§ (1). 135,863l. Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he saw that the Vote included a sum of 2,000l., for replacing the present decayed farm buildings in Windsor Park. He presumed that these were the buildings in the occupation of His Royal Highness Prince Albert; and be thought that if His Royal Highness paid neither rent nor taxes, the cost of keeping such buildings in repair ought not to be paid by the public. He objected, also, to the public being charged, as they were in these Estimates, with the expenses of the offices and staff of the Ecclesiastical and Tithe Commissions. Such charges were most unjust, considering the immense property of the Church. He also observed that there were no less than eight cathedrals and abbeys kept up in Scotland at the public expense.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, His Royal Highness Prince Albert paid for the farms which he occupied the same rent as would be charged to any ordinary tenant, and the amount of that rent was carried to the public credit. His Royal Highness, it was well known, was a great improver, and had carried "high farming" to a point of great perfection; but whenever he had proposed substantial or permanent improvements, and those improvements had been carried out, they had been paid for in the 1277 same way as they would have been in any other case, one half by the Crown, as landlord, and the other half by His Royal Highness, as tenant, He thought that, upon the whole, they were rather more strict in dealing with His Royal Highness than they were with an ordinary tenant. With reference to the other observations which the hon. Gentleman had made, he could only say that if Commissions were appointed for important public purposes, they must be provided with offices, and those offices must be furnished. With regard to the abbeys and cathedrals in Scotland, mentioned by the hon. Member, they were kept up as specimens of the architecture of their respective ages, and he believed there would be a very general disinclination to allow them to fall to ruin.
§ MR. SPOONERinquired what was the number of acres which His Royal Highness Prince Albert occupied, and in respect of which this 2,000l. was to be expended?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, as the arrangement with his Royal Highness was made when he was at the Board of Works, he might perhaps be permitted to explain that, with respect to the farms which Prince Albert occupied and farmed, he was treated in precisely the same way as any ordinary tenant of the Crown; but that with respect to the dairy farm, that was considered an appendage to the Castle, which ought as much to be kept up as the kitchen or any other part of Her Majesty's establishment. He imagined that this 2,000l. was required in order to carry out a plan which was in contemplation when he was in office, for putting the buildings on the dairy farm into suitable condition. Their state was certainly not such as any nobleman would like the buildings on his own dairy farm to be in.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that this sum of 2,000l. which was now asked for was required for the purpose of completing the new farm buildings on the dairy farm, as stated by the noble Member for Totness (Lord Seymour).
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that the dairy farm was an appendage to the Castle, and had no objection whatever to its being made as perfect as possible; but the explanation just offered differed very materially from that which had been before given by the Secretary of the Treasury.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, the explanation was this. Improvements on the dairy farm 1278 were paid for wholly by the public; on the other farms His Royal Highness paid one-half, as any other tenant would do, and the public paid the other.
MR. HUMEsaid, he considered the reference of the Estimates to a select Committee as the only effectual means of bringing them into a satisfactory state. This year the Miscellaneous Estimates alone amounted to 5,000,000l., while Mr. Pitt's Estimates for 1792–93, only amounted to 5,256,000l. for Army, Navy, Miscellaneous, in short, for every charge but that of the debt. However, taking this Vote as it was, he found a charge of 595l. for the Military Knights' houses at Windsor Castle, although it was stated that there were several thousand pounds which ought to be applicable to that purpose; a charge of 4,694l. for liabilities incurred under the Act 11 and 12 Vict., for improving the approaches to the Castle and town of Windsor, although no less a sum than 85,000l. had been paid by two railway companies, which ought to be available for carrying into effect the provisions of that Act; charges for the British Museum and for the Royal Mint, although there was a separate Vote for each to be afterwards proposed; and no less a sum than 20,158l. for the rent of houses occupied as public offices, although there was a piece of ground in Downing Street which had remained unoccupied for years, and upon which, with other property adjoining, for which an estimate had been obtained, he believed that buildings might have been erected at a very moderate expense, according to a plan which had been laid upon the table of the House, and all the different departments of public business have been brought together under one roof.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he must explain that of the 4,694l. proposed to be paid in discharge of liabilities at Windsor the first Vote of 2,6641. was mainly for professional services performed antecedently to the passing of the Act; the other sum of 2,030l. was required to put the roads in proper order before the charge of maintaining them could be transferred to the respective parishes, and, he believed it would be the last sum that would be asked for for that purpose. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the private houses which were rented by the Government and used as public offices were unfit places for the purpose, and that great advantage would result from bringing the different depart- 1279 ments together into one suitable building. He had caused plans to be prepared, and should be happy to propose that they should be acted on, if he could prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sanction the necessary expenditure.
