HC Deb 16 April 1855 vol 137 cc1476-99

Order for Committee read.

SIR GEORGE GREY

moved that the hon. Henry Fitzroy take the Chair in place of the hon. Edward Pleydell Bouverie, who has accepted the office of Vice President of the Board of Trade.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee of Supply.

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding 154,952l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1850, the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he rose to protest against these Estimates being proceeded with in such a thin House, and without due notice having been given that they were to come on that night. He felt so strongly on the subject that he should move that the Chairman report progress. Those Estimates had gone on increasing year after year to a most enormous extent. Under the Tory Administration of the Duke of Wellington they only amounted to 1,900.000l., while last year they reached to 5,290,000l. It was, therefore, most unfair to attempt to smuggle these Estimates through the Committee, involving, as they did, so large an amount of the public money. There were many items in the Vote highly objectionable, and which called loudly for explanation—thus, he found a sum of 12,000l. inserted on account of the Palace of Hampton Court—a palace which, in all probability, Her Majesty had never even seen, but which was kept up for the benefit of the pauper members of the aristocracy. Upon that palace and park, and the adjoining park of Bushey, a sum of 200,000l. had been expended since the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne. Again, there was a sum of 1,665l. demanded for the repairs of the Duke of Cambridge's apartments in St. James's Palace. Now, he could not see why that should be. Parliament had voted an annual grant of 12,000l. for the maintenance of the Royal Duke, besides which he was colonel of the Coldstream Guards, and enjoyed other emoluments. The late Duke, his Royal father, had provided himself with a residence, and had never come to Parliament for a single shilling on that account. Why, then, should the present Duke be differently treated? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a promise that the expenditure upon the different public parks and palaces would be annually brought under the revision of Parliament. Now, the present Estimates were brought forward in a manner that directly violated the compact thus entered into. The fact was, everything had been placed before the House in a state of the utmost confusion, and it was quite apparent that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works was enabled to expend vast sums of money without any accountability whatever. He regretted very much that he was precluded by the forms of the House from moving the postponement of the Committee altogether. What he would do, therefore, was to move that the Chairman report progress.

MR. WILSON

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, for full and due notice had been given before the recess of the intention of the Government to proceed with these Estimates on that evening. His hon. Friend was of opinion that the proper course would be to refer these Estimates to a Select Committee, but that would be a most inconvenient proceeding, and, if resorted to at all, ought to be adopted at a very early period of the Session, when a Committee would have full time for inquiring into the subject. If a Committee were now appointed to inquire into these Estimates they could not possibly report until the close of the Session. He must remind his hon. Friend that, in consequence of the inquiries that had been made on the subject of the Estimates within the last few years, many charges which used to fall upon the Consolidated Fund were now voted in the Estimates. The Fees of Courts and other public establishments were now paid directly into the Exchequer, and the expenses of those establishments were defrayed by annual Votes, in order that they might come under the revision of Parliament. The consequent increase of the Estimates had been enormous, and he believed the increase in this particular department of the Estimates for the present year was not less than 1,000,000l., owing to the charges which had been removed from the Consolidated Fund and placed upon the Estimates.

MR. SPOONER

said, he fully concurred in the representation of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that if they proceeded that evening, in so thin a House, to vote these Estimates they would be voting away the public money without proper consideration. It was only on Thursday last that they had been placed in the hands of Members, while, in former years, the custom had been to have them printed and delivered to Members before breaking up for the Easter recess.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he also agreed that it would be quite improper to proceed with the Committee on that the first night of their meeting after the recess. For his part, he believed it would be attended with a great saving of time and expense, if, at the commencement of every Session, a Standing Committee were appointed to consider these Estimates previous to their coming before the House. He certainly would support the Motion for reporting progress.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he was most anxious to give every explanation in his power with regard to the Vote. With respect to the palaces entirely in the occupation of Her Majesty, those partly in her occupation, and those not in her occupation, there was a diminution of expenditure in the Estimates of the present year as compared with last year. There was a diminution of 1,312l. in the expenditure on the palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty. There was an item of 750l. for a new carriage entrance for the convenience of Her Majesty from the end of Grosvenor Place. There was also an item of 1,000l. for gas meters and additional mains in connection with the new buildings at Buckingham Palace. There was a sum of 5,558l. for Windsor Castle, the greater part of which was for ordinary repairs, and considering the large area covered by that building, he did not think the sum was a large one. There was a diminution of 595l. in the estimate for St. James's. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) said that there was an expenditure of 1,665l. for the repair of the Duke of Cambridge's residence. That was a mistake. The sum required for the repairs of his Royal Highness's residence was only 75l. The Estimate for Hampton Court was not 12,000l. but 8,000l., of which 2,800l. was for supplying the palace with water in case of fire. Hampton Court was a handsome palace, and it should not be allowed to fall into decay.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he wished to call attention to a subject which had cre- ated much inconvenience in the neighbourhood of Pimlico. He referred to the present formation of the road from Buckingham Gate. Last year, when the Vote was taken in connection with this subject, it was stated that the street was to run directly leading to Birdcage Walk, and was to pass through the Gun Tavern. The people of Pimlico were much annoyed at seeing a different kind of road formed. He wished to know whether any deviation from the original plan laid down had been ordered.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, it was the intention of the Govornment to carry on the street in a straight line through the Gun Tavern. They could not, however, legally obtain possession of the building till next year. In the meantime as much of the road as could be proceeded with had been formed, so as to lose as little time as possible.

