SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 31 July 1854 vol 135 cc1026-57

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.

(1.) 2,055l., Chapel at the Embassy, Constantinople.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, he wished for some explanation of this Vote.

MR. J. WILSON

said, about six or seven years ago the chapel was accidentally burned down, and, owing to the extravagant expenditure lavished on the building of the embassy house, had not been rebuilt. Two or three years ago, a Vote was proposed of 4,350l. for the purpose, but was then withdrawn, in consequence of the lavish expenditure to which he had alluded. Strong representations of the inconvenience felt by the British residents had been made to the Ambassador, and even offers to contribute 1,000l., though their numbers were small. The arrangements now made were such that the House would not be called upon for more than the sum now proposed. The want of accommodation, where a large number of sailors resorted, besides the residents, had been severely felt, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would assent to the Vote. An architect from the Board of Works would go out to superintend the building, but he would be under the control and direction of the Ambassador.

In reply to Mr. SPOONER,

MR. J. WILSON

said, the architect was not the same gentleman who superintended the erection of the embassy house. The arrangements then were very imperfect, as that gentleman was not responsible to any one on the spot.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) 1,400l., British Protestant Cemetery, Madrid.

MR. AYSHFORD WISE

expressed an opinion that the Vote required some explanation, inasmuch as the conditions disclosed in the last published correspondence, as those upon which alone the Spanish Government would consent to this cemetery being established, were most unsatisfactory, and had been justly described as wholly inconsistent with the liberal spirit of the age. He thought, also, if no further correspondence had taken place, that the arrangement would lay the foundation for misunderstanding, and would tend to embroil us with the Spanish people. What were the facts? In 1851, the Marquis de Miraflores, and in 1853, General Lersundi, granted permission for the construction, at the place known by the name of La Herradura, at a short distance from the hill of San Damaso, of a cemetery for Protestant British subjects, who might die at Madrid, under the following conditions— 1. "The cemetery to be constructed with subjection to the sanitary rules required. 2. "No church, chapel, nor any other sign of a temple, or of public or private worship, will be allowed. 3. "All acts which could give any indication of the performance of any divine service whatsoever were prohibited. 4. "In the conveyance of the dead bodies to the burial-ground, any sort of pomp or publicity was to be avoided. On this proposal being submitted to the noble Viscount, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that noble Lord very properly expressed his regret that the permission was accompanied by conditions so indicative of a system of religious intolerance on the part of the Spanish Government towards those who professed the Protestant religion, which formed so striking and unfavourable a contrast with the liberal and enlightened system of perfect religious freedom which prevailed in the United Kingdom towards the professors of the Roman Catholic faith. This took place in 1851, and nothing more was done until May, 1853, when he found that very strong language was used by Lord Howden, the British Minister at Madrid. His Lordship, in a despatch dated May 30, 1853, said, that the fourth condition was a seed of future difficulty, and that it opened a source of much possible conflict between the Legation and General Lersundi's department, and concluded with these words—"Perhaps I shall have occasion to try this question." Under such circumstances, he (Mr. Wise) considered it somewhat injudicious to establish a cemetery that had been opposed and delayed so long, and that even now was permitted to be inclosed on such unusual conditions. It appeared that this question had been more or less before the public for nearly half a century, and as long ago as the year 1796 a piece of land, intended to be appropriated for cemetery purposes, had been purchased by the Marquess of Bute. He held in his hand an original document belonging to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, which was of some interest, and with the permission of the Committee he would read it. It was from Lord Bute to Lord Grenville, and dated Madrid, 21st October, 1796— My LORD,—Having succeeded in purchasing a piece of ground under your Lordship's authority and the permission of the Prince de la Paz, to be converted into a burying ground for Protestants, I requested of the Prince to favour me with some assurance that it might, notwithstanding the war, be considered as still appropriated to that purpose, and I now inclose his answer, which is very satisfactory. I at the same time beg to apprise you, that I have drawn a bill upon your Lordship, payable to Messrs. Coutts, for the amount, being 95l. 16s. 8d. Land, it appeared, had not risen in value at and near Madrid, for in 1846 the noble Viscount below had sanctioned the exchange of this land with the widow of Don Maroto, for some land of equal value, and of the same size, two acres and a quarter, or three Spanish fanegas, at 30l. a fanega. Now according to the estimate, all that had to be done was to build a gateway, and to erect a wall round this cemetery, and he could not ace why Parliament should be called upon to vote so large a sum as 1,400l. for such a purpose. Lord Palmerston, in 1850, had asked for a return of the number of British subjects who had died within a given period at Madrid, and had pointed out to Lord Howden that upon the facts disclosed by that return must depend the question as to whether the Government would be justified in expending any very large sum of money in establishing a cemetery there. Lord Howden at that time, in answer to Lord Pal- merston's request, had stated, on the authority of Mr. Otway, that the number of British subjects who had died at Madrid from the year 1834 had been only from fifteen to twenty—not more than one a year. And it appeared that, in some cases at least, the interments had been permitted to take place in the Catholic cemeteries. He could not understand why all the Protestant powers—America, and Prussia, and Holland, and other Protestant States, whose subjects came, as well as those of Great Britain, to Madrid—should not support unitedly an object of this kind. Nor could he conceive that it was necessary to have sent out a man of Mr. Albano's reputation and experience as an architect to superintend so trifling a matter as the erection of a wall round a cemetery. That such a course should have been taken, seemed to him to show an itching to expend the public money; and as charges of this description were continually increasing upon the Estimates, he had thought it right to direct attention to the subject, and to ask the Committee to consider whether there was really any necessity for this arrangement. Very few English visited Spain, and still fewer Madrid, and from what he knew he was not surprised, as it had been well said that travellers went there to stare and to starve, and to be eaten and not to eat. Paris was visited by thousands, and there was no cemetery there for the English. There was no likelihood of their countrymen going to a city of which an adage said that the climate was three months of winter and nine of hell; and he really thought this Vote was one more of sentiment than necessity. The Committee should not forget how the Votes of this class were increasing. From 4,000l. in 1844, we had crept up now to 7,500l.; and, including the Votes for Constantinople, Madrid, and the chaplains attached to embassies, this department cost us for the year 1844 no less than 12,285l.!

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he wished to know whether the land was intended to be consecrated by a bishop of the Church of England? whether the chaplain of the embassy was to be the minister there? whether the bodies of Dissenters would be received there for interment? and whether this would extend to the child of a Baptist, who might not have received even lay baptism?