LORD SEYMOURsatd, he thought, as the expense of the Post Office and Custom House Establishments were for the future to be the subject of Vote, it would have been well if the amounts required by those establishments for the repair of their public buildings had been included in the present vote. He had heard with great pleasure the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend against the occupation of private houses as public offices, for he felt that such places were not only most inconvenient, but that they involved the employment of a large number of persons as messengers and doorkeepers, and in other subordinate capacities, whose services might easily be dispensed with, if the various public offices were grouped together and brought under one roof. The arrangement, therefore, would lead to a considerable saving of expense.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the Bill for effecting the proposed change in the Revenue Departments not having yet become law, the Votes for repairs in those departments could not be included in the Estimates which were now before the House. Next year the course suggested by the noble Lord would be adopted.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 19,437l., Buckingham Palace.
MR. HUMEsaid, that something like 1,500,000l. had been expended on Buckingham Palace, and he should like to know of this was to be the last vote on account if that building?
§ SIR. WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the sum now asked for was a portion of a former vote, and he hoped it would include all that was necessary to be done to that building.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 66.585l., Royal Parks, &c.
§ MR. EWARTsaid, the public had the advantage of admission to Bushy park and gardens; but there was a large park of several hundred acres in extent, called the Home park, which was totally unused except by the deer. He could not see why it should not be thrown open to the public. Richmond Park had been recently fully opened to the public, and he saw no reason why the Home Park at Hampton Court 1280 should not be placed in a similar position. He understood that at present only a few privileged persons had the right of entrée to it. It would also be a great improvement to restore the ancient fountain in Bushey Park, which, besides being an ornament, would remain as an historical memorial of the times of William III.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, with regard to the park alluded to by the lion. Member, there were certain rights of the ranger connected with that park recognised by Statute, and he did not see how they could be controverted. He would, however, consider if anything could be done in the matter. He believed the restoration of the fountain would be attended with considerable expense.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he trusted that on the appointment of the new ranger an entrance to the park would be secured to the public.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought every park to which the public money was voted should be thrown open. There was an item of 11,002l. for the Royal Botanical Gardens and Pleasure Grounds at Kew, which, under the superintendence of Sir William Hooker, had been very greatly improved. During last year there had been 331,210 visitors to these gardens, and no one could doubt the great benefit which had been conferred upon the public by their unrestricted opening. He highly approved of throwing open Kew Gardens on Sundays, and any person present on such occasions could not fail to be struck with the orderly and decorous conduct of the thousands who visited them. He should be glad to see all public places thrown open on a Sunday, as he believed it was the most humanising and instructive course of proceeding that could be adopted.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he had frequently witnessed the happy results which had accrued from the unrestricted opening of the gardens at Kew and the Palace at Hampton Court. With regard to the fountain in Bushey Park, he had naturally supposed that the sum of 1,200l. granted under that head last year, and 1,900l. asked for now, had sonic reference to repairs going on for the purpose of restoring that magnificent work of art. The subject had been referred to no less than fifteen years ago, and at that time Mr. Gordon, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, promised that the restoration should be attended to.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished 1281 to call the attention of the Committee to the large sum of 13,866l., for keeping St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park in repair. He wished to know whether of the sum of 66,5851. for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens no portion was taken from the Crown lands?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, there was a large increase in the Civil Service Estimates from year to year, but there was a constant process going on of paying into the Consolidated Fund the revenues and fees which had in former years been expended on the parks. The receipts from the various parks amounted to 5,220l. With regard to this Vote, every source of income was paid into the Exchequer, and every portion of the expense was voted by the House.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the increased expense for the parks arose from the increase in the price of materials and labour. It was necessary also to employ a considerable number of officers for the preservation of order.
§ LOND ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he trusted the right hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the subject of the fountain at Bushey Park. A work like that ought not to be destroyed for want of sufficient repairs.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that, with regard to the fountain in Bushey Park, he would have a new estimate made of the cost of restoring it, but while some hon. Members were calling for these improvements, others were complaining of the expense.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum not exceeding 141,294l. be granted to her Majesty for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament to the 31st day of March, 1855.
§ MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to inquire whether any settlement had been come to with Sir Charles Barry, for superintending the works at the Houses of Parliament?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the whole circumstances of the case had been gone into, and the Treasury had come to a conclusion as to what would be a fair amount of remuneration. A communication had been made to Sir Charles Barry on the subject, but he demurred, and there the matter stood at present. He understood that Sir Charles Barry was preparing a statement in support of his own views.