MR. AYSHFORD WISE

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the item of furniture for the public offices. In five years the expense of furniture had amounted to 107,634l.—a sum which he thought enormous for such a purpose. He had heard of an anecdote connected with a piece of furniture in one of those offices that reminded him very much of what had been going on lately at Balaklava. One of the officials wanted a bookcase that had been put away in some department or other, and in order to get it a requisition was necessary to bring it from the office in which it was placed; a second requisition was wanted for a porter, a third requisition for a joiner, a fourth for a person to clean it, and a fifth was required for some one to put up the books. With regard to the accounts generally, he might state that the Auditors in their last Report complained that they were kept in such a manner that a faithful and complete comparison could not be instituted between the expenditure and the Votes of Parliament. The Commissioners were required by Act of Parliament to classify the accounts and submit them to that House; but they had not the means of satisfactorily discharging their duty, for certain of the accounts, examined by a set of gentlemen called "professional examiners," attached to the Board of Works, were not properly laid before them. Now, if it were required by an Act of Parliament that certain accounts should be submitted to the Board of Audit, that House should not be satisfied with their being passed merely by professional examiners belonging to the Board of Works, whose very accounts were to be controlled.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that in reference to the hon. Member's remarks relating to furniture, at the commencement of every financial year the Board of Works directed their officers to examine the different offices, and supply any deficiency in the ordinary amount of furniture. For this purpose there was an excess of 6,000l. over the sum required last year, a great portion of which was occasioned by furnishing the new Stationary Office and the new Record Office. But, independently of the ordinary furnishing of offices, there had been created a new Department of War, which had taken possession of the house formerly occupied by the Copyhold Commission. The expense occasioned by the new department, the necessity also of finding a new residence and furniture for the Copyhold Commission, and various other similar items had caused an expenditure of 24,842l. With respect to the Board of Audit, which had been referred to, he had to observe that there were certain works executed under the superintendence of the Office of Works, and for the examination of these accounts persons especially acquainted with their nature were required. The Treasury Committee appointed last year stated that those professional examiners exercised a check over the details of the accounts such as none but professional persons could supply. Their examination, therefore, to a great extent superseded the examination by the Audit Office, which, if these accounts were sent there, would only have to do the same duty over again.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he thought the Committee ought to feel indebted to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. A. Wise) for having called attention to the Report of the Commissioners of Audit, who, not for the first, but for the third time, had complained of the want of information in reference to these accounts. If Parliament required the Commissioners to perform their duty, they ought to have the means of properly discharging it. To know that the money voted was properly applied was even of more importance than cavilling about the amount to be granted. He had, on a former occasion, called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the accounts of the Commissariat, and he was told that he need not trouble himself about them, as they would go before the auditors, who would supply all proper check. He must say, however, that he was not so well satisfied with this check, for the auditors said that the form in which certain accounts were laid before them rendered it impossible for them fairly to set the expense of the year against the Votes of the year. The result of this mode of stating the accounts, and of having balances hanging over for two or three years, or even longer, was to give a power of transferring charges from one year to another, thus leading to great insecurity and uncertainty as to the Votes which Parliament was called on to give. The point for which the Treasury contended was that, as these accounts had been audited by the officials of the department, there was no need for sending them to the Commissioners of Audit; but this was certainly not in accordance with the constitutional functions of the Commissioners of Audit, who had been appointed by Parliament to control the expenditure of money, just as the Controller of the Exchequer controlled its issue. The practice might perhaps be cheaper if it were adopted as a general principle, and if every department had auditors of its own, but that certainly was not a mode of auditing the public accounts which he should recommend the House to sanction.

