishment had not been maintained at loss than 14,000l., whereas one-half of that sum might have sufficed.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that he had not been present in Committee when this matter was discussed. Afterwards, however, in discussing the subject the Government had thought it desirable to keep up the embassy, and reduce the salary to 8,000l.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, that with all their professions of economy, no set of men had been more extravagant than the present Government. They cared no more for the pockets of the people than the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department evinced the other night for the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, and that that was not much was proved by the fact of their having rejected his Bill for putting down barrel organs and advertising vans. They cared nothing about economy. The people's money was expended without consideration at a period when the agriculturists were starving. Even the artisans were now in deep distress, and for that they had to thank that infernal Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. He believed many of the Estimates which were brought before them professedly for the accommodation of Her Majesty, were incurred and brought forward without Her Majesty's knowledge or consent. He was not against any reasonable expenditure for the enjoyment of the Sovereign; but he objected to extravagance, and in these times he did not think extravagance should be encouraged.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

wished to know from the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests how the expenditure in his department for furniture was greater in proportion than that of any other public department? He found in the Estimates a sum of 978l. for furniture for the offices of Woods and Forests; while the expenditure for the Home Office was 123l., and that for the Foreign Office 307l., and all the other public offices less in the same proportion.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the reason was, that the office had become more extensive. One of the Commissioners, who had a house attached to the office, had left it, and the house had been converted into additional offices, which were much required, and had necessarily to be furnished.

MR. VERNON SMITH

did not think it would be judicious to have a Committee to inquire into the expenses contained in the estimates under their consideration, for the Members of the House had no means of knowledge on the subject of many of the items. He was glad to observe that in the Estimates of the expenses of the Royal Palaces, a distinction had been made between those which were for the accommodation of Her Majesty, and those which had been appropriated to the gratification and inspection of the public. In consequence of the two having formerly been mixed up together, an impression had gone abroad that all the items had been incurred for the accommodation of the Sovereign. There were one or two items, however, to which that observation did not apply. He could not understand why the item of 3,950l. for the palm-house at Kew should have been included in the Estimate of the expenditure on Royal Palaces, and he thought it should have been made a separate estimate; and he wished to know what was the cause of that large sum being proposed?

MR. ALEXANDER HASTIE

thought at least one of the sums proposed was too small—he meant that which was proposed for the cathedral of Glasgow. The citizens of Glasgow had appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) for funds to improve that ancient building, and he hoped that when the Vote came before the Committee next year a larger sum would be granted, to put the cathedral in proper repair.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that with regard to the vote of 3,950l. for the palm-house at Kew, a very small portion of that sum, namely, 100l. was for the palm-house for a new staircase, as that had become necessary in consequence of the additional number of visitors who resorted to the gardens. The chief item of expenditure in the vote was for erecting a house for the Victoria Regia, and most of the other items were also for new works.

MR. BANKES

said, this appeared to him to be an enormous charge; the Victoria Regia was a fine plant certainly, but he hardly thought it deserved such an outlay as this. He wished to know if a new house was about to be added to the office of Woods and Forests: the house at the extremity of Whitehall was Crown property, and therefore did not appear in the estimates, yet the loss of the rent was a loss to the public, and this was a valuable house. For some time public officers were accommodated with houses on Crown property, which ought to pay a rent to the public. He thought the rent of these houses ought to appear in the Estimates.

LORD SEYMOUR

quite agreed with his hon. Friend that when a house was taken from the public, the rent should appear and be voted by Parliament. If his hon. Friend looked at page 7, he would find the rent of every house that was taken, as well as the house in question was, put down there. He did not think it could be given more clearly.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, it appeared to him there was a much stronger reason why the rents of these houses should be placed in the Estimates, because these houses were Crown property, and in the event of the decease of the Sovereign would revert to the Crown.

MR. HUME

thought the best course would be to sell these houses in Whitehall Place, as that would be the best way to prevent abuses. He wished to notice one or two observations of the noble Lord (Lord Seymour). If the noble Lord supposed that he (Mr. Hume) had not read these Estimates, he would rather return the compliment to him, and say that the noble Lord had not read them. This was the only country in the world where the Estimates were not gone through annually by a Select Committee. He saw a former Chancellor of the Exchequer shaking his head; but the time had gone by when they could put a stop to such a thing, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer shaking his head. He was of opinion that all the Estimates ought to be submitted to a Committee of the House before they were presented for the sanction of the House. He would not throw all the labour upon one Committee, but several Committees might be appointed for the different departments. While he was anxious to vote any possible indulgence to the Sovereign, there was a limit to extravagance beyond which the people would not go. The House of Com- mons was hound to act as trustees of the public, and it was their duty to jealously guard the national interests. He had always been in favour of bringing every item in the Estimates before the House. Lot the Chancellor of the Exchequer go over to Belgium for a week, during the examination of the estimates there. He (Mr. Hume) had been in the Belgian Assembly, and he must say he never saw private individuals look more closely into their own accounts, than did the Members of that Assembly into the public accounts. He believed a more economical Government did not exist than that of Belgium, and he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take a leaf out of their book. If he (Mr. Hume) lived another year, and had a seat in that House, he would see if he could not got the Government to submit the Estimates to a proper Committee.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, he found that in 1849–50 there were two items of 6,550l. and 10,000l., and since then there had been other items, making altogether 34,143l. for the supply of water to Windsor Castle. He wished to know if they had come to an end of that expenditure. He believed that these included some other items, which were insidiously lumped together; but if he took them out the total expenditure for water would still be 30,000l.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, this would be the last expenditure for this purpose. It was for the construction of a large reservoir to preserve the Castle from fire.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, he did not grudge the expenditure for Windsor Castle so much as he did that for other palaces, because he believed it was the only one worthy of the name of a Royal Palace; but he did consider this an enormous expenditure for the supply of water. He wished to make a few observations with regard to the item of 550l. for the repair of the houses of the Military Knights of Windsor. This was one of the abuses which was a great scandal to the Church, the intentions of the founder having been entirely disregarded and set aside by the Dean and Canons of Windsor, who had appropriated the property to themselves. It was perfectly well known to every Member of that House that certain sums had boon voted at various times for this purpose; but it was not so well known that there were certain charity trusts out of which these expenses ought to come. Edward VI., Queen Elizabeth, and James I., set apart property to provide the military knights with a proper and sufficient maintenance, and to repair their houses in case of need. It was perfectly manifest that this must have been the case, for in the reign of Queen Mary, in five subsequent years, the total amount of these revenues was set apart for building these houses; and it was perfectly clear, if the revenues were applied to such a purpose, that the military knights were entitled to receive proper pay from the dean and canons, which they did not. All that the dean and canons allowed them was one shilling a day; just one-half that which was given to agricultural labourers. Was that honest or just? The military knights were founded upwards of 500 years ago, at the same time that the Knights of the Order of the Garter were founded, to whom they were an appendage. The evident intention of the founder was to provide for such old soldiers as had served him during the war; but Edward III., in an evil hour, placed these unfortunate knights under the care and superintendence of the dean and canons of Windsor, uniting them as a corporation, of which the knights formed a component part. Now, whilst the revenues of the dean and canons of Windsor had increased tenfold, they had left these unfortunate men with a shilling a day, and they did not repair the houses the knights lived in, but made them a burden on the public. He considered this a very gross case; and that if they were to lump together the whole of the Estimates, they would not find a grosser case of misappropriation of public property. It was not his intention, however, to take up the time of the Committee with it now, as he had a Motion on the subject for next Tuesday; but he should confine himself at present with moving that this sum of 550l. be disallowed.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 97,197l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1852, the Expense of Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings, for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same, for the Rents of Houses taken for the occasional and temporary accommodation of the Public Service, for the Purchase and Repair of Furniture required in the various Public Departments, and for Services connected with the Lighting, Watching, and general protection of the Public Offices.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that as the hon. and gallant Member had given notice of a Motion on this subject for Tuesday next, he would abstain from entering into the general question, and would only say that if the vote were disallowed the knights would have to pay the money out of their own pockets, as the disallowance of the vote would not throw the burden on the dean and chapter.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, that was not the case. He denied that the knights could he called upon to pay it. The Poor Knights strongly objected to this money being laid out. He had presented a petition, in which the electors of Windsor complained of this grievance. It was a gross robbery upon the taxpayers of this country. The sum ought to come out of the revenues of the estates, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to see that that was done.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that when he said the Poor Knights would have to pay the money out of their own pockets, he meant if the houses were repaired at all. The consequence of disallowing the vote would be that the houses would not be repaired. With regard to the general question, he was bound to say it was a strictly legal question, and it would take a great deal of time to go into it now. The matter had been inquired into by a former Government, who put a case before their law officers (the late Sir William Follett and the present Chief Baron), who were of opinion that Government would not be justified in interfering with it, and that if the claim were substantiated at all it must be in a Court of Law, and not in the House of Commons.

COLONEL SALWEY

wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would lay that opinion on the table of the House? When he had mentioned this before, he bad always been met by the observation that it was a law case; but he denied that it was, and must insist upon dividing the Committee.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

suggested, if they were to have the subject brought before the House on a future occasion, it was of no use having a division now.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, he preferred taking a division now. He would beg to read the various amounts voted within the last few years for this purpose. In 1840–41, the vote was 700l.; in 1843–44, it was 3,100l.; in 1846–47, 2,000; in 1847–48, 1,200l.; in 1848–49, 896l.; in 1849–50, 1,290l. making 9,186l.; and now they asked for 550l. more.