MR. J. WILSON

said, since the date of the correspondence to which the hon. Member (Mr. A. Wise) had referred, Lord Howden had succeeded in obtaining terms which were considered extremely satisfactory, and in removing all the obstacles which had been thought to stand in the way of adopting the earlier proposition. The hon. Gentleman would recollect that about a year ago there was a perfect fever of indignation upon the subject, and that the strongest possible feeling ran through the metropolitan press and the press of the country generally with respect to the way in which Protestants were treated by the Spanish Government, in reference to their burial-ground. The public were especially shocked by a statement that the body of an Englishman had been dug up for the purpose of robbing it of the clothes and other articles of trifling value which were upon it. And it was under the pressure of these circumstances, and of the strong feeling of indignation which was excited by them, that a renewed effort had been made, which had resulted, as he had said, in the obtaining of terms which were considered satisfactory, and in securing a piece of land in the only place in the neighbourhood of the city of Madrid in which it could have been procured for such a purpose. The Consul General upon the spot had endeavoured to induce the British residents to subscribe some portion of the expense; but they were few in number, and in a comparatively humble position in life, and it would therefore have been utterly impracticable to obtain from them any considerable sum. It therefore became a question whether the British Government should not take steps to remove the flagrant abuse which had been made a matter of charge against every person concerned in the administration of British affairs in Spain. The Government had felt it its duty to take such steps, and to take advantage of the opportunity which had presented itself for putting an end to this state of things; and the proposition which had been submitted to the Treasury, for inclosing the ground and adapting it to its intended purpose, had been forwarded by them to the Board of Works, the Chief Commissioner of which, his right hon. Friend near him, would, he was sure, give an explanation with respect to the way in which it could be carried out, which ought, he considered, to be satisfactory to the Committee.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

As to the consecration?

MR. J. WILSON

said, the cemetery would be consecrated by a Protestant bishop, and arrangements had been made by which it would be open to all British subjects.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, the plans submitted to the Board of Works by the Treasury were so unsatisfactory, and the estimates were so uncertain, that he was persuaded that the cheapest and the most efficient mode of having the works executed was to send out a competent person to superintend them. He had arranged with Mr. Albano that he should go to Madrid, superintend the work, and return for a sum not exceeding 300l.; and he thought this a much better plan than trusting to native agency.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) 2,500l., Royal Monuments, Westminster Abbey.

MR. EWART

said, that he highly approved of the object of the Vote. He believed that the monuments of Edward the Confessor, of Edward I., of Philippa, and Eleanor of Castille, would be exceedingly well restored. But he hoped the Government would take steps to secure the free admission of the public to these monuments, which were to be restored by their money. The fees taken in Westminster Abbey had been reduced from a discriminating duty to a fixed duty of 6d. each person. The plea for taking this fee was, that it went towards the payment of the persons who showed the monuments. St. Paul's was still worse than Westminster Abbey. He thought the Government should not lose the present opportunity of securing free access for the public to see the monuments which were repaired at their cost.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he had already directed his attention to the subject, and had inquired why any fee was taken; and he had been told that its object was to provide for the payment of the persons who were employed in showing the monuments. It was important that no person should be permitted to go round without being attended by people by whom they might be carefully watched, the fact being that the monuments had suffered much more from the petty pilferings of the last century than during the whole of the centuries preceding from decay. Mr. Scott, in his able Report, referred to the subject in the following terms— As the monuments have suffered fully as much from spoliation as from decay, it is of the utmost importance that the vigilant watch kept over them should not in any degree be relaxed. Had the present system been adopted a century earlier, the atrocious pilfering and robbery, from which those invaluable works of art have so grievously suffered, would have been in great measure prevented; for it is truly mortifying to reflect that, though the church was exposed during the great rebellion to the insults of the soldiery, who were at one time quartered within its walls, and though there was actually an order of Parliament (happily never obeyed) for melting down the bronze, these monuments actually suffered infinitely less during that turbulent time, than in the enlightened period intervening between the middle of the last century and our own day, and that their greatest spoliation has been suffered at the hands of that intelligent public, who, one would have imagined, would have been the guardians, rather than the pilferers, of our national monuments. If, therefore, no fee were to be levied on the public for viewing these monuments, it would be necessary that Parliament should vote a sum of money for the payment of persons to show them. If Parliament were prepared to do that, he would ask the consent of the Lords of the Treasury to such a Vote being proposed; and he had no doubt that if a general feeling in its favour were expressed, the Lords of the Treasury would acquiesce in it. He hoped, however, that if this were to be done, hon. Gentlemen would bear it ha mind hereafter, because, generally speaking, when Estimates of this kind were proposed, he found himself turned round upon and charged with increasing the Estimates, and told that these were matters which the individuals, and not the public, ought to pay for.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he was very glad to perceive that the general feeling of the Committee went with the Report, which was in his opinion drawn up with great skill and judgment. He was afraid, however, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) would be disappointed if he thought that for the sum of 2,500l. all the monuments in the Abbey would be restored to their pristine state. Neither did he (Mr. M. Milnes) think it desirable that they should be restored to that state. And what he most admired in the Report was the clear line which Mr. Scott had drawn between an intelligent preservation and a mere attempt at renewal. The claim of Westminster Abbey upon Parliament rested above all upon the fact of its being the mausoleum of their great men. When the poet Campbell died some years ago—that poet who wrote "The Mariners of England," which was so applicable to the fleet in the Baltic—his remains were accompanied to the grave by a pompous funeral procession. The Earl of Aberdeen was one of the pall-bearers, and men high in station did honour to the dead. A statue was afterwards raised by public subscription—a statue quite worthy of the man. Why had it not been placed in the abbey? Why, simply because the Dean and Chapter of Westminster asked the enormous fee of 200l. for a few square feet of space. If the Dean and Chapter did not provide places for public statues, it could not be the interest or the duty of Parliament to spend the national money in the preservation or restoration of the building. He did hope that the Government would interfere in the matter, and that the result would be that this great scandal would be removed. As a Churchman, he felt that things of that kind did much to injure the higher order of the clergy.

MR. J. BALL

said, he believed that amongst competent judges who had considered the subject, there were very great doubts as to the expediency of adopting all the recommendations of Mr. Scott. Some months ago several members of the Archœological Society, on the invitation of Mr. Scott, examined many of the objects, and they were unanimously of opinion that many of the changes which Mr. Scott proposed were not desirable, either in an historical or in an artistic point of view. In particular these gentlemen thought that historical monuments like those would lose a great part of their interest if to any great extent old portions were taken away, and new ones substituted for them. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give an assurance that great caution would be exercised in the matter.