MR. WILSON

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it would be a great improvement if the same practice were adopted with regard to the Civil Service Estimates as prevailed in reference to the Army and Navy Estimates—that of closing the accounts each year, and not allowing balances to hang over from one year to another. That, however, would be impossible until an entire change took place in the principle on which these Civil Service Estimates were voted. In the first place, it would be necessary that all these Estimates should be voted by the 31st of March, and if Parliament were to continue to meet at the commencement of February, as usual, and there were a press of business, that could scarcely be done. With regard to these accounts, it must be remembered that they consisted, in a great measure, of the accounts of masons and other artificers employed by the Board of Works, which the Commissioners of Audit had neither the means nor the ability to audit. It was, therefore, more convenient that they should first be audited by professional men—servants of the board, who understood such accounts—and that the Commissioners of Audit having received their vouchers should then make a general audit.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, the explanation of his hon. Friend was not satisfactory to him. It was quite true that this practice had gone on fur some time, but the same might be said of the army accounts. He believed it to be possible, though it might be difficult, to do with these Estimates exactly what was done with respect to the Army and Navy Estimates. There were works connected with the Admiralty as large as those in the present Estimate, and there was no such difficulty as the hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend in having them audited by the Audit Board.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know what were the intentions of the Government. Did they mean to give the Audit Office the go-by? There wore certainly difficulties in the way, but they should have been stated when the Audit Commissioners had appealed to the Treasury. He should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that point. No branch of the public service required the audit more than the Woods and Forests.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the Audit Board at present acted under the authority of several Acts of Parliament. Those Acts were of the most conflicting nature, and the heads of departments were anxious that they should be consolidated, so that they might know how to perform their duties. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had any objection to bring in a Bill for the consolidation of the Acts?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was an entire mistake of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham to suppose that the accounts of the Board of Works were not as much subject to audit as those of the Admiralty, or the Ordnance. They were thoroughly examined and passed by auditors, and went through precisely the same process as the accounts of any other public department. Tie only difference between the two related to a species of sub-audit which the accounts for certain works executed under the superintendence of the Board of Works now underwent. It had been found convenient in practice that the surveyors and other officers of the Board of Works should themselves examine the measurements of brickwork performed and other details con- nected with the labour of the artificers employed in their own department. They therefore audited this separate class of items and then sent the aggregate accounts to the Board of Audit for its examination. It might be a fair question for consideration whether this special audit should not be conducted by the Board of Audit rather than by the officers of the Board of Works; but certainly those officers possessed the knowledge which fitted them for the duty, and, moreover, they could have no interest in concealing the errors of the persons employed. However, the subject having been started, the Government would have it investigated, to ascertain whether any change in the existing practice would be advantageous. With regard to the various Acts relating to the Audit Board, our present legislation in that respect, no doubt, was not in the most satisfactory state. The subject had already been brought under the consideration of the Government, and though it would be premature now to give any distinct promise as to the introduction of a measure upon it, yet the series of Acts in question would be examined with the view of effecting an improvement or consolidation of them.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he was quite aware that great difficulties existed, but on the whole believed the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be very satisfactory.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works to the charge of 464l. set down in the Estimates for the repair of the stud-house and paddock in Hampton Court Park. Last year he was informed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Vote then proposed would be the last; but to his surprise he found it again among the Votes, although it was well known that the produce of the stud of horses which were annually sold amounted to a large sum of money. What he wished to know was, whether a regular debtor and creditor account was kept of the sums so received, which, at all events, might be applied in keeping up the buildings instead of taxing the public to do so?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he had nothing whatever to do with the stud, that the money required was for the repair of certain buildings at Hampton Court, and he really knew nothing of the produce of these horses alluded to by his hon. Friend.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he thought an account ought to be given of the sums received for the sale of these horses; but he believed many of them were used in Her Majesty's carriages, and, as such, were the property of the Crown.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, the hon. Baronet had evidently misunderstood him. The horses he alluded to were regularly thorough-bred, and sold for racing purposes. The sum realised in that way was, he believed, very considerable.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, were it not a case of absolute necessity. What he desired was, that the Miscellaneous Estimates should be postponed in order that members might have an opportunity of considering them, and he also thought that the Government should supply the House with the materials requisite for instituting a comparison between the Votes for the present year and those for the past three years. They had already voted upwards of 40,000,000l. for the army and navy, with scarcely a single objection; and afterwards the Estimates of another department, amounting to nearly 4,000,000l., were brought forward surreptitiously at midnight, and agreed to without an observation. There was a sum of 12,357l. in the present estimate which he wished to have explained. One item of 4062l. was for repairing Hampton Court Palace; and to lay down mains for the purpose of procuring water in case of fire, there was a sum of 5000l. additional. Then there was, for the gardens, 82l.; 464l. for the paddock, alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley); and next followed 2159l. for Hampton Court Great Park, and for pleasure-gardens 590l., the whole making a sum of 12,357l. Now, he wished to know what necessity there was for laying down pipes to convey water to this old palace, built over 300 years ago, and upon which he believed as much had been unnecessarily expended as it cost Cardinal Wolsey to divert the river from its original bed in order to convey water to the palace? It was only on his return to town a day or two ago that the Miscellaneous Estimates were put into his hands. No time had been given for their examination, and he certainly did not expect that the Committee would be asked to proceed with them that night. He should, therefore, press his motion that the Chairman do now report progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER

said, he must beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that, on the last night before the recess, he expressly stated that the House would go into Committee on these Estimates after the second reading of his hon. Friend's (Sir B. Hall's) Bill, respecting the local government of the metropolis, had been disposed of. The Estimates themselves were delivered some days ago, just as they had always been annually, and there could, therefore, be no difficulty in a gentleman of his hon. Friend's experience, in two or three hours on any morning, making himself master of the subject. Great complaints had been made of the Revenue Estimates being brought in by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury at midnight; but the fact was, that he had been compelled to do so against his own inclination, and the notices on going into Supply were so numerous, that he was prevented from giving the necessary explanation. Happily, however, there were few obstacles on that evening, and as his hon. Friend's Local Management of the Metropolis Bill was disposed of in a short time, the Government would be prepared to give any explanation that might be required. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would at once proceed with the Votes on the paper.

MR. FRENCH

said, he considered that the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury, with respect to the Estimates brought forward at midnight, was anything but satisfactory. He also wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works, whether he had taken any measures to protect the magnificent trees in the park, at Hampton Court, from being injured or destroyed?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he was informed that no injury had been done to those trees; and if any danger arose, he would take measures to protect them.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, he thought that, at a period when there was a deficiency in the revenue, and an increased expenditure, it was not decent in the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose any Estimates until he stated his budget to the House. For his own part, he had seen so much carelessness and apathy displayed in voting away large sums of the public money in that House, that if his hon.

Friend the Member for Lambeth divided the Committee, he would support him.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 126: Majority 123.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) 69,544l. Royal Parks, Palaces, and Pleasure Grounds.

MR. W. EWART

said, there was a house in Hyde Park belonging either to the Ranger or Deputy Ranger, with extensive grounds attached. He wished to know whether those grounds could not be thrown open to the public?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he had no control over the matter, but he would make inquiries.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

said, he had, on former occasions, urged the right hon. Gentleman to restore the Diana fountain at the beautiful piece of water in Bushy Park; he hoped it had not escaped his attention.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, it had not; and a Vote for the restoration of the fountain would be found in the present Estimate.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that, after the late division, he would not again divide the Committee; but he thought some items called for remark. He wished, for instance, to know whether Windsor Park cost any money to the public last year. There was no item for it in this year's or last year's Estimate, though, in the accounts of Woods and Forests, it would seem to have cost 18,000l.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

was understood to say that he had nothing to do with any other parks and pleasure-grounds than those mentioned in the Vote, and therefore was unable to give the information desired.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that from the year ending March, 1854, there was a receipt from Crown lands of 387,000l., and an expenditure of 131,000l., and he should like to know why that Vote had not been brought under the consideration of the Committee. He hoped that there was some Member of the Government who could answer him.

MR. WILSON

said, he thought he could answer the hon. Member. The matter was under consideration last year, and in connection with the measure then brought forward the land revenues of the Crown became the subject of discussion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then thought that he should not be justified in altering the form that had been followed in these accounts, as the public had no interest in the property except during the life of the Sovereign, it having been exchanged for life only, in consideration of the Civil List. He could assure his hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had maturely considered the matter before he had come to his decision.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was of opinion that the property of the Crown, during the assignment of it in consideration of the Civil List, was as much the property of the public during the assignment as any property was, and ought to be dealt with as such. 131,000l. had been squandered, and there were now Votes of 69,544l. for these parks, besides an enormous amount for the royal palaces, although Her Majesty had a civil list of 385,000l. a year.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, he had no wish to limit the magnificence or convenience of the royal palaces, but if they went back to the time of the building of Versailles (Louis XIV.), they would find that three times as much had been spent in this country as in France, and the whole history of jobbing and recklessness could not equal what might be found in connection with the royal palaces.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he doubted whether the present was a fitting opportunity for raising questions respecting the expenditure of the Woods and Forests. He admitted that the subject was a very important one, but he thought that within the last few years there had been a great improvement in the management of these accounts by the Woods and Forests. He (Sir H. Willoughby) claimed the right of discussing every item in the Votes for the management of the Crown property which came before the House of Commons; and he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) would not be daunted by the division on his Motion from inquiry into the subject if he saw fit.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he only wanted to know how it was that Windsor Park was not included in the Vote. 18,000l. had been expended upon that Park last year, and he wished to know whether there was to be any outlay upon it in the present year? The Government had not fulfilled the engagement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised that 6,000,000l., which had formerly been spent in silence, should be brought to light, and placed under the cognisance of the House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the present Government had punctually and exactly fulfilled the engagements of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He undertook to bring the revenue service under the cognisance of the House, and not that that expenditure should be paid into the Exchequer before any Vote should be taken in the House. It had been already stated that it was not his intention to place the expenditure of managing the land revenue of the Crown upon the Estimates, and that intention also had been adhered to. With regard to the parks, they had been originally the property of the Crown, but had been gratuitously granted by the Crown to the public for their benefit and pleasure. Windsor Park was in the occupancy of the Crown itself, and so was put upon the expenses of the land revenue. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), had, apparently in his eye, an Act which transferred certain charges upon the Consolidated Fund, and which therefore were paid by the Exchequer without any annual Vote of that House. They were included, every one, in the Miscellaneous Estimates, which had been and would be laid on the table.