MR. HUME

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had, on a former occasion, engaged to inquire into the subject; but nothing had been done. He had seen opinions just as strong as those which the Lord Chief Baron and the late Sir William Follett had given, in favour of the claims of the military knights. He hoped the Government would not refuse to give a copy of the case, and the opinion of counsel, as the time had come when justice ought to be done to the Poor Knights.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

thought this question required very careful attention on the part of the Committee. He was sure the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Salwey) would agree with him, that the officers who received the benefit of this charitable institution were entitled to the consideration of that House. It was a most beneficial institution, intended for officers broken down by ago and unfortunate circumstances, and was in the nature of honourable relief; and he did not believe the hon. and gallant Member would say that in the distribution of this reward there had been anything partaking of the nature of favouritism or unfairness, for it was Her Majesty's instruction that reference should be made to the Horse Guards, and the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief taken as to the officers on whom the favour should be conferred. When he (Sir J. Graham) was Secretary of State, this case was distinctly brought under his notice by a petition to the Crown from the knights, and his own impression was favourable to the knights as against the Dean and Chapter. He directed a case to be prepared, stating all the facts, and to be laid before the then law advisers of the Crown, the present Lord Chief Baron and the late Sir William Follett. The case was prepared with the utmost care, and he (Sir J. Graham) was responsible for the impartiality with which the facts were brought under their notice. They gave it their most anxious attention, and gave an elaborate opinion upon it. He believed it was not usual to produce to the House the opinions of the law officers of the Crown when taken, and he did not think it would be advisable to break through that precedent; but he had a distinct recollection having felt a great interest in the matter, that the law officers were of opinion that no claim at law could be substantiated by the Poor Knights of Windsor against the Dean and Chapter. If that opinion was well founded, what were they about to do? It was quite clear that the knights were unable to repair the houses themselves; and, if the opinion he had referred to was correct, the Dean and Chapter could not be compelled to do it. If, then, the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member were successful, the effect would be that the houses would remain without repair, and from their antiquity would soon become uninhabitable. It was a question, then, whether the House of Commons would exercise this great and beneficial charity at the small sum now asked from them.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, under all the circumstances of the case, as he was to bring the question before the House tomorrow week, he would not divide the Committee on the present occasion.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he had told his hon. and gallant Friend that they could not produce the confidential opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) 41,829l. for defraying the expenses of the Royal Parks, Pleasure Gardens, &c.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, that nothing was further from his wish than to carp at this vote; but he wished to ask his noble Friend at the head of the Woods and Forests why Richmond Park, Hampton-court Park, and Bushy Park were left out of the list?

LORD SEYMOUR

replied that no great expense had been incurred in Hampton-court Park, nor had any great outlay been made in Richmond or Bushy Parks.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

was surprised to hear a statement of that nature from his noble Friend, because he held in his hand a report from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests of last year, in which he found a declaration that the expenses of Richmond Park alone amounted to 5,170l.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

must remind the noble Lord (Lord Seymour), that what might be an inconsiderable sum to him, might be a large one to the public. For his own part, he (Colonel Sibthorp) would be very sorry to trust his private purse to the management of the Woods and Forests. In addition to the estimate for Kensington Gardens, there was, on another page, a sum for taking down the brick wall on the north side, and replacing it with iron rails. Why were not all these items put together? Dividing them in this manner looked very much like a double-dealing mode of proceeding. After so much money had been collected for their trumpery glass palace, he should have thought they would have had some to spare, and a little of it might have been given to the Poor Knights of Windsor. The public had been shamefully robbed of their rights in Hyde Park by the erection of this trumpery glass house which occupied so large a space. No Government but that which was now in office would have dared to rob the public as they had done. The public had been told that they were not to pay for that national insult—the Great Exhibition, but he found a charge in the Estimates of 1,065l. 17s., as the "expenses of the Commission for the Promotion of the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations." Faugh! He despised that building. While on this subject he would take the opportunity of saying that the statement which had been inserted in the newspapers to the effect that he had visited the Exhibition was wholly untrue. He had never been in it nor near it; and he never meant to go near it, unless it should be necessary to protect Her Majesty's subjects, in which case he should most zealously press the argumentum baculinum on the attention of the unruly. He loved the people of England, and he had a right to love them; and therefore it was that he felt compelled to set his face against the Exhibition, for he looked upon it as a cruel infringement upon their rights, a shameful robbery of our native industry, and a gross insult to the public.

MR. HUME

wished to know whether it was true that Richmond Park had been of no expense during the past year. He rose, however, principally to ask what was meant by the "department of the ranger," for which there was a charge of 1,480l. in the estimate; and then again, there was a charge of 3,000l. for altering and widening the roads in Hyde Park. Now, having gone all round the park, he knew of no alteration except the removal of the marble arch, which certainly would not cost so much as 3,000l.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, he must complain that no satisfactory answer had been given to his question, why Richmond, Hampton Court, and Bushy Parks had been left out of this estimate. He had already stated that 5,170l. had been spent on Richmond Park last year, and on examining the report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests he found that Bushy and Hampton Court Parks had cost 2,699l. last year. He wished to know whether it was intended not to incur any expense in this respect during the present year, or whether the expenses were to he defrayed out of the land revenues?

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that when this estimate was to he framed, he had desired that it should he prepared in conformity with the Bill of last year, by which it was proposed that the office of the Woods and Forests should he divided, intending at that time to deal with the parks to which the noble Lord had specifically referred out of the land revenues. When, however, he came to look at the Bill himself, he thought that as Richmond Park, Hampton Court Park, and Bushy Park were more for the use of the public than the Crown, they ought to he inserted in the Bill, and he had accordingly done so, and meant next year to include them in the Estimate with the other Royal parks and pleasure gardens. With regard to the subject of the ranger's department, he begged to say that the ranger received nothing for himself, but there were gatekeepers, and other expenses incurred in the park, which were paid through the ranger, and this made up the charge in the question. With regard to the altering and widening the roads in Hyde Park, the Estimate did not include any portion of the expense of removing the marble arch, but related to an alteration of the roads near the Serpentine, which it had long been thought desirable to widen. It had been thought desirable, also, as the price of iron was low at present, to substitute an iron for the wooden railing now there, which otherwise must soon be replaced by oak at a considerable increase of cost.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

believed that a great deal of the public money was wasted in the maintenance of men, who were what used to be called "Lincoln green;" but what he supposed would now be styled "Seymour green," they had nothing to do but to walk up and down the parks. In this Vote there were charges for parochial rates, tithes, and lodges. The Committee, perhaps, was not aware that, connected with the Royal parks, there were no fewer than 130 buildings, called by the modest name of lodges, although some of them were splendid mansions, which might be occupied by first-rate nobility. He understood that all these lodges were public property that had been surrendered to the Crown in consideration of the granting of the civil list. He wished to know whether the tithes, parochial rates, and other taxes of these mansions, occupied by noblemen, were paid out of the public purse. He had no doubt that they were. He observed a charge of 5,007l. for Regent's Park. He lived in that neighbourhood, and was determined to keep a sharp lookout upon the expenditure of the public money in respect to that park. If he looked at the charges for paving, cleansing, watering, and lighting Regent's Park, he found that they were a third more than the charges for the same duties for the parish of Marylebone; so that the inhabitants of Regent's Park had to pay one-third more for work that was better done by the parochial authorities of Marylebone. He wished to know whether any credit was given for the sums received for pasturage in the parks?

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the money received for pasturage was paid into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams) could obtain full information on that head by a diligent perusal of the Estimates. He (Lord Seymour) was determined to reduce the expenditure in respect to the parks, to the lowest amount consistent with their maintenance in such a manner as would render them fit for public use.

MR. HUME

wished to know whether there was a deputy ranger, and, if so, what salary he received?

LORD SEYMOUR

There is a deputy ranger, but he has no salary—he has a small cottage in the park.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

thought that a sum of 10,976l. was a large sum to be expended in keeping up St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks, and wondered how all the money was spent.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, be could furnish the hon. Member with every item, if he wished for it. Expenses were incurred for gravel, hire of horses, rolling of paths, watering by contract, gatekeepers, constables, &c,

MR. HUME

wished to call the attention to the charge of 2,347l. for laying out, improving, and making available to the public, the grounds on the south side of Chelsea Hospital. He was far from objecting to the charge; quite the contrary, indeed; but he wished for some explanation on the subject.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that the hon. Member was probably aware that the gardens of Chelsea Hospital had lately been thrown open to the public, and it was now proposed to fill up the canals which lay between the hospital and the river, and which made the place unhealthy, and to plant the ground so obtained.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

begged to state that when the late Governor of Chelsea Hospital died, he (Lord John Russell) had written to the Duke of Wellington to say that it was the opinion of the Woods and Forests that the gardens ought to be thrown open to the public. In that opinion the Duke of Wellington concurred; and in filling up the vacant appointment such an arrangement was made that the gardens were thrown open to the public. His noble Friend (Lord Seymour) had now brought forward this estimate with the view of fully carrying out the original plan.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

wished to know whether the expenses attending the removal of the marble arch had been kept within the Vote of 4,000l. granted for the purpose last year?

LORD SEYMOUR

replied that the Vote of last year had covered the entire expense of taking down the arch, removing it, and putting it up again.