MR. BRADY

said, it was melancholy to see such a splendid structure as Westminster Abbey decaying day by day, and he thought the Dean and Chapter greatly to be blamed for allowing it. He doubted whether money was well bestowed on monuments the erection of which had defaced and been almost the means of destroying the appearance of the beautiful architecture of the interior of the abbey. He objected to the erection of statues in ecclesiastical buildings, although he thought a proper place should be provided in which the country should do honour to those who had served it well. It was a disgrace that the people were not permitted to go freely through this building, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) would endeavour to make some arrangement with the Dean and Chapter to effect that object, failing which he considered he would be justified in coming down to the House and asking for a Vote for the purpose.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he wished to remind hon. Members that the greater part of the abbey, namely, the nave, the choir, and the transept, were already open to the public without any charge; and the only reason why the rest was not placed in the same position was that which he had stated, namely, that it was necessary to prevent them from being pilfered. If the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) would read the Report carefully, he would see that the only object of Mr. Scott was to prevent the monuments from receiving injury from the process of decay which was continually going on. With regard to the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes)—the monument to the poet Campbell—all he could say was, that he would immediately enter into communication on the subject with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and he had no doubt that when he had stated to them the wish of the House, they would be willing to comply with it.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he hoped that any money voted would be appropriated to the preservation of the monuments or the payment of persons to take care of them, and would not go into the pockets of the Dean and Chapter.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he felt called upon to complain of the violent attack made in the Report on the public, by attributing the mutilation of the monuments to their pilfering. He thought, it confidence were shown in the public, it would not be violated, as instanced in the case of the Great Exhibition of 1851, and other cases. It was an entire mistake to suppose, if they allowed the people to go into places in which were works of art, they ought to be watched like a parcel of pickpockets. He thought, if the Dean and Chapter considered it was so great a responsibility to protect the monuments committed to their charge, it would be well to withdraw that responsibility from their hands and vest it in the Government, when the public might be freely admitted.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) 1,000l., Statue of King Charles I., Charing Cross.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he should like to know how it came that so large a sum was required?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he had to state, in reply to his hon. Friend's question, that last year, an application having been made to him by the Crystal Palace Company to allow a cast of the statue to be made, and that application having been acceded to, be had an opportunity of visiting the statue and observing certain defects in it, In consequence of what he saw he employed Mr. Richard Westmacott to examine the statue and make a report. That gentleman reported that it was in a very bad state. He stated that the horse was fractured in the knees—that the bridle, sword, and bit, were no more—that the tail was also defective, the weather having penetrated it. In short, he (Sir W. Moles. worth) found that the statue could not be completely restored for less than the sum now asked for; it was evidently in a very dilapidated state, and unless the Committee were willing to see one of the finest statues in the metropolis fall to pieces, they should agree to the Vote.

MR. AYSHFORD WISE

said, he did not know why the Committee should be so particularly anxious to restore the statue of a King who was more celebrated for his violation of public rights than the enhancement of national liberties. He, however, acknowledged that it was a masterpiece of art, and believed it was the first equestrian statue ever raised in this country. It was, in fact, one of Le Sueur's masterpieces, and considerable interest was attached to the statue from the fact that it was sold by Parliament to a brazier, with orders to break it in pieces. The brazier, however, hid it carefully away, and sold some old pieces of bronze to the enthusiastic cavaliers of the day at high prices. The Earl of Portland, after the Restoration, discovered it, and ordered its re-erection. He (Mr. Wise) had considerable doubt whether a new pedestal would look well, and harmonise with the statue. The present pedestal was the work of Grinling Gibbon, and at all events was not in such a ruinous state as mentioned by the First Commissioner. He sympathised much with the Votes for the restoration of the monument of King Edward the Confessor, King Edward the Third, and Queen Elizabeth; but to this Vote lie could only assent as a lover of the arts. On that ground he should be glad to see it restored, but he considered the sum of 1,000l. too large to be devoted to that purpose.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I rather wonder that the hon. Member, as a lover of thy arts, does not feel more regard for the memory of Charles I. Whatever may have been the constitutional predilections or prejudices of that Monarch, we are certainly indebted to him fur something more than the statue which the right hon. Gentleman wisely advises us to preserve. Let me recal to the remembrance of the Committee that the statue once disappeared in consequence—not of a Vote—of the temper of the House of Commons, and was lost for a considerable period. When lost, it was universally agreed that the finest model of equestrian sculpture known in modern times was lost to the country. I think, after all chef-d'œuvre occurred in Parliament at that time—having regained this chef-d'œuvre of Le Sueur—it would not become the Committee, by its refusal of such a Vote, to endanger the permanent preservation of such a work of art.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) 13,0001., Agricultural Statistics.

LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM

said, he wished to know in what counties the collection of statistics had been made?

MR. CARDWELL

said, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire.

MR. CAYLEY

said, he wished to know why the survey was not to extend to the other counties of England?

MR. CARDWELL

said, the experiment would next year be made in eleven counties, some of them very large counties. When the experiment was first made, great difficulties were experienced; but those difficulties had been removed by judicious conduct. The Government, however, did not think it proper to ask a Vote for the whole kingdom until it had made an extended trial of the plan.

MR. EVELYN DENISON

asked, whether it was intended in the English returns to give the estimated produce, as in Scotland?

MR. CARDWELL

said, from the first it had been determined to keep matters of fact, such as the quantity of stock, acreage, &c., distinct from matters of opinion, such as estimates of produce. In the Scotch returns, both matters of fact and of opinion were stated, and he was informed that those opinions had been generally regarded as correct and satisfactory. In England, where the experiment was surrounded by greater difficulty, it was intended that those inspectors who opened new grounds should confine themselves to matters of fact, but that Sir John Walsham and Mr. Hawley, in the counties with which they already had been connected, should refer to matters of opinion as well as to matters of fact.

MR. CAYLEY

said, it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would state (what he believed to be the fact) that the agriculturists had interposed no obstacle to the collection of these statistics.

Mr. CARDWELL

said, it would be unfair to make any representations, on the whole, unfavourable to the intelligence of the agricultural interests; but, at the same time, it would not be true to say that there had not been at first any prejudice or opposition. More enlightened views, however, had prevailed (principally through the influence of men like Lord Ashburton), and there was every reason to believe that the work would ultimately be accomplished.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he hoped that it was intended to continue estimating the quantity of corn grown in Ireland, for although it was only an approximation, it had been productive of much good. He approved of the system under which the statistics had been collected, but thought it expedient they should be collected as early as possible. Last year some were collected as late as October.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) 6,000l., Spurn Point, River Humber.