MR. W. EWART

said, he thought there should be a greater number of seats provided in the Parks. He also objected to the carrying away of quantities of gravel for the purpose of making roads, and then filling up the spaces left with filthy street sweepings, so as to create a kind of artificial swamp.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that a greater number of seats should be provided, and that the taking away of the gravel should be discontinued.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he thought that the wooden railing in Rotten Row should give place to a handsome iron one.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that a Vote would be proposed this year for completing the iron railing which had been already begun in Rotten Row.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) 122,209l., New Houses of Parliament.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished for some information as to the total amount to be required for the building. The original estimate was 750,000l., and there had already been spent more than 1,700,000l. Three years ago he had raised the question, and Sir Charles Barry had given an approximation within 500,000l. He wished to know also, whether any decision had been come to as to the Commission of Sir Charles Barry, as it would cost an enormous sum if he was to be paid a per-centage on the expenditure. He believed 2,000,000l. at the very least would be expended, before the buildings were completed.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, that last year a promise had been given by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works that a plan of the entire building which it was proposed to erect should be submitted to Parliament, and it was most important that that promise should be adhered to. From the nature of the new bridge which was to be constructed, it was evident that the houses at the north side of the Palace-yard would have to be purchased, and he presumed that it was proposed to erect some new buildings on that side, and if so the House ought to be informed what the nature of those buildings was. He perceived also an item for the payment of a sum of money to Mr. Cope, and he wished to know if he was the same gentleman who bad painted the fresco of "the First Investiture of the Garter" in the House of Lords? because, if he were the same, that fresco appeared to him and also to others to be, in its drawing, disgraceful to the present state of art in this country, and he should be inclined to oppose any further grant for decoration to the same artist.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that it was quite true that last year he had made a promise to the House that he would endeavour to obtain a statement from Sir Charles Barry of the works which he wished to execute, and of their probable cost; and he had obtained a full report on that subject. On the 31st of March, 1854, Sir Charles Barry estimated that to complete the works which had been already sanctioned would require a sum of 280,000l. Last year a sum of 107,000l. was voted, and this year 85,000l. was asked for, so that there would remain a sum of 88,000l., which would have to be voted in following years. In addition to the works which had been already sanctioned, he had asked Sir Charles Barry to give him an estimate of all the works which he thought ought to be executed to complete the Houses of Parliament, and then he took that estimate and ascertained what was the value of the land necessary to carry out those works, and his estimate was that a further sum of about 651,000l. would be required. There had been expended up to March, 1854, 1,583,000l., the sum voted last year was 107,000l., making 1,690,000l., and that with the present vote would give 1,812,000l. odd; but if all the views of Sir Charles Barry should be carried out 651,000l. more would be required, making a total of about 2,500,000l. With regard to those works which had been considered necessary by Sir Charles Barry, but which had not yet been sanctioned, he could only say that they were under the consideration of the Treasury. With regard to the other question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the decoration of the Houses of Parliament did not come under the control of his department, but were under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Fine Arts, and therefore he could give no answer as to that matter.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, he thought that the right hon. baronet had promised to lay before the House the plans of Sir Charles Barry with regard to the new buildings which he proposed to erect.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he thought that the Committee was under an obligation to the right hon. baronet for having ascertained what the ultimate cost of the buildings would be, but he hoped that the Treasury would not permit one single shilling to be expended before the plans of the new buildings proposed had been laid before the House.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to know if any agreement existed as to the amount of remuneration which was to be paid to Sir Charles Barry? He thought that, if the suggestions of that Gentleman were followed, the total expense of the buildings would far exceed 2,500,000l.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he hoped that the First Commissioner of the Board of Works would keep Sir Charles Barry in subjection. The present building was, to his mind, a monument of extravagance.

MR. BAILLIE

said, he wished to enquire what was to be done with the Courts of Law? Was it intended that they should be replaced? It was impossible that they could remain in their present state, and he should like to know if the cost of their alteration or replacement was included in the expenditure now before the House?