MR. HUMEsaid, he hoped the Government would not consent to pay Sir Charles Barry anything until the accounts were made up. Before a stone was laid the Committee, over which Sir Robert Peel presided, came to the conclusion that 25,000l. should be paid in the shape of remuneration, in order to remove any inducement to increase the estimated expenditure, and each of the competing architects who sent in plans was furnished with a copy of that decision.
§ MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he would be glad to know what sum had been paid to Sir Charles Barry?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that speaking from recollection, he believed about 40,000l. The original estimate for the works, included in which Sir Charles Barry was, as arranged by Lord Besborough, to receive 25,000l., was 600,000l. or 700,000l. Upon the additional work, Sir Charles Barry had been paid a commission in a proportion similar to that arranged for upon the original estimate.
§ MR. WILSON PATTENIs there any work unmeasured or unsettled?
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that all the work was measured up to the end of last year, and he believed that as the work had been completed since, it had been measured and paid for.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the additional sum paid to Sir Charles Barry had been paid contrary to agreement, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be called upon to refund it. He must complain that much expense was caused by the architect building, and then pulling down and rebuilding portions of work. It was his belief that the Houses of Parliament would not be completed in his lifetime.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not acknowledge that any blame was due either to himself or to his predecessors for anything defective in the arrangement for the construction of the New Houses of Parliament. It must be remembered that Parliament had never effectually committed the responsibility for these works to the Executive Government. For himself, he wished it had. Last year a desire had been expressed that a final estimate should be prepared, and a communication was made from the Treasury to Sir Charles Barry, requesting that such an estimate should be made. The Government were not yet in possession of that estimate; but it was only justice to Sir Charles Barry to state 1283 that his serious illness must have caused the delay. He agreed that it was desirable to know the end of this expenditure. It might be thought at first sight that 40,000l. was an extravagant remuneration to the architect, but a little consideration would show that that sum was greatly below what Sir Charles Barry was entitled to claim. It was now twenty years since the fire, and the new works had been spread over nearly that number of years. It must not be supposed that the sum paid to the architect could he regarded as not profits or receipts. Sir Charles Barry was subject to very heavy expenses, and he believed that his outgoings in the New Houses of Parliament for establishment and assistants averaged from 1,200l. to 1,500l. a year. If the Committee applied that sum to the number of years during which this expenditure had been going on, they would see that it amounted to a very large sum. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was incorrect in saying that Sir Charles Barry was paid for pulling down and altering his own work. A great deal of work had certainly been un- done and done over again, but many of the changes that had been made in that, and especially in the other House of Parliament, had been undertaken against Sir Charles Barry's opinion, and had exposed him to much additional labour. He understood that the various alterations made had compelled the architect to undertake three times the labour of the reconstruction of his design—an amount of toil which very few Members of that House were able to appreciate.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know upon whom rested the superintendence of the expenditure, and begged to call attention to the fact that Mr. Gurney had expended but 80l. in removing the apparatus of Sir Charles Barry and Dr. Reid for ventilating the House which had cost 240,000l., and had by doing so made the House healthy, and effectually ventilated it.
§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that it was not fair to lay to the charge of Sir Charles Barry this expenditure of a quarter of a million for ventilation, because he had strongly protested against the adoption of Dr. Reid's system. There was no doubt a large outlay had been made for works which had been subsequently altered in the construction of the House. For instance, it had been found absolutely necessary to reconstruct a great portion of the lobbies and to make many improvements 1284 in the interior; but those prior works were in the nature of experiments, which were found inefficient; and, considering the House a national monument, he did not object to seeing it made a building worthy of the nation. He agreed that it was desirable to have a final estimate, but he should not be surprised if that estimate were found to he much larger than had been anticipated; for he thought, when the House was finished, nobody would be satisfied with the south side of Bridge Street, and other places, including the courts of law, immediately adjacent to the building. He thought some accommodation for sheltering the horses of Members was very desirable, and hoped that object would not be lost sight of.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, they had heard the Government had no control over the works. Who, he asked, had any control if they had none? They were going to vote away a considerable sum of money this year; and was the same kind of thing always to go on without any responsibility attaching to the officers of the Government, or any others, in respect to the expenditure of that money? He hoped they would have some direct answer from the Government as to who, in future, would have the control; for last year, when the Secretary of the Treasury was pressed upon the subject, after admitting the accounts were in a very unsatisfactory state, he promised they should be fully investigated before the Estimates for this purpose were laid on the table; but now there was a complete renunciation, on the part of the Government, of any responsibility whatever.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the Office of Works had carefully examined the matter. No works now remained unmeasured, but, as the work went on, the account was sent in to the Office of Works, and paid; therefore that office was responsible for the amount executed, but they did not determine what should or should not be done.