LORD HOTHAM

said, this Vote was for repairing a breach of the sea, and he must complain that the evil had been much increased in magnitude in consequence of the difficulty of communicating with the Government agent in a distant part of the country. The work was now being attended to, and its progress was satisfactory. He hoped in case of a similar disaster somebody would be there who had authority to give immediate orders.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, a question had arisen between the Trinity Board and the Admiralty on the subject, but after full consideration they had come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to insist on the Trinity Board paying for this matter. Attention had consequently been given to it, and it was now under the direction of the Admiralty officer of the Humber. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that this was a matter which required close and constant attention, and that that might be done a conservator of the river Humber had been appointed, who would act under the orders of the Admiralty. He would be desired to repair the breach, and to give his constant attention to the pre- servation of the coast, and to prevent a spread of the injury. The Committee would remember that they had voted large sums of money for harbours of refuge, but the Humber was a natural—and the only natural—harbour for a long distance upon the coast. He could assure the noble Lord that he would give the subject all the attention in his power.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) 13,370l., Kingstown Harbour.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he had now to propose a Vote for the repairs of Kingstown Harbour. Since the subject was last before the House inquiry had been made, and, upon the report of Mr. Rendel, the works were suspended for a short time; but they would shortly proceed, and he trusted to the satisfaction of every one.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he wished to know whether any alteration in the original plan, with regard to the depth of water, was likely to be adopted, in conformity with the suggestion he had made.

MR. J. WILSON

said, that the plan likely to be adopted, differed from the original design in this respect. Mr. Rendel had suggested that the harbour ought to be larger, so that steamers might arrive at all times of the tide, and the mail-bags and passengers be removed immediately to the railway train.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

wished to know whether the Vote was to be a final one?

MR. J. WILSON

said, it was for one year. An estimate of the total cost of the works had been prepared.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) 16,889l., Duchy of Cornwall Office.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that on moving the third reading of the Bill relating to this matter he had promised to make an explanatory statement. The object of this Vote was to provide a new office in Pimlico for the Duchy of Cornwall in exchange for the old office in Somerset House. The Duchy of Cornwall possessed offices, or rather he might describe it as a house, in Somerset House. There were two basement floors, in which the valuable records of the Duchy of Cornwall were placed, and there were four upper stories, which were used as the office of the Duchy of Cornwall and the rooms of the secretary. By the Act 15 Geo. III. c. 33, a part of Somerset House was vested in the King for the use of the office of the Duchy of Cornwall, and for other offices. The offices now occupied by the Duchy of Cornwall were very much wanted by the Inland Revenue De- partment. One branch of the Inland Revenue, the Excise, had hitherto been carried on at an office in the City, and the other at Somerset House, and it was considered expedient that both should be united. The office in the City was sold, and this branch was brought to Somerset House, where new buildings were in course of erection for the Inland Revenue office. However, great inconvenience was felt from the want of sufficient space, and this was more particularly felt since the Succession Tax had added considerably to the duties of that department. He had accordingly been directed to put himself in communication with the Council on the subject. They stated, however, that they were very well satisfied, and did not wish to part with their office in Somerset House, but for the convenience of the public service they consented to give up Somerset House on condition that they were furnished with an office as good, as valuable, as well situated, and to which they had as good a title as to their office in Somerset House. He thought these conditions only fair and reasonable, and he then took steps to procure a house for them. The first place to which he had directed his attention was Buckingham House, Pall Mall, but he found that in the first instance 30,000l. was demanded, and that 4,500l. would be required in addition to put it in order for the accommodation of the Duchy of Cornwall office. This sum was, he thought, much too large; it was double the amount of the present Vote. He had then proposed the Irish office in the Birdcage Walk, but on inquiries he found it impossible to obtain the fee simple of that building. It was then proposed to build a new office on the site of the new street at Pimlico. He was anxious that the houses in this street should consist of a new and better class of buildings, as being likely to return ultimately a larger amount of ground-rents to the Crown, and he thought that the best mode of beginning would be by building a new office for the Duchy of Cornwall at the extremity of the street, near the entrance to St. James's Park at Buckingham Palace end, and the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall agreed to accept this site, and plans for the new office were prepared and agreed to. But then arose the question of the comparative value of the two sites, and estimates were made on the part of the Board of Works and the Duchy of Cornwall respectively. The Board of Works argued that as the new office would be of more value than the old office in Somerset House, the Duchy of Cornwall ought to pay a portion of the expense. But the officers of the Duchy of Cornwall contended, on the other hand, that, as they had no desire to change, as they were very comfortable where they were, and only consented to vacate their present offices for the public convenience, it was not fair to call upon them to pay any portion of the expense. He could not deny that there was much force in this argument, and the following arrangement had at last been come to:—Two valuers were to be appointed—one by the Board of Works, the other by the Duchy of Cornwall—with power to the valuers to select an umpire; these valuers to have power to determine the difference between the value of the old office at Somerset House and the new office at Pimlico. If the value of the old office was greater than that of the new, Government was not to be called upon to pay anything to the Duchy of Cornwall. If, on the other hand, the value of the new office was greater than the old, the Duchy of Cornwall was only to be called on to pay the half of that difference, the other half being remitted in consideration of the accommodation that their removal would afford to the public. It was further stated that the officers of the Duchy of Cornwall had consented to remove immediately, though the new office would not be complete in less than two years. According to the estimate made by the officer of the Board of Works, the difference between the value of the two offices was 4,000l., to be paid by the Duchy of Cornwall, of which, if the estimate were adopted, 2,000l. would be paid by the Duchy of Cornwall to the Consolidated Fund for the increased value of the new Vote, and the other 2,000l. would be given up as an accommodation to the Duchy of Cornwall for giving up an office which they had no desire to leave, and to which they were as much entitled as any hon. Member was to his town house. This was the estimate of the Board of Works, but the Duchy of Cornwall had come to a different estimate, and one in which no payment was to be made on their part. If the Vote were not agreed to, the Duchy of Cornwall would be very well content to remain in their present office in Somerset House, but the result would be very inconvenient to the public service.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he saw no necessity for this outlay at the present time. The Irish office had been removed from the house in Birdcage Walk, and, that being unoccupied, the right hon. Baronet ought to have removed the Duchy of Cornwall to that office. [Sir W. MOLESWORTH: But they won't go.] The House had lately voted 467,000l., including, he supposed, the surplus from the late Exhibition, for the purchase of ground for public buildings. Surely a place could be found at Kensington Gore for the Duchy of Cornwall; or there was a space behind Somerset House leading to Waterloo Bridge which was available for the same purpose.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the hon. Member for Lambeth was constantly harping upon the Vote of 500,000l. for the sites of Kensington Gore and Burlington House, but he seemed to forget that 150,000l. of that money was no part of the public grant, but was a munificent contribution from the surplus proceeds of the Crystal Palace. The House had voted 200,000l. for the purchase of land at Kensington Gore, but that was not for the purpose of public buildings, nor was the 125,000l. voted for Burlington House, inasmuch as it was purchased for the sake of the site, and it was generally contemplated that the present edifice would be pulled down. And then the hon. Gentleman said that the House having given near 500,000l. for public buildings, ought to be able to find accommodation for the office of the Duchy of Cornwall. He could not understand by what process of logic the hon. Gentleman arrived at this inference. Whether it was right to purchase the area which the country had obtained at Kensington Gore by means of the 150,000l. surplus of the Crystal Palace, was a question for that House to discuss, but it was impossible in these plots of land to find any equivalent for the house they were taking away from the Duchy of Cornwall. If they were turned out of Somerset House, the country was bound to find them another office. The arrangement proposed by the right hon. Baronet seemed to him very wise and politic, and, upon the whole, an economical arrangement, and he should support the Vote.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must explain, that he was perfectly aware that the sum of 467,000l. recently laid out in the purchase of land included the 150,000l. surplus of the Crystal Palace, which had not been voted by Parliament.