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that Sir Charles Barry did propose to remove the Courts of Law, but that removal was not included in the works already sanctioned by the House, and this estimate of 650,000l. would not include the expense of building new Courts.

MR. WILSON

said, the Committee would probably be aware that Sir Charles Barry's commission had been a matter of serious dispute between that gentleman and successive Boards of the Treasury, and until within the last twelve months his claims had not even been brought into the shape of an account. The original agreement with Sir Charles Barry was made by Lord Besborough, who was the First Commissioner of Works when the palace was commenced, and by it the architect was to receive a sum of 25,000l. in full for his commission upon the building as then contemplated, though Sir Charles Barry protested that he never quite assented to this agreement. He (Mr. Wilson) might here mention that the original expenditure of 700,000l. then contemplated was never intended to finish this building, but only included the shell. As far as he could make out, the calculation upon which Lord Besborough based this agreement was of something like 3 per cent. upon the whole expenditure. The usual commission paid to architects was 5 per cent.; but in this case, where the cost of measurement—which was a very serious item—was defrayed by the public, the commission allowed was 3 per cent. It appeared to the Treasury, therefore, that it would be an equitable arrangement to adopt the principle upon Which Lord Besborough appeared to have acted—although Sir Charles Barry said he never assented to it, while admitting that he had acted upon it—and to pay the architect a commission at the same rate as that originally contemplated. Sir Charles Barry protested against that decision; a correspondence had gone on upon the subject from that day to the present; the Treasury had kept their payments to him within that amount of 3 per cent. upon the actual outlay on the building; and, with regard to the question of measurement, as Sir Charles Barry stated that he had incurred considerable expenditure of his own under this head, that matter was at present under consideration until the facts were discovered. In a very short time a final decision, he hoped, would be come to—a decision which might not satisfy Sir Charley Barry perhaps, but which would be, he thought, a just one as between that Gentleman and the public.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, that a commission of 3 per cent. upon the expenditure vould produce a sum of 54,000l., and he wished to know whether the Treasury meant to resist any further claim, and to confine Sir Charles Barry's remuneration to 3 per cent upon the actual outlay?

MR. LLOYD DAVIES

said, he begged to ask whether the 3 per cent. commission was charged upon the decorations of the interior as well as upon the building generally?

MR. WILSON

replied that the commission was charged upon the entire outlay, including decorations, and that the Government were prepared to resist any further claims beyond the 3 per cent., though they would of course replace any private expense incurred by Sir Charles Barry with regard to measurement.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he wished to ask if, in addition to decorations, the commission was charged upon repairs, because as alterations and repairs appeared never to be finished, the percentage upon them would furnish Sir Charles Barry with a perpetual annuity.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that Government was prepared to resist any further charge beyond the 3 per cent, which was the usual amount paid to architects for public works, including decorations and other similar matters.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, a proposition ought to have been made to Sir Charles Barry to this effect, that if he did not choose to afford his services on certain terms, they would be dispensed with.

MR. PERCY

said, he noticed that there was in these Estimates a sum of 6,000l. charged for warming and ventilating the Houses of Parliament. The Committee ought to know whether this was to be a regular annual charge.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, that with respect to the ventilation of the House, the sum of 6,000l. was proposed in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee which had been appointed to consider that matter. A portion of that expense had been already incurred, when Mr. Gurney was employed on the recommendation of the Committee. For his own part, he must say that he thought the improvement which had taken place in the ventilation of the House was worth the expense, but for the future he anticipated considerable reductions.

MR. PIGOTT

said, considerable dissatisfaction already prevailed on this matter, and it would be increased if it went forth as it now stood, without some explanation having been given, without which he considered the House ought not to have this expenditure hanging over it year after year.

Vote agreed to; as were also—

(4.) 6,000l., General Repository for Records.

(5.) 122,841l., Holyhead Harbour.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he wished to inquire the depth of water at neap tides in the harbour of refuge and the roadstead of Holyhead; and whether the works recommended by the Admiralty had been sanctioned by Parliament?

MR. BAILLIE

said, he also begged to ask whether the original plans had not been altered, so as to reduce the area of the breakwater?

SIR CHARLES WOOD,

in reply, said, he must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Scobell) to the report of Captain Skinner and Mr. Rendell on the subject. The object of bringing the Estimate forward was to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the expenditure, the proposal being to enlarge Holyhead Harbour, and afford greater security than hitherto, a measure which was justified by the large increase in the number of vessels that resorted to it. He believed there had been some alteration in the original plans.

Vote agreed to; as were the following Votes—

(6.) 234,000l., Harbours of Refuge.

(7.) 375l., Port Patrick Harbour.

(8.) 30,963l., Public Buildings (Ireland).

(9.) 5,876l., Kingstown Harbour.

(10.) 82,140l., Two Houses of Parliament.