§ MR. SPOONER, said, the right hon. Baronet had not exactly answered the question which had been put to him. He had told them all the work was measured out; but he had been asked if it had all been paid for, and, if not, whether the present grant would pay for it?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that a long correspondence on the subject of the accounts had been laid on the table; and, since that time, the rule laid down was, that Parlia- 1285 ment should decide, every year, what sum of money should be devoted for specific works, and that it should not be left to the discretion of the architect or any other person to employ the money for any other purpose. That was the principle upon which they were now acting.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought the best course for the Committee to adopt would be to postpone the Vote until a Committee had been appointed and sat to ascertain who was really responsible. With the assistance of the paper named, and having before them the particulars of what was intended to be done in order to complete the building, they ought to be able to ascertain the probable cost. He thought that they would never act properly unless they dealt with the House as if it were private property, and he should vote against the grant of a single shilling until he knew who was responsible for its proper expenditure.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he begged to ask if it were true, as had been reported, that Sir Charles Barry had been requested to give in designs for the new bridge, so that it might be constructed in unison with the architecture of the House; and, if so, whether any agreement had been made with Sir Charles Barry as to his remuneration?
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the bridge had been intrusted to the engineer of the Department of Works, and Sir Charles Barry had been so kind as to give him his opinion of the design of the work. No agreement had been made with Sir Charles Barry, but he had furnished a design, so that, if possible, the architecture of the bridge should be in harmony with the Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. AYSHFORD WISEwished to call attention to the stone work on the terrace and walls, which was in a very defective state. He did not object to the Vote, but wished that in future no stone should be used except that which had been inspected by proper authorities.
§ MR. BELLsaid, he had been informed that no proper precautions had been taken to procure the selection of good stone, which could only be done by sending persons to the quarry to examine each block. A very slight inspection of the base mouldings would show that they were already in a state of decay.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, they now had a plan of what was to be done, in which the specific work was indicated. For that work 1286 certain sums were to be voted, and he was at a loss to know why hon. Members should complain of those votes unless they were too much influenced by the proceeding of former years.
§ MR. FRENCH, said, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) had not answered any question of importance which had been put to him. Two questions in particular had not been answered—the first was, whether any future payments were to be made until the accounts were submitted to a Committee; and the other was whether they were to persevere in using stone which was not durable. These were two important questions, and the House ought to have a distinct answer to them.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, when the question was put to him some time ago with regard to the stone, he made inquiry, and he was informed, on good authority, that the stone, on the whole, was very good, and that there were not more imperfect stones than were usually found in such a large quantity. He was also informed that the contractor employed a person at the quarry to select the stone. At the same time, it was excessively difficult to get a quality of stone which would resist such an atmosphere as that of London.
MR. HUMEsaid, that a Committee upstairs had recommended that no public works should be undertaken without an estimate of their probable cost, and that Votes should then be taken, year by year, for the expenditure considered requisite by the architects, and he was desirous that that principle should be adopted in the case of the works connected with the Houses of Parliament. He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should postpone this Vote until a complete estimate of the total amount likely to be required was laid before the Committee.
§ MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he hoped the Committee would be informed whether the new bridge at Westminster was to be constructed of stone or of iron. He felt some anxiety on this subject, for he considered that the new Palace at Westminster was one of the most magnificent public buildings in Europe, and was admirably adapted to the purposes for which it was intended. He thought few persons would deny that it would be a pity to mar the effect of such a building from any paltry economical motives, and he considered that an iron bridge, of whatever shape, could scarcely be made 1287 consistent with an edifice in the Gothic style.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that this subject had been brought before the Committee which sat last Session, and the Committee determined, after much deliberation, that the bridge should be composed of iron. It would be a handsome structure, and quite congruous with the architecture of the Houses of Parliament. Sir Charles Barry approved of the design; although, no doubt, that gentleman would have preferred a stone bridge instead of an iron one; but a very large sum of money would be required to pay for a stone bridge, and more than the state of the Bridge Estate Funds would be able to afford. That was the reason why an iron bridge had been decided upon; and, when finished, it would, he believed, look remarkably well. It would be very much wider than the existing structure.