MR. AYSHFORD WISE

doubted extremely whether the Duke of Cornwall had in reality any vested interest in Somerset House. If at any time questions were asked in that House upon the subject of the Duchy revenues, they were told it was a private matter, with which that House had no more to do than with the rent-roll of the Duke of Northumberland, or the Marquess of Westminster. If that House, then, had no control over Duchy property, he should like to know what right the Duchy had to a public office for which they paid no rent? With a revenue of 57,000l., and salaries at this moment of 13,000l. a year, he thought the Duchy were not justified in asking for a Vote of this kind — one which benefited persons who assumed, when it was convenient, that they were private individuals. Before the Committee consented to this Vote, he wished to state a few facts with reference to this vested right, for the more he had investigated the case, the more disposed he had been to oppose the Vote. In 1761, George III. purchased Buckingham House of Sir Charles Sheffield for 21,000l. Old Somerset Palace then belonged to the Crown, and was usually the residence of the Queen Dowagers. The Crown, on being paid 100,000l., gave up Somerset Palace, and it was shortly after pulled down and the present house erected by Chambers, between 1776 and 1786. The rooms were converted into offices for the Navy Stamps, Inland Revenue, and other departments, and apartments were allotted to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Now the Act confirming this arrangement was of a very singular character, and several of the clauses were repealed five years afterwards, as contrary to the usage of Parliament, the Acts respectively being 15 Geo. III. c. 33, and 20 Geo. III. c. 40. Lord Coke had well called the Duchy "a great mystery," and there certainly appeared something mysterious about this vested interest. The proposition before the Committee was, to give up a few rooms in Somerset House, and to vote 16,889l. for a new office in Pimlico. The new premises were to be valued against the old, and half the excess to be paid by the nation. If there were any vested interest, and the Government wanted these apartments for the Inland Revenue service, he thought the most desirable course would be to purchase the interest of the Duchy, and not embark in an expenditure without limit or any guarantee that the outlay would not exceed the amount of this Vote. It was said that this was private property; but the Committee could not forget that the original graft by Edward III. to the Black Prince was confirmed by Act of Parliament, and that the accounts were laid annually on the table of the House. And what did these papers disclose? A revenue of 57,158l., anti salaries of 13,000l. a year. The secretary, who now wanted a house in Belgravia with apartments vying with the Clarendon, where it would be cheaper to send him, had a salary of 1,000l. a year, and it was almost amusing to read the list of officers employed. Besides a chancellor and an attorney general, there were land agents, surveyors, inspectors, collectors, mineral agents, registrars, auditors, vice wardens, a warden, and a council to control this multitude of officials. He really thought such a system unnecessary to collect a revenue of 57,000l., and that it was less justifiable to ask for a Vote of 16,889l. to build a new office, when the annual savings now accumulating for the Prince of Wales amounted to 25,000l. a year.

THE MARQUESS OF CHANDOS

said, the Duchy of Cornwall had asked for no Vote, and did not want one single sixpence of public money. This was really a Vote passed for the accommodation of the Office of Inland Revenue. The Duchy had not asked to remove from their present offices, with which they were perfectly satisfied, but, being asked to accede to a new arrangement, they of course wished to have accommodation equivalent to that which they at present occupied.

MR. KENDALL

said, the Duchy of Cornwall were very well located where they were; they did not wish to move; and he thought it would be very unfair if they were turned out without giving them as good a place of residence somewhere else.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought some further explanation was necessary as to the disposal of these sites, which ought to be appropriated to Government buildings. They had had a conversation the other night as to the renewal of the lease of Montagu House. Now, that was of all others the site which, according to all authority, was the best adapted to public offices, and though some explanation had been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) of the accusation he made against the present Government as to that renewal, the Committee ought to know something more about it, and by what influence it was that the public had been de- prived of that valuable site. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to examine the papers, and give the House full explanation on the subject, but he had not done so. He (Mr. Hadfield) thought it would be well if those papers were produced, and also that the House should be informed whether the renewed lease had been granted, if not to a Member of the late Government, whether it had been at the instance of any Member of that Government, or in any way for party purposes.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman was not present on Friday when he admitted, and willingly admitted, that he was the "party," as the hon. Member called it, who was responsible for the renewal of the lease. That lease was renewed to a distinguished nobleman, who was not a Member of either the late or the present Government, and therefore there was no ground for saying that party feeling had anything to do with the matter. With reference, however, to the particular point under consideration, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that when he gave his opinion generally the other night that Crown leases ought not to be renewed in the vicinity of public offices, but ought to be kept for the public service, it was not in any with reference to the Duchy of Cornwall that he was speaking when he referred to the case of Montagu House, because if Montagu House had been kept for the Duchy of Cornwall in case this alteration had been completed, it would have been one of the most disastrous arrangements that could possibly have been made for the public service, and would have entailed the loss of a large sum of money. His view respecting Montagu House had reference to a class of service much superior to and more important than the Duchy of Cornwall. He believed the reasons why the lease of Montagu House was renewed were very valid reasons. There were certain equitable claims why that lease should be renewed, which rendered it an exception to the general principles which he had ventured to lay down. He had stated on a preceding night that he had laid down that principle with regard to the renewal of Crown leases, and also that there had been made virtually an exception in the case of Montagu House which had entirely escaped his attention; but for all this he, and be alone, was responsible. He felt quite persuaded that if a renewal of the lease had been refused with the sole object of accommodating the Duchy of Cornwall, that would have been a most ill-advised and expensive arrangement for the public service.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) having reminded him that he had given something like a pledge to the House in connection with this subject, considered that he owed a word or two of explanation. When he stated that his recollection differed from that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), but that the papers relating to the transaction were at the Treasury, and he would examine them, he had the facts pretty clearly in his mind, but did not think it either wise or just, seeing that the affair had taken place many months ago, to speak positively without referring to the documents. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, rendered any statement of his unnecessary by the explanation he gave the other evening, and after that explanation he thought it hardly necessary to lay the papers on the table. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wished them to be produced, and moved for them, he saw no reason against it. Although he considered that an error in judgment had been committed in renewing the lease of Montagu House, it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman to say that nothing that had occurred gave the slightest justification that there had been anything more than an error in judgment committed.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he wished to inquire whether it would be stated in the papers to be produced how much more the Duke of Buccleuch paid for Montagu House under the new lease than under the old one?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes. I think the House has a right to see the papers, and they shall be produced.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) 2,273l., Registration of Joint Stock Companies.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whether the important question of limited liability was under the consideration of Government. He would say that he was acting for an important mercantile class, connected with Manchester and also with Liverpool, who were desirous of establishing a steam-shipping company under a charter of incorporation, and, on attempt- ing to forward their views, he found it was not a very easy task to get at the information he required. The Resolution passed recently by that House bore very strongly on this question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state, for the advantage of the House and the country, whether it was the intention of Government to do anything next Session, and to bring in some measure upon the subject?