MR. HUME

thought the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) deserved great credit in respect of the removal of the marble arch. The arch was now a great ornament to the neighbourhood in which it stood.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

, like many other hon. Gentlemen, felt considerable difficulty in attempting to criticise these Estimates. Nevertheless, he would venture to express his opinion, that the sum of 32,540l. for keeping St. James's, Hyde, the Green, Regent's, Victoria, and Greenwich Parks, in becoming condition, was extravagant. The expense of Holyrood Park was no more than 1,416l.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, Her Majesty had evinced a very laudable desire to grant every reasonable accommodation to Her wealthy subjects dwelling in the precincts of Pimlico, by permitting them to drive their carriages through Stable-yard and St. James's Park to Pimlico. Now, the privilege which had been granted would be considerably enhanced if permission was also given to people in hackney coaches to drive over the same route. Hackney cabs were already permitted to pass through Birdcage-walk.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

had no objection to the suggestion of the lion, and gallant Member (Colonel Salwey) being adopted, as to the passage of hackney cabs through St. James's Park, by way of Stable-yard; but he should object to the increased expenses of road repairs, which would evi- dently result from such a concession being defrayed out of the land revenues of the Crown.

MR. HUME

said, that at present the accommodation was only afforded to one class. If it were extended to all the public, it would be a legitimate subject for the expenditure of the public money.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

doubted whether it was advisable to open the drive to omnibuses, which, of course, would be the case if Mr. Hume's observations were carried out.

COLONEL SALWEY

only asked for the same amount of indulgence as was granted in the Birdcage-walk, where omnibuses were not admitted.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) 3,529l. for the expense of providing temporary accommodation for the Houses of Parliament, &c.

MR. HUME

said, that 1,000l. was charged for cleaning the House of Commons. That was to say, 1,000l. was charged for lifting up and cleaning about once a week the mat which covered the floor of the House.

LORD SEYMOUR

I believe the mat is taken up every night.

MR. EWART

said, that as long as they adopted the ascending system of ventilating in that House, so long would they have an enormous sum to pay for cleaning. The House of Lords was ventilated by the descending system, and there was therefore no such charge as 1,000l. for cleaning the House of Lords.

MR. BRIGHT

wanted to know why the country was to be mulcted of the large sum of 500l. every year to provide a house for the Clerk of the House? There were many gentlemen of large private fortunes who never thought of paying half so much rent for their houses. Why, then, were Members to be called upon to pay this preposterous rent for the accommodation of one of their servants? If the clerk wanted to have a house of 500l. a year, by all means let him have it; but let him pay the difference between that amount and a reasonable sum to be allotted by the House out of his own pocket.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was impossible for a gentleman to rent a furnished house at all in the neighbourhood of Parliament for less than 500l. per annum.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) 116,385l. for the Works of the New Houses of Parliament.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, that some time ago the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) had stated, in answer to a question, that the New House would be ready for occupation immediately after the Whitsuntide recess. He now wished to know when there was a prospect of getting into their new House, or whether there was any prospect at all?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not think they could occupy the New House of Commons during the present Session; but it was desirable that they should have one or two experimental sittings in the new building before the Session closed, in order to see how far the new arrangements answered the purposes for which they were intended.

MR. WAWN

had been told, that from 14,000l. to 20,000l. had been expended in making alterations in the New House since the vote granted last year. He wished to know whether he had been rightly informed, or whether the expenditure had exceeded the Vote which had been agreed to last year?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Only 8,000l. had been expended in alterations since the granting of the last Vote, which was either 14,000l. or 16,000l., he did not remember which.

MR. HUME

said, this was a proof of the advantage which would have arisen from referring the matter to a separate Committee. The way in which this business had been conducted was literally a farce. They were now asked to vote 67,800l. "on account of the carcase works of the buildings generally, and for the ordinary finishings of the official residences for the Speaker and other officers." Then there was a further sum of 11,200l. "on account of contingent works external to the buildings." What were those external contingent works? For "warming and ventilating works" another 8,000l. was asked, after the expenditure of so many thousands on the same object. For "fittings, fixtures, and furniture," there was an item of 13,500l.; "for superintendence and contingent expenses," 9,500l.; "on account of new arrangements in Dr. Reid's apparatus," &c, 1,105l.; and "the salaries of Dr. Reid and his assistants," 1,280l. It was stated in a note to this Estimate that the ornaments were to be finished in nine years from the 1st of April, 1851, which would be in 1860—would the House not be ready for permanent occupation till then? Nothing could be more dis- creditable to the character of the House of Commons than the erection of these buildings. Had they taken his advice four or five years ago, and removed Mr. Barry, the entire buildings would now have been finished; as it was, he had no hope of ever seeing them completed, so long as the architect was permitted to spend the public money in building roofs that were useless, then taking them down, getting fresh money voted, and putting up other experimental roofs—all in defiance of the wishes of the House. He blamed the Government, and more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it was on them the responsibility rested, and not on the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene). The total cost would very nearly approach 2,000,000l.; and after all this expenditure there was not an apartment in the whole building fit for occupation. The new roof that had been put into the House of Commons quite destroyed the effect of the architecture; and yet the architect was supposed to be a man of taste, and to carry out everything conformable to his design. It would be necessary to put new roofs to the whole of the committee-rooms, and to make an entresol in each; for nothing could be heard in them. Were they t o go on in this way, and allow themselves to be treated like a set of children, by an individual who had shown that he was utterly incapable of adapting the House to the purpose for which it was designed? The Government ought to take the matter into their hands, and to do as the late Lord Althorp did when he finished Buckingham Palace. He put in a new architect, Mr. Blore, who finished the work admirably, and was the only architect who had kept within his estimate. He would remove Mr. Barry. That was the only chance to get the works finished in four years.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, his hon. Friend would remember, that when the matter was before the House last Session, various alterations and improvements had been suggested in the new House of Commons, and had been adopted, very much for the convenience of hon. Members; and it was thought much bettor to have a small contingent fund, out of which to defray the cost of those alterations, than to throw them upon the Estimate, which had been voted for other purposes. He was not responsible in any way for the plan of this building; it had been settled by the Houses of Parliament who had taken it out of the hands of the then Government, and appointed their own Committee, and that Committee had settled the whole scheme. All that the Government could be responsible for was, the carrying out of the plan of the Committee. The alterations had been made, and they very fully carried out the intentions of the Committee.

MR. HUME

wanted to know what was the use of having an architect at all, if he would not act on the instructions given him? He had failed entirely, in every single department in the whole building. He defied any man to find a single apartment in the building that was suited to the purpose for which it was intended. It was a melancholy thing for the public to see money so misapplied.

MR. WAWN

said, the Government had tried to shift the responsibility upon a Committee, but he held that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for the money laid out in the last and present Session. If any public body had to raise a building, and were to act as that House had done, it would be an eternal disgrace to them.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, on referring to the Estimates of last year, he found that the sum voted for the alterations was 9,400l.

MR. WAWN

Will that meet the expenditure to the present time, or will any extra sum be required?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was understood to say, that from his last communication with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene), he was induced to believe that no further sum would be required.

Vote agreed to, as was—

(5.) 7,000l. For defraying the expense of the Erection of a General Repository for Public Records.

(6.) 61,481l. For Works at the New Packet Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that many objections had been made by the people of Dublin and Liverpool against the choice of Holyhead as a harbour of refuge. An inquiry took place, and a report was made, which still left the matter doubtful whether the harbour would be sufficient for the purpose. Some eminent engineers had stated that the total cost would be 1,800,000l. or 2,000,000l. Was it desirable to incur such a cost, and then be obliged to abandon the work? It was unexceptionable as a packet station, but as a harbour of refuge the report left many points in doubt. One great objection was the sands, which it was feared would gradually fill up the harbour. The Government should state distinctly whether they had such assurances on the subject that the harbour would answer its purpose, as would induce them to spend 2,000,000l. on it. He complained that the returns for which he had moved had not been produced.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there had been three or four Commissions and two Parliamentary Committees on this subject, by whom the claims of the competing harbours, and the expense that would be incurred, had been sifted to the utmost. The result of the Commission appointed in 1847, which reported in favour of the harbour as it stood, had been upon the whole confirmed. Then a Committee of that House had sat, with Sir Henry Ward, then Secretary of the Admiralty, as Chairman. They inquired with very great diligence, re-examined the whole matter, and came to an unanimous recommendation of the plan that had been acted upon since. He really did not know how it was possible to do more than had been done in this case. To stop to re-examine and re-investigate the matter, would be a great loss of money, with no probability of coming to any other conclusion than that which had been arrived at on five former occasions. He believed the works were progressing in a very satisfactory manner, and, as far as appeared, would be rather above than below the estimates that had been made. More could not be said in favour of any undertaking.

MR. HUME

said, it was desirable that the Government should send down a competent engineer to inquire into the progress of the works, and to ascertain whether the objections that had been made to the harbour really existed. He should ask them to do the same with reference to the next vote of 144,000l. for the Channel Islands, which he believed would be of no use whatever.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, if there were any reasonable ground for supposing that there was anything wrong, it would be a different matter, but that was not the case.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that the doubts which he entertained arose upon the report itself, which was not favourable. He wished to know if the 600,000l. originally proposed as sufficient, would cover the expense. Of this, one third was to be paid by the Chester and Holyhead Railway. Had that been paid?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied in the negative.

COLONEL DUNNE

supposed, therefore, that the whole would have to be paid out of the public purse. Every one who had seen the harbour doubted whether it would answer the purpose, even when the mole or breakwater was completed.

MR. O'FLAHERTY

said, it was most desirable to know whether Holyhead was to be made a packet station or a harbour of refuge. He would warn the Government not to expend much more money on it without a further report.

MR. WAWN

said, that whatever money was spent on this harbour, as a harbour of refuge, was absolute waste. As a packet station, it might answer very well.

MR. HUME

said, that by the original agreement the railway company was to contribute one-third the expense. As they were not now to do so, it was a question whether the whole expense should be taken by the Government.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company, in consequence of their utter inability to pay the sum in question, had been relieved from their liability by an Act of last Session.

MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH

thought, looking at the nature of the soundings which had been taken off Holyhead, and at the prevalent winds which blew in that particular part of the Channel, that that harbour would be perfectly useless for the purposes for which a harbour of refuge was required. The merchants of Liverpool objected to it. For his part he believed the scheme was an attempt to bolster up Holyhead harbour, in order to deprive the ports of Ireland of the natural advantages which they possessed.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that the Committee would recollect that in 1847 this question was investigated by a Commission of naval officers, and in the subsequent year a Committee of that House sat also upon it. They went into the whole subject, and reported unanimously and fully in favour of Mr. Rendell's plan and estimate for the harbour, both of which documents they had before them during their inquiry. Such being the result of these investigations, hon. Members representing the sister island now got up and said, their objection was that they were afraid this harbour was bolstered up for the purpose of depriving the harbours of Ireland of their natural advantages. They were afraid that this harbour would be employed as a packet station for America, in preference to Irish ports. That objection, however, he did not think any good reason for opposing this harbour, and he did not believe it would have the weight with the Committee which it was sought to give it.

MR. O'FLAHERTY

said, he had no doubt that, under colour of making this harbour of refuge, and establishing a communication with Ireland, the Government were laying out this money not for the professed object, but for an object that would hereafter appear.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 144,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year 1851, the Expense of constructing Harbours of Refuge.

MR. HUME

complained, that no statement was furnished to the Committee of the amount expended upon these harbours. It was true that a return had been made in March, 1850, but it was most unsatisfactory. The works for which this Vote was required—and especially those in the Channel Islands—were commenced at a time when the Government imagined that this country was in danger of an immediate invasion. He considered that the Vote ought to be postponed until they had some reports of the progress that had been made with these works, particularly in the Channel Islands.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the works at Harwich, one of the ports for which the Vote was required, consisted of dredging the harbour for the purpose of admitting vessels of larger size, and he did not know what further explanations could be given on that subject. He had stated last year, with regard to the works at Dovor, that they had been carried out about 800 yards, and that 34,000l a year would be expended upon them. He thought it was most desirable to complete the works in the Channel Islands, and especially the harbour at Alderney.

MR. PLUMPTRE

believed the works at Dovor had been carried on most scientifically, but although he had no doubt they would be completely efficient for the object with which they were designed, they might be attended with serious consequences to the town itself. The pier that was being constructed, threw the beach into deep water, and the result was, as they got no supply of beach in Dovor Bay, that the inroads of the sea were becoming most alarming, and the town was placed in great danger. The Harbour Commissioners, of whom he was one, were put to great expense in building sea walls, which were not necessary before. They were now borrowing money, and he was afraid they might not be able to obtain the amount necessary to provide for the security of the town.

MR. COBDEN

said, when this subject came before the Committee last year, lie suggested that they should have the Estimate laid before them in the same form as the Navy Estimates, namely, the amount already expended set forth in one column, the sum required in another, and the probable cost in a third. He had referred to the Estimates of last year, and he found that the Estimate for the island of Alderney was 600,000l. Now, he had just read in M'Culloch's Geographical Dictionary, that Alderney was an island three miles and a half long by half a mile wide, with about one thousand inhabitants, and he thought the acres of the island could be purchased twice over for the amount they were going to expend in improving it. But it might be said that, in a commercial point, the island might be worth twice its value. He had never heard of an application from Lloyd's in reference to it. The islsnd lay on the French coast, and the tide ran in a rate of seven or eight knots per hour in that quarter. Therefore, he doubted not that, if the question were submitted to a body of shipowners, they would recommend that not a shilling should be expended there. It might be urged that the improvement of the island was part of the great scheme of fortification into which they rushed in 1844, 1845, and 1846. But they were in a perfect engineering panic in those years. They commenced in their own island, and then transferred their engineering panic to the Channel Islands. They had heard what the Committee reported in the matter, namely, that were the work undone they would recommend that it should not be undertaken at all. They had already expended 150,000l.; and they had better, in his opinion, stop there. Though 600,000l. was said to be the amount required, it might approach 1,000,000l.; and, therefore, until the requirements of commerce demanded such outlay, He thought they would not be justified in going further. If they continued to fortify the heights, it would certainly he regarded as a work of aggression by the French, who most certainly would set about fortifying Cherbourg; so that a confound loss would be the consequence.

MR. HUME

said, that he had been informed, when he visited the Channel Islands, that the Board of Ordnance had received instructions to purchase land on the heights above the harbour, for the construction of fortifications which it would require 40,000 men to defend. The harbour, when completed, would be wholly useless for the purposes of commerce; nor had he spoken to a single individual in Jersey or Alderney who did not laugh at the idea of the works being of any utility. Let the Government send over two gentlemen not previously compromised to inquire into this scheme, and let the vote be postponed until their report was made.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 84,000l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year 1851, the Expense of constructing Harbours of Refuge.

MR. BUCK

said, that he would vote with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), if he divided the Committee, as a means of calling attention to the state of the coast from Bristol to the Land's End. There was not a harbour upon that coast into which a vessel could run, while there was no part of our coast which more required the attention of the Admiralty and the Government.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, that he would suggest to the Government that it might be satisfactory if, with respect to these new works, the same form of Estimate was adopted that was recommended after deliberation by the Committee on the Ordnance and Naval Estimates. It would be satisfactory to know, first, what was the entire Estimate; next, the sum actually expended; then the sum proposed to be voted in the present year; and, lastly, what, in the opinion of the Government, remained to be expended. He would suggest that the Government should postpone this vote until Estimates prepared in this form had been laid before the House. He thought that the outlay in the Channel Islands was very large. The highest authorities were much divided in opinion with respect to the site that had been chosen for these works, and for a long time they were not placed under the control of the same department of Government which had the superintendence of other works, but were under the control of the Treasury—a disposition which appeared not altogether consistent with the arrangements which had been made for expenditure of this kind.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

could have no objection to put the Vote in that shape. In fact, a report was laid on the table last year which contained the information desired; the undertaking was the result of inquiries by Committees of that House and a Commission, and the present Government was merely executing what was commenced by the preceding. However, he would postpone the vote, and the House should have a report as to the progress made.

MR. HUME

would also suggest that the Government should send some sober men to examine the matter. [Laughter.] Well, really there had been some Gentlemen's opinions taken who were not in their sober senses. He would add, having referred to the opinion in Jersey and Alderney as to these works, that with regard to the coast referred to by the hon. Member for North Devonshire (Mr. Buck), it certainly was considered that that coast was much neglected.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that all this expense was to be incurred on a work that had been started at the time the Keyham Basin was entered upon. The Committee on the Navy Estimates last year reported that if so large an expenditure had not taken place on that basin, they would never think of recommending that such an amount of expense should be incurred. In the present case, that of the island of Alderney, the works were merely commencing, comparatively speaking, 150,000l. only having been already expended out of 1,000,000l. Therefore, keeping the recommendation of the Committee in view, they were justified in stopping the works at present, it being wiser to lose 150,000l. than 1,000,000l.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

begged to say it was his intention to comply with the wish of the hon. Member for Montrose, and postpone the vote.

Motion and original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

(7.) 2,783l. for Portpatrick Harbour.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked how long it was intended to continue the expenditure upon this harbour, which was now of no public utility?

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that it was true that this harbour was no longer useful as a packet station, but it was of some local importance, and it was therefore thought desirable not to allow it to go to rack and ruin, and it was merely with that view that the present vote was proposed. It was not impossible that, if a railway was carried to this harbour, it would become of great public importance.

MR. HUME

said, that the public had nothing to do with keeping up the harbour if it was abandoned as a packet station.

SIR GEORGE CLERK

said, that while there wes a communication with Ireland by Liverpool on the one side, and Glasgow on the other, and there was no railway nearer to Portpatrick than Dumfries, it could be of no importance as a packet station; but there was no doubt that it was the shortest way to Ireland, and if, therefore, a railway were constructed to it, it would eventually become of great national importance.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 23,239l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of maintaining the several Public Buildings in the department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; also, the Expense of Inland Navigation and other Services under the direction of the said Commissioners, to the 31st day of March, 1852.