§ MR. FREWENsaid, that as one of the Members of the Committee which sat upon the question of the rebuilding of Westminster Bridge, he could confirm the statement of the First Commissioner of Works as to the inadequacy of the funds of the Bridge Estate to build a stone bridge, although they would be able to furnish the means for building an iron one.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with regard to Sir Charles Barry's remuneration, which had been alluded to, that it would not be consistent for the Government to give a pledge on that subject in the terms suggested, and for this reason—that the Government were not yet able to bring to a conclusion what they conceived to be their own duty with respect to Sir Charles Barry. What they said, and what they ought to say, was this —that they would be responsible to that House for making no payments to Sir Charles Barry, with respect to which they were not perfectly certain that it would be within any sum which that House would award. Of course they would not commit the House to anything of a doubtful character, or make any issue to Sir Charles Barry, excepting that which that House would be likely to sanction. They had not yet arrived at the time for forming a judgment on that subject, and when they had brought the matter as near as they could to a proper train for that purpose, then would be the proper time to recommend the House to deal with this question. He hoped the Committee would not divide upon this Vote, because it referred 1288 to a matter of contract with regard to which it would not be well to create a doubt under the circumstances stated by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), and, above all, for this reason, that this was not a question for controlling the Executive Government —the question was about establishing an efficient control, and especially a verity of control; and for that object the Executive Government was most desirous of co-operating with the House.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had heard with satisfaction the first part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, but still thought that the Vote ought to be allowed to stand over until the Committee had a plan of all the work that was yet to be done, and an estimate of the total cost. He should therefore ask the Committee to negative this Vote if it was persisted in.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he quite agreed that the Government could not postpone a Vote with regard to which a contract existed, but he believed it possible to prepare a plan and estimate next year.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he would support the Vote, but thought the time had come when they ought to see what further works were to be sanctioned for these buildings. There need not be much difficulty in making an estimate, as the architect must have made up his mind how high he would carry the two great towers, for instance, and could therefore calculate how much it would cost to complete them. They had already consented to lessen the head-way of the Thames to accommodate Sir Charles Barry, and thus seriously injured the navigation of the river; and he, therefore, thought to make it now a question whether the bridge should consist of iron or of stone, as regarded the effect upon the river, was like straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 57; Noes 35: Majority 22.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 10,000l., Stationery Office.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUME,
§ MR. J. WILSONexplained, that the object of this Vote was to enable the Government to consolidate the whole of the enormous mass of printed and unprinted papers in one building, which are now kept in the printer's warehouses at a very heavy cost for rent. By this means the expenses of management would be reduced, and the saving in rent alone would more than pay the interest upon the proposed outlay. 1289 Vote agreed to, as was also the following:—
(6.) 100,000l., General Repository, Public Records.
(7.) 155,486l., Holyhead Harbours.
(8.) 237,000l., Harbours of Refuge,
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought that the expense incurred on account of the works at Alderney was very useless. It appeared to him that it would be far more advisable to expend the money in the construction of works on the coast of England.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that one of the items in this Estimate was for the works at Portland. Now, the works at Portland were chiefly carried on by convict labour, which was remunerative to the country. The only prisoners who paid the expenses attending them were those at Portland. There were more than 800 convicts confined there, and they paid the country by their labour upon public works, by which the country profited. He wished, therefore, to impress upon the Government the propriety of applying convict labour to other public works, especially to those in the nature of harbours of refuge, on which they might be employed without coming into contact with independent labour. If nothing was done on this important subject, he should in another Session bring it under consideration, in order that the opinion of Parliament might be taken upon it.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that it was most desirable that convict labour should be employed on public works, in order that the public works might be remunerative on the one hand, and be carried on in a way consistent with the best discipline on the other. The works at Portland had received the sanction of Parliament, and it would be wise economy to have them finished with the least possible delay; and-for this purpose the number of convicts employed upon them had been greatly increased. About 1,000 convicts were now employed there. The vote proposed to be taken for the works at Dover was 34,000l., in order to complete the existing contract. It was intended to extend the sea wall, which would be done by contract, but it was not intended to take any vote this year on account of the extension. With regard to the works in the Channel Islands, he had visited them in company with Lord Raglan, Sir John Burgoyne, Admiral Dundas, Sir Baldwin Walker, 1290 and the respective engineers; every possible investigation had been made on the spot, and subsequently they assembled at the Home Office, along with the Secretary at War, for the purpose of coming to a decision respecting these works. It had been determined that the works at Guernsey should not be carried into immediate execution; those at Jersey would be finished this year, and those at Alderney would be proceeded with; but at Holyhead it was intended to depart somewhat from the original plan, with the view of inclosing a larger area of deep water. At a comparatively small additional expense, great advantages would be derived from this extension.
MR. HUMEsaid, he hoped the Committee would be furnished with a return of the number of vessels that visited either Guernsey or Alderney in the course of a year. He did not think a harbour of refuge was necessary at Alderney, but one was certainly necessary on the north-east coast of England, where numerous vessels had been wrecked during last winter for the want of such a place. At the entrance of the Tyne no fewer than twenty-five or thirty vessels had been lost. He hoped, therefore, that protection would be given to our own coast, rather than spend money uselessly on the Channel Islands, for it was quite time something was done on our north-east shores.