(11.) 54,400l., Treasury.

(12.) 27,595l., Home Department.

(13.) 83,849l., Foreign Department.

(14.) 35,897l., Colonial Department.

(15.) 75,733l., Privy Council Department, &c.

(16.) 2,700l., Lord Privy Seal.

(17.) 25,211l., Paymaster General's Department.

(18.) 7,314l., Comptroller General of Exchequer.

(19.) 21,595l., Office of Works and Public Buildings.

(20.) 21,862l., Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.

(21.) 14,098l., Public Records Department.

(22.) 205,383l., Poor Law Administration.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he wished to call attention to the large expenditure required for the maintenance of the establishment in Ireland as compared with that in England. Last year the cost in Ireland was 40,794l., while in England it was only 35,728l., and in Ireland eighty-nine persons were employed upon the establishment, the number employed in England being only sixty-six. He wished to know if the Government could give any assurance that the establishment in Ireland would be reduced so as to be more upon a footing with that in England?

MR. WILSON

said, every effort was being made to reduce the expenditure connected with the administration of the Poor Laws in Ireland. Last year the amount asked for was reduced from 48,000l. to 40,000l., and this year there was a further reduction to 34,000l., making altogether a reduction of 14,000l.in two years.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the late Secretary for Ireland promised last year that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the whole system of the Poor Laws in Ireland, and he hoped to have a renewal of that promise from the present Secretary.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the hon. Gentleman's reply could hardly be considered satisfactory to the hon. Member who had just put the question. What the hon. Gentleman wanted to know, and what Irish Members also desired to know, was, whether steps had been taken to reduce the expenditure connected with the administration of the poor law in Ireland. He did not understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had given a satisfactory answer to the question.

MR. WILSON

said, it would be seen that the Irish expenditure had been reduced this year by a sum of 6,200l. This reduction was caused by the abolition of the secretary of the Poor Law Board; by the abolition of one assistant secretary, whose duty was done by the senior clerks; and by inspectors and auditors, amounting together to ten persons, whose united salaries amounted to 5,600l. He trusted that this would show to Irish Members that what Government had previously promised on this subject had been in progress of performance.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he wished English Members to be aware of the difference of expenditure on account of the Poor Laws in England and Ireland. The expenditure was at the rate of in England and 1⅞d. in England and 9¾. in Ireland. He could see no valid reason why this discrepancy should exist.

MR. DISRAELI

said, what he and the Irish Members wanted to know was, whether any prospect existed of such a reduction in the poor law expenditure for Ireland as would make that expenditure conformable to the expenditure in England. The matter afforded a fair subject for inquiry. He understood that the number of persons employed in Ireland in the administration of the poor law was greater than the number of persons employed in England, while the whole amount of the poor law funds for Ireland did not amount to one-seventh of the aggregate amount for England. No assurance had as yet been given that a suitable reduction in the Irish expenditure would occur, and it was, therefore, desirable to know whether any considerable reduction was in contemplation which would be likely to bring the two expenditures to an equality.

MR. WILSON

said, it was true there were eighty-nine persons employed in Ireland in reference to the poor law, and but sixty-six in England. But hon. Members must be aware that the reason of this difference was that more work was done by the central body in Ireland than was the case in England, where the greater portion of labour was done by local authorities. There was a Bill in progress for altering the poor law of Ireland, with the view of extending local authority and taking away the powers of the central body; and it would be seen that every step in this direction would have the effect of reducing the expenditure, and of course of bringing the expenditure of both countries to a comparative equality.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the Bill in question contained a clause against which he had already protested, as it contemplated the giving away of 160 places of 500l. a year each, by the Board of Commissioners. What he wanted was that, in conformity with the promise given by Government last year, the question should be thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following, Votes—

(23.) 38,222l., Mint.

(24.) 15,530l., Inspectors of Factories.

(25.) 5,156l., Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, &c. (Scotland.)

(26.) 6,431l., Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

(27.) 17,032l., Chief Secretary for Ireland.

(28.) 6,889l., Paymaster of Civil Services Department (Ireland).

(29.) 22,789l., Board of Public Works (Ireland).

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he wished to know whether the recommendations in the Report of the Commissioners had been carried out with respect to public works as well as with respect to the poor law.

MR. WILSON

said, that the Commission intrusted to Messrs. Bromley and Stephenson had not cost the country a single shilling beyond the travelling expenses of those gentlemen, who were public servants of great eminence. Their Reports with regard to the Board of Works, made about two years ago, had been entirely carried out. Their Report with respect to the Poor Law Board, however, had not been acted upon; for that Report was made upon the assumption that the then existing establishment would be maintained, whereas on the discussion of the Estimates in Parliament a very large reduction was made in those establishments. The Report, therefore, which was made upon a very different establishment, could not now be carried out, but so far as it applied to the portion of the establishment that was maintained it would be acted upon.