MR. SPOONER

said, he should take the sense of the Committee upon one item in this vote. He should move that the grant be reduced by the sum of 1,230l. 10s., being the sum appropriated to the Royal College of St. Patrick, Maynooth. He objected to this vote on the ground of principle as well as on pecuniary grounds. Trifling as it was, it formed a portion of the public money; but his main objection was as to the principle. He would ever contend for that principle—namely, that as a Protestant nation, they had no right to grant any money to a religion in open hostility to the Established Religion, as it had decidedly shown itself to be within the last few months. The country would be greatly disappointed if, notwithstanding all the hostile proceedings of the Roman Catholics against the Protestant Church and the Dissenters, this grant was allowed. The late Sir Robert Peel had, in 1845, proposed that 30,000l. should be given for the erection of buildings at Maynooth, and he had also secured for the same institution the payment of a large sum annually out of the Consolidated Fund. For the last five years there had been paid, in addition to the sum of 30,000l., no less a sum than 26,000l. annually; and now, in addition to these grants, there was proposed this sum, paltry in amount, but great in principle. There was to be a sum of 1,230l. 10s, a year for repairs, in addition to the 30,000l. for building. When the late Sir Robert Peel made this proposal, he said— I mean that we should treat that institution in a generous spirit, in the hope that we shall be met in a corresponding spirit, and that we shall be repaid for our liberality by infusing better feelings into the institution, and by insuring a more liberal system of instruction. Had they been met in a liberal spirit? Had these hopes been realised? Had there not, on the contrary, been an open declaration of hostility against them? Within the last few days an hon. Member of that House was reported to have made a speech or written a letter—he referred to what he had read in an Irish paper—and, according to that report, the hon. Gentleman had said that toleration was a word which they (the Roman Catholics) would not receive as applicable to them—that they would not condescend to accept toleration, when the Roman Catholics had the right to be established as the Church of Ireland. He (Mr. Spooner) was one of those who had opposed "the Godless colleges;" but then, he asked when that grant had been made, had it been received by the Roman Catholics in a spirit of conciliation? How had the Irish Roman Catholics received it? Had they not thrown back the grant in their teeth? And what was the liberal spirit manifested by the Roman Catholics, and how had it been demonstrated? Was it not by an act of aggression on the part of the head of that Church against the Sovereign of this nation? And then let them see the hostile spirit that had been, manifested by Irish Roman Catholic Members of that House, when the attempt was made to put down the act of aggression by a Bill in that House. As to the conciliation of the Roman Catholics, he told them it was a vain attempt. The Roman Catholics were not to be conciliated. Every man of them who was a true Roman Catholic would never stop until he had put down the Protestant Church. They were not to he contented with toleration; thoy must have ascendancy; and never would they rest tranquil until ascendancy had been obtained. Too long had they—the Protestants—submitted to this state of things. He believed that the abandonment of their Protestant principles was a great national sin, and that if they continued in the same course, they would bring down upon themselves a great national judgment.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 22,002l. 10s. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of maintaining the several Public Buildings in the department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; also, the Expense of Inland Navigation and other Services under the direction of the said Commissioners, to the 31st day of March, 1852.

MR. HUME

said, he must express his regret at having heard the observations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). Whatever might he the hon. Member's opinions as to the propriety of allowing the Roman Catholic religion or college to be supported, this was not the time to enter on the subject. He (Mr. Hume) concurred in the opinion to which the hon. Member had referred, that the Catholics ought not to be satisfied with toleration. They had a right to equality. He asked the hon. Member for North Warwickshire whether, on his own Christian principles, he ought not to do as he would be done by? The question was, whether they were prepared to support the edifice a former Parliament had thought it necessary to raise for the education of Roman Catholics? The question was not whether they would give the education; Parliament had already decided that question, which was fairly discussed on its merits in 1845, if ever a question was; they ought to look to what Parliament had guaranteed; and it would be a reproach against them were they to alter that decision because a different opinion existed in regard to Roman Catholics. He highly approved of the principles that led the late Sir Robert Peel to propose the Vote which attempts were being made to set aside, but which, in his estimation, did honour to Parliament, and was attended with great advantage to the country, as everything was that tended to remove a sense of injustice. The object of the institutions, improperly called "Godless colleges" was to give to Roman Catholics the education which other denominations enjoyed. The unfortunate occurrences that had taken place had nothing to do with the question before the Committee, which was, whether the payments should be continued which were necessary for colleges intended to put Catholics on the same footing as others?

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

thought the hon. Member for Montrose had contrived ingeniously to mix up two subjects totally unconnected with each other. The proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was to reduce the amoun- of the vote for repairs to Maynooth Coltlege; but the hon. Member for Montrose had introduced the question of the Queen's College, which subject he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not now enter into. Hon. Gentlemen who remembered the argument held by Sir R. Peel on the subject of the grant to the College of Maynooth, would be able to say whether the transfer of the annual grant to the Consolidated Fund was not founded altogether on the consideration that it was most expedient, in regard to the settlement of a question which was productive of every kind of animosity, to make the amount proposed to be given the subject of a permanent grant, rather than of an annual vote. On that occasion Sir R. Peel said— It is most inexpedient to make such grants the subject of an annual vote; therefore let us remove this element of discord from our annual settlings, and give such a sum as may render it unnecessary to introduce this clement of discord every year."—[3 Hansard, lxxviii. 1149.] That was the understanding of those who proposed, and of those who opposed the grant. Individually lie (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not approve of that course; but the House having sanctioned it, he never contemplated any opportunity of renewing any discussion relating to the College of Maynooth, unless in the shape of a Bill which would have removed that grant from the Consolidated Fund altogether. But now, gratuitously, in a time the least propitious for a calm, quiet discussion of the subject, Her Majesty's Ministers again introduced the question, and that for the purpose of obtaining a sum of 1,230l. The Vote was asked at a time when the whole country was sensible of the necessity of putting a stop to the aggressions of the Pope—aggressions encouraged, he regretted to say, by too many of high authority in that House, and among them the hon. Member for Montrose, who repudiated toleration, and asked, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, equality, and more than equality. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) denied it. He had had the honour that day of presenting a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in which that most distinguished body stated that it was for a nation, after full deliberation, to determine what form of faith was best entitled to its protection and support. Having done so in regard to the Established Church of this country and of Scotland, they ought to consider that a sacred deposit, and not violate the rights they had agreed to secure to those establishments respectively. Having declared what was the national religion, he held that the Roman Catholics had no claim to equality with that religion: there was no claim to anything more than a large and liberal toleration of that Church of Rome, the interests of which were involved in this Vote. Of that Church he said nothing, except that those hon. Members who had taken the oaths at the table could not look on it as a matter of indifference whether they supported that Church or not. It had only been as a matter of political expediency that such grants had been made, and that such indulgence had been shown, nay, more than indulgence, that such encouragement had been given; but he was prepared to support the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in resisting this further attempt to give encouragement to a system fraught with evil to the religious principles of the country.

MR. FORBES

said, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had written a letter describing the ceremonies of the Church of Rome as "mummeries," and had introduced a measure to satisfy the Protestant feeling of the country, and it was thought by the country to be quite impossible that any person connected with the Government would consent to further the "mummeries" of the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland bad lately ordered by a Bull from Rome that no Roman Catholic, under certain censures of the Church, should attend any of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland; yet the Government were strengthening the College of Maynooth in order that those Roman Catholics who would not attend the Queen's Colleges should he instructed in the mummeries of the Church of Rome. He hoped some Member of the Government would explain why it was they now supported the mummeries of Rome, while all the Session they had been supporting the Protestant feeling of the country.

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

did not think that this was the proper time—on the occasion of a vote for repairs in certain parts of the College of Maynooth—to take into consideration the general principles on which Parliament in the year 1845 agreed to apply a sum for the erection of new buildings at Maynooth, and to place a certain charge on the Consolidated Fund for supporting professors, &c. That was done with due deliberation at that time, and carried by a large majority. The Vote before the Committee stood on its own merits; instead of being a new Vote, as had been supposed, a certain amount had been proposed every year under the same head; it stood on a totally distinct footing from the sum of 30,000l. granted for building the now College at Maynooth; and its object was to keep in repair that part of the building which was not included in the new building at Maynooth.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

could not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland as to the intention of the 8th and 9th Victoria, and would beg to refer to the terms in which the sum of 30,000l. had been granted for erecting new buildings at Maynooth, for the purpose of showing that "maintaining" and "repairing" were enumerated among the purposes of the grant. The 10th clause enacted that the expenses of providing houses, &c, and keeping the same in repair, should not exceed 30,000l.; and it appeared to him that the repairs were to be paid out of that sum. They were paying at present for salaries of professors 6,000l. a year, for 500 students 20,000l. a year, and here was an additional sum of 1,230l. 10s. for repairs when the college was scarcely completed.

MR. TRELAWNY

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to him to discuss the question in a small and narrow spirit. It seemed to him that the establishment and support of the College at Maynooth was defended and justified on the ground that the education which would be imparted there would be less dangerous and more in accordance with the prevailing sentiments of the people of this country if the College was maintained by a grant of money from this country, than if they obtained their education on the Continent. Nothing would be more likely to offend the Roman Catholics, or to excite their sensitiveness, than the refusal of this grant. He deprecated encroachments on the voluntary principle; but so long as the Church established in Ireland was maintained, the State was, in his opinion, bound to pay the Roman Catholic priesthood. He very much regretted that there should be opposition to the grant at this particular time, when the proper course was to endeavour to soothe the feelings of Roman Catholics. Interference with the internal organisation of the Romish Church would entail on Parliament the necessity of supporting a Catholic hierarchy. If they negatived this proposition they would take upon themselves the provision for the whole spiritual wants of the Irish population.

MR. H. DRUMMOND

would not be drawn on the present occasion into a discussion on the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He had always voted in favour of this Vote, because it appeared to him to be absurd to consent to an annual grant to Maynooth, and then refuse to give them the means of purchasing mathematical instruments and making necessary repairs. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the open declaration of war that had taken place. He could not deny that the Church of Rome had declared they were all Pagans, and that she wished to bring them back from the slavery of Protestantism into the glorious liberty of the Church of Rome. He had heard and read these things, and had much to say upon them, but he would not do so on the present occasion and upon this question. It was impossible not to remark, however, that they were paying with one hand a body of priests in one college to preach against another college that they had set up. How they could support both the Queen's Colleges and the College of Maynooth, he was unable to understand. An hon. Gentleman opposite talked of the capital education received at Maynooth. He hoped he would not be angry with him if he (Mr. Drummond) recommended the hon. Member to read Pascal's Provincial Letters. He would there find that at this time there is taught by the secular clergy that which was never taught before by the secular clergy in any of its doctrines; which was rejected, not by Protestant bigots, but by every Roman Catholic Government, and by every Roman Catholic statesman, and by the whole Roman Catholic body; yet they are now the doctrines which are taught to the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, which he was ready to prove.

MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY

said, he thought the time was come when all sectarian and exceptional Votes of public money should cease; but as He intended to vote hereafter against the Regium Donum, against the grant to French refugee clergy, and against all other Votes of a similar character, he should begin, he thought, most fitly by clearing his conscience in the matter, and voting against the proposed grant, for which he could see no solid ground, in favour of his own Church. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He was sorry to hear murmurs from Gentlemen of his own persuasion; he would be sorry to have it supposed that Roman Catholics were for economy only when it did not apply to the endowment of their own Church. He, however, entirely differed from the sectarian reasons on which the Amendment had been proposed: and when, as he thought, the Act cited by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) had for ever concluded the question, he could not understand how it was that they had travelled so far out of their way to find reasons to support their own proposition the late Sir Robert Peel proposed the settlement in 1845, in order that the question might not in future be ventilated by a discussion on an Annual Vote, and that being the case, he was surprised that when so paltry a sum was required, it was not raised out of the resources of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. If the question were brought forward on an Annual Vote, the thing would go on to all eternity unless some stop was put to it; and he proposed, in the name of economy, that the Committee should at once say "No" to this vote. Roman Catholics themselves did not desire that the question should be annually brought before that House. They had never been unanimous on the subject. It was notorious that there had not been an annual assembly of Roman Catholic bishops at Maynooth for many years past—he might almost say ever since the passing of the Emancipation Act—at which some prelate had not endeavoured to obtain from his assembled brethren a vote against the Maynooth grant. Dr. M'Hale had taken that course annually, because he objected to a grant of public money when it came in the shape of an annual grant for ecclesiastical establishments. He (Mr. C. Anstey) had the fact from Dr. M'Hale's own lips; and a very large minority of the Roman Catholic bishops had invariably voted with him. The Roman Catholic Church of Ireland was at least quite as much divided on the question as were the Protestants. He should support the Amendment, although he regretted that it had been made on religious grounds, instead of on the score of public economy.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

would oppose this vote on entirely different grounds from those expressed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). He (Mr. W. Williams) opposed it on the ground that when the late Sir Robert Peel, in 1845, obtained a vote of 30,000l for the enlargement and repairs of Maynooth, and an increase of the annual vote from 9,000l to 26,000l., he then distinctly stated that no further grant would be asked of the House in support of that college. He opposed the vote also on the ground that there was no detailed statement given of the purposes for which the money was required. He could not help remarking that a new term was now introduced; the college was now called "The Royal College of St. Patrick, Maynooth."

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) on his candour, and the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) on his consistency. He was, however, surprised to hear the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), the opponent of all grants for religious purposes, say he would vote on the occasion for "Peter's peace," especially when it was borne in mind that Maynooth College was provided for out of the Consolidated Fund, lie (Mr. Newdegate) was all the more surprised at the vote of the hon. Member, because after what the hon. Member for Youghal had said, it seemed that the Roman Catholics themselves were far from unanimous on the subject. The hon. Member (Mr. Hume), however, would at least admit that these bonuses to secure the good-will of the Roman Catholics had not been successful; indeed, on the contrary, the difficulties in which the country was at this moment placed, might in a great degree be traced to the policy which dictated this vote. If he (Mr. Newdegate) believed for a moment that in supporting Maynooth College he was supporting the means of giving a liberal education, he would not oppose the present Vote; but he could not find any alteration in the characters of the priesthood produced by it except one that contrasted unfavourably with the priests who received their education in France, who were imbued rather with the liberality of the Gallican Church, than with the bigotry of ultramontane arbitrary and intolerant doctrines.

MR. KERSHAW

said, he had voted against the grant to Maynooth on former occasions, and he should do so now because he felt it his duty not to support any religious sect by grants from the public money. He had opposed the extension of the Regium Donum to his own denomination; and if any hon. Member were to propose any Vote of public money in support of the body to which he (Mr. Kershaw) belonged, he would equally oppose such a Vote. He would recommend to the Committee the adoption of the voluntary principle, which his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny) seemed rather disposed to abandon, when he said he believed the time would come when it might be desirable to support the Roman Catholic religion by grants from the public money.

MR. MOWATT

could observe no similarity in the grounds on which hon. Members opposite opposed this grant. Surely the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) did not mean to argue in that House that the sole object of educating men in their different religious persuasions was to preach against and harass each other; and yet if there was any conclusion to be drawn from that hon. Member's argument, that was the conclusion. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) bad recited the Act of Parliament under which the original grant was made to Maynooth. When that hon. Gentleman was stating in detail the sums of money which the College of Maynooth had cost this country, be appeared to have forgotten that the object of this small annual grant was to prevent the 30,000l. formerly granted from being altogether thrown away. That he (Mr. Mowatt), apprehended, was the object of the present Vote. He would also remind the hon. Gentleman that the people belonging to the Established Church took from the Catholics of Ireland, nolens volens, one-half, if not two-thirds, of 1,000,000l. annually. The hon. Gentleman had surely omitted that from his calculation when he was enlarging on the great cost of educating and humanising his fellow-Catholics in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) said, the Roman Catholics did not receive the grant in a conciliatory or becoming spirit; but the hon. Gentleman ought to be the last to complain in that tone, for he was the first to blow the fanatical trumpet. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) objected to the word toleration. It was surprising to him (Mr. Mowatt) that in the present day any man should presume to say to another that He would tolerate him. Of all the miserable arguments which he had ever heard in that House, that of the hon. Baronet was the most wretched.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

would, without a moment's hesitation, vote for the Amendment. He supported it on the ground of consistency. The Vote was a sort of sooth- ing syrup for Roman Catholics, a paltry trick to conciliate them, a party move, a clap-trap of the Government. It was one of those miserable stratagems by which the noble Lord and his feeble Government endeavoured to prop themselves up—a clumsy bait to catch the Papists. He believed the Roman Catholics (to whom he entertained no unkind feelings) had about as bad an opinion of the noble Lord as he (Colonel Sibthorp), and that was the very worst that could be formed or entertained. The noble Lord and his Colleagues shuffled and twisted; but what he (Colonel Sibthorp) meant to say he would say plainly, and what he meant to do would be consistent with what he said. He would vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner). The noble Lord was very little better than Cardinal Wiseman; and he (Colonel Sibthorp) cautioned hon. Members of that House, attached to the Protestant faith, to beware of spring-guns and man-traps.

MR. W. J. FOX,

fearing that the vote he was about to give might be misunderstood, hoped the Committee would pardon him whilst he attempted in a few words to justify the decision to which he had come. He meant to oppose the Vote, but neither on the theological ground nor the pecuniary ground. Not on theological grounds, for, whatever might be his opinion of Roman Catholic doctrines—whatever he might think of the spirit and tendency of the Roman Catholic system, he fully recognised the right of those who held that system to complete religious equality with all others. Nor on economical grounds—for when he remembered to what an extent we had in past times been indebted to these Roman Catholics—when He remembered the magnificent cathedrals, the numerous churches, the glorious colleges, and the large endowments founded by their zeal and liberality, but of which they were no longer the possessors—such a sum as that involved in the present Vote would be but a beggarly offering to them in a pecuniary point of view; therefore he put the pecuniary consideration altogether out of the question. He respected the growing tendency of the Roman Catholics lately to throw themselves entirely and broadly on the voluntary principle. He would be no party to persecuting Catholics, or to paying Catholics. He had voted against the one, and he was prepared to vote against the other; but while he thought either process bad—persecution of religion, or payment of religion—he thought a combination of the two was the worst of all. He could imagine no more undesirable, no more perilous, no more degraded position for any religion than that of being threatened with persecution on the one hand—having persecution always hanging over its priests and its bishops—and on the other receiving payment from the State which persecuted, or having a political price offered to it as a set-off. He knew of nothing worse than a priesthood kept in a state of slavish dependence on the State—bribed and threatened alternately, and made to become the instrument of governing, for it was depriving religion of its spirituality—stripping it of its dignity and usefulness. For the sake of the Roman Catholic system itself he should oppose the Vote; and he should oppose it because he considered it an abuse of the public money to apply it in supporting any theological system, whether by large and extensive endowment for the purpose of upholding some peculiar form of faith, or by doling it out in driblets to little sects, placing them also in a state of dependence and degradation.

COLONEL RAWDON

appealed to those hon. Members who opposed the grant whether it was worth while to involve themselves in a controversy on a matter of so paltry an amount? However unpopular the vote might be at this time of day, he still thought hon. Members would be committing a most impolitic act if they were now to depart from the principle which the House of Commons had hitherto maintained in supporting this grant.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

supported the Amendment. He believed it was a part of the policy of the Government a few years ago to endeavour to gain the good opinion and loyalty of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland by such grants as this; but that policy had been found to fail. After the experience they had had during the last six months of the spirit which the Roman Catholic hierarchy was ever ready to display towards grants awarded to them, he was of opinion that it would be very bad policy indeed continue such a vote as this.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 121: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, Sir T. N.	Arkwright, G.
Adderley, C. B.	Bailey, J.
Alcock, T.	Baird, J.
Anstey, T C.	Baldock, E. H.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Bankes, G.