§ MR. INGHAMsaid, he cordially approved of this suggestion; and he would add that the shipowners on the Tyne and the corporation of Newcastle had agreed, the former to tax themselves to the extent of 10,000l. a year, and the latter to surrender rights worth 7,000l. a year, if the Government would undertake the construction of the necessary works. There was not a harbour of refuge on the whole of the north coast, and he would suggest that if one were constructed at the mouth of the Tyne, it might be useful, in the event of war with any of the northern Powers, as a station for our ships. He hoped that next year the Government would lay some proposition before the House on this subject.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it was natural for his hon. Friend to feel a preference for the entrance of the Tyne; but he had been requested to consider also the claims of Hartlepool, and the mouth of the Tees. He had also been assured that the Yorkshire coast was better than any other place yet suggested for a harbour of refuge. If one were to be established be- 1291 tween the Humber and the Forth, it would therefore be necessary carefully to consider the site; but at present it appeared to him wiser to finish sonic of the larger works in hand, on which considerable sums had already been spent. He had been advised, in respect to war with any of the northern Powers, that it would be an error to build a harbour of refuge either upon the Tyne or the Tees. Nature had done all that was necessary at Leith, on the Forth, and on the Humber. These places possessed all the facilities that could be desired under such circumstances. With regard to the great national harbour at the Humber, he had recommended a considerable outlay.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he hoped the Government would not be induced to embark in any more expensive harbours of refuge without due consideration. A large sum had been already expended upon them, and it would be desirable that the Treasury should take care, in future Estimates, to show the sum required for the completion of the works, and whether or not the original plan had been strictly carried out.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that full information on those matters was contained in a separate paper which was upon the table of the House.
§ SIR GEORGH PECHELLsaid, that the works at Alderney could be of little use in cases of distress, because it would be most dangerous for ships in stormy weather to approach the rocks surrounding that island.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had never yet found a single person who believed that the expenditure upon the works at Alderney was judicious. He was not in favour of building up structures and pulling them down again, but he questioned whether in this case it would not be better to stay progress altogether, for the country was not likely to be benefited to the amount of 1,000,000l. expended upon the barren island of Alderney.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) 676l., Port Patrick Harbour.
§ MR. H. HERBERTinquired what was the necessity for this harbour, now that the packet service was discontinued between it and the harbour on the opposite coast?
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that expending sums on the harbour was a total waste of money, for it never could be made valuable for any purpose whatever. Among the items he saw a sum of 300l. awarded 1292 to the late Mr. M'Neel, Secretary to the Harbour Commissioners, on surrender by his executor of papers relating to the harbour. He understood that that gentleman had received 200l. a year for twenty-five years, and only did six hours' work a year; and as to the papers, for which 300l. was given, they properly belonged to the Commissioners, and were, when delivered up, found to be worth nothing.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, it was undoubtedly true that the harbour was no longer used as a packet station, but the Government thought it would be extremely unwise, for the sake of saving 300l. or 400l. a year, to allow so valuable a harbour, for commercial purposes even, to fall into decay. With regard to the 300l. awarded to the late Mr. M'Neel, he had much rather not have seen the item in the Votes, for he considered that the papers belonged to the public, and the executor was bound to give them up; but as he refused to do so, it was thought wiser to pay the 300l. than to incur an expensive and uncertain litigation.
§ COLONEL BLAIRsaid, he did not think that the money voted for the harbour was lost. In the south-west of Scotland, and the north-east of Ireland, a strong feeling prevailed that there should be some harbour by means of which the passage between the two countries might be shortened. He hoped that in the next Session a much larger vote would be proposed; for there was a prospect of a railway being formed from Dumfries to the neighbourhood of Port Patrick.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) 26,118l., Public Buildings, Ireland.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the cost of that miserable mockery of Royalty, the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. These Estimates contained items to the amount of no less than 50,000l. connected with this institution. It was perfectly absurd to maintain, in connection with this "mock Royalty," the same description of officers as were in attendance upon the Queen. There were items for the "State Steward's house," "Chamberlain's house," "Comptroller's house," "Gentleman Usher's house," "Clerk of Disbursements' house," "First Aide-de-Camp's house," &c., all of which it certainly could not be necessary to maintain in order to carry on the Government of Ireland. The charge for the Secretary for Ireland was quite sufficient for all the purposes of Government, and that officer 1293 ought to discharge all the duties that were required. His opinion was, that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be abolished.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that the Encumbered Estates Court was very inconveniently situated. An inquiry had been made as to whether it could not be combined with the Four Courts, but no suitable building could be found. There was a public office which was available, but the cost of alterations, at the most moderate estimate, was 12,000l., and it was doubted whether so large an expenditure should be incurred for a Court which had only two years to run. For his own part, he hoped the Court would he continued by Act of Parliament, and, if so, he had no doubt a proper building would be provided for the Commissioners. But in the present state of the matter it would be premature to lay out a large sum to accommodate the Commissioners.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, that in consequence of the Court being so far from the general courts of law, a small and peculiar bar only attended it, and the suitors were deprived of the benefit of being able to choose from the entire bar and obtain the best professional assistance. As to the office of Lord Lieutenant, this was not the proper time for discussing the question of its continuance, but his opinion was, that a Secretary for Ireland would never have that weight and influence which attended the old time-honoured office of Lord Lieutenant.