Vote agreed to.

(30.) 46,421l., Commissioners of Audit Department.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must complain that the Civil Service Estimates were submitted to the House in driblets, instead of being presented in a complete form, and he must also reiterate his objection to proceeding with the Estimates on the first day of meeting after the recess.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as it was necessary the general Estimates should be voted before the commencement of the financial year, it had been the common practice to commence the Miscellaneous Estimates after the Easter recess. Full notice had been given by the Government of their intention to proceed with these estimates that night, and he saw no reason for complaining of what had been the established practice.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he did not think the Committee had any right to complain of the course pursued by the Government. He believed the Estimates had been for some time in the hands of Members, and there had certainly been an understanding before the recess that the Miscellaneous Estimates should be brought forward on the reassembling of the House. He thought it of great importance and advantage that the Estimates should always be fully in the hands of Members, but he must protest against the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that no business of importance should be brought forward on the first night of the meeting of the House after a recess. He (Mr. Disraeli) considered that the first night after a recess was exactly the occasion when, with renewed energies, they ought to give their consideration to any important business. If the principle were once admitted that the House met on the first night after a holiday merely as a matter of course, they virtually prolonged the holiday, and introduced a lax mode of carrying on business, which, if it were once adopted, would be found to work most unsatisfactorily. The late recess had exceeded the usual limits, yet the hon. Member for Lambeth complained, on the first night of the reassembling of Parliament, and when apparently they had scarcely sufficient business before them, that they should be asked to consider the Estimates. He fully agreed with that hon. Gentleman that it was of the utmost importance that the Estimates should be placed in the hands of hon. Members at such a period as to afford full time for their consideration, but he (Mr. Disraeli) was not aware that an opportunity had not been afforded of giving these Estimates fair consideration. He had received the Miscellaneous Estimates some days ago, and due notice had been given before the recess that those Estimates would be considered on the day that the House reassembled.

MR. SPOONER

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the House ought to proceed to business on the first night of their reassembling instead of prolonging the holidays; but what he complained of was that the Miscellaneous Estimates had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members at an earlier period.

MR. WILSON

said, the practice which had existed for many years had been followed in this case—the Estimates had been printed in the earlier days of the recess, and had been delivered to Members several days before the reassembling of Parliament.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, for his part, he objected to voting Estimates while they were in ignorance of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Ways and Means.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following—

(31) 16,270l., Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission, &c.

(32.) 12,190l., Imprest Expenses under Inclosure and Drainage Acts.

(33.) 42,500l., General Register Office, England and Wales.

(34.) 3,768l., Ditto, Dublin.

(35.) 5,715l., Registrar General of Births, &c., Edinburgh.

(36.) 14,986l., National Debt Office.

(37.) 3,260l., Public Works Loan Commissioners.

(38.) 1,570l., West Indian Islands Relief Commissioners.

(39.) 820l., Commissioners in Lunacy Office.

(40) 3,000l. Metropolitan Buildings Office.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, he considered that no Act contained so much of injustice and inconvenience as the Metropolitan Buildings Act. Instead of tending to secure the safety of houses, it often tended to endanger them, while, instead of tending to good drainage, it tended to just the contrary. There were two official referees under the Act, one a lawyer, the other an architect; but they so little agreed with each other that they would not sit in the same room together. Now, before they passed this Vote, they ought to have some pledge that a Bill would be brought in to remedy this disgraceful state of things.

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH

said, he had already obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Metropolitan Buildings Act; and in that Bill he proposed to deal with the question of referees.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following—

(41.) 984l., General Superintendent of County Roads, South Wales.

(42.) 1,610l., Registrar of Friendly Societies Department.

(43.) 32,000l., Secret Services.

(44.) 360,470l., Stationery, Printing, &c.

(45.) 100,000l. Public Education, on account.

MR. WILSON

said, he proposed to take the next Vote out of its usual course. It was the Education Vote, but if the Committee objected to pass the Vote without discussion, perhaps they would allow him to take a sum on account.

MR. DISRAELI

Why not have the discussion now?

MR. WILSON

said, he did not think it would be convenient to take the discussion now. The Vote was 381,000l.; would the Committee allow him to take a Vote on account for 200,000l.?

MR. DISRAELI

said, he thought it would be much better to postpone the Vote until it could be introduced by a statement from the Minister.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, a Vote on account was required for the sake of carrying out pressing arrangements. A statement would be made before the balance was moved.

MR. DISRAELI

Cannot you take a smaller sum?

MR. WILSON

Yes, 100,000l.

A Vote on account for 100,000l. was then agreed to.

Mouse resumed.

The House adjourned at half-after Nine o'clock.