Barrington, Visct.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Barrow, W. H.	Jones, Capt.
Bennet, P.	Kerrison, Sir E.
Beresford, W.	Kershaw, J.
Bernard, Visct.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Best, J.	Lacy, H. C.
Blackstone, W. S.	Langton, W. H. P. G.
Blair, S.	Lawley, hon. B. R.
Boldero, H. G.	Lockhart, W.
Booker, T. W.	Long, W.
Booth, Sir R. G.	Lopes, Sir R.
Brisco, M.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Broadley, H.	Lowther, H.
Brooke, Lord	Mackie, J.
Buck, L. W.	M'Gregor, J.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Burroughes, H. N.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Chaplin, W. J.	Masterman, J.
Child, S.	Moody, C. A.
Clive, H. B.	Morris, D.
Codrington, Sir W.	Mullings, J. R.
Colvile, C. R.	Muntz, G. F.
Cowan, C.	Neeld, J.
Crawford, W. S.	Newdegate, C. N.
Davies, D. A. S.	Palmer, R.
Dawes, E.	Peto, S. M.
Denison, E.	Pigott, F.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.	Plumptre, J. P.
Dod, J. W.	Pugh, D.
Drummond, H.	Richards, R.
Duncan, G.	Rushout, Capt.
East, Sir J. B.	Salwey, Col.
Edwards, H.	Sandars, G.
Ewart, W.	Sibthorp, Col.
Farrer, J.	Sidney, Ald.
Fellowes, E.	Smith, J. B.
Fergus, J.	Stafford, A.
Filmer, Sir E.	Stanford, J. F.
Forbes, W.	Stanley, E.
Fox, W. J.	Stuart, H.
Freestun, Col.	Stuart, J.
Frewen, C. H.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Fuller, A. E.	Thompson, Col.
Galway, Visct.	Thompson, Ald.
Geach, C.	Thornhill, G.
Grogan, E.	Tyler, Sir G.
Hallewell, E. G.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hamiliton, G. A.	Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Harris, R.	Waddington, H. S.
Hastie, A.	Wawn, J. T.
Hastie, A.	West, F. R.
Henley, J. W.	Williams, W.
Hildyard, R. C.	Wynn, H. W. W.
Hildyard, T. B. T.	TELLERS.
Hindley, C.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Hope, Sir J.	Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.
Adair, H. E.	Brotherton, J.
Adair, R. A. S.	Brown, W.
Armstrong, R. B.	Butler, P. S.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Buxton, Sir E. N.
	Carew, W. H. P.
Bagshaw, J.	Carter, J. B.
Baines, r t. hon. M. T.	Cholmeley, Sir M.
Baring, H. B.	Clay, J.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.	Clements, hon. C. S.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bass, M. T.	Cobden, R.
Bell, J.	Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.
Bellew, R. M.	Cocks, T. S.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Collins, W.
Brockman, E. D.	Cowper, hon. W. F.

Craig, Sir W. G.	Oswald, A.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Owen, Sir J.
Denison, J. E.	Paget, Lord A,
Douro, Marq. of	Paget, Lord C.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Paget, Lord G.
Duff, G. S.	Palmerston, Visct.
Duff, J.	Parker, J.
Dundas, Adm.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Peel, Sir R.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Peel, F.
Evans, J.	Pinney, W.
Evans, W.	Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A.
Forster, M.	Price, Sir R.
Fox, R. M.	Rawdon, Col.
Goold, W.	Ricardo, O.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Rich, H.
Grace, O. D. J.	Romilly, Sir J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Russell, Lord J.
Greene, J.	Russell, F. C. H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Scully, F.
Grey, R. W.	Seymour, Lord
Harcourt, G. G.	Shafto, R. D.
Hatchell, rt. hon. J.	Shelburne, Earl of
Hawes, B.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Headlam, T. E.	Smith, J. A.
Henry, A.	Somers, J. P.
Higgins, G. G. O.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Hodges, T. L.	Spearman, H. J.
Howard, Lord E.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hume, J.	Stanton, W. H.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Sutton, J. H. M.
Langston, J. H.	Tenison, E. K.
Lewis, G. C.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Littleton, hon. E. R.	Townshend, Capt.
Lockhart, A. E.	Trelawny, J. S.
Meagher, T.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Mangles, R. D.	Williamson, Sir H.
Martin, C. W.	Wilson, J.
Matheson, Col.	Wilson, M.
Mitchell, T. A.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Monsell, W.	Wood, Sir W. P.
Mowatt, F.	Wrightson, W. B.
Mulgrave, Earl of	Wyvill, M.
Norreys, Lord
O'Flaherty, A.	TELLERS.
Ogle, S. C. H.	Hayter, W. G.
Ord, W.	Hill, Lord M.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(9.) 10,660l. for Kingstown Harbour.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

objected to this vote as being utterly unnecessary, Kingstown being a harbour where any craft beyond a collier or a vessel loading with stone was never seen. He should move, in order to get rid of the vote, that the Chairman report progress.

MR. HUME

objected to the form of the estimate. What he wanted to know was, how much more would they have to pay? How much had they already paid?

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS

said, that Kingstown harbour was a work of national importance; and the vote was for the purpose of making the harbour available for trading vessels.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

withdrew his Amendment.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) 92,300l. Salaries and Expenses of the Houses of Parliament.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that in proposing this Vote, the Government had taken little or no notice of the recommendation of reduction in these salaries and expenses made by the Committee last year.

MR. HUME

perceived in this estimate that the recent change in regard to the clerkship of the House of Commons had caused an increased expense to the public of 5,000l. This was very extraordinary, because it had been supposed that the change would have been attended with a saving.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

explained, that hitherto the salary of the clerk and others had been paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and that this was the first year in which these salaries had appeared in the estimate.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 53,700l. be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, to the 31st day of March, 1852.

MAJOR BERESFORD

said, that in compliance with the Report of the Salaries Committee, the salaries of the Secretaries of the Treasury had been reduced from 2,500l. to 2,000l., while the salaries of the Assistant Secretary was left at 2,500l. It was extraordinary that the assistant should receive more than the principal. He believed, that when the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury was first appointed, a division took place in that House on the subject, and, if he was not mistaken, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Mr. Wood, voted against the salary being 2,500l.; and yet the same sum was now proposed by the Treasury bench, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member. It seemed that this Assistant Secretary was a great favourite with the Whig Administration, because, while he received this large salary for the duties of his office, he had also received a large gratuity for certain extra duties he was said to have performed in Ireland; though how he could have performed those extra duties without to some extent sacrificing his regular duties, he (Major Beresford) could not very well see. He should, there- fore, move that the sum be reduced to the extent of 500l.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 53,200l. be granted to tier Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, to the 31st day of March, 1852.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

admitted that he had voted originally that the salary of the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury should be 2,000l. instead of 2,500l.; but it was many years ago, when he was a very young Member of Parliament. There was a Treasury Minute which had fixed the salary at 2,000l., and when he found the sum of 2,500l. proposed, without sufficient grounds being stated for the increase, he certainly did not oppose it, and he was bound to add that he never gave a vote which he had more regretted. With respect to the salary of Sir Charles Trevelyan, he begged to say that it was fixed by a Treasury Minute at 2,500l. long before the present Government came into office, and they had only retained it as they found it. The hon. Gentleman (Major Beresford) said that it was very inconsistent that a permanent officer should receive more than his political superior; but the fact was, that this was the case in almost all the offices. It was so, for instance, in the Colonial Department, and the same in the Foreign and Home Offices. With regard to the salaries of the Secretaries of the Treasury, it was quite true that the recommendation of the Committee on Official Salaries was that they should be reduced from 2,500l. to 2,000l., and, although he was not prepared to admit that that was a wise recommendation, yet, as the Committee had made it, the Government had felt it to be their duty to submit to it.

MR. DISRAELI

I think, Sir, it would much facilitate this discussion, if the Government would tell the Committee on what principle they decided as to the recommendation of the Committee on Official Salaries. We have had another instance of this kind in the course of this evening. We have been told that the Committee recommended the alteration of the embassy at Paris to a mission, and the reduction of the salary of the Ambassador to one-half its then amount; but that the Government—and I think very wisely—decided that they would not follow the recommendation of the Committee. Nay, they took another step altogether; and the salary now given is not the salary recommended by the Committee on Official Salaries. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer now comes forward and tells us that the Government resolved to reduce the salaries of the Secretaries of the Treasury against their own opinion, and only in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee. Now, I think that the Government, for the sake of advancing our discussions on points of this sort, should really inform us what is the principle they have adopted with reference to the Official Salaries Committee; for they cannot, at the commencement of the evening, adopt one view, and late in the evening ride off in quite another direction. I thought that Committee a very great mistake, a very great inconvenience, and that no Government ought to have acceded to its appointment unless they were prepared to incur the responsibility of acting upon its recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us without reserve—without decent reserve—that he disapproves of certain reductions in salaries which the Government have enforced. I agree with the Government that the Secretary of the Treasury was not remunerated more than was expedient, before the Committee made its report. But if that is their opinion why do they not act with respect to the Secretary of the Treasury as they have acted with respect to our embassy at Paris? If the Government think fit, with respect to the Secretary of the Treasury, to agree to a reduction which they think unjust, I say they are bound to regulate the salaries of all other public officers in harmony with that principle. At all events, I think it is preposterous that the Secretary for the Treasury should receive premiums beyond his salary—his salary being superior to that which his superior officers receive. It is true that the Under Secretary is a permanent officer, but his office is not an ancient one—it is a comparatively new one. Here, then, is the Government at the beginning of the evening acting in defiance of the Committee on Official Salaries, and afterwards carrying into effect recommendations of that Committee which they think unjust. I think the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman most unsatisfactory; and though I dislike to divide on a question of this kind, I certainly shall do so in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Major Beresford).