§ LORD NAASsaid, the general impression in Ireland was, that no one practised in the Encumbered Estates Court except a very select few among the bar, and so strong was the feeling against the inconvenient position of that Court, that last autumn a protest was signed by every barrister in Dublin against that Court being kept separate from the other law courts. The people of Ireland, having once tasted the sweets of a cheap and speedy mode of sale for encumbered estates, would require its continuance, whether vested in the present Court of Commissioners or in any other court, so that it would be necessary to provide additional buildings, which should be accessible to the whole bar.
§ MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he considered it absurd that a court which had such powers conferred upon it, which had distributed millions of money, and had sold hundreds of thousands of acres, should transact its business in two small houses—one on each 1294 side of the street—at a rent of 300l. a year.
MR. HUMEsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) had not made it so much an objection of expense as a matter of policy when he suggested that the office of Lord Lieutenant for Ireland should be abolished. The question was, whether Ireland would not be better governed without a Lord Lieutenant than with one? He (Mr. Hume) had expected before this to see that office abolished. It had been condemned by large minorities in that House. Twenty-five years ago he moved its abolition, and he believed he should have carried it if he had not mixed up with the Motion other offices connected with the staff at Dublin. With regard to the location of the Encumbered Estates Court, the argument urged by the noble Lord (Lord Naas) for its continuance and removal to a more central spot, on the ground of its affording cheap and speedy justice, was a good argument for abolishing the other courts. And as it seemed desirable that the Secretary for Ireland should have something to do, let him bring in a Bill at once to put an end to the existing tedious, dilatory, and expensive system, and permanently establish the Encumbered Estates Court.
§ MR. M'MAHONwas of opinion that the Encumbered Estates Court was the most revolutionary tribunal which had been established during the present century. He did not think that its working was attended with practical advantage, and he certainly hoped that it would not become one of the permanent institutions of the country.
Vote agreed to.
The next Vote was 13,370l. for Works and repairs at Kingstown Harbour.
§ MR. J. WILSONacceded to the proposition of Mr. H. HERBERT to postpone this Vote.
Vote postponed.
The following Votes were then agreed to—
(11.) 83,076l., Houses of Parliament.
(12.) 29,561l., Law Charges.
(13.) 55,146l., Her Majesty's Treasury,
MR. HUMEasked whether any determination had been arrived at with respect to the changes which had been suggested in the mode of the admission of candidates to fill offices in the Civil Service?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government had not come to any final decision upon the subject, 1295 and, as he had previously intimated, as they did not think there was any prospect of being able to secure a fair discussion of it in Parliament this year, nothing would be done during the present Session, but they would resume the consideration of the question during the recess.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) 27,552l., Home Department.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would recommend that all the fees which were charged by the various departments of the Government in the course of transacting the public business should be abolished as soon as possible.
§ MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he thought that independent Members of Parliament ought to have the right of consulting the counsel who received a salary of 2,000l. for drawing Bills for Parliament, with respect to the Bills they wished to introduce, as well as Members of the Government with respect to Government Bills.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, it would be utterly impossible to carry the hon. Member's proposal into effect without employing a number of counsel. MR. WALPOLE said, he wished to put rather an important question to the noble Lord the Home Secretary with reference to the announcement which had been made by the noble Lord the Member for London, to the effect that a new Secretary of State for the War Department was to be appointed. The Committee would bear in mind that the different Secretaries of State exercised co-equal and co-ordinate powers with reference to the duties they had to discharge, except so far as those duties were conferred on them by Act of Parliament. He wished to ask whether any alteration was likely to be made with reference to the superintendence and management of the militia, which was now vested in the Secretary for the Home Department? He hoped there was no intention of depriving the Home Secretary of the management of the militia, as he believed that such a measure would be detrimental to the public service.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he believed that his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), in the early part of the evening, had stated generally the intentions of the Government, but had declined at that moment to go into any details as to the intended arrangements. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel that it would be more fitting that all the details connected with those arrangements should 1296 not be stated until they had been finally settled, and could be laid before the House by his noble Friend.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must express a hope that some improvement would be made in the present system of the management of the militia.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) 72,372l., Foreign Department.