MR. CARDWELL

said, the Resolution referred to the principle of en commandite, and did not apply to the granting of charters to joint-stock companies. He believed it was the general opinion, and no one more cordially shared in that opinion than himself, that it was undesirable power of this kind should be exercised by a political official who was without the means of collecting evidence on both sides. With respect to the Commission, the recommendations of the Commissioners had received the most careful attention of Government, and Government would not fail to take these recommendations into consideration.

MR. BRIGHT

said, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted how anomalous was the state of the law which places in the hands of a political officer of the Government, sitting in a private room, without the power of collecting evidence, the power of granting or refusing charters of incorporation. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman again that this was a question in which the people of England took the deepest interest—a question which did not affect this country merely, but the remotest parts of the earth.

MR. CARDWELL

said, the course pursued by the Government had been in exact conformity with the decision to which a Committee of that House had arrived. He again repeated that the whole question would receive the fullest examination. At present he did not think it would be becoming to say more.

MR. BRIGHT

The President of the Board of Trade had not given him a direct answer; nor, considering the Resolution which that House had affirmed, an answer which was satisfactory.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he must beg to remind the hon. Member for Manchester that a Committee of that House had inquired into the subject, but had abstained from coming to any decision. That Committee recommended the appointment of a Commission. The Government, in accordance with that recommendation, had appointed one. That Commission had made a full, diligent, and searching inquiry, and presented a carefully drawn up Report. Would it be right that he should now anticipate the decision at which the Government might arrive after a careful perusal of the Report and evidence—of a Commission, too, constituted of most able and efficient men, and the result of whose labours had been but so short a time before Parliament. When it was fully considered, then the determination of Government would be known.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) 50,000l., Universal Exhibition of Paris in 1855.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he had had a representation made to him from an important meeting in Manchester with reference to this Vote. If Mr. Cole's, the town clerk's letter was looked over it would be seen that 50,000l. was asked for, and the purposes detailed. In Manchester there was a strong desire to have their manufactures fully represented in the Paris Exhibition, it being considered they were not fairly represented at the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park, in 1851. It was desired by the Manchester manufacturers to have no names or firms affixed to any exhibition of goods, but that goods should only have places, and not names, affixed. A subscription for this purpose had been entered into, and a large sum had already been raised. He had received a letter from a manufacturer in Manchester on the subject of the items of this Vote for 50,000l. The writer said it would appear from Mr. Cole's letter that very little of this sum was to be spent for the benefit of the exhibitors. Some of the items were these:—for dividing the spaces of the exhibitors, 3,700l.; cleaning and watching, 5,200l.; printing and advertising, 3,800l.; travelling expenses and jurors, 11,250l.; other expenses, 3,500l. The only items which really contemplated giving aid to exhibitors were—Carriage of goods, 2,750l.; general decorations, 2,000l. Therefore, out of the whole 50,000l. not more than 9,750l. could be called direct or indirect aid to the exhibition of goods of this country. He hoped the Committee would obtain some expression of opinion on the part of Government, to show that money would not be spent on more official management, but in aiding the views and subscription of the Manchester manufacturers. Let the money be spent, the writer urged, not merely on matters of official show and glorification, but on really useful objects.