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

was afraid the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had entirely forgotten that he (Lord John Russell) had already this Session stated the whole recommendations of the Committee, and the reasons why the Government had adopted certain of the recommendations, and disagreed with others; that, in fact, he had stated the general principle upon which the Government had acted, and entered fully into the whole question. On the same occasion the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) asked for a return of the changes which they proposed to make in the recommendations of the Committee, and that return had been prepared and laid upon the table of the House. And yet, after all this, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) took it quite as a matter of surprise that the Government had agreed to some of the recommendations, and not agreed to others. The hon. Gentleman had laid down the general proposition, that if a Select Committee made certain recommendations, the Government was bound either to adopt the whole, or reject the whole. He (Lord John Russell) owned he could not see the justice or reason of that proposition. He held that, on questions of this kind, the Government had a full right to take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the recommendations of the Committee; to adopt those which they thought would be beneficial to the public service; to assent to others which, although not likely to be so beneficial, did not threaten any serious injury; and to reject, or rather to propose to the House to reject, those which they thought would be attended with injurious consequences to the public service. His belief was that the Government acted with proper discretion when they said they could not agree to the recommendation of the Committee with reference to the embassy at Paris, because they believed that if they reduced the embassy to a mission, and the salary to 5,000l. a year, the public service would suffer, and our diplomatic relations with the French Government would not be carried on in a manner they ought to be; but that they did not see the same serious consequences from reducing the salary of the Secretaries of the Treasury from 2,500l. to 2,000l., because, while they did not think 2,500l. more than an adequate salary, they could not say that persons might not be found in that House who would discharge the duties of the office for 2,000l., which, he begged to remind the House, was the salary which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade received for the important duties which He performed. In 1830, when the late Earl Grey came into office, Lord Althorp moved for a Committee on the subject of Public Salaries, and that Committee recommended that the salaries of the Under Secretary of State should be reduced from 2,000l. to 1,500. He (Lord John Russell) did not think that an advisable recommendation; but, the Committee having come to that conclusion, their recommendation was adopted by Lord Grey's Government, and the salaries had remained at 1,500l. ever since. It appeared to him, therefore, that the Government were right in saying, with respect to those offices with which they were immediately connected, that if they saw no serious injury likely to be done to the public service, they would take the sum recommended by the Committee. They bad done the same also with respect to the diplomatic service; because the Committee having laid it down that 5,000l. a year was a sufficient sum, generally speaking, for a mission, the Government had in two or three instances reduced the missions (at Madrid and Vienna, for instance) to the scale of 5,000l. But where they saw, as they thought, injurious consequences likely to accrue from the recommendations of the Committee, and where they could not fairly and conscientiously recommend them to the House, they had proposed to keep to the old salaries, which he thought was a sound principle.

MR. VERNON SMITH

conceived that the conditions stated in reference to the office of Assistant Secretary ought to be observed. In the case of a permanent office, they were bound on every feeling of justice to see that the salary should not be unnecessarily decreased. He could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for North Essex (Major Beresford), that the salary should be reduced because of the receipt of a gratuity for services performed in Ireland. On the recurrence of a vacancy, however, the office might be dealt with as they thought proper. He saw no inconsistency in the Ministry adopting some of the recommendations of the Committee, and rejecting others. The Committee ought, he considered, to put the whole of the salaries of public servants on some equitable footing. By removing the inequalities which existed, they would remove great injustice.

MAJOR BERESFORD

said, that no an- swer had been made to the statement, that the superior officer was receiving less than the inferior. He maintained that this was an anomaly which should not exist. He should divide the Committee on his Amendment.

MR. MANGLES

willingly bore testimony to the talents of Sir Charles Trevelyan: that gentleman had sacrificed prospects of advancement in another profession in India, when he took the office of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. He did not think it was fair now to turn round and reduce the salary in the face of the Treasury Minute which existed.

MR. DISRAELI

must protest against the introduction of personal matters into a discussion of this kind. It had nothing to do with the question whether Sir Charles Trevelyan were, or were not, a distinguished individual. His qualifications were not called in question; and it was equally certain that his services had been very adequately remunerated. Independently of his large salary, he had received a very marked distinction, which was not frequently conferred on a person in his subordinate position. It had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and he must protest against the tone of argument introduced by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), and the fallacy which pervaded the observations of the hon. Member, and of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). They thought that be-cause the office was not parliamentary, or, as they chose to call it, political, it was not to be subject to the control of the House of Commons. They ought, however, to recollect that the Committee was not limited to parliamentary or political, but to public salaries.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

No, no! parliamentary salaries.

MR. DISRAELI

had thought it was public salaries. He believed the title of the Committee was "Public Salaries." He wished to impress on the Committee not to admit the position, that because a salary had been settled by a Treasury Minute, it was not to be subject to the revision of that House.

MR. HUME

agreed that the personal services of Sir Charles Trevelyan had nothing to do with the matter. He thought, however, that public faith should be kept with public servants. He had recommended that the salary of the Speaker should be reduced to 7,000l., but not during the term of the present Speaker. In other salaries he had proposed reductions, but observing the same condition in regard to that class of offices which were not political. He drew a great distinction between political and permanent offices.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) was not at all to blame in mentioning the personal merits of Sir Charles Trevelyan, for he had been provoked to it by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for North Essex (Major Beresford). He was glad to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, with whom he concurred in the distinction he drew between political and permanent offices. He begged the Committee to consider that the question before them, though only one of 500l., involved a very important public principle. Sir Charles Trevelyan might have enjoyed a situation of considerable emolument, but had taken the office which he presently held, relying on the promises held out. They ought to recollect that the functions of Sir Charles Trevelyan were of the same importance and of equal labour with those of the Secretary of the Treasury. They now said they would reduce the salary to 2,000l. If they acknowledged such a course as this, what security had they that they would not reduce next year to 1,500l., and the following year to 1,000l.? He was sure that if the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) held an official situation—which he might do some of these days—he would feel that public servants holding these situations should be men of ability, talent, education, and high character, and that they should not have to say that any situation—be it law, in a counting-house, or in a banking-house, was better than being in the public service, and that therefore they would refuse to enter that service. He thought that the Committee should not assent to so dangerous a principle as that suggested.

MR. BRIGHT

thought that there would be some weight in the noble Lord's argument if there were a disposition in this country to underpay public officers, or to treat them with ill faith, but such was not the case in this country; on the contrary, there was an inclination to pay public officers rather too highly. Sir Charles Trevelyan, as he was informed, not only received a larger salary than his superior officers—a most anomalous circumstance—but he received 500l. per annum more than the President of the Board of Trade—considerably more than the noble Lord who discharges the joint duties of Paymaster of the Forces and Vice-President of the Board of Trade; and more than the gentlemen who filled the offices of Under Secretary for the Colonies and Under Secretary for the Home Department. It was his conviction that for 2,000l. a year it would be found possible to secure the services of the best head that could be found upon a pair of shoulders in this country. He was persuaded that the men who were engaged in the management of large commercial houses and great companies in London, were men of as high administrative talent as were to be found in any department whatsoever of the public service.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

believed that what the Committee had intended was that the reductions which they recommended in certain offices should take place, not at once, but on occasion of the next vacancies. He was of opinion that 2,000l. a year would be quite sufficient for an officer filling the position of Sir Charles Trevelyan; but, that gentleman having undertaken the office upon a certain understanding, the terms of that understanding ought to be faithfully adhered to by the House.

MR. BRIGHT

said, his impression was that the Committee had contemplated immediate, and not remote, reductions.

MR. MUNTZ

wished to direct attention to the inconsistency of the arguments adduced in favour of maintaining the Vote. It was stated that Sir Charles Trevelyan was a person who could have obtained a very high salary; now, if that were the case, he was much too good a man for the place. If this principle were to be acted upon, it would be impossible to arrive at anything like economy.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that Sir Charles Trevelyan had been in the service of the East India Company at a very high salary, and that he left his appointment to come to the Treasury. He received no more than his predecessors had done, namely, 2,000l. for the first five years, and 2,500l. per annum after that period. The question for the Committee to decide was, whether Sir Charles Trevelyan was to have a smaller salary than his predecessors, or less than he was fairly led to expect?

MR. W. MILES

said, the case would be a hard one if Sir Charles Trevelyan had given up his appointment to take another at a smaller salary; but this was not the case. He (Mr. W. Miles) understood that Sir Charles Trevelyan had come home from India in a state of health that did not admit of his return, and that the Government, hearing that he was a desirable person to employ, had caught him up at once. Circumstances had very much changed since that gentleman had taken office; the expenses of living were reduced, and the cry for reduction had very much increased. In addition to this, there was every probability that he would be shortly relieved of a portion of his duties. The question for the Committee to decide was simply whether Sir Charles Trevelyan was sufficiently paid, after five or six years salary, with 2,000l. per annum, without saddling the country with greater expense. If it were to be contended that this advance were to be made on the strength of a Treasury Minute, Ministers might fling a Treasury Minute in the teeth of the House any day, to justify an extravagant vote.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was sorry to have to rise again to state that which was the fact. Sir Charles Trevelyan came home after some service in India, where he would have gone back if he had not entered into the public service at home. The Treasury Minute was not made in his case. For the last twenty years the Assistant Lords of the Treasury had received 2,000l. a year for the first five years, and 2,500l. a year afterwards.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

should support the vote; he considered that it was wise to pay public servants well. The docks engineer at Liverpool had 3,000l. a year, and he was offered more to go into private practice; and the town clerk of Liverpool had 2,000l. a year for managing only a part of the concern, which was not of near so extensive a character as those which came under the superintendence of Sir Charles Trevelyan.

MR. J. EVANS

considered that when a gentleman entered into the public service on the understanding that after a certain time his salary should be raised 500l. year, faith ought to be kept with him.

The Committee divided:—Aves 72; Noes 118: Majority 46.

Original Question put, and agreed to; as were the following Votes:—

(12.) 25,270l. Home Department.

(13.) 37,100l. War and Colonies.

House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.