§ MR. BOWYERsaid, he wished to inquire what steps had been taken to render the department efficient, for the purpose of providing persons properly qualified to serve the country in the diplomatic service? In other countries there was a course of study pursued in the Foreign Department which provided a constant succession of public servants, and enabled them to discharge efficiently the duties which might be cast upon them. It was true that there were some great diplomatists in the service of this country, but in the subordinate departments there was no other country in the world so badly served, simply because no means whatever were taken to train persons in the knowledge which was absolutely necessary to enable them to perform the duties which might devolve upon them in the foreign service of the country. He believed that the clerks in the Foreign Office were chiefly occupied in the manual labour of copying letters, and were men totally uneducated.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been directed towards providing an arrangement for the purpose of subjecting to some previous examination those persons who were to be appointed to diplomatic situations in the service of the country; but he did not believe that as yet anything had been decided upon the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman imagined, he believed, that a system ought to be established by which persons employed in the Foreign Office should supply the vacancies in the diplomatic service abroad. Such a system, however, did not exist in the service of any country. Each had his separate duties, and it was essential, no doubt, that each should be properly qualified for the performance of those duties. It was a great mistake to suppose that the clerks in the Foreign Office had nothing to do but to copy papers. They had very important duties to perform, which required great activity of mind, great attainments, and great experience; and he must say that he be- 1297 lieved there was no department of the State in which there were persons better qualified than the clerks of the Foreign Office for the performance of their very arduous duties. He certainly had been greatly indebted to them for the valuable assistance which he had received from them during the time that he had been at the Foreign Office. With regard to our foreign diplomacy, of course, every man was at liberty to entertain his own opinion; but, without making any personal comparisons as to the particular ability or attainments of particular individuals, he would venture positively to assert that there was no Government in Europe that was better served by its diplomatic agents than the British Government both had been and now was. There was one obvious reason for this; and it was, that independently of the merit of individuals, every man in the British service knew that the way to recommend himself to the head of the department was to give a faithful and accurate account of what he saw, what he heard, and what he observed, and that, whether the account which he gave tallied or not with the previous wishes and opinions of the chief of his department, provided he fulfilled his duty faithfully and with intelligence, he would be sure to obtain praise and promotion; whereas in the service of some foreign countries, if a person represented anything in a manner not conformable with the views of his Government, he was more likely to obtain censure and removal than praise and promotion.
§ MR. BOWYERsaid, he must still contend that in the Foreign Department it was peculiarly necessary that there should be an examination of the persons employed, because no one could be found efficiently to serve the country without some knowledge, not only of the routine of the department, but of law and languages, which could only be obtained by a considerable amount of study. Though the Bill to reform the Civil Service had not yet come before Parliament, he thought that some regulation might be adopted in the Foreign Department which would ensure that there should always be a sufficient number of persons trained both in theoretical learning and in the practices which qualified men to serve the country in diplomatic offices.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was a rule long established that persons who were appointed as unpaid attachés on first entering the service must have attended at 1298 the Foreign Office for a certain number of months in order to acquire that previous information to which the hon. Member referred.
§ MR. APSLEY PELLATTasked if there would be any objection to throw open the library at the Foreign Office to the public?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the library at the Foreign Office consisted of a certain number of works connected with history and international law for the use of that department, and also of despatches written and received at the Foreign Office, which were at the end of each year bound into books and put aside on the shelves of the library. After a certain period, say ten or twelve years, these records were transferred to the State Paper Office, where they remained under the custody of the Keeper of the State Paper Office. Now, with regard to the library of the Foreign Office, if any one wished to see printed books there, or large blue books that were not to be found in the British Museum or any other library accessible to the public, they, of course, could be seen; but, with regard to many of those books, and the manuscripts of despatches sent and received, they were documents which of course from their nature could not be shown to everybody who might express a desire to read them.
Vote agreed to, as was also
(16.) 40,550l., Colonial Department.
On the Vote of 68,600l. for the salaries and expenses of the Privy Council,
§ MR. G. BUTTsaid, that the clerk of the Council had in 1853 received a salary of 2,000l., but for the present year it was put down at 2,500l. If he was rightly informed, the gentleman who held the office had it by a grant in reversion, and he presumed the salary was then fixed. How, then, was it that this addition of 500l. had been made?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, the original salary was 2,500l. a year, but it was only 2,000l. during the time that the gentleman held another appointment, in connection, he believed, with the colony of Jamaica. On the giving up of that place the salary reverted to its original amount—namely, 2,500l.
Further explanation being required, Vote postponed.
The House resumed.