He could not say anything more to the purpose than what was contained in the letter. There was only 9,700l. to be applied to objects which directly served the great purpose of the Exhibition, while not less than 43,000l. was to go for other purposes. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman to take care in voting this sum, that such items as 11,250l. for jurors, &c., should not be unprofitably spent. The general result of the jurors at the English Exhibition in 1851 was nearly nothing. Medals and honours were bestowed so generally and universally, that the value of a medal to a manufacturer became so small as not to be able to be calculated at all. He did not mean to say a word against the Committee. The gentleman at the head of the Committee displayed ability and enthusiasm in forwarding the objects of the Exhibition; but he was an official, and, like other officials, was disposed to magnify the office he held, and to concentrate his whole regards in that one object. The grant might, in this view, be devoted in a magnificent manner mainly to the glorification of the official staff, as had been the case in other instances. It was right to vote a sum of money for the Exhibition at Paris, as it would be of extreme advantage to have our manufactures properly represented in Paris, as then the French people might be inclined to think it would be to their advantage to take some of our manufactures as we had done by theirs. He thought 43,000l. for other objects than those directly of utility to the exhibitors was an excessive sum, and he hoped the Committee would look into the items.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say we ought to make a suitable response to the French Government for what they did at our Exhibition in 1851. He admitted the Vote was large, and that it ought to be carefully scrutinised. With regard to his own department, it was its duty to take care that neither the Treasury nor that House should be under any delusion as to the application of the money. The hon. Gentleman said the Vote was so divided as to make more for the convenience and glorification of the official persons, than for the benefit of the exhibitors. The convenience of official persons amounted to this; that far greater responsibilities were thrown upon them, without any addition to their salary. With regard to the distribution of the sum, he was sorry the gentlemen of Manchester did not think the expenditure would operate sufficiently for their benefit. The hon. Gentleman divided the sum into two parts. In every case of this sort there must be two classes of expenditure; one in which direct benefit would be obvious to the exhibitors; the other, where the benefit would be as great though not as obvious. This last class of expenditure had reference to that which was everybody's business and nobody's business, and which, if not undertaken by others than the individuals themselves, would not be done at all, though absolutely necessary in order to enable exhibitors to secure the benefits of the Exhibition. The hon. Gentleman sneered at the division of the sum of money proposed to be voted; but if the amount was too large, according to the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, then the hon. Gentleman's knowledge differed from his (Mr. Cardwell's) knowledge, which was on the information gained from the Exhibition of 1851. [Mr. BRIGHT: That Exhibition was a totally different thing.] It was not totally different. What the French Government did for us, the English Government proposed to do for the French exhibition. The expenditure would not be without due control—the expenditure would be under the control of the official authorities, and the items would be regularly submitted to the Board of Trade. With regard to the sum to be expended, the principle Government proceeded upon was, to call on Parliament to furnish that portion of the expenditure which could not be looked for from individuals. The expenditure would be much less than the expenditure of the French Government in 1851. As it was manifestly impossible at once accurately to state the amount of the actual expenses which would be incurred, this sum had been put down as being likely to be sufficient to cover everything which would be required; but, if it were possible to economise the expenditure, the hon. Gentleman might be assured that every effort would be used for that purpose. He might here take the opportunity of stating that the French Government had, with praiseworthy liberality, made arrangements for the admission and consumption in Paris of all articles otherwise prohibited by the French tariff on payment of a maximum duty of 20 per cent. He rejoiced to have to mention the circumstance at that time; for he thought it was only due to the French Government to make it known. It was not a matter of regular occurrence, but an experiment, and everything of course should be done to lessen the expense; and if the exhibition should increase the intercourse between the English and French people, he (Mr. Cardwell) should not regret that expenditure.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he had no desire to reduce the Vote by a single farthing, if it were considered necessary for the object in view; but he still thought that, while the really useful part of the expenditure was small, and he might even say stingy, that which was to be incurred for the cost of official management, for the staff of clerks, and for sending a great many persons to live luxuriously at Paris, was too large. The French Government were said to have spent 68,000l. on account of the Exhibition of 1851, but it must be remembered that there were not then associations of manufacturers and others at Lyons or Rouen, for instance, subscribing 3,000l. or 4,000l. for these expenses as there was in this country. If that had been the case, the French Government, in all probability, would not have had to spend so large a sum.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, that he had always acted in conformity with one opinion with respect to what was called the Crystal Palace in this country. He entertained the same opinion with regard to Sydenham. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether he had been at the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park? He (Colonel Sibthorp) had abstained from going there, fond as he was of articles of vertu, because be would not encourage foreign in preference to native industry. He had been brought up in that opinion. It might be vulgar; but he was an old John Bull, devoted to his country in every way that he could serve it—both in pocket and in person. He wanted to know whether the hon. Member for Manchester had shown his very valuable person in Hyde Park? He had not found him (Colonel Sibthorp) there, nor would he find him at Sydenham. He had never voted a shilling that was not for the benefit of his country. He would, therefore, again ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether he had been at the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, and whether he meant to go to Sydenham.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, his constituents entertained the same opinions on the Vote as those of the hon. Member for Manchester. They did not object to the amount of the sum, but to its distribution.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he must complain, on the part of the people of Ireland, that the articles were only to be transported. from London to a French port. He objected to the inadequate disproportion between the cost of transport and the cost of representation—it was the half-pennyworth of bread to the six gallons of sack. He hoped that something would be done for the transport of Irish manufactures from Ireland to France. There was no vote of public money in aid of the Irish Exhibition; and more assistance was got from abroad for that important national object than from this country. He did not object to the Vote; but he hoped Ireland would receive its due share of the expenditure.

MR. RICH

said, that there did not appear to be any objection to the Vote, and, although there were some difficulties with regard to the appropriation of it, it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would give some intimation as to what officer would have the control of the money voted, and whether any Member of the Government would be responsible for its expenditure.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he believed that if exhibitors had been left to themselves the whole affair would have been much better arranged than it would be if any charge were made upon the public funds. He could perceive that the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of this Vote, but he, for his own part, entirely objected to it. The report which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) appeared to him to be very absurd, for the greater part of the Vote would be eaten up in printing and other expenses, and in enabling a staff of jurors to pass a very agreeable time in Paris at the public expense.

MR. SPOONER

said, there was some ground to ask a Vote for the transportation of goods to Paris, and for watching over their security there. But he did not know what we had to do with "the completion of the Exhibition and its general decoration." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite could give the House some explanation of the items which appeared in the Vote under these heads.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that all that it was intended to do was precisely the same that had been done by the French Government in 1851. It was not intended to furnish exhibitors with cases, but, after all had been done by the exhibitors, it became necessary to do something still more. In the case of raw products, persons would not care to send them over for exhibition, but the Government would do so, and the expenses of the cases would be defrayed out of this item. With regard to general decoration, also, it was proposed only to do what had been done by the French Government in 1851, and he must say that, if the textile fabric of this country were to be exhibited, in his opinion it would not be advantageous to place it in a part of the building which, from its appearance, would be the part least likely to attract the French people.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, the Government had encouraged foreigners to that degree, that no article could be sold for the ladies unless it was foreign. For durability, solidity, and beauty, there was nothing like the British manufactures. He was a real John Bull. He had no reliance upon the French. Beware of man-traps and spring-guns in Prussia and Austria. John Bull was a great fool; and he (Colonel Sibthorp) would not subscribe to any Vote for the foreigner unless it was stated to be for the good of the British public.

MR. LOCKE

said, he did not intend to oppose the Vote, but he thought that if the manufacturing industry of this country had been left to itself, there would have been no necessity for it at all.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding 100,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1855.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that many items paid under this head in the course of last year were very objectionable. He would not trouble the Committee with all of these objectionable matters, but only pick out some of the worst. He found that several amounts were set down for progresses made by West Indian bishops round their dioceses; he could not understand why these bishops did not pay the expense of these tours themselves. Again, for the clothing of the trumpeters of the Guards, a sum of 1,567l. was set down. That amount ought to have been in the Army Estimates, and then there would have been an opportunity of objecting to it. Another item was the payment to Lord Cranworth on his appointment as Lord Chancellor, 1,843l. Why this was paid he (Mr. Williams) could not conceive. A similar item was 2,000l. to Earl St. Germans, on his appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and this was as inexplicable as the payment to Lord Cranworth. The objectionable items amounted in the whole to 10,000l. or 12,000l., and they had no redress, for the Vote was for 100,000l., which, no doubt, would be 20,000l. more than would be required, so that if he even induced the Committee to deduct the 10,000l. or 12,000l., there would be sufficient remaining to defray all the charges.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he wished to know upon what ground a sum for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the colonial bishops for making tours through their dioceses was placed upon the Votes? It appeared to him to be an entirely new charge upon the public funds.

MR. J. WILSON

said, that for very many years the colonial bishops had been obliged to pay periodical visits to various portions of their dioceses. Several of these localities consisted of islands in the West Indies, and in passing to those districts they were usually afforded a passage in such of Her Majesty's ships as might happen to be at the particular station, and were merely allowed the expenses of their maintenance while on board the vessel. With respect to the sum paid to the Lord Chancellor upon his appointment, he could only say that a similar sum had been given to that officer from time immemorial; and he believed it was entirely inadequate to defray his expenses. To the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, also, who was a high officer of State, he did not think that an unreasonable sum was asked to be granted for the purpose of furnishing the equipage becoming his position.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, that, as he had received no sufficient answer with respect to the amount allowed to the colonial clergy for the purpose of enabling them to make a tour from one portion of their dioceses to another, be should move that that amount be deducted from the Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum not exceeding 99,629l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1855.

In reply to a question from Mr. VERNON SMITH,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the first result of Sir Stafford Northcote's service was, in con- junction with another person, a Report upon the Packet Estimates, which led to a great reduction of the expenditure of the public money. He wished that his right hon. Friend should have time to read all the blue books that were produced by Sir Stafford Northcote and other public officers, and in conclusion he begged to remark that Sir Stafford Northcote was not in possession of any other emoluments when, at the request of the Government, he consented to receive a salary for his services.

MR. MURROUGH

said, that if they did not go to a division, the hon. Member for Southwark was only wasting the time of the Committee. He thought the hon. Member should have pressed the matter much more strongly than he had done.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, the allowance to the colonial bishops was so small that it did not allow them to pay the expenses of travelling to various parts of their dioceses, which in some cases included many of the West India Islands; and hitherto the practice had been to pay out of the public funds the expenses incurred by them. For example, the island of Bermuda was in the diocese of the Bishop of Newfoundland—a considerable distance. The journey would involve considerable expense, and the small salary of the bishop would hardly enable him to bear it.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he would not divide upon the question if the hon. Under Secretary promised that the items would not be repeated next year.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had been himself cruising about the whole evening in a very unsatisfactory manner, and without coming to any result. After criticising several items, the hon. Member had concluded by doing nothing.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that whatever opinion the hon. Member might entertain of his conduct he regarded with perfect indifference. He had divided Committees on a great many items of wasteful expenditure, and he never succeeded yet in any division; and he, therefore, after pointing out what he conceived to be items of extravagance, thought it better to leave the matter rather to the Government than to the House of Commons.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he must protest against these constant claims for colonial purposes connected with religion.

Amendment negatived:—Original Question put, and agreed to.

(12.) 812,826l., Post Office Packet Service.

(13.) 998,000l., Militia.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he felt called upon to complain of the astounding increase in the standing army and militia force this year as compared with previous years. In the year ending 31st March 1852, the standing army was 98,714. The number this year was 127,977. Then there was an increase in the artillery from 14,573 to 20,306. And here was an increase of 124,700 militia, yet only 30,000 had been sent to the East, an equal number to which had been withdrawn from Ireland and the colonies.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, he thought it was evident the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) knew nothing of soldiering, and he should like to see the hon. Gentleman amongst the awkward squad of the regiment which he had the honour to command. He believed that nobody in the country would be more ready to cry out "wolf," if his property were in danger than that hon. Gentleman. He (Colonel Sibthorp) considered the war to be one which involved the law, religion, and liberties of this country, and it was the duty of every loyal subject cheerfully to bear his share of its necessary burdens.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he begged to ask the Secretary at War what arrangements had been made with respect to the clothing of the troops?

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

replied that, with respect to the regiments of line, the contracts were for a year in advance. Consequently, there were contracts existing for the supply for 1855, and in some cases for 1856, in which no changes could take place, but the changes that would hereafter take place were under consideration. He had had specimens of cloth submitted to him, and hoped that he should be able, at the same time that the clothing was of a better description than heretofore, to effect a considerable saving in the outlay.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) 10,000l. Retired Full Pay.

COLONEL LINDSAY

said, he wished to know Whether there would be any objection to granting to those officers who had retired on full pay—many of whom had done good service during the Peninsular war—the same boon that had been granted to those who might hereafter retire on full pay?

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he begged to ask what was the intention of the Government with reference to the recommendations of the Commission? He considered the subject alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Lindsay) worthy of consideration.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he could not avoid expressing his fears that justice had not been done towards the colonels of regiments in the compensation given to them in lieu of the emoluments they derived from clothing their men. When those emoluments were first given to them, they were required to give up certain pensions and other sources of income. However much the country might condemn the system of making colonels derive advantages from clothing their regiments, he was quite certain it would not be the public wish that men, many of whom were distinguished officers in the service, should be prejudiced in their income by any new arrangement it might be thought expedient to introduce.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, that, with regard to the clothing of the army, he thought the alteration which had been introduced was quite necessary, and that the changes would be economical, not because the colonels of regiments would suffer from it, which he believed would not be the case, because his opinion was that the whole fault of the existing system was on the part of the clothiers, and not of the colonels. He very much doubted whether such a system could have existed for so long a period if there had been any malversation. He thought, however, the system to be most objectionable in principle, and therefore he proposed that it should be abolished. It was quite true that the officers did give up their good-conduct rewards, and that they were exposed to this inconvenience, that during the first year they held their regiment they got no emolument from the clothing, as that went to the executors of the predecessor. Under these circumstances, he had offered to the officers to pay them at once for the year, which he thought was only fair. Further than this, where the officer provided caps which would have been paid for by his successor, in that case he considered that the public should stand in the same position as the successor would have done, and should pay the value of one year or of two years, as the case might be; but in no case would the officer be entitled to more than 600l. a year. With respect to the question whether the recommendations of the Commis- sion would be made law, he should say that they would be embodied in a warrant. He had been for some days employed in drawing up minutes on the subject, and had had a communication with the Commander in Chief respecting it, but he would not give any opinion upon it at present. He confessed that his knowledge of that House and the bad results with regard to promises was such that he did not think they could pledge themselves to make any measure have a retrospective action. However, he would promise that the subject should receive the fullest possible consideration.